Showing posts with label Healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Healthcare. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

My War of Words With the Canadian Health Care System

A representative of Canada's state-run health care system has rushed to the battle front to defend her system from evil conservative bloggers like moi. She writes:

Actually, the health care system in Canada does work. And it works pretty well. My family and I have enjoyed unrestricted access to specialists, general practitioners, surgeons, hospitals, outpatient departments, emergency rooms, and labs, just to name a few services, over the past few years for a variety of concerns – football injuries to hysterectomies to skin conditions to flu shots. I’ve never had to argue with a insurance company over what they would pay, nor have a copay to pay. There is no paperwork or bills to review or submit – we just show our health care card at the hospital or doctor’s office or walk-in clinic.

Of course there are idiots, horror stories, and cracks that people fall through in Canada. Just like the horror stories in the States – and this is confirmed by my family in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Texas and Missouri tell me – (all born and raised in US, so they are not used to, nor probably even aware of, what we have up in Canada and therefore cannot be accused of bias). And there are people that complain bitterly about anything and everything.

- Remember that Canadian woman who had to go to the States for her brain tumour to be removed? It was not cancer, it was not growing appreciably, and the Canadian health care services would have operated on it, close to her own home, in 6 months time, without any change in her overall health. And cost her no money. Instead she had it operated on “instantly” in the US, because she didn’t want to wait, and now is complaining (tearfully on CNN via YouTube) that she is devastated by the bill of over $100,000. That is a reality of the States health care system.

On average, we live longer than the population in the States. Fewer of our babies die in infancy. We have better outcomes in almost every measure of health care – including surgery! We pay through taxes less than half you do in the States for more care. Our health care is not “socialized medicine” – we pay taxes (like you do) and in return, the government allocates $ to each province (like states) for a list of basic health care (prenatal care to surgeries to emergency rooms) to be provided to every Canadian citizen. Period. You do not call it Socialized Agriculture when your government subsidizes farmers? You don’t call it Socialized Free Enterprise when your government reduces tax to business. Socialized Highways, Socialized Parks? Socialized Defence?

Please don’t write off health care systems that are maybe just different from yours.

Her email server really is owned by the interiorhealth.ca domain, so it appears legit. I replied:

Please read the following from the NIH, Stanford University and other professional opinions.  Follow the links for attribution.  I'll wait patiently for your corrections.  Best Regards, Doug

• The work of Barbara Starfield and others has repeatedly shown that having a family doctor is the single best way to ensure access to sound health care.  Yet a 2006 study revealed that 17% of Canadians do not have family physicians—about 5 million Canadians have no family doctor. Of these 5 million, around 2 million have sought unsuccessfully for one.  The NIH reports that "...with an aging family physician population and a projected increase in the population of seniors as baby boomers reach retirement, there is a looming crisis in primary care in Canada."

• The Chief of Neuroradiology at Stanford reports the following, which utterly refutes your claims: "1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.

Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher. ...
2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher. ... 3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians receive them."

• In 2009 about 2,500 Canadians per month sought medical treatment in the U.S. because of accessibility, long waits and life-threatening conditions.

• There is a projected $36 trillion shortfall in funding for Medicare and Medicaid.

• California's Medi-Cal program is an unmitigated disaster, burning a $14 billion hole in a state with a nearly $50 billion overall budget shortfall.

• Single-payer has failed cancer patients and children in the UK. It has condemned patients to long and sometimes fatal waits for routine tests in Canada (e.g., "Excessive wait times for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies are a major problem in the Canadian healthcare system." Healthcare Policy, Canada, 2009).

• The UK's NHS is broke and fading fast.

• "British cancer patients are substantially more likely to die of the disease than those in other western European countries because of poor access to the latest drugs, according to an authoritative report to be published today." (Cancer survival rates worst in western Europe: Telegraph, UK, 2007)

• As for anecdotes?  Here's one that describes what U.S. diplomatic officials see every day.

I am an American living and working in [Canadian City]. Please do not use my name, but I am a Foreign Service Officer at the U.S. Consulate here... working in the... visas section. I could get in big trouble professionally for telling you this.

...I had numerous opportunities to work on cases in which Canadians were attempting to emigrate to the U.S. primarily for medical procedures. In one case, a U.S. citizen father was petitioning for his [Canadian adult] son to join him in [state]...

...His son had a non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and was unable to obtain the necessary treatments in Canada. In the U.S., two physicians had examined him and basically concluded that, because the disease had not spread above his neck, that he could be saved. In Canada, this young man was under a death sentence. Once I was satisfied that his medical costs would not be borne by U.S. taxpayers, I got him his visa and (hopefully) another chance at life.

* * * * * * * * *

[There was another] case of a young Canadian mother, in tears, who had recently given birth to a child with cerebral palsy. Her husband, a U.S. citizen working in Canada, was able to transmit U.S. citizenship to his infant son and he was petitioning for his wife so that the family could move to Chicago. Why? So the boy could get the treatment that he needed in the U.S., which was superior to that in Canada.

