Coming to America

It won’t be long:

A WOMAN has been denied an operation on the NHS after paying for a private consultation to deal with her severe back pain.

Jenny Whitehead, a breast cancer survivor, paid £250 for an appointment with the orthopaedic surgeon after being told she would have to wait five months to see him on the NHS. He told her he would add her to his NHS waiting list for surgery.

She was barred from the list, however, and sent back to her GP. She must now find at least £10,000 for private surgery, or wait until the autumn for the NHS operation to remove a cyst on her spine.

“When I paid £250 to see the specialist privately I had no idea I would be sacrificing my right to surgery on the NHS. I feel victimised,” she said.

via NHS bars woman after she saw private doctor – Times Online.

This is what America will look like under Obama-care; just give it a little time.

Others: : Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion and The Lonely Conservative

How bad will it be for Democrats come 2010?

This bad:

Though Election Day is still months away, pundits have already begun to speculate on possible outcomes for this year’s midterms. There’s a general consensus that Democrats will lose seats in November, but beyond that opinions vary widely on how big those losses might be. Some argue that because of the advance notice, passage of health care, and an improving economy (or some combination of all three), Democrats will be able to limit their losses significantly. Others are predicting a repeat of 1994, when Democrats lost 50+ seats and control of the House.

[…]

That said, I think those who suggest that the House is barely in play, or that we are a long way from a 1994-style scenario are missing the mark. A 1994-style scenario is probably the most likely outcome at this point. Moreover, it is well within the realm of possibility – not merely a far-fetched scenario – that Democratic losses could climb into the 80 or 90-seat range. The Democrats are sailing into a perfect storm of factors influencing a midterm election, and if the situation declines for them in the ensuing months, I wouldn't be shocked to see Democratic losses eclipse 100 seats.

[…]

President Obama’s policy choices to date are wreaking havoc on the brand that Democrats cultivated carefully over the past twenty years. Bill Clinton worked long and hard to make it so that voters could say “fiscal conservative” and “Democrat” in the same sentence, but voters are finding it difficult to say that again.

If brand damage is truly seeping over into Congressional races – and the polling suggests it is – then the Democrats are in very, very deep trouble this election. There is a very real risk that they could be left with nothing more than Obama’s base among young, liberal, and minority voters, which is packed into relatively few Congressional districts. It would be the Dukakis map transformed onto the Congressional level, minus the support in Appalachia. That would surely result in the Democratic caucus suffering huge losses, and in turn produce historic gains for the GOP this November.

via RealClearPolitics – How Bad Could 2010 Really Get For Democrats?.

As I have said on here many times. Elections have consequences, so do bad policy decisions; this is a result of that. When you poke your finger in the eye of the American people and you try and tell them, what is good for them, this is what happens. President Obama and his goons in the Congress have basically disrupted the status quo in American heathcare and many Americans were against this Healthcare bill; including those on the left, who felt that it did not go far enough. So, Obama and the Democrats are going to be hurting come November. It will be very interesting to watch, and I will be there, writing my fool head off about it. 😀

Others: Hot Air, American Power, Wizbang, Weekly Standard, The New Republic, Beltway Confidential, Pollster.com All Content, Ruby Slippers, The Strata-Sphere, THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS and Wake up America

Heh: Congress passes a Healthcare Bill and Kicks themselves off their own Healthcare Insurance

Now before I quote this news article, imagine with me a cage full of little white mice. There’s about 100 or so of ’em in there. Now outside that cage is a big block of nice American cheese. Said mice spot said cheese and proceed to open said cage. Now the last mouse out, named Louie, who’s a bit of a fat ass drunk, accidentally bumps the cage’s door and it locks behind them. Well, the mice don’t seem to notice, all they see, is the cheese. Well, outside that cage also a huge cat, and a hungry one at that. 😯 😮 Panic. Keep this rather humorous thought in mind, while you read the following.

Via the NYT: (H/T to HotAir and Instapundit)

“It is unclear whether members of Congress and Congressional staff who are currently participating in F.E.H.B.P. may be able to retain this coverage,” the research service said in an 8,100-word memorandum.

