We have a President who is unfortunately making some bad choices. One of his worst choices is his non-support of Israel. No president since Harry Truman, and I include Carter, has treated Israel in such a high handed cavalier fashion. Do you realize that Obama is the most unpopular American president as polled in Israel? He is absolutely feared and loathed by over 90% of Israel. At least he is scoring high in something.
No President has ever seemed to be able to foster such fear in Israel. In fact the record of our Presidents, both parties, has seemed rather stellar until now. Obama forbade us to talk even a bit of his “Muslim heritage” during the campaign, but now seems to turn at every opportunity to apologize to his Muslim brothers and offer peace at every chance. Terrorism was for the first months a forbidden term, and until public ridicule, was not returned to use.
I cannot remember any president making so many Mideast peace overtures in such a short time. How many trips, how many overtures has Obama made to the Middle East? It is obvious now that Obama’s feelings toward his fellow Muslims was a germaine issue in the campaign. Obama, like all of us, feels his roots. Only his roots are one half here, and one half in the Muslim world. How is that affecting his world outlook? Even Carter, the president who is most similar in this, took a long while to develop his peace talks and bring both sides to mutual agreement. Jews in America largely supported Obama’s campaign, but now must be moved to a bit of ‘self-reflection’ and wonder.
Anti-Semitism is again on the rise in Europe. I read today where the Swiss are being fed from a popular paper that Israel is murdering Palestinians to harvest their body organs. I am sickened by seeing the fires of bigotry against the Jews being stoked yet again, and by a people who are supposed to know better. Anti-Semitism is always on the rise in the Middle East. I fear that it will rise all too readily here in the United States again. I fear that our President is making such basic foreign policy mistakes that, even if unintentionally, the movement could be stoked yet here again.
I know my liberal brothers would be aghast at reading this, and would think that it could never happen here. But Democrats in the last two weeks have called those who dare to disagree with them about health care the following names. This list, I am sure, is not complete, but I was appalled by the number of leaders, who again should know better, that were spewing these appellatives.
“vandals” –thank you to Democratic Party Chairwoman Pat Waak
“false witnesses” –thank you to our beloved BO
“evil mongers’ –thank you to Harry Reid
“racists” –thank you to news media
“un-American” –thank you to Nancy Pelosi
“hate mobs” –thank you Steven Crowder (great short film!)
“paranoid”
“astroturf”—thank you again, Nancy Pelosi (Does she ever get tired of hearing herself?)
“evil oil companies are funding health protesters” thank you, DNC
I know fully well that a similar list might be compiled from the other side; that is not the point. The point is that Democrat’s pride is in their alleged tolerance and respect of others and other people’s viewpoint. Yet the shrillest appellatives are from the leaders themselves.
I am saying, in the strongest terms I know how, beware America. If we turn not aside from our course we will find ourselves on the wrong side of the Middle East problem, and possibly, on the wrong side of Armeggeddon.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Death Panels
Much has been said about death panels in the news since the twitters of Sarah Palin. I find it appalling that many conservatives seem to so quickly diss idea of death panels. Perhaps it is because the end of the life discussions that were mandated under several of the plans were plainly not worded to include diabolical plans to “abort” someone’s life span. They could be read to see that courageous conversations took place between a doctor and his patient in crisis. I did read Palin’s followup to her initial response to the outrage over her death panel remark, and it was remarkably lucid and well argued. She cites provisions of the bills under consideration, and proves her case remarkably well.
So well did she prove her case that the language from the bill was removed within two days. I do find it strange that few commentators remark on this removal. I do find it more appalling that conservatives have not seen that she had a valid point, which liberals said that they removed such language, “because it might prove confusing to someone misinterpreting it.” Match, set and game to Palin.
But more fundamentally I want to look at the idea of “rationed” care. There is no doubt in my mind that we have a very different system now than we would have under the public option. Each and every day, in every way, we would discriminate against older people. No doubt the fine young bureaucrat would insist quite properly that America needs to spend its resources responsibly, and it would make more sense to spend money on a 22 year old junkie’s rehabilitation than on a hip replacement for an 83 year old. The 83 year old would not be told to shrivel up and die; they would just be left without needed care and shrivel up and die. No one will actually be killing him; they just will not give him needed care.
It is an Orwellian difference- but one that looms very largely before us. I am not aware of any system of public health care that does as good a job of trying to maintain quality life for our seniors. Obama tacitly admits this Orwellian twist when he talks about operations that can be avoided. He used the example of tonsils being removed unnecessarily. Unfortunately for him, my grandson was under one health plan that refused to remove tonsils. My grandson was sick and myopic all the time, until my daughter changed plans and had his tonsils removed.
