Friday, September 11, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Getting To the Truth
Obama is trying to overhaul health care without being able to tap into widespread public unhappiness. Nearly nine out of 10 Americans say they have coverage—and large majorities of them are happy with it. Of the 46 million uninsured, 9.7 million are not U.S. citizens; 17.6 million have annual incomes of more than $50,000; and 14 million already qualify for Medicaid or other programs. That leaves less than five million people truly uncovered out of a population of 307 million. Americans don't believe this problem—serious but correctable—justifies the radical shift Mr. Obama offers.

It's just 2% of the population.
Just a few questions for you and your Congressperson to consider:
Do we really need a “trillion” dollar overhaul of the health care system?
Could a relatively simple approach such as “assigned risk” in automobile insurance be similarly applied to “citizens” who can’t otherwise qualify or afford health insurance?
Instead of nationwide, government run treatment standards and a large number of special interest provisions, should Congressional legislation focus on incentives to increase the supply of doctors and nurses and facilities, and incentives to increase the successful, low cost regional models (eg: Mayo Clinic; Northern CA Kaiser; Grand Junction Colorado fee-for-service approach)?
Shouldn’t Medicare and Medicaid reform focus on eliminating fraud and waste rather than challenging medical judgments and customary fees?
Why isn’t Congress considering comprehensive tort reform that shields medical practitioners from malpractice claims when they act in good faith with regard to patient care? (Seems to me we aren't going to attack unnecessary costs without doing what we can to remove the fear of making a mistake.)
Instead of getting into the health insurance business as a competitor, why doesn’t the government take steps to increase insurance company competitiveness by eliminating mandatory coverage’s and permitting marketing across state lines, with appropriate regulation to avoid bad products?
What about retaining or increasing tax incentives to keep employer contributions in the game...perhaps with better portability?
Let’s forget about political legacies and focus on defining the problem and thoroughly debating alternative solutions. Let’s take the time to get it right.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Harry Reid - Senate Majority Buffoon
He also seems to suffer from delusions. According to the below article from http://www.politico.com/, Reid's "advisers believe he’s suffering in the polls because hundreds of thousands of new voters have moved into the state since 1998, when Reid last engaged in a fiercely competitive campaign."
Perhaps Reid and his advisers should visit Nevada some time, since that statement couldn't be further from the truth. We have been in Nevada for all of Reid's elections and his popularity among long-time Nevadans is very poor.
Sig Rogich, who is a big shot in Nevada (at least southern Nevada where he has a school named after him), said that Harry Reid needs to re-introduce himself to Nevadans. Wow, Sig, we aren't that stupid. We know him too well and we don't like what we see.
Below is the full article on Reid's re-election:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26898.html
Friday, September 4, 2009
Government-run Healthcare Makes Us Sick
The following information was disseminated by the League of American Voters
Are Obama and his friends taking you as a fool?
You have to wonder what they really think about the intelligence of the American people.
Obama repeatedly has out-and-out lied about his healthcare plan.
Here are just 5 of the big whoppers.
Lie #1: 'You Keep Your Doctor, You Keep Your Insurer'
This is a complete fabrication.
Under plans Obama has backed in the House and the Senate, almost any business can opt their employees into the "public option" — the government health plan.
That means you could lose your insurer. And if your doctor is worth his salt, you'll lose him or her as well.
Why? Because great doctors probably will not want to get the very low rates the government will pay private doctors who are part of the new government system.
So, without your consent, you very easily could lose your insurer and your doctor.
Lie #2: The Elderly Will Not Face Rationing or Medicare Cuts
More baloney.
In fact, just last week, The New York Times, a very liberal and very pro-Obama newspaper, admitted that fears of rationing for elderly patients are "not irrational."
The truth is that Obamacare would send almost 50 million new patients to government care.
Who would pay for it. You would!
Seniors on Medicare will be the first hit.
Here's what the Times reported: "Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a lifeline for the elderly, on the assumption that doctors and hospitals can be more efficient."
This means that faceless bureaucrats will decide the type and quality of your care.
It is a very dangerous thing to give your life and well-being over to government bureaucrats!
Imagine if you or a loved one is older than 80 years and critically needs heart surgery.
Instead of getting the heart procedure, you or that loved one could be informed that you are simply too old.
We at the League of American Voters have been warning of this danger and have a powerful TV commercial exposing the risks to seniors.
You can see the ad by Going Here Now
Lie #3: There Will Be No "Death Panels."
More lies.
Sure, they don't call them "death panels" in the legislation, but that's what their job will be.
These committee members will set guidelines with which faceless bureaucrats will make decisions about you and your healthcare.
They will decide who lives and who dies. They decide who gets critical procedures and expensive medicines.
Again, according to the New York Times, the Democratic plans call for saving money by creating new oversight committees.
