Just How Insane Has 

England Gotten With

It's Gun Ban?

So Insane It's Sentenced 

People To PrisonFor Stumbling 

Over Illegal Guns

That They Turned In 

To The Police

Yes. Really.  

England's Handgun Crime Doubles A Decade After Handgun Ban

Not only did England's handgun crime double, the exact OPPOSITE of the intended result of the ban, they are now to the point they are throwing honest people into prison for turning in guns they found:

Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who have come into the possession of a firearm, even accidentally, have been harshly treated. In 2009 a former soldier, Paul Clarke, found a bag in his garden containing a shotgun. He brought it to the police station and was immediately handcuffed and charged with possession of the gun. At his trial the judge noted: "In law there is no dispute that Mr. Clarke has no defence to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant." Mr. Clarke was sentenced to five years in prison. A public outcry eventually won his release.

In November of this year, Danny Nightingale, member of a British special forces unit in Iraq and Afghanistan, was sentenced to 18 months in military prison for possession of a pistol and ammunition. Sgt. Nightingale was given the Glock pistol as a gift by Iraqi forces he had been training. It was packed up with his possessions and returned to him by colleagues in Iraq after he left the country to organize a funeral for two close friends killed in action. Mr. Nightingale pleaded guilty to avoid a five-year sentence and was in prison until an appeal and public outcry freed him on Nov. 29.

The system has gone so insane there that it took a huge public outcry to redress these two injustices visited upon these honest citizens.  The insane quote from the judge in the Clarke case sends a shiver down my spine.  Just possessing the gun, however you got it, makes you a criminal.  So off to prison with you! 

Does anybody in England need to seriously spend 3 seconds considering whether or not to turn in a gun they stumbled over after the Clarke case was made public?  

Only Liberal bureaucrats can construct & defend a system that can't tell between criminals and honest citizens any more.  

Also note this little factoid from the article: 

In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.

Wayne LaPierre at his press conference earlier this week was exactly correct:  unless/until your bad guy going around shooting people decides to kill himself, the only thing that'll stop him is a good guy with a gun.  And England's gun control was so strict when this massacre occured in 1987, that it took EIGHT LONG HOURS for that good guy with a gun to show up.  

All you gun control zealots pay attention: America WILL NEVER have that problem.  It will NEVER take 8 hours to get a good gun on the scene to deal with a situation like this.  

And note the biggest takeaway from the article: they banned handguns and a decade after the ban handgun crime is double what it was before the ban by the Gov't's own admission.  

America Does Not Have A 

Gun Control Problem.

It Has A CRIMINAL & 

CRAZY PERSON

Control Problem

Here's Newark mayor Cory Booker asking some good questions and making some excellent points on a Sunday talk show where he deviates from the 'blame the guns' mantra so many others are chanting: 

Booker is correct. It’s not really a GUN control problem, it’s a CRIMINAL control problem.

Chicago had 190+ shootings in a month. The authorities there know if they arrested, tried and locked up about 100 particular gang members – all of whom have been arrested for violent crimes with weapons before, many MULTIPLE TIMES – the shooting rate in that city would plummet.

BUT THEY’LL NEVER DO THAT. Specifically TARGETING gang members is racist, and liberal cities will NEVER do it. So they will continue the insane revolving-door policies that put violent criminals back on the street fast.

LIBERALS BUILT THIS BROKEN JUSTICE SYSTEM. But they don’t want any BLAME for the results of that system being broken. So they have become masters of scape-goating by constantly bringing up the GUN when some crook or crazy person they failed to lock up kills people.

They CAN’T allow the discussion to be about their broken system. They defend that system. They built it. They own it. It’a a compassionate system. IT’S THE BEST SYSTEM. So they can’t let you wingnutz criticize it for putting some violent criminal out there to commit further violent crimes.

What better way to keep the subject off THEIR failures than by insisting the discussion focus on that wingut fixation: GUNS. How dare you! How dare you still stand up for the 2nd Amendment after some crook they let walk kills more people!

They craftily and artfully get away with doing this every single time. The bureaucrats that created the broken justice system and the MSM deliberately seek to make the national conversation about something that reflects badly on the RIGHT, not the Left. And that means the national conversation MUST be about guns, not a broken system that THEY  created that repeatedly lets criminals or crazies back  out onto the street to victimize the rest of us.

Here’s a real life example of a broken justice system: I lived in the Virgin Islands for 7 years. One of my friends there had a relative who was a cop that was killed in a shooting this year.

us-virgin-island-officer-dies-four-months-after-shooting

St. Thomas, USVI Police Officer Colvin George

Officer Colvin George died in a Miami, Fla., hospital Saturday morning from injuries sustained in a May by a suspect who was killed in the shoot out, according to the local newspaper The St. Croix Source.

