Arizona’s Death Panel?


It’s bad enough that the Federal government created its first actual death panels thirty years ago, with organ transplants.

But, shortly after the Obamacare plan set up conditions that are likely to cause rationing, we have an example of how government health care is forced to decide who lives and dies, because of rationing.

In order to stay within their budget, Arizona has been forced to limit who is allowed to get organ transplants…literally picking who lives and dies. Already, 98 people have been identified who will not be allowed to get these transplants on Medicaid. This is what government health care must, inherently, do. It’s not the fault of Arizona, but part of Medicaid’s very nature.

In the 1980s, the Federal government imposed a ban on paid organ transplants, creating such a shortage that panels had to be set up to decide who got the rationed transplants, while a majority of transplant patients die while waiting, with lists up to ten years long.

Now, they are being forced by a socialized health care program to cut off even the few who might get transplants, dooming them to die.

We need real health care reform, not more of the very same government intervention that has caused the problem in the first place.

A Victory for True Health Care Reform?


The White House, today, announced a series of four ostensible concessions to demands that health care actually be reformed, not simply nationalized.

This is an encouraging step, although currently little more than a gesture. If it went forward as-is, it would only be a pyrrhic victory…but it does show that the socialized proposal is in serious trouble.

Let’s check out the changes, and see what’s left to fix:

  • CORRUPTION: Sending investigators disguised as patients to uncover fraud and waste

We don’t think having more of a police state is really the right approach, but with up to a quarter of all socialized health coverage being wasted, it’s a start.

  • RUNAWAY LAWSUITS: Expanding medical malpractice reform pilot programs

This sounds right…but depends on what these “pilot programs” actually are.

  • WAAH? Increasing payments to Medicaid providers?

What? They finally acknowledge that Medicare/Medicaid is grossly corrupt, and now they want to increase the money they throw at the system? This is reminiscent of Bush throwing of taxpayer money at Louisiana after Katrina, which is just a mirror of what got Louisiana in that position in the first place.

  • OVERINSURANCE: Expanding the use of health savings accounts.

If they just put more money into the existing, fake medical savings account programs, they are only making the problem worse. At the moment, you are only allowed to save health care money for one year, then it is stolen from you by the government, and you start over. This means people are forced to squander millions on needless “health care” spending at the end of each year…driving up health care prices. What is needed is REAL medical savings accounts, where you keep the money indefinitely, and when it gets large enough, you can reduce your medical insurance into a cheap program that only covers unexpected disasters, and even roll over your medical savings account into a retirement account.

So does this mean that the current, socialized health care megabill should be accepted?

No, in fact it means we need to fight harder than ever.

The bill would still do far more harm than good.

It still is comprised almost entirely of the same kind of measures that caused the problems we have in the first place. Massive government spending that drives up prices, new regulations that bog down providers, expansions of full coverage insurance that strip away consumer power…and worse:

All of it in one massive Megabill, allowing them to fill it with pork and bad measures that one must accept in order to get ANY change at all.

Obama Has a Mandate AGAINST Big Government



Bush didn't understand why people didn't like his Big Brotherment style, and Obama doesn't understand why people hate him copying it.

Obama fanatics are all confused and muddled by this anti-government backlash.

They keep saying “but a majority voted for Obama, they must WANT socialized health care”, or Cap and Trade, or Tax the Rich, or whatever.

We had an election, THEY won. This was proof of a mandate for a growing, interventionist government. Obama ran on socialized medicine, redistribution of taxes, environmentalist control of the economy, and he’s trying to do just what he always said he believed in, so:

Everyone should be happy…right?

Well, no.

See:

People were not voting for Obama

Aside from the absolute idiots who voted for or against him because he is half black, or on blind party lines, most people were specifically voting against Bush and McCain. Obama won because he ran on “change”.

And, regardless of any Democratic spin to the contrary, Bush had a Big Government administration. The change people wanted was less government intervention.

Expanding socialized medicine is not Change, it’s Business as Usual. The largest expansion of socialized medicine in US history was Bush’s prescription drug plan.

People voted not for a Che Guevara Wannabe, but against someone who governed like a Hugo Chavez-Wannabe, and his philosophical heir, who promised to be an even bigger advocate of government intervention.