The Times says that Medicare and insurers would be expected to follow "advice from a new federal panel of medical experts on 'what treatments work best.'"
Again, this very liberal paper concluded: "The zeal for cutting health costs, combined with proposals to compare the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing, which could affect access to the most expensive services in the final months of life."
Expose the lies — Go Here Now.
Lie #4: The Obama Plan Contains Costs
Absolute nonsense.
The Obama plan will cost more than $1 trillion in new federal outlays, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
This past weekend, Sen. Joe Lieberman claimed that most of this cost comes from adding 50 million people, currently uninsured, to the government health system.
But as Lieberman pointed out, we just don't have the money to do this right now.
You can add only so many people to the government system by cutting medical care to seniors on Medicare and raising taxes.
Democrats clearly plan to do both.
Lie #5: Illegals Are Not Covered by Obamacare
President Obama has stated time and again that illegal aliens are not covered under his new plan.
Still, Democrats say they want to add almost 50 million uninsured. Yet almost one-quarter of these uninsured are illegal aliens.
None of the Democratic plans excludes illegal aliens.
In fact, when Republicans proposed an amendment to the House plan to block illegals from getting free government healthcare, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her minions soundly defeated the motion.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
What Could Go Wrong?
"The White House is hiring a contractor to harvest information about Americans from its pages on social networking websites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube and Flickr.
"The National Legal and Policy Center, or NLPC, revealed the White House New Media team is seeking to hire a technology vendor to collect data such as comments, tag lines, e-mail, audio and video from any place where the White House "maintains a presence" – for a period of up to eight years.
"'The contractor shall provide the necessary services to capture, store, extract to approved formats, and transfer content published by EOP (Executive Office of the President) on publicly-accessible web sites, along with information posted by non-EOP persons on publicly-accessible web sites where the EOP offices under PRA (Presidential Records Act) maintains a presence,' the posting states."
The rest of the article is at this link: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108696
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
September 8 - New Public School Holiday
http://pajamasmedia.com/vodkapundit/2009/09/01/youve-got-a-better-idea/
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Don't Let the Door Hit You, Harry...
SHERMAN FREDERICK: Enough is enough, Harry Stop the childish bullying
This newspaper traces its roots to before Las Vegas was Las Vegas.
We've seen cattle ranches give way to railroads. We chronicled the construction of Hoover Dam. We reported on the first day of legalized gambling. The first hospital. The first school. The first church. We survived the mob, Howard Hughes, the Great Depression, several recessions, two world wars, dozens of news competitors and any number of two-bit politicians who couldn't stand scrutiny, much less criticism.
We're still here doing what we do for the people of Las Vegas and Nevada. So, let me assure you, if we weathered all of that, we can damn sure outlast the bully threats of Sen. Harry Reid.
On Wednesday, before he addressed a Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce luncheon, Reid joined the chamber's board members for a meet-'n'-greet and a photo. One of the last in line was the Review-Journal's director of advertising, Bob Brown, a hard-working Nevadan who toils every day on behalf of advertisers. He has nothing to do with news coverage or the opinion pages of the Review-Journal.
Yet, as Bob shook hands with our senior U.S. senator in what should have been nothing but a gracious business setting, Reid said: "I hope you go out of business."
Later, in his public speech, Reid said he wanted to let everyone know that he wants the Review-Journal to continue selling advertising because the Las Vegas Sun is delivered inside the Review-Journal.
Such behavior cannot go unchallenged.
You could call Reid's remark ugly and be right. It certainly was boorish. Asinine? That goes without saying.
But to fully capture the magnitude of Reid's remark (and to stop him from doing the same thing to others) it must be called what it was -- a full-on threat perpetrated by a bully who has forgotten that he was elected to office to protect Nevadans, not sound like he's shaking them down.
No citizen should expect this kind of behavior from a U.S. senator. It is certainly not becoming of a man who is the majority leader in the U.S. Senate. And it absolutely is not what anyone would expect from a man who now asks Nevadans to send him back to the Senate for a fifth term.
If he thinks he can push the state's largest newspaper around by exacting some kind of economic punishment in retaliation for not seeing eye to eye with him on matters of politics, I can only imagine how he pressures businesses and individuals who don't have the wherewithal of the Review-Journal.
For the sake of all who live and work in Nevada, we can't let this bully behavior pass without calling out Sen. Reid. If he'll try it with the Review-Journal, you can bet that he's tried it with others. So today, we serve notice on Sen. Reid that this creepy tactic will not be tolerated.
We won't allow you to bully us. And if you try it with anyone else, count on going through us first.
That's a promise, not a threat.
And it's a promise to our readers, not to you, Sen. Reid.
Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@reviewjournal.com) is publisher of the Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.