* * * * * * * * *

[We all] had several cases of nurses, doctors, and [X-ray] technicians who emigrated to the U.S. for professional reasons. Sometimes it was for the opportunity to earn more money (one doctor, earning about $85K annually Canadian, had a job offer at a clinic in Buffalo for $300K U.S.). For others, it was a chance to to do what they were trained to do - in the U.S., [an X-ray] technician has the equipment and facilities to ply his trade, whereas in Canada the opportunities to do so are quite limited.

* * * * * * * * *

I realize that this is all anecdotal and not statistically based, but in my experience the only Canadians who are satisfied with the system here are people who are healthy. I do not mean that in a snide attempt to be funny, I am serious - it is a good program for young healthy couples with one or two children who need vaccinations and routine appointments.

However, if you get sick, this is not the place to be.

Lastly, a comment - U.S. health care is a good value for the money. Would you rather have 2009 health care at 2009 prices, in the U.S., or 1970 health care at 1970 prices? The answer is obvious, and even our own Congress knows it. I am pretty sure that Ted Kennedy would not choose to have his brain cancer treated anywhere but the U.S., and the same is true for John Kerry's prostate cancer.

* * *

"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care" --Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, Supreme Court of Canada (Chaoulli v. Quebec)

In 2007 the Canadian government issued a series of reports to address the outcry over long wait times for critical tests, procedures and surgeries. Over a two year period:

  • Wait times for knee replacements dropped from 440 to 307 days.
  • Wait times for hip replacements dropped from 351 to 257 days.
  • Wait times for cataract surgeries dropped from 311 to 183 days.
  • Wait times for MRIs dropped from 120 to 105 days.
  • Wait times for CT scans dropped from 81 to 62 days.
  • Wait times for bypass surgeries dropped from 49 to 48 days.

These "improvements" are unheard of in the United States. Waiting 48 days for a bypass or 105 days for an MRI could very well be a death sentence.

The public has fought for 50-plus years to build a publicly funded Medicare system that they’re now telling us isn’t quite working for them. -- Health Care in Canada Round Table 2005

A Commonwealth Fund 2005 International Health Policy Survey (slide 16) showed that 41% of patients in the UK and 33% of patients in Canada waited more than 4 months for non-emergency surgery. Only 8% American patients waited more than 4 months for surgery.

Meanwhile, in Hamilton, Ontario, hospitals have received an infusion of cash to cut wait times for diagnostic procedures and certain surgeries, which have become intolerable.

And these are precisely the type of government-controlled health-care systems proposed by the Democratic candidates. Not only are they destined for failure, they will cost thousands of lives. And with the UK and Canada as examples, everyone can see the train-wreck coming.

Story after story after story describes the Canadian health care system in crisis. CBS News and The New York Times are among the sources.
* * *

For many Canadians, the choice is crystal clear: you can receive "free" health care and die -- or you can receive treatment in the U.S., pay for it, and live. Worst-case, the choice is death -- or bankruptcy. Which would you choose for a loved one?

Exclusive Photo: Senator Robert Byrd Prepares to Cast 60th Vote on Health Care

They've got to get to sixty, no matter what it takes!


Roll Byrd out on a tray -- just get him to vote.

Monday, December 14, 2009

What Do House Democrats Know That The Rest of Us Don't?

In a tersely worded email, Richard Baehr observes:

In four weeks, four incumbent, long-serving Democratic Congressmen -- John Tanner, Brad Gordon, Dennis Moore, and Brian Baird -- have all announced their retirements.

All of the seats will be tough for the Democrats to defend in 2010. It certainly appears that the Pelosi-Schakowsky-Waxman wing of the Democrat Party has pushed the entire party and its legislative agenda so far to the left that moderate Democrats are giving up the fight.

In the Rasmussen poll today, the approval-disapproval score for President Obama has hit an all-time low: 44% approve, 55% disapprove with 24% strongly approving, and 42% strongly disapproving. Despite the most favorable press coverage ever for any new president, Obama's approval scores are lower than those for any other new president since these polls began. The last three national surveys on support for Obamacare: 40-56 in Rasmussen, 34-61 by CNN/Opinion Dynamics, and 34-57 by Fox.

The Democrats may try to blame their failure to pass health care reform, if it occurs, on Joe Lieberman. But the failure will be their own: they could not convince the American people that their monstrously complex and expensive proposal ($2.5 trillion in the first ten years after benefits kick in) was necessary.

What do these 'moderate' Democrats know? That they each have a giant serving fork sticking in their back.

More of Richard's analysis is available at Pajamas Media.


Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Democrats' Answer to the Tea Party Express


Never a bunch to ignore a challenge, the Democrats recently unveiled their response to the Tea Party Express. Behold the Delta Tau Chi Democrat Deathmobile.