Georges and fellow officer Aaron Hodge both came under fire at a car wash on St. Thomas where a fatal shooting had occurred just before the May 26 attack that injured the two officers, according to the paper. Hodge was released a few days after the incident while Georges was gravely injured, paralyzed from the neck down and airlifted to Florida after the shooting.

The reported shooter in the incident had been arrested in April with crack cocaine, powder cocaine and marijuana all packaged for sale. The suspect also had a handgun.

The officer, Colvin George, was shot by a criminal who had just been arrested the previous month with drugs and a handgun. In April this crook was caught with a weapon. In May he shot Colvin Georges and another officer.

What kind of a system lets a dangerous drug dealer walk in less than a month?

And note this: the handgun the guy was caught with in April WASN’T the same one he had in May. He simply went out and got himself ANOTHER gun.

That’s what they are doing in places like Chicago. They catch these guys with guns, take the guns away, let them go after a brief time, and the first thing these guys do is go get themselves another gun.

I can’t help but wonder how many times in places like Chicago or the USVI has the SAME CRIMINAL had multiple GUNS taken off of him at various arrests?

Rather than examine what THEY are doing that is not working, the Liberal bureaucrats look for a SCAPEGOAT to relentlessly ATTACK to keep attention OFF of their failures.

And up until now, they've been getting away with it!  WHY does this clever – and insidious – strategy ALWAYS seem to work? 

At least some people on the Left like Cory Booker are finally starting to wake up and ask the right questions.  

Barack Obama:

The Most ENDANGERED

Man In All Of America

If the presence of guns make you less safe, Obama is really in a lot of danger, isn't he?  I mean really, someone should disarm the Secret Service pronto before one of them suddenly gets bewitched by his evil gun and blows our President away.  

Time For The Left To 

Finally Come Up

With An Official

'Are YOU Black Enough?'

Questionnaire

They could then have one of their elite guys quickly give the test to any black person that rises to national prominence.  That way they could just dispense with embarrassing public displays like this, in which ESPN's Rob Parker wonders out loud if Robert Griffen III is 'black enough':

http://www.sbnation.com/2012/12/13/3763450/espn-rob-parker-rg3-race

Now, being one of those supposedly virulently racist Conservatives and all,

 I'm probably not the best guy to opine on the subject of who's 'black enough', 

but this damn good QB looks purty black to me.

Parker: "My question, which is just a straight, honest question: is he a brother or is he a cornball brother?" 

Cari Champion: "What does that mean? 

Parker: "He's not really ... OK, he's black, he kinda does the thing, but he's not really down with the cause, he's not one of us. He's kinda black, but he's not really, like, the guy you really wanna hang out with because he's off to something else." 

Champion: "Why is that your question?" 

Parker: "Because that's just how I want to find out about him. I don't know because I keep hearing these things. We all know he has a white fiancée then there was all this talk about he was a Republican. There's no information at all. I'm just trying to dig deeper into why he has an issue because we did find out with Tiger Woods, Tiger Woods was like, "I got black skin but don't call me black.'"

Rob Parker was just trying to helpfully remind his fellow Libs they can't let the nation embrace RG3 yet; they still haven't vetted his politics.

Hey Griffen is from Texas.  He could be one of those darn inauthentically black Republicans.  So guys like Rob Parker and Toure on MSNBC want to 'check' Griffen out and make sure he holds all the correct political views before they give him the official "Baby, You Are Black Enough!' stamp of approval.  

I mean, God forbid a black guy who misses a few questions on the the politically correct "Accepted Political Beliefs of The Official National Black Famous People" checklist becomes a national superstar before the elites have thoroughly vetted his politics.  

As Stacy Dash found out awhile back, All Nationally Famous Black People are supposed to be on board with a single monolithic political view.  And if they are not..........SERIOUS QUESTIONS WILL BE RAISED ABOUT THEM. 

This kind of stupid identity politics refuses to die, where arrogant Liberals assume they KNOW what a person's political beliefs SHOULD be the moment they discern the skin color, the gender, and the class.  And if they find out the person has the 'wrong' political beliefs for their skin, gender or class, then it's time to ask what's 'wrong' with them, why they are race/gender/class traitors, etc. etc.  

If RG3 is a Republican, and he doesn't hold all the 'correct' beliefs Liberals think a black American 'should', there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with HIM.  There is, however, PLENTY wrong with those who keep displaying the kind of stupid crap we're seeing here from Rob Parker. 

UPDATE:  Allahpundit at Hot Air sums up pretty good why Rob Parker is in trouble; not for playing identity politics per se; that goes on ALL THE TIME.  He's in hot water for PICKING THE WRONG TARGET: 

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/13/hot-topic-on-espn-today-is-rg-iii-a-cornball-brother-who-votes-republican/

You know what’s interesting about this clip? This guy’s going to catch hell for what he said, not because his test of racial authenticity is so cartoonish and clammy (which it is) but because he picked the wrong guy to demagogue. 

If you want to call a minority conservative an Uncle Tom, make sure it’s someone for whom the left has no use, like Clarence Thomas or Allen West. The right will be angry if you do, but no worries — most Americans will never hear about it, or if they do, the usual outrage over racial stereotyping will be absent from the press coverage.  

Instead this dummy picked on the savior of Washington football, the most exciting thing to happen to ‘Skins fans, left and right, in decades. There are few ways that a “cornball brother” can earn absolution from the Authenticity P.D. but winning the Super Bowl is one. And the irony is, I’m not even sure that RGIII actually is a Republican. I’ve seen that rumor floated but never any quote from the man himself; if I’m wrong, send me the link and I’ll update.  

We’ll know soon, though: Now that Parker’s raised the specter of racial impurity, the pressure will be on Griffin to admit that, yes indeed, he’s one of the enlightened who voted Democratic last month.

This Just In: 

French Socialists Upset That

France's Millionaires Aren't 

Hanging Around To Get 

Soaked By A 75% Tax Rate

Aw gee.  Who could have foreseen this?  Latest French rich bastard to head for the border?  French actor Gerard Depardieu. 

Mon Dieu, 75% you say?! Non! Non! 

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/10/french-socialists-seem-surprised-upset-that-wealthy-actor-has-decided-to-jump-ship/

The great thing about Socialism is watching Socialists not learn anything from experience.  

England just had over 10,000 people that were earning over 1,000,000 pounds a year go 'poof'! and disappear from the tax rolls.  Seems that if you jack your tax rate up from 40% of their income to 50%, these greedy rich bastards WILL take steps to shelter their money and alter their economic activity to lower the amount of their earnings that are subject to taxation.  

This led to the hilarious sight of socialist politicians in England ponying up for what they thought would be a cool new $2.5 billion pounds in fresh tax revenue that they had already mentally spent....and then realizing that what they were in fact looking at was a $6.5 billion pound DECREASE from what they had just collected from this income group the year before.  

[You can read about the wonderful lesson the Brits just got on the Laffer Curve right HERE ]

So.......jack up your tax rate 10% from 40% to 50%....collect $6.5 billion pounds less.  Awesome work there, guys.  But hey, the French believe they can TOP that.  

They jacked THEIR tax rate on the wealthy all the way up to a staggering 75% of their yearly income.  And now the wealthy in France are reacting just as anybody with two brain cells to rub together knew they would.  

Which doesn't include socialists, who once again express surprise and 'disappointment' at coming face to face with....reality.  

Now That The Election Is

Safely Over, Howard Dean

Gets Around To Admitting

What Anybody With 

Two Functioning Brain Cells

Already Knew: 

Yes, EVERYBODY In America Is Going To Have To Pay More Taxes.  Not Just 'The Rich'.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/12/06/howard_dean_the_truth_is_everybody_needs_to_pay_more_taxes_not_just_the_rich.html

HOWARD DEAN: The only problem is -- and this is initially going to seem like heresy from a progressive is -- the truth is everybody needs to pay more taxes, not just the rich. And it's a good start. But we're not going to get out of this deficit problem unless we raise taxes across the board, to go back to what Bill Clinton had and his taxes. And if we don't do that, the problem is the pressure is going to be on spending even more.

Now I could lay down some snark here, do a whole "Oh hey, had Dean transmitted this to Comrade Obama yet?" routine but nah........there's no point.  Obama already knows.  He's known all along. 

He just got re-elected while BS'ing the entire country that only that super-rich 2% was gonna feel any pain from this.  Conservatives have been pointing out for 4 years now there's no way you fix the deficit problem by just jacking up the tax rates on this 1%, 2% or whatever the f*ck % they change it to tomorrow.  EVERYBODY is going to have to pay more.  

In case anybody forgot, or never knew this in the first place, here's how much new tax revenue will be generated if Obama gets his tax hike on that 2%: 

Yep, that's some real problem-solver you got there.  

Look, January will be Year Five of The Age of Barack.  We're LONG PAST any cosmetic, just- play-to-the-base  class warfare BS maneuvers like this.  Obama is the freaking President.  His job is to DEAL with the problems.  Yet he's still doing the same crap he was doing 2 years ago.  

Any REAL plan would have specific spending cuts in it and it would outline how entitlements will be reformed.  Obama's fiscal cliff plan has neither.  All it has is an absurd targeted tax hike that amounts to a rounding error when dealing with the real crisis.  

Democrats don't even want to vote on Obama's fiscal cliff plan because they know how unserious it is.  What this country needs now is real leadership to deal with real problems it faces. 

When Obama wants to put out a real plan that actually deals with the deficit problem, Republicans will work with him on it.  

In Case You Were Wondering 