  • They were not saying “we like Obama’s stimulus plan” but “we hate Bush’s stimulus plan, that McCain supports”.
  • Not “we like Obama’s plan to expand war in Afghanistan” but “we hate Bush’s war in Iraq, that McCain wants to extend”.
  • Instead of “we want Obama’s cap and trade proposal” they were saying “we hate McCain’s cap and trade proposal”.
  • People were voting against the Bush/McCain bank bailout, not for Obama’s bank takeover.

What we have gotten, under Obama, is not Change, but four more years of Bush’s philosophy of Big Brotherment.

The people striking out against Obama now are the same people who got Obama elected, voting against Bush by doing something other than voting for McCain, whether by abstaining, voting third party, or actually voting for Obama.

If he wants to save his presidency, Obama needs to realize the TEA Party and town hall speakers are the Obama mandate.

Fine, Kill Your Baby, But Don’t Make Me Help


Uncle Sam Squandering Taxpayer DollarsThe proposed Health Care “Reform” law includes, apparently, the taxpayer funding of abortion somewhere in its thousands of pages. But many taxpayers believe abortion is murder.

Abortion may need to be legal, but this doesn’t mean that people who oppose it can be justly forced to pay for it.

The first amendment protects, in essence, our freedom of conscience. Certainly in regard to religious beliefs.

It’s ironic that abortionists like to say that abortion should be legal because of religious freedom; Some portion of those against abortion oppose it on religious grounds…

To the extent that religion is the motivation behind opposing abortion, the first amendment therefore bans government funding of abortion, because one should not be forced to violate their own religion.

Now I’m agnostic, and like Thomas Jefferson regarding slavery, I believe abortion cannot be banned, even though it’s the killing of a human baby…but despite those things, it is clear to me that forcing people who believe abortion is murder to fund that killing would be a holocaust-level evil.

Where the Hell Are Medical Savings Accounts?


chained caduceusThe actual problem with our failing health care system is that consumers have no control over it. Already, too much is paid for by middlemen like insurance companies and government. If Americans only paid 5% of their food bills, a cheeseburger would cost fifty bucks, too.

Why are people handing off control of their health care to middlemen? Because government imposes massive taxes on them, and then “rewards” them, with tax breaks, for paying needless insurance companies to cover their well-care, checkups, and minor problems while charging them triple what those will cost.

If you say “screw that, boss, I’ll take the cash instead of the health insurance”, you’re forced to pay taxes on the money, when the insurance was pre-tax.

The solution? (aside from cutting the massive tax burden)

Medical Savings Accounts.

Instead of giving the money to a middleman insurance company, you get to keep it yourself, to save for any medical needs. It is not taxed, and once you accumulate enough to cover any predictable needs, you roll the rest over into a retirement account each year. Meanwhile, you by a very cheap catastrophic insurance plan, that only covers unexpected, rare disasters like cancer and falling in a wood chipper. These can cost only a fraction of a harmful full-coverage plan.

This gives you control over your own health care, the ONLY way to cut costs. It also allows you to save for your retirement, freeing you from depending on the ridiculous, doomed social security system that will NOT be there when even Gen X retires.

Why do we not have this?

Ask your congressman.

Swine Flu is Good for You


If you listen closely to the media/politico hype about h1n1, you will notice some insanity embedded in it.

For example: earlier, I heard someone say “the CDC reports that H1N1 has killed over 800 people, worldwide.”

During flu season, COMMON FLU kills over 800 people, in the US alone, every week.

In fact, H1N1 Novel, the famous “swine flu” of the panic this year, has a much lower mortality rate than the common flu. It was less than one third as deadly as common flu, but its mortality is falling even lower, as the number of cases snowballs, yet few new deaths are reported.

In fact, instead of getting vaccinated against H1N1 novel, we should be throwing Swine Flu Parties. As we should throw chickenpox parties for our children.

Why? Because the vaccine only protects you from one specific breed of influenza, and that only barely, while actually catching any flu, including the swine flu, strengthens your immune system against ALL forms of flu, while making you more immune to that one kind than a shot would have.

So if you catch H1N1 novel, which is less dangerous than the common flu, it will make you less likely to catch the common flu. Which means you’re less likely to die, if you catch swine flu. It’s actually safer to catch it, than not.

Personally, and I am serious, not exaggerating for rhetorical reasons, if I get the opportunity, I will go out of my way to catch it. Since I am not suffering from some disability that makes flu high-risk for myself, I most certainly do not weaken my immune system with flu shots, ever. And I see less reason than normal, this year, since H1N1 novel is safer than the common flu.

%d bloggers like this: