Thursday, November 29, 2012

On That Whole 'Death Panels' Thing:
What Exactly Did Sarah Palin
Have Wrong Here Again? 

They're not only deliberately targeting older patients for euthanasia in Brit hospitals.  They've also been doing it for infants as well.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240075/Now-sick-babies-death-pathway-Doctors-haunting-testimony-reveals-children-end-life-plan.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

One doctor has admitted starving and dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital alone.

Writing in a leading medical journal, the physician revealed the process can take an average of ten days during which a baby becomes ‘smaller and shrunken’.

The LCP – on which 130,000 elderly and terminally-ill adult patients die each year – is now the subject of an independent inquiry ordered by ministers. 
The investigation, which will include child patients, will look at whether cash payments to hospitals to hit death pathway targets have influenced doctors’ decisions. 
Medical critics of the LCP insist it is impossible to say when a patient will die and as a result the LCP death becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. They say it is a form of euthanasia, used to clear hospital beds and save the NHS money.

But the 'cool' thing to do 4 years ago was laugh when Palin pointed out limited financial resources means rationing.  Which means decisions being made on who get's care and who's marked for death based on $.  

They can 'now reveal' that they've been doing this for years.  Awesome.  Why do you suppose they never 'reveal' this is the kind of sh*t they'll be doing from the start?  Maybe because if they told everybody the truth about what they'd be doing, selling one-payer health systems would be harder to do?  

UPDATE: Now that whistleblowers have come forward and some of Englands's ministers are asking the right questions, all kinds of troubling things about the one-payer NHS are coming out.  

Half the patients placed on the Liverpool Death Pathway are never told life-sustaining treatment has been stopped: 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9716418/Half-of-those-on-Liverpool-Care-Pathway-never-told.html
The study suggests that in total, around 57,000 patients a year are dying in NHS hospitals without being told that efforts to keep them alive have been stopped. 
It also reveals that thousands of dying patients have been left to suffer in pain, with no attempt to keep them comfortable while drugs were administered. 
Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, last night described the disclosures from records held by 178 NHS hospitals as "totally unacceptable".
He said the failure to consult patients would now be examined by an independent inquiry, which will also look at payments made to hospitals for meeting targets to place people on the pathway.
How can they get away with that?  Simple: It's the State.  Who are you gonna turn to if you don't like how they do their 'business'? 

Leave us not forget that when you end up in a one-payer system, there are several key features to it: 

1. The Gov't has no competition.  It sets it's own prices and has no market out there to make them lower their prices, improve their services or innovate to stay ahead.  No competition = only game in town.  This is sort of self-evident yet the Left is constantly trying to sell the idea that a one payer system lowers costs and improves service.   They claim it'll have the EFFECTS of a free market with competition without actually HAVING any free market.  This is so stupid only an academic could believe it.  Or a Liberal.   Find one Gov't run monopoly that is done better than the private sector could do it.  Public schools? The post office?  Veteran's health care?  

2.  It's not any better if a evil health insurance company balks at paying it's own money to treat you  than if the benevolent caring State decides to let you die rather than spend tax dollars on you.   Health insurance isn't a charity.  They are in business to make a profit.  But some people have this idea single payer systems ARE a charity that is looking to give away tax dollars.  Far from it.  In single-payer systems what you end up with is ever-expanding numbers of people needing care and a static or even declining pool of revenue to spend on them.  At least in a free market you can quit one health insurance company if you find a better a deal elsewhere.  When state-run health care is your ONLY option, and they decide you're a bad investment for more tax dollars, you're pretty much screwed.  But we're constantly told it'd be better to have benevolent Gov't bureaucrats denying us care than those greedy bastard insurance adjuster in private business.  

Monty Python should do a skit. Some sick person in a Brit hospital being told by a twit Brit bureaucrat: We're going to let you die.....but at least you'll be dying because we won't spend any TAX $ on you, not because we're greedy capitalists refusing to share our profits!

3.  When the State takes a seat at the table with you & your Dr. over your health care, the State's interest comes first, not yours.    Private health insurance is providing a service to meet YOUR interests.  If you don't like the service you're getting, you can take your money  elsewhere.  Private insurance companies can't mandate 'X' number of customers buying their services every year to turn a profit.  Therefore because they are competing in a free market it behooves them to get up off their asses and provide better service than their competition so as to keep their customers from leaving.  When the Gov't is  the single health care provider, they don't have this 'problem'  There is no competitor down the street you could take your money to.  And let's note: you'd be making a VOLUNTARY decision to hand over your money to a private insurer.  Taxes are MANDATED and you have to pay them.  You don't go to jail or get fined if you fail to give your money to a private insurer in a free market.  So you'll be forced to participate in this single-payer system whether you want to  or not, and the State WILL be sitting at the table whenever your health care is discussed, whether you want them there or not, and the States interests will precede your own.  

And as the latest investigation is revealing, when the State think it's in IT'S best interests NOT to tell you  or your family they're kissing your ass goodbye, they'll stick you on this death pathway without telling you that's what they're doing.  

Hey, at least these people effectively being euthanized in England these days aren't being the victims of a greedy private insurance company out to increase it's PROFITS.  Nope - it's FAR BETTER that they are instead the victims of a State engaging in rationing to preserve a declining pool of tax revenue, isn't it?  

The free market isn't perfect, which is why it needs some regulation.  But anybody trying to sell you the idea of a State monopoly producing better care, lower prices and improved service is going against history, experience and common sense. 

UPDATE II: As if to underscore that last sentence in the previous update: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/health/health-insurers-will-be-charged-to-use-new-exchanges.html?ref=politics&_r=0
The Obama administration said Friday that it would charge insurance companies for the privilege of sellinghealth insurance to millions of Americans in new online markets run by the federal government.
The cost of these “user fees” can be passed on to consumers. The proposed fees could add 3.5 percent to premiums for private health plans sold in insurance exchanges operated by the federal government.
In a way, you have to admire the chutzpah that they waited until now to let everybody know this.  Costs for consumers going down?  Sure.  Sure they will.  

People thinking we've entered a Golden Age of Free Government Giveaways are in for a rude shock next year.  The Brokest Nation On Earth is cash-strapped and over $16 trillion in debt, but watch people that thought this healthcare stuff was 'free' react when they realize they have to purchase a policy out of their own pocket.  
If You're In The Middle Class, 
Have You Thanked A Rich Person
For Putting You There Yet? 

Obama & Co. are really good at pretending they are 'looking out for the middle class' when they are in fact trying to kick the foundation out from under it and shove it back down into the lower class.  

Twitter Rant.  That means you start at the bottom and read your way up, don't cha' know?





Wednesday, November 28, 2012

In Case You Ever Wondered Why 
Communists Built Walls Around Their
Countries & Shot People That Tried
To Leave..............

Now You'll Know. 

2/3rds Of Millionaires In Britain Have Left The Country



Well like that last line says, there go those stupid Conservatives again, drawing conclusions from this that no reasonable persons would make.  

Oh and here's a Conservative MP making the the usual ABSURD argument that raising the tax rates actually cost England 7 billion pounds in lost revenue: 

Last night, Harriet Baldwin, the Conservative MP who uncovered the latest figures, said: “Labour’s ideological tax hike led to a tax cull of millionaires.
Far from raising funds, it actually cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue."
Socialism: If You Build It, They WILL Leave......well, as long as there's no walls and nobody gets shot, that is.  
--------------------------------------------------

UPDATE:  Daniel Mitchell at the International Liberty blog asks if Obama's gonna learn anything from Britain's Laffer Curve Mistake: 

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/will-obama-learn-from-englands-laffer-curve-mistake/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


A funny thing often happens on the way to soaking the rich: They don’t stick around for the bath. Take Britain, where Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs service reports that the number of taxpayers declaring £1 million a year in income fell by more than 60% in fiscal 2010-2011 from the year before. That was the year that millionaires became liable for the 50% income-tax rate that Gordon Brown’s government introduced in its final days in 2010, up from the previous 40% rate.
Lo, the total number of millionaire tax filers plunged to 6,000 in 2010-2011, from 16,000 in 2009-2010. The new tax was meant to raise about £2.5 billion more revenue. So much for that. In 2009-2010 British millionaires contributed about £13.4 billion to the public coffers, or just under 9% of the total tax liability of all taxpayers that year. At the 50% rate, the shrunken pool yielded £6.5 billion, or about 4.4%.
Like I said - and like the commentor below refused to address - they claimed they were raising the rate to 50% to raise 2.5 billion more pounds in tax revenue yet they ended up actually collecting SIX AND A HALF BILLION POUNDS LESS at the higher rate than they had the year before when it was 40%.