Rumor has it that Harry Reid is the limo driver. He definitely looks the part.


Hat tip: CBullitt.

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

'Life Unworthy of Life': Rationed Care Through Democrat Eugenics


Nazi Germany enacted social policies to target certain human beings as "life unworthy of life" (German Lebensunwertes Leben). Among the targeted groups were the disabled and mentally ill. These programs were called Nazi Eugenics.

This poster promotes the policies of the era. It reads:

60000 Reichsmarks ... this is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the Community of Germans during his lifetime ... Fellow Citizen, that is your money, too ... Read '[A] New People' ... The monthly magazines of the Office for Race Politics of the NSDAP

It's hard to imagine government having the power to gauge the value of a human life, isn't it?

Yet the health care bill being contemplated in the United States Senate slashes $500 billion from Medicare. It is clear that these huge cuts will be accompanied by rationing. How will the new "Health Benefits Advisory Committee" decide who gets treatment? How do you assign a dollar value to a human life? What happens when a 'public option' becomes the only option for care?

This white paper by presidential adviser Ezekiel Emanuel places arbitrary values on human lives in order to ration care. It describes -- quite precisely -- how the public option rationing will work.

Emanuel's algorithm -- called "the complete lives system" -- discriminates against the disabled, the mentally ill, the elderly and even very young children.

Emanuel says of his system: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated... The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a two-month-old girl."

I doubt the parents of the two-month-old agree.

And, if you are a child with disabilities, the government has already completely given up on you. Emanuel believes "services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed."

...What’s worse, since he does not believe in “guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason," once the public option puts the private sector out of business, these types of life-changing services for children will no longer exist.

Years of research in treating children with autism, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and dyslexia are in jeopardy of being rendered null and void. Years of progress in passing anti-discrimination laws may be undone in one single bill.

It's hard to imagine such a system in the United States, where Americans could once choose their own treatment, pay for the health insurance they felt they needed and the procedures they required.

Where they could make decisions for their parents, their children and themselves.

But such a system is coming, whether you like it or not.

The Democrats' plans are pure evil, which explains the resemblance to Nazi Eugenics. They are willing to destroy every last vestige of our health care system -- the finest such system in the world -- in order to control you and your family.

Ask not for whom the distant bell tolls. It tolls for thee.


Monday, December 07, 2009

Whenever Democrats are foundering, expect them to deal...


Shhh... don't confuse Harry Reid when he's playing the race card...

"When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'" Yes, we called those people Democrats.

"When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right." We called those people Democrats, too.

"When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today." Oops. Those were the Democrats as well.

This guy is a walking disaster.

As an aside, the Democrat socialized health care plan appears to have been "penned from the pen."


Are Pro-Choice Democrats Ready to Turn Over Control of Their Bodies to a Political 'Health Choices Commissioner'?


Democrats want control over you. That used to mean control over your material wealth -- the manifestation of your labor -- through oppressive taxation and regulation.


Now it means they will decide your fate. The fate of your body.

All of you pro-choicers out there: where are you?

I assume you're going to stand up against national health care?

The issue of abortion notwithstanding, what about giving up control of your body to an all-powerful "Health Choices Commissioner"?


A maze of bureaucracies -- including 111 new boards, commissions, regulators and programs will govern your treatment.


Whether the term 'death panel' is overblown or not, this maze of red tape and regulation will absolutely decide what kind of medical treatment you will receive.


Of that, there is no debate.

How can an unelected few, officious boards of central planners, know what kind of medical benefits your children need when they're rationing who gets what?

They can't. You're about to turn these decisions over to a handful of politicians and bureaucrats, who will be called "experts."


These political hacks -- not you -- will decide the medical fate of your children and your parents. You won't. They will.

Let me ask you: will they make a better decision than you?


As for affordability, they'll take care of that too. There will be less new technology, fewer breakthrough drugs, less hospitals, less doctors and less nurses. It will become much more affordable, because you will be waiting in line. And who will pay the price? You will... through lower-quality health care and treatments approved by central planners.

How do we know this? Because we have examples in the UK and Canada, where waits for MRI scans can be six months long and many children never see a dentist.


Welcome to Socialism! Welcome to Barack Obama's America!

Call Harry Reid's offices (DC: 202-224-3542, Reno: 775-686-5750 and Carson City: 775-882-7343) -- and your own Senator's office as well -- and tell them how pleased you are that the government will be making all of your health care decisions.


Based upon: Mark Levin, 1/12/2009.

Sunday, December 06, 2009

A Government-Media Complex Without Conscience


By Victor the Contractor

Its time to realize a sobering fact. I am speaking about the mainstream media, academia, opinion writers and spokespersons for many organizations who claim to represent public opinion, deliver news or administer governance across this great nation: they have an agenda.