And even if current members of Congress can stay in the popular program for federal employees, that option will probably not be available to newly elected lawmakers, the report says.

Moreover, it says, the strictures of the new law will apply to staff members who work in the personal office of a member of Congress. But they may or may not apply to people who work on the staff of Congressional committees and in “leadership offices” like those of the House speaker and the Democratic and Republican leaders and whips in the two chambers.

These seemingly technical questions will affect 535 members of Congress and thousands of Congressional employees. But the issue also has immense symbolic and political importance. Lawmakers of both parties have repeatedly said their goal is to provide all Americans with access to health insurance as good as what Congress has.

Congress must now decide what steps, if any, it can take to deal with the problem. It could try for a legislative fix, or it could adopt internal policies to minimize any disruptions.

In its painstaking analysis of the new law, the research service says the impact on Congress itself and the intent of Congress are difficult to ascertain.

The law apparently bars members of Congress from the federal employees health program, on the assumption that lawmakers should join many of their constituents in getting coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.

But the research service found that this provision was written in an imprecise, confusing way, so it is not clear when it takes effect.

The new exchanges do not have to be in operation until 2014. But because of a possible “drafting error,” the report says, Congress did not specify an effective date for the section excluding lawmakers from the existing program.

Under well-established canons of statutory interpretation, the report said, “a law takes effect on the date of its enactment” unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. And Congress did not specify any other effective date for this part of the health care law. The law was enacted when President Obama signed it three weeks ago.

In addition, the report says, Congress did not designate anyone to resolve these “ambiguities” or to help arrange health insurance for members of Congress in the future.

“This omission, whether intentional or inadvertent, raises questions regarding interpretation and implementation that cannot be definitively resolved by the Congressional Research Service,” the report says. “The statute does not appear to be self-executing, but rather seems to require an administrating or implementing authority that is not specifically provided for by the statutory text.”

The White House said last month that Mr. Obama would voluntarily participate in the health insurance exchange, though the law does not require him or other administration officials to do so. His participation as president may depend on his getting re-elected in 2012.

Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, said lawmakers were in the same boat as many Americans, trying to figure out what the new law meant for them.

“If members of Congress cannot explain how it’s going to work for them and their staff, how will they explain it to the rest of America?” Mr. Chaffetz asked in an interview.

Go on over there and read that; I’ve never seen so much rat panic in my life. Thus proving that you should always READ THE FARKING BILL! 🙄

Not all Conservatives love Karl Rove or the Republican Party

Transcript is found here.

Rep. Bart Stupak is retiring too

Now this is one that I totally saw coming:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who had a central role in the health reform fight as the leader of anti-abortion Democrats, plans to announce Friday that he will not run for reelection, a Democratic official said. Without Stupak on the ballot, the seat becomes an immediate pickup opportunity for Republicans.

“Now with health care done, he’s retiring,” a friend said. “He has thought about retiring for the last three cycles, but was always talked into staying: to elect John Kerry to help end the war, to elect a Democratic majority to get health care done.”

President Barack Obama called Stupak on Wednesday and asked him not to retire. Stupak, 58, also resisted entreaties from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), the dean of the Wolverine State delegation.

via Rep. Bart Stupak won’t seek reelection – Mike Allen and Josh Kraushaar – POLITICO.com.

Of course, the G.O.P. got a very funny dig in:

“After selling his soul to Nancy Pelosi, it appears that Bart Stupak finally found the courage to tell her no,” said Ken Spain, communications director of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “The political fallout over the Democrats’ government takeover of health care has put the political careers of many Democrats in jeopardy thanks in part to Stupak’s decision to abandon his alleged pro-life principles.

Heh.