Not only did they NOT get the new revenue they said they wanted, they now ended up with a net loss over 6.5 billion pounds.

Now, will Obama learn anything from England's huge mistake?  I'm gonna have to go with 'no', he won't learn anything.  He'll just find someone else to blame when the tax revenue actually drops after the tax rates are hiked.  But that's OK.  Let's say it all together now:  for the Left jacking up the tax rates ISN'T about getting more revenue for the Gov't to spend, it's about FAIRNESS & wealth redistribution.

So even though it's becoming increasingly clear in England that they've passed the revenue maximizing point on the Laffer Curve, expect to see the socialists over there claim the solution to declining tax revenue from the millionaires is to.......jack the rates up further.

Watch.  That's exactly what they'll do.  And then learning nothing from this, expect to see the socialists over here follow the same stupid policies.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012


We Lost Because More People
Want Big Government To 
Take Care Of Them
Than Want To Do It
Themselves.

We Can Cry About It Or
We Can Sell Them A
Better Vision Of America

Twitter Rant, my friends! Start down there at the bottom and read to the top! 


Monday, November 5, 2012

"Oh I'm Sorry.....
You've Maxed Out Your
RACE CARD........
YOU LOSER!
HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!"

Twitter Rant. Start at the bottom, read your way up! 


How I See The 
Electoral College
Playing Out Tomorrow 

Click on map to see larger version.

Friday, November 2, 2012

Anybody Else Remember How 
In 2008 The 
Democratic-Media-Complex
Seemingly Couldn't Stop Itself 
From Gushing Over The SIZE 
Of  The Crowds Obama Was 
Drawing & Comparing 
Them To McCain's?

Whatever happened to that? Anybody know?  


Anybody know why this DMC/MSM dog isn't barking about crowd sizes any more? 

If so, feel free to comment.  

UPDATE! Gateway Pundit has the  numbers. Crowd for Romney rally tonight was around 30,000. Meanwhile Obama's biggest crowd of the day was....4,000 in Springfield, OH:


In fact, Obama drew 2,800 and 3,800 at 2 other rallies today giving him a one day total of....10,600 (est.).  Or less than half of what Romney drew to this one rally tonight.  

UPDATE II: Now that the final GOTV in the swing states is underway, Obama For America had an event today in Cleveland Ohio with Stevie Wonder that drew........200 people.  
"I Just Called To Say Where Are You?"


Of course, OFA Ohio had an excuse when the local reporter asked why so few people turned out: 

They claim they only notified people 30 minutes before hand this event was being held.  As someone who's been involved in GOTV efforts, this is beyond epic fail.   Either the campaign botched this badly, or they are trying to pass off a REMINDER sent out over Twitter as the 1st time anyone was supposed to know about this event.  

You don't set up a Get-Out-The-Vote event with a celebrity and then wait until 30 minutes before to let the public know about it BY SENDING OUT A SINGLE MESSAGE ON TWITTER.  The report makes it clear many of these people were drawn by the sound of the live music.  

UPDATE III: More on those rally numbers from yesterday from the key battleground state of Ohio, where both campaigns are in a final last pitch attempt at Get Out The Vote efforts: 

Romney drew 30,000 to his rally last night: 


If you watched the rally live on CSPAN it was amazing.  CSPAN then showed Obama's own rally that night, also being held  in Ohio where he drew........2,800.  



Note this little bit of sophistry by the Dispatch reporter: Obama spoke to 2,800 supporters at the Franklin County Fairgrounds, while that loser Mitt Romney only managed to draw a crowd of 2,000 to his 'rally' that wasn't even a rally, it was an event held inside a factory.  

Nowhere in the article does the reporter admit while Obama was having his GOTV night time rally at the Fairgrounds with less than 3,000 people Romney was finishing up addressing 30,000 people in a county far less populous than the one Obama was in. 



UPDATE IV: Now the MSM is back to just inventing crowd numbers for Obama: 


Yep. Reporting a crowd of 'over 20,000' in an arena that seats 12,580. 
You Know What The Most
Amazing Thing About The 
Benghazi Cover Up Is?
That The White House Even
Tried It.

Twitter Rant from this morning.  Start at the bottom and read upwards!

Quick correction: I got one basic fact wrong during my impromptu rant: The drilling ban was supposed to last only 6 months, not 5 years.