Now, to most readers the obvious reaction to that simple idea is: duh! But there are tens of millions of 'average Joes' who turn on the news in the morning and believe what they see or hear. They actually buy, albeit with the requisite tablespoon of salt, that a raft of spending programs will shrink the deficit and that only the Government can create jobs. Or maybe the new insight that putting off a breast exam will lessen health care costs in the long run. Whatever. My point is this: When a communications system is overwhelmingly controlled by those who advocate for a decidedly liberal doctrine there is little room for contradiction, alternate opinions or outright rebuttal.

That is not to say that there are not so-called 'voices in the wilderness' who can seem more powerful for their uniqueness, but the masses will receive a daily indoctrination of a slanted agenda unless they opt for a different voice. And people, like all sentient beings on God's ever warming planet (heh), are creatures of habit. That's why a radio talk show host can dis' an entire race and have a new show in six months: because his listeners will follow him to the new broadcast. Both sides of the political spectrum count on this inertia during an election to bring out the faithful. Indeed, it is their life's blood. How many people vote for on particular party because their father and grandfather voted for that ticket? It happens more than you think, even with self-identified independents.

The real battle is for the moderates of both parties. That middle ground where presentation and policy platforms can sway public opinion. And don't forget the scandal! Ah, scandal. Just the sound of the word makes one take note. I'll never forget a certain silver-haired defender of all things far left who breathlessly told us all of now former President Bush's National Guard AWOL charge from 'reliable sources' and broke the sobering news that this scandal would effectively end his bid for the Presidency.

Can you imagine the chagrin in the Democrat party when the news didn't put Bush's polling in the basement? It is a strange aside that the story virtually ended the career of a broadcaster thought by so many to be 'balanced'. But when outed as a true Liberal, his party, the public and more importantly, his employer threw him under the proverbial bus. One occasionally still hears him on talk shows, churning among the wheels, suing for the truth of the story, a victim of somebody's conspiracy, after all!

That sordid tale bring me to a grim reality: conservatives can not expect a balanced hearing from a press that, for the most part, was born after the sixties and desperately wants to rekindle that spirit of camaraderie that comes from burning draft cards and protesting adulthood and the responsibilities it brings. They abhor a sober and considered life and advocate for a sociopathic existence of 'I, Me, My', all while preaching the need to feel guilt for any achievement and goal attained.

Most of us consider a college degree, a wedding, or the building of a career to be talismans of a life in process; not reason for guilt, self-loathing, or pity for the less fortunate. But the press has a tendency to drape their hateful concepts in a language that sounds reasonable and pious, if I may used that forgotten word.

They make empathetic arguments for extending health care to those in this country illegally on the grounds of compassion and the reasoning that we are so wealthy and somehow owe the lawbreakers something. Or they take the offensive and claim that recognizing gay marriage is akin to the civil rights struggles of the sixties and that our collective hate and fear is bound up in the denial of such a 'basic' human right. Its always like killing a mosquito with a shotgun with these fellows. 'Republicans want to kill your babies' anyway, so why don't we just get on with life and ignore the very liberal press.

Here in lies the rub: A populace who wants considered representation is being fed a steady diet of, might I say, lies. These 'untruths' or 'misstatements', as the press is so fond of minimizing, are designed to frame the argument and change the subject. An effective tactic to achieve stalemate when losing an argument is to change the subject, introduce an emotional plea or simply go on the attack about a myriad of other issues that strike a chord in those witnessing the debate. The result is, at best, a draw. Some can and do take from the spectacle that neither side has argued effectively and no one is right. This process is never more exposed and patently evident than during an election.

We just had an election where a very liberal-leaning press helped pick an extremely weak Republican candidate to run against an 'ABB' (Anybody but Bush) Democrat. And with the economy hemorrhaging jobs and banks failing, nobody would fault a change of party mentality. And yes, the New York Times advocated for John McCain, a great patriot who is more moderate than Republican. Some would say RINO, but not me. Such a reasonable and accommodating statesman did not fare well because of an economic perfect storm the press played like a Stradivarius. While Senator McCain was painted as part of the problem, Candidate Obama showed us why the old shell game is still the best in town for suspense and surprise endings. When his teleprompter is on he is the most articulate man I've ever heard. When its off he pauses a lot. He looks like he's 'considering,' but he's really grasping for words.

Conversely, Sarah Palin is the most dangerous politician on the planet, bar none. She is articulate, clean and well spoken (to quote a certain politician who is known for his gaffes and who was actually describing his impression of the current President). Sometimes politics is like poetry: it really is. There is something infinitely more striking about her that sends shivers up and down the spines of the soothsayers on the left (but no tingles up their legs) and has the mainstream press attacking her relentlessly even as she is now a private citizen on a book tour: She is plain spoken and has common sense. Oh, horrors!

A potential candidate who channels the same kind of no nonsense friendly frankness that made Ronald Reagan so dangerous in debate and so effective on the campaign trail. Whatever you do, don't play her talking, unless to berate and mock her mercilessly on the cable network. This is all great for ratings on cable as the liberals seem to dominate fifteen networks that are all fighting for their lives -- and only a limited pool of viewers who can actually afford the products they hawk. The Republicans have one network and have embarrassingly high ratings for a 'right-wing splinter group.'