As to what headaches this might cause for the Democratic Party, they might just have a problem getting that seat back. Now Ed over HotAir says that the U.P. is not deeply Conservative; which is partially true. However, I happen to be from Michigan and I can offer a different perspective. For the record, I have lived here all of my life and I happen to know the people around these parts and I can tell you what I do know. Now Detroit proper? Liberal/Progressive/Whatever you wanna call it as heck; now as for the ‘Burbs? The further South and North you get of Detroit, the less Liberal or Democratic Party leaning it gets. The only reason John McCain lost Michigan, was because his stupid President Campaign advisers chose to abandon this State, which left many Michigan Republicans quite peeved. When it comes to choosing Presidents around here, people vote, usually, the personality and the Person, and not the Party. I can tell you, from personal experience. Most Michiganders are NOT happy with Jennifer Granholm. It is not uncommon to hear that name and the term “Stupid Bitch” attached to it; and no, I do not mean from me! 😉

As most of you most likely already know; Michigan has been hit with one of the worst, if not the worst one state recessions ever. Many people here in Michigan voted for Barack Obama (NOT ME!) hoping he would bring change to the employment situation here in the Detroit area and in Michigan as a whole. So far? Nothing. We still have the highest unemployment problem in the United States, last time I checked, it was 75% in the city of Detroit. Based upon conversations that I have had with people around here in the last few years, there are people here in the State of Michigan, who are just fed up with the Democratic Party in general. The people of Detroit and largely the people of Michigan as well, are sick and tired of political speeches and empty rhetoric, they want results and so far, the token political Party of this area has not produced anything at all; but rhetoric and political speeches.

Having said all of the above, Democrats might just find themselves struggling to fill this seat again and many of the Senatorial seats in Congress and the House come November. There has also been talk that the Governor’s office might just flip back to the Republican for the first time since to the term of Governor George Romney. (Mitt’s Daddy…) Now that my friends would be feat in itself!

Again, it should be a very interesting thing to follow. Hey, at least it’s content, something I’ve been struggling to find here in the last few days! 😀

The Blogger Round Up is here.

Update: Looks like the folks over at FireDogLake, which is a liberal blog, are not to keen on this guy either:

If you’re a politician not inclined to deliver under “intense political pressure,” you have no business being a politician. And if death threats were a factor in resigning, there pretty much wouldn’t be a member of the Democratic caucus left. Stupak sought the spotlight. He wanted to lead the pro-life Caucus and hijack the health care debate. He refused to quit even when he essentially won by getting the Nelson compromise, which functionally did about everything he wanted. He made the debate a living hell and went out of his way to punish half the US population. And in the end, everybody hated him, left and right. Well played.

Ouch! That ought to leave a mark. 😯

Yes, I think this is stupid and very highly illegal too

Jeeez… I would have gotten the guy some hosting for a blog, if all he wanted to do is vent. 🙄

A 63-year-old Yakima County man has been charged with threatening to kill U.S. Sen. Patty Murray over her support of the health-care overhaul.

The FBI and local police arrested Charles Alan Wilson at his Selah home early Tuesday. He later made an initial appearance in federal court in Yakima on one count of threatening a federal official. He was appointed a public defender and ordered to be kept in custody pending a detention hearing Friday.

According to the charges, staffers in Murray’s office in the Jackson Federal Building in downtown Seattle had become concerned over phone calls by an unknown man in recent months. The calls came from a blocked number and often were made at night or on weekends.

Usually, according to a staffer, the calls were merely vulgar and harassing.

But on March 22, “the caller began to make overt threats to kill and/or injure Senator Murray,” according to the complaint signed by FBI Agent Carolyn Woodbury.

In that call, a man the FBI says it has identified as Wilson stated, “I hope you realize there’s a target on your back now … Kill the [expletive] senator! I’ll donate the lead.”

via Local News | Yakima County man charged with threatening to kill Sen. Patty Murray | Seattle Times Newspaper.

Again, the old man was most likely upset. But, he did break the law. As I have written on here before, it is one thing to get on a blog like mine, write about politics; it is another to start phoning in death threats. That is, I am afraid, just plain stupid. Hopefully this old man learns his lesson. He might have also been a little disturbed as well. Maybe he needed a little help. Either way, he will get that help or learn his lesson, one way or another.

Again, what the guy did was stupid, 50 years ago, you would have gotten away with something like that. But in this day and age of Caller ID and high tech phones. There’s no getting away with this sort of thing anymore. Besides all that; this woman is just one person. It is not like she was solely responsibility for the passage of the bill.