He instantly improved! I realize that anecdotes can be too easily used to justify anything, but the question I have is: Do we really want to have a third party bureaucrat telling us what is right and what is not right? My daughter was able to change her doctor, find needed care and resolve the situation in the best interests of my grandson. This would not be possible under public health care.
Obama tells us that we can do this and save money. He says we can insure 40 million people, keep our same doctor, keep our same health plan, and still spend less on health care. My Dad used to tell me that if something sounds to good to be true, it probably is.
Obama is on record in 2003, stating plainly that he desires for us to stair step our way into public health care. Evidently he feels we are too stupid to pay attention to what he has said. The video has been saved and floats around the internet. If the man states his plain plan, and we refuse to believe he is implementing his plan, then maybe we are too stupid.
I have one question for you. Are we stupid enough to let him get away with this? We have the best health care system in the world. The only problem is that it does not cover everyone. We do need to make some reform to make it more easily available. We do not need the public option. Our system needs tweaking, not reformation.
In the 1960’s medicare was presented as a public option. We were told it would not take private insurance’s place, and that it would “compete” with all the other choices. We were told it would not cost (politicians miscalculated its costs by a factor of 10) more, and what is the result? Today it has taken over health care for all seniors, who are rationed as to the care that they can get. More and more doctors are refusing medicare patients because they cannot afford the charity. The government, not the market, determines the price of needed treatments, and more doctors are refusing to do the treatments than ever before. This is the “successful program” Obama touts. He wants everyone to end in this kind of program.
We do not need to go down this Orwellian road. Refuse the public option, and demand that the best health system in the world be preserved. Or else live with the idea of a young person someday telling you that “quality of life” decisions have been made and left you behind.
So well did she prove her case that the language from the bill was removed within two days. I do find it strange that few commentators remark on this removal. I do find it more appalling that conservatives have not seen that she had a valid point, which liberals said that they removed such language, “because it might prove confusing to someone misinterpreting it.” Match, set and game to Palin.
But more fundamentally I want to look at the idea of “rationed” care. There is no doubt in my mind that we have a very different system now than we would have under the public option. Each and every day, in every way, we would discriminate against older people. No doubt the fine young bureaucrat would insist quite properly that America needs to spend its resources responsibly, and it would make more sense to spend money on a 22 year old junkie’s rehabilitation than on a hip replacement for an 83 year old. The 83 year old would not be told to shrivel up and die; they would just be left without needed care and shrivel up and die. No one will actually be killing him; they just will not give him needed care.
It is an Orwellian difference- but one that looms very largely before us. I am not aware of any system of public health care that does as good a job of trying to maintain quality life for our seniors. Obama tacitly admits this Orwellian twist when he talks about operations that can be avoided. He used the example of tonsils being removed unnecessarily. Unfortunately for him, my grandson was under one health plan that refused to remove tonsils. My grandson was sick and myopic all the time, until my daughter changed plans and had his tonsils removed.
He instantly improved! I realize that anecdotes can be too easily used to justify anything, but the question I have is: Do we really want to have a third party bureaucrat telling us what is right and what is not right? My daughter was able to change her doctor, find needed care and resolve the situation in the best interests of my grandson. This would not be possible under public health care.
Obama tells us that we can do this and save money. He says we can insure 40 million people, keep our same doctor, keep our same health plan, and still spend less on health care. My Dad used to tell me that if something sounds to good to be true, it probably is.
Obama is on record in 2003, stating plainly that he desires for us to stair step our way into public health care. Evidently he feels we are too stupid to pay attention to what he has said. The video has been saved and floats around the internet. If the man states his plain plan, and we refuse to believe he is implementing his plan, then maybe we are too stupid.
I have one question for you. Are we stupid enough to let him get away with this? We have the best health care system in the world. The only problem is that it does not cover everyone. We do need to make some reform to make it more easily available. We do not need the public option. Our system needs tweaking, not reformation.
In the 1960’s medicare was presented as a public option. We were told it would not take private insurance’s place, and that it would “compete” with all the other choices. We were told it would not cost (politicians miscalculated its costs by a factor of 10) more, and what is the result? Today it has taken over health care for all seniors, who are rationed as to the care that they can get. More and more doctors are refusing medicare patients because they cannot afford the charity. The government, not the market, determines the price of needed treatments, and more doctors are refusing to do the treatments than ever before. This is the “successful program” Obama touts. He wants everyone to end in this kind of program.