There is a case for undoing 'Change'


When Sarah Palin speaks the twenty percent swing-vote -- who have values and are not afraid to vote on them -- take notice. The media is chomping at the bit to tell us how unqualified she is to be CINC and that her heartfelt religious values are a dangerous departure from mainstream tolerance and probity. Really? I think the current President has proven you can wreck the economy with the help of, say, 535 other people and still be qualified to lead.

Or maybe one could not do worse than to travel the globe apologizing for being American and showing weakness and fecklessness at every public gathering. And, oh yes, how about the style and grace associated with giving a shout out to 'whomever' and in the next few breaths comment on the largest terrorist attack directed at this country since 9/11 at Fort Hood, Texas? Nice. And, though the President could not give voice to the words, it was indeed a terrorist act by a Muslim extremist.

Men and women, I am as qualified to be President as this man. Judging from his behavior this first eleven months, one would think President Obama hates this country and everything it stands for. I think, no, I'm certain that Sarah Palin could do a better job in the White house.

Political commentators are desperately trying to frame the argument against her. They're using the same hackneyed approach that worked with Newt Gingrich: beat the candidate with 'hate-speech' and 'no compassion' arguments until he or she apologizes for some comment and you've won the whole war in one battle. Then the press can bludgeon them with proof they were wrong for the balance of the campaign and force apologies from every Republican who appears in public while polls sag. Newt Gingrich got two million for a book and was pummeled for years. His big mistake? Not ignoring the attacks and forgetting to stay on message.

Palin has to stay on message and know that with rising polls, the attacks will only grow as the Democrat power-base in Washington grows frenzied at the threat she represents. We have a golden opportunity to elect a candidate who, at least, seems more concerned with us than world opinion. What's the alternative? Re-electing a proven lightweight who wants to curry favor with dictators and murderers? Jimmy Carter is still seen by most as the weakest modern President for the same reasons. We have a repeat of the Carter White House right now, except the Liberals are more emboldened and transparently craven about wanting to dismantle the American way of life.

So let us start supporting the only real option for the 2012 White House now, not later. Sarah Palin may be many things, but she's not a far left radical. And that's far better than who we have now.

There is a storm brewing. An election that will foreshadow the next presidential election is less than a year away. And this time Democrats have much to fear. They ran on a populist platform with anti-business overtones and now they are reaping the whirlwind: nobody can or will hire while they are afraid of Government dictates on health taxes and energy fees. They have stalled the economy through draconian policies and are crafting legislation that will sap drive and kill initiative. And we have nothing in America if we don't have a work ethic. Wealth can all disappear if you don't work to protect and strengthen it. "A little sitting, a little folding of hands and poverty will come upon you like a thief," (Paraphrased from Proverbs 20).

In November of 2010 we have an opportunity to show just who the American people really are. I'm talking about a change of leadership in both Houses, not just a mere trimming here and there. Democrats have had the unmitigated gall to presume to dictate how we should live, work, and what doctor we may visit. I say no! We will not go quietly into that dark night of scarcity and rationing the press trumpets as compassion but is truly socialism. We will not surrender more and more of our paychecks to feed the growing beast of entrenched bureaucracy while our children are indoctrinated to accept mediocrity and dependency.

We must, simply put, throw out all of the bad actors who vote for bailouts, porkulus packages, health care 'reform' and bills that legalize previously illegal behavior. And I know we can do it! The Democrats are making this so easy for me I should feel a bit guilty, but I don't. They are sowing the seeds of their own election losses every time they appear to condescend and belittle the concerns of the taxed. They work for us and they need outplacement services. So I'm voting them out and working to get Sarah Palin in.

America is a place where you can make millions or live in the gutter. But I get to chose my lot, not some bureaucrat who has a savior complex. Live free or die, baby!

Victor The Contractor



Saturday, December 05, 2009

It's who you know: a touching, romantic photo essay spotlighting the pristine ethical and moral standards of Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)


Max Baucus, a Democrat Senator from Montana, has publicly beclowned himself yet again. While serving as a leading lubricant for the incessant thrusts towards government-run health care -- and inventing new Constitutional rights out of whole cloth along the way -- Baucus nominated his girlfriend for the position of United States Attorney for Montana. But he's a Democrat -- and Baucus stands firm, ready to swing into action, pulsing with energy and tumescent with desire to serve the people.

In honor of this moving, romantic story, I've created a photo essay to serve as a permanent testament to the simple love of a Senator from Montana.

This is Max and his ex-wife Wanda Baucus in 1999, when they had been married for 15 years.

This is a recent picture of Melodee Hanes, the woman in question.

A former county prosecutor, Hanes joined the Baucus campaign in March, 2002.