Again, while I feel for the old guy; what he did was wrong.

A sign of things to come in America?

This is just damn awful:

A patient desperate for a drink of water had to telephone the switchboard of the hospital he was being treated in to beg to see a doctor.

Derek Sauter - The Victim

Derek Sauter, 60, used his mobile phone to request medical attention after his pleas for help were ignored.

But when the doctor arrived he was turned away by ward nurse Caroline Lowe, who said Mr Sauter was ‘over-reacting’ and threatened to confiscate his phone

Eight hours later the grandfather-of-three, who was suffering with a chest infection, was dead.

Rather than offering sympathy to Susan, Mr Sauter’s wife of 41 years, Miss Lowe later told her that he could have been prosecuted for harassing the doctor on call.

Yesterday his daughter, Ruth Sauter, 42, said she was appalled at the way her father, a former administrator for the Healthcare Commission, the former NHS watchdog, had been let down by the NHS.

Sacked: Caroline Lowe, the ward nurse, turned the doctor away who came to see Mr Sauter

‘My father went into hospital for a routine chest infection, but never came out,’ said Miss Sauter, of Thurrock, Essex.

Caroline Lowe - The Killer, The Butcher, The Bitch

‘His condition was not life threatening and the nurses had specific instructions to keep close tabs on him.

‘But their appalling lack of care, and cruel behaviour killed my father. He should not have died that weekend; it was not his time.

‘It’s so much worse knowing that he died alone, thirsty and scared on that ward.’

Mr Sauter was admitted to Queen Mary’s Hospital, Sidcup, in Kent, at 9am on June 27 2008.

I have to ask, is this what is coming to America? It is to wonder.

Zing!

This is about Frum:

I’ve shared op-ed space with David in at least three countries. He's a much smarter guy than I, and he’ll be around a lot longer. But there’s a strong sense of diminishing returns about these Frum flaps. David is becoming famous only for attacking fellow conservatives – Novak and Buchanan back in his end-to-evil days; then, Rush, Glenn, Sean and Sarah Palin; last weekend, it was Michelle Malkin for not mentioning his website by its name; and now AEI. At this rate, he’ll be picking fights with Barbara Bush by late spring.

via Re: Frum and Frummer – Mark Steyn – The Corner on National Review Online.

Zing!

….and the hits just keep coming! 😀

For the record, No, I do not think this is acceptable

In light of my posting yesterday, that not only succeeded in pissing off some liberals; but also my Mom. I thought I would clear the air on something.

It appears that some people who are not happy with the passage of this Healthcare reform bill, took it upon themselves to conduct some terrorism on the brother of one of the members of the house. It also appears that Bart Supack, received some threatening phone calls.

Here is the video on that story:


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Okay gang, here’s the deal. I do not like this healthcare bill no more than the next “Right of center” blogger. But I want to be perfectly clear. I do not support the idea of conducting terrorism on anyone. The proper definition of terrorism is:

The root word for terrorism is terror and that is defined as: (Source)

Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: ?ter-?r, ?te-r?r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terr?re to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble — more at tremble
Date: 14th century

1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : scourge b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : worry d : an appalling person or thing; especially : brat
3 : reign of terror
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>

I mean, it is one thing to get on a Blog, such as mine here, and hurl insults and verbal flourishes at those that I disagree with on politics. It is another entirely to show up at someone’s house and do something destructive. That my friends is not promoting freedom, Democracy or anything else like that. Committing acts like that, makes you a two-bit thug; and basically no better than those who want to undermine our capitalistic society.

I said this before, and I will say it again; this sort of nonsense right here is why Conservatives, Republicans and Tea Party folks are losing the battle, when it comes to the political conversation in America. It is simply because the American people simply reject extremism in any form. We have a system in this wonderful Country of ours that allows the American people to choose whom they wish to lead their Country, and that is the inalienable right to vote. So, to my follow Americans, Conservatives and Tea Party folks; please, in the name of America —- stop the stupidity already! Committing acts like this makes you no better than those who slammed those planes in the World Trade Center in New York.