We do not need to go down this Orwellian road. Refuse the public option, and demand that the best health system in the world be preserved. Or else live with the idea of a young person someday telling you that “quality of life” decisions have been made and left you behind.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Tort Reform
Health care anyone? Only if you can get past the insurance costs. I read this last week where doctors are paying annual insurance premiums of 300,000 dollars. Who do you think pays for those costs? Hint: it is not the insurance companies or the doctors who pay it.
Lawyers are waiting in the emergency room hallways for “tickets to riches”. Many times the costs are settled for hundreds of thousands of dollars out of court. When they do go through the courts, it can quickly add to millions in fees. Many times most of these fees are prorated enormously in the lawyer’s favor, not in the sick defendant’s favor. Who do you think pays the lawyers fees? Hint: it is not the sick patients paying the fees.
One of my biggest concerns is in all this talk of reform no one, not one responsible spokesman, is talking about ways of limiting these costs. Why isn’t there one person talking about the crime of lawyers enriching their coffers from the sick and the dead? It is a crime to allow the moneysuckers to drain the health system without any safety checks. Who do you think pays for extra costs? Hint: it is not the doctors or the insurance companies who pay litigation costs.
Obama is correct in one respect; many times today doctors order tests for patients that they really do not think are needed. The doctors are afraid not to order these tests because they fear being sued. If they are successfully sued, their insurance costs can rise dramatically. Our health system is bogged down with all sorts of testing which does not need to take place. Who do you think pays for all the tests? Hint: it is not the doctor.
However, what we do not need is public rationing of health care. I lost my father and my father in law recently, but in both cases, the health system was working and spending to prolong their lives. With rationed care, the federal bureaucrat will cut off the most expensive expenditures; the older patient in the last year of his life, is the most expensive.
Further, I have had two brothers with aggressive cancers (both are in remission). I am concerned with any system change which will be great at covering basic ailment care, but will not provide for drastic needs. Drastic needs are the “all consuming cost” of health care. Under a centralized system, drastic needs are the first to be cut. The proof is in the people from those systems in other countries who come to the United States to get care not offered in rationed systems.
In any case, I will be a lot more likely to believe the reformers if they were serious about removing the hideous-lawyer-leech that is sucking the lifeblood out of the best health care system in the world. Until that time, this citizen will remain dubious about “reform”. After all, I am an expert on reform—I am an educator—and we have been “reforming” education for more than 100 years. To the politicians who want change I would say, look where it took public schools before you choose to send our health system there.
Lawyers are waiting in the emergency room hallways for “tickets to riches”. Many times the costs are settled for hundreds of thousands of dollars out of court. When they do go through the courts, it can quickly add to millions in fees. Many times most of these fees are prorated enormously in the lawyer’s favor, not in the sick defendant’s favor. Who do you think pays the lawyers fees? Hint: it is not the sick patients paying the fees.
One of my biggest concerns is in all this talk of reform no one, not one responsible spokesman, is talking about ways of limiting these costs. Why isn’t there one person talking about the crime of lawyers enriching their coffers from the sick and the dead? It is a crime to allow the moneysuckers to drain the health system without any safety checks. Who do you think pays for extra costs? Hint: it is not the doctors or the insurance companies who pay litigation costs.
Obama is correct in one respect; many times today doctors order tests for patients that they really do not think are needed. The doctors are afraid not to order these tests because they fear being sued. If they are successfully sued, their insurance costs can rise dramatically. Our health system is bogged down with all sorts of testing which does not need to take place. Who do you think pays for all the tests? Hint: it is not the doctor.
However, what we do not need is public rationing of health care. I lost my father and my father in law recently, but in both cases, the health system was working and spending to prolong their lives. With rationed care, the federal bureaucrat will cut off the most expensive expenditures; the older patient in the last year of his life, is the most expensive.
Further, I have had two brothers with aggressive cancers (both are in remission). I am concerned with any system change which will be great at covering basic ailment care, but will not provide for drastic needs. Drastic needs are the “all consuming cost” of health care. Under a centralized system, drastic needs are the first to be cut. The proof is in the people from those systems in other countries who come to the United States to get care not offered in rationed systems.
In any case, I will be a lot more likely to believe the reformers if they were serious about removing the hideous-lawyer-leech that is sucking the lifeblood out of the best health care system in the world. Until that time, this citizen will remain dubious about “reform”. After all, I am an expert on reform—I am an educator—and we have been “reforming” education for more than 100 years. To the politicians who want change I would say, look where it took public schools before you choose to send our health system there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)