This is Mrs. Baucus in 2004, when she was charged with assault in Washington, D.C. Eyewitnesses interviewed by NBC-4 reported that Mrs. Baucus became enraged after another customer was helped with mulch ahead of her. In apparent retaliation, Mrs. Baucus placed a bag of mulch under the woman's car, then "struck the woman in the body and face a number of times."

This is a recent picture of Baucus with a swollen eye, which appears to be unrelated to the staffer-wife-girlfriend ethics debacle. In April 2009 The Billings Gazette reported that Baucus had divorced his wife after 25 years of marriage.

We would accuse this Democrat of hypocrisy, as the legacy media and left-leaning politicos so often do of GOP figures caught in similar situations. But there's no hypocrisy here, apparently, because while Republicans stand for family values, the Democrats are proud to represent no values.

That's why President Obama's 'Safe Schools Czar' is free to promote pedophilia in schools.

Max Baucus stands firm for something. That something isn't his constituents or the Constitution, however.


Hat tips: InstaPundit and Larwyn.

Thursday, December 03, 2009

Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I'm sixty-four?


No.

Senate votes to keep Medicare cuts in health bill


Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Casting its first votes on revamping the nation's health care system, the Senate rejected a Republican bid Thursday to stave off Medicare cuts and approved safeguards for coverage of mammograms and other preventive tests for women. The first round of votes ended with a fragile Democratic coalition hanging together.

Senators voted 58-42 to reject an amendment by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that would have stripped more than $400 billion in Medicare cuts from the nearly $1 trillion measure. It would have sent the entire 2,074-page bill back to the Senate Finance Committee for a redo.

Republicans said the proposed cuts to health insurance plans and medical providers mean seniors in the popular Medicare Advantage program will lose benefits. And they predicted lawmakers will ultimately back away from the cuts, once seniors start feeling the brunt.

"Medicare is already in trouble. The program needs to be fixed, not raided to create another new government program," said Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Remember the good old days when the media went stark raving bonkers because George Bush had proposed cutting $36 billion from Medicare to begin the process of reining in unfunded entitlement spending?

The DNC press release of that era shrieked in horror and its cries were gleefully picked up by the legacy media.

Cuts to Medicare Threaten Indiana Seniors. In addition, the Bush budget cuts Medicare by $36 billion over the next five years, resulting in $530,913,830 in cuts to hospitals, nursing homes, and home health providers serving seniors and people with disabilities in Indiana.

Note how Democrats are b***hing about $530 million.

These crackpots have blown $1.7 trillion in one year! That's:

$      530,913,830.00
versus
$1,700,000,000,000.00
Don't worry, seniors. Just get in line behind the illegal immigrants, the homeless and the prison inmates -- who will all be served by the same super-efficient, DMV-style, government-run health care system. And it'll be less expensive! And there won't be rationing! Or death panels! And there will be singing, pink unicorns in all of the waiting rooms to entertain the grandkids!

Anyone -- anyone -- who believes that this Democrat clusterf*** will work as planned should be immediately committed. After all, that's why the Democrats in Congress have specifically excluded themselves from the program. Even they know it will be a complete disaster designed to bankrupt the country while killing off their political enemies.

Oh, but all of your personal medical data will be totally safe. What could possibly happen to it, Mr. and Mrs. Salahi? How 'bout you, Mr. and Mrs. Joe the Plumber?


Update: Cat's out of the bag as Dems admit: "No. You can't keep your health insurance!"


Hat tip: Dan from New York.

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Does Tort Reform Really Work?


Judge for yourself. The following chart highlights the states with highest and lowest malpractice insurance premiums.


Highest premiums20082009Change
Internists
Florida (Miami-Dade)$53,723$57,8598%
Illinois (Cook, Madison, St. Clair)$41,066$41,0660%
Michigan (Oakland, Wayne)$36,988$36,9880%
Ohio (Cuyahoga, Lorain)$40,020$34,017-15%
New York (Nassau, Suffolk)$33,360$33,3600%
General surgeons
Florida (Miami-Dade)$214,893$191,422-11%
Michigan (Wayne)$143,445$143,4450%
Illinois (Cook, Madison, St. Clair)$127,083$127,0830%
Ohio (Cuyahoga, Lorain)$141,336$120,135-15%
New York (Nassau, Suffolk)$106,583$106,5830%
Ob-gyns
Florida (Miami-Dade)$238,728$201,808-15%
New York (Nassau, Suffolk)$194,935$194,9350%
Illinois (Cook, Madison, St. Clair)$178,291$178,2910%
Nevada (Clark)$168,750$168,7500%
New Jersey$171,199$159,214-7%
Lowest premiums20082009Change
Internists
Minnesota$3,375$3,3750%
South Dakota$3,697$3,6970%
Wisconsin$3,946$3,9460%
Idaho$5,552$5,276-5%
Oregon$5,479$5,4790%
General surgeons
Minnesota$11,306$11,3060%
South Dakota$12,569$12,5690%
Wisconsin$13,813$13,8130%
Iowa$17,860$17,8600%
North Dakota$18,063$18,0630%
Ob-gyns
Wisconsin$18,154$18,1540%
South Dakota$20,042$20,0420%
Minnesota$20,626$20,6260%
Iowa$27,285$27,2850%
North Dakota$27,596$27,5960%

So, does tort reform really help reduce health care costs? Compare the list of states with the lowest premiums to the master list of states that have enacted tort reform. Gee, what a coincidence.