My good friends, anarchy never did a thing to promote freedom and peace or birth a Nation. Remember this, we are a civilized society, we are not Palestine, we are not a terrorist nation, We are Americans and we are much more better than that. Please, lets try acting like it.

If we are to win the battle come the 2010 and 2012 elections, we have to stop with this sort of nonsense and get back to the intellectual debate. We have to demonstrate to the American people that we as those who reject socialism are better than the average liberal and not some sort of knuckle-dragging terrorist from the backwoods. Until we can overcome that hurdle and get our own ranks in order, purge ourselves of the extremists. Until this happens, our cause will be a lost one.

Update: On the other hand


18 Myths about Obamacare Debunked by Jane Hamsher

A great round of lies, myths and outright bullshit; which are being touted by the Obama Administration and it’s fan boys.

Via Jane at HuffPo:

Myth 1: This is a universal health care bill.

Fact: The bill is neither universal health care nor universal health insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office:

  • Total uninsured in 2019 with no bill: 54 million
  • Total uninsured in 2019 with Senate bill: 24 million

Myth 2: Insurance companies hate this bill.

Fact: This bill is almost identical to the plan written by AHIP, the insurance company trade association, in 2009.
The original Senate Finance Committee bill was authored by a former Wellpoint vice president. Since Congress released the first of its health care bills on October 30, 2009, health care stocks have risen 28.35%.

Myth 3: The bill will significantly bring down insurance premiums for most Americans.

Fact: The bill will not bring down premiums significantly, and certainly not the $2,500/year that President Obama promised during his campaign.

Annual premiums in 2016: status quo / with bill:
Small group market, single: $7,800 / $7,800
Small group market, family: $19,3oo / $19,200
Large Group market, single: $7,400 / $7,300
Large group market, family: $21,100 / $21,300
Individual market, single: $5,500 / $5,800
Individual market, family: $13,100 / $15,200

(The cost of premiums in the individual market goes up somewhat due to subsidies and mandates of better coverage. The CBO assumes that cost of individual policies goes down 7-10%, and that people will buy more generous policies.)

Myth 4: The bill will make health care affordable for middle class Americans.

Fact: The bill will impose a financial hardship on middle class Americans who will be forced to buy a product that they can’t afford to use.

A family of four making $66,370 will be forced to pay $5,243 per year for insurance. After basic necessities, this leaves them with $8,307 in discretionary income — out of which they would have to cover clothing, credit card and other debt, child care and education costs, in addition to $5,882 in annual out-of-pocket medical expenses for which families will be responsible.

Myth 5: This plan is similar to the Massachusetts plan, which makes health care affordable.

Fact: Many Massachusetts residents forgo health care because they can’t afford it. A 2009 study by the state of Massachusetts found that:

  • 21% of residents forgo medical treatment because they can’t afford it, including 12% of children
  • 18% have health insurance but can’t afford to use it

Myth 6: This bill provides health care to 31 million people who are currently uninsured.

Fact: This bill will mandate that millions of people who are currently uninsured purchase insurance from private companies, or the IRS will collect up to 2% of their annual income in penalties. Some will be assisted with government subsidies.

Myth 7: You can keep the insurance you have if you like it.

Fact: The excise tax will result in employers switching to plans with higher co-pays and fewer covered services.
Older, less healthy employees with employer-based health care will be forced to pay much more in out-of-pocket expenses than they do now.

Myth 8: The “excise tax” will encourage employers to reduce the scope of health care benefits, and they will pass the savings on to employees in the form of higher wages.

Fact: There is insufficient evidence that employers pass savings from reduced benefits on to employees.

Myth 9: This bill employs nearly every cost control idea available to bring down costs.

Fact: This bill does not bring down costs and leaves out nearly every key cost control measure, including:

  • Public Option ($25-$110 billion)
  • Medicare buy-in
  • Drug re-importation ($19 billion)
  • Medicare drug price negotiation ($300 billion)
  • Shorter pathway to generic biologics ($71 billion)

Myth 10: The bill will require big companies like Wal-Mart to provide insurance for their employees.

Fact: The bill was written so that most Wal-Mart employees will qualify for subsidies, and taxpayers will pick up a large portion of the cost of their coverage.