No, it's not very complicated. But that doesn't mean the Statists in the pay of the trial lawyers will ever change their minds. Come hell or high water, they want to control your physical well-being using government-run health care, NHS-style.

Friday, November 20, 2009

Ten Things I Hate About You (If You Support ObamaCare)


1.      $493 Billion In Tax Increases On Health Insurance, Medical Innovation, Payroll And Small Businesses Would Pay For The Bill. (Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)


2.      Americans Won’t See Benefits Of This Health Care Experiment Until 2014, But They Start Paying For It In 2010. (Page 13, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)


3.      Reid’s Bill Allegedly Reduces The Deficit By $130 Billion In Ten Years, But The Obama-Reid-Pelosi Spending Agenda Produced Deficit Of $176 Billion Last Month Alone. (Table 3, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)


4.      $465 Billion In Medicare And Medicaid Cuts Would Pay For Two New Unsustainable Entitlements. (Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)


5.      Health Care Costs For The Federal Government – And Your Family – Would Increase, Not Decrease.  (Page 16, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)


6.      A New Medicare Commission Of Unelected Bureaucrats Would Ration Care. (Sec. 3403, H.R. 3590, Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute, “Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act,” Introduced 11/18/09)


7.      The “Doc Fix” Provision That Would Add $250 Billion To The Deficit Is Not Included In The Democrats’ List Price For Their Health Care Experiment. (Page 17, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)


8.      Taxpayer Dollars Would Fund Abortions. (Sec. 1303(a), H.R. 3590, Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute, “Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act,” Introduced 11/18/09)


9.      A New Entitlement Program For Long-Term Care That One Democrat Senator Called “A Ponzi Scheme” Would Be Created. (Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09; Shailagh Murray & Lori Montgomery, “Centrists Unsure About Reid's Public Option,” The Washington Post, 10/28/09)


10.    States Burdened With $25 Billion In Unfunded Mandates From Medicaid That Would Force Them To Increase Taxes. (Page 7, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)


Hat tip: RNC Research Briefings.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Barack Obama's Device to Implement Government-Run Health Care


Dale Brumfield sends along this apt description and illustration:


Computer (A) tells faceless bureaucrat (B) that patient needs hip replacement surgery, who thumbs through 2,000-page health care index (C) to see if it is covered procedure. Wind from fanning pages (D) powers eco-correct wind-powered vacuum (E) which sucks wallet (F) from American taxpayer’s pocket (G). Wallet travels through tube (H) and drops into “Big Pharmacy” slush fund bucket (I). Weight of wallet tilts TV (J) playing endless loop of President Obama saying, “If you like your current health coverage you can keep it.” Angered by president’s message, taxpayer’s blood pressure (K) raises meter, tripping lever (L) and rolling ball (M) into basket (N). Basket compresses bellows (O), injecting taxpayer with mandatory H1N1 vaccine (P) and ejecting thousands of pink slips (Q) for health insurance industry employees. Basket also trips switch on eco-correct twisty fluorescent bulb (R), which slowly melts ice block (S). Water collects in funnel (T), tipping lever and raising calendar (U), postponing surgery by six months and revising cost matrix (V), showing physician (W) that a double-foot amputation costs less than a hip replacement. Patient (X) has both feet amputated instead of hip replacement, saving government program $72.

If only it really were that straightforward.


Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Ukrainian Super-Flu: "People are dying... [it's] killing doctors"


Is the Ukrainian 'super bug' a mutated swine flu?

British scientists are examining the strain of swine flu behind a deadly Ukrainian outbreak to see if the virus has mutated... A total of 189 people have died and more than one million have been infected in the country.

Some doctors have likened the symptoms to those seen in many of the victims of the Spanish flu which caused millions of deaths world-wide after the World War One.

An unnamed doctor in western Ukraine told of the alarming effects of the virus... 'We have carried out post mortems on two victims and found their lungs are as black as charcoal.

...President Yushchenko said: 'People are dying. The epidemic is killing doctors. This is absolutely inconceivable in the 21st Century... Unlike similar epidemics in other countries, three causes of serious viral infections came together simultaneously in Ukraine: two seasonal flus and the Californian flu.

'Virologists conclude that this combination of infections may produce an even more aggressive new virus as a result of mutation...'

My daughter woke up this morning in pigtails. Should I be worried?

Media Complicit in Hawking Health Reform Propaganda That Will 'Result in the Loss of Lives'


Yesterday the 'U.S. Preventative Services Task Force' issued new guidelines regarding the age at which women should begin having mammograms.