Myth 11: The bill “bends the cost curve” on health care.

Fact: “Bends the cost curve” is a misleading and trivial claim, as the U.S. would still spend far more for care than other advanced countries.

  • In 2009, health care costs were 17.3% of GDP.
  • Annual cost of health care in 2019, status quo: $4,670.6 billion (20.8% of GDP)
  • Annual cost of health care in 2019, Senate bill: $4,693.5 billion (20.9% of GDP)

Myth 12: The bill will provide immediate access to insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition.

Fact: Access to the “high risk pool” is limited and the pool is underfunded. Only those who have been uninsured for more than six months will qualify for the high-risk pool. Only 0.7% of those without insurance now will get coverage, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services report estimates it will run out of funding by 2011 or 2012.

Myth 13: The bill prohibits dropping people in individual plans from coverage when they get sick.

Fact: The bill does not empower a regulatory body to keep people from being dropped when they’re sick. There are already many states that have laws on the books prohibiting people from being dropped when they’re sick, but without an enforcement mechanism, there is little to hold the insurance companies in check.

Myth 14: The bill ensures consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to challenge new insurance plan decisions.

Fact: The “internal appeals process” is in the hands of the insurance companies themselves, and the “external” one is up to each state.

Ensuring that consumers have access to “internal appeals” simply means the insurance companies have to review their own decisions. And it is the responsibility of each state to provide an “external appeals process,” as there is neither funding nor a regulatory mechanism for enforcement at the federal level.

Myth 15: This bill will stop insurance companies from hiking rates 30%-40% per year.

Fact: This bill does not limit insurance company rate hikes. Private insurers continue to be exempt from anti-trust laws, and are free to raise rates without fear of competition in many areas of the country.

Myth 16: When the bill passes, people will begin receiving benefits under this bill immediately

Fact: Most provisions in this bill, such as an end to the ban on pre-existing conditions for adults, do not take effect until 2014.

Six months from the date of passage, children could not be excluded from coverage due to pre-existing conditions, though insurance companies could charge more to cover them. Children would also be allowed to stay on their parents’ plans until age 26. There will be an elimination of lifetime coverage limits, a high risk pool for those who have been uninsured for more than 6 months, and community health centers will start receiving money.

Myth 17: The bill creates a pathway for single payer.

Fact: Bernie Sanders’ provision in the Senate bill does not start until 2017, and does not cover the Department of Labor, so no, it doesn’t create a pathway for single payer.

Obama told Dennis Kucinich that the Ohio Representative’s amendment is similar to Bernie Sanders’ provision in the Senate bill, and creates a pathway to single payer. Since the waiver does not start until 2017, and does not cover the Department of Labor, it is nearly impossible to see how it gets around the ERISA laws that stand in the way of any practical state single payer system.

Myth 18: The bill will end medical bankruptcy and provide all Americans with peace of mind.

Fact: Most people with medical bankruptcies already have insurance, and out-of-pocket expenses will continue to be a burden on the middle class.

  • In 2009, 1.5 million Americans declared bankruptcy
  • Of those, 62% were medically related
  • Three-quarters of those had health insurance
  • The Obama bill leaves 24 million without insurance
  • The maximum yearly out-of-pocket limit for a family will be $11,900 (PDF) on top of premiums
  • A family with serious medical problems that last for a few years could easily be financially crushed by medical costs
  • I have to hand it to Jane; she is not afraid to stand up to her own party and call them out on their lies.I do not agree with Jane’s politics, nor her desire to get a public option or single payer healthcare, but there is something to be said about gal, who dares to take on the liberal establishment and call them out on their deception. Hats off to ya Jane and keep up the good work on your end of the aisle.

    I just wish Jane would wake up and realize that the Democratic Party is not the Party of the people that it once was; but is now a party of big Government socialism. in other words, the Party of Roosevelt and World War 2 is gone for good and is now an outright Marxist Party. I pray one day that she see’s that. I figured that out, when I began blogging. I hope one day, that she too does someday see that.

    Needless to say, this healthcare bill is NOT going to be like Christmas….for anybody.