The task force claimed that most women in their forties don't need mammograms and should therefore start the exams beginnng at age 50.

The American Cancer Society and the Susan G. Komen for the Cure organization, however, both reject these new guidelines.

At the Brown Cancer Center, Dr. Lane Roland said if the recommendations are adopted by the public and physicians, it will result in the loss of lives... The government task force making the recommendations consisted of 16 government-funded physicians and scientists. None was an expert on breast cancer detection and prevention.

Linda Douglass, White House Health Reform communications director, decried objections to the task force guidelines. She stated, “This is a typical scare tactic designed to protect the health care status quo of rising costs, unaffordable coverage and unfair insurance company practices,” she said.

Yet, despite the rampant opposition to the new recommendations by admitted non-experts, more than 1,000 news outlets picked up the story.

If this were the only case of the media reporting pro-rationing tripe, it could be forgiven as an aberration. Put simply, this is only the latest in a long line of similar public relations efforts.

Drugs as good as stents for many heart patients: last year, MSNBC and other news outlets reported that angioplasties were likely overrated, claiming "there's more evidence drugs should be tried first and often are just as effective."

The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and other groups.

Study: Pill as good as chemo for some patients, in December of last year, a new study claimed that a "cancer treatment that comes in a pill is as effective as the standard chemotherapy for some lung patients."

Generic hearts drugs are equivalent to brand-name counterparts: late last year, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that generic cardiac drugs were as effective as brand-name heart medications. The study closely followed the release of another study that demonstrated similar practices could be ineffective and unsafe.

Surgical masks are nearly as effective as high-end respirators: last month, a study claimed that surgical masks were nearly as effective as (high-end) N95 respirators in preventing the spread of flu among health care workers.

All coincidences? I think not.

Consider this the media's covering fire for ObamaCare's inevitable rationing protocols.


Tuesday, November 10, 2009

When Plunder Becomes a Way of Life


When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it. --Frederic Bastiat

Last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its national "under-employment" (or U-6) rate for October: it was 17.5%, a big jump from 17% in September and a major leap from the 10.6% figure of September 2008.

Unemployment keeps climbing, even though President and Congress spent more than $787 billion dollars in taxpayer funds for a stimulus package.

Since that time, neither the President nor Congress have spent an iota of effort analyzing the impact of the stimulus program.

And they've not taken a moment to consider alternatives that might help alleviate the economic pain felt by so many Americans.

The President and Congress continue to ignore the economy while they pursue their ideological agenda of truly massive government.

Anyone who has lost a job, can't find a job, is nervous about losing their job, or simply lives in an area decimated by job loss should be livid over a President and Congress that spend all of their time plotting a takeover of health care.

Even though the economy is the top concern for almost every American, the oligarchy in Washington is fixated on nationalizing health care and exacting carbon taxes on every sector of the economy.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) broke committee rules and slammed an energy-rationing bill through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last week without a single Republican present.

The bill would curtail America's ability to exploit its own natural resources to harvest energy and boost economic activity. Thus, despite the economic crisis, the government is turning its back on $1.7 trillion in tax revenue and tens of thousands of real jobs (i.e., non-government payroll).

Democrats are only concerned with their big-government agenda -- nationalizing the health care industry, carbon taxes and amnesty for illegal aliens -- and not worried a bit about American jobs. Each of their programs raises taxes and fees on job creators, which further harms the economy.

Both the health care and cap-and-trade bills translate to huge tax hikes for most Americans.

Frighteningly, even the 17.5% under-employment figure understates things. During the Clinton administration, the BLS began removing those 'too discouraged' to look for a job for more than a year. John Williams of Shadow Government Stats thinks the true unemployment rate would be 22.1 percent if everyone were included.

Meanwhile, Congress fiddles while the economy burns. As I said more than six months ago, this willful abandonment of Americans in economic distress is intentional.

As Rahm Emanuel told the New York Times after the 2008 election, "Rule 1 -- never allow a crisis to go to waste."

The President and Congress simply ignore high unemployment while plotting their next moves to bankrupt the country. They are violating the Constitution. They meet and maneuver and vote -- not in the tradition of this nation -- but of totalitarian regimes.

They vote late Saturday night, when the public isn't watching. Meeting behind closed doors -- one party and one party only. Changing the locks on the committee room doors to exclude the opposition party and prevent debate. Everything is done in secret until they drop a massive, 2,000-page bill on an unsuspecting public.

And that doesn't even include the regulations to implement the bill, which will be ten times longer! And it affects your life, your livelihood, your family. And you -- don't -- have -- access to it, or them.

Only the oligarchs, who laugh off high unemployment, get a say in how you will live. And they don't give a damn about anything but accruing more power and growing the size of government.


Inspired by: Nolan Finley (Detroit News), Mark Levin, John Crudele (New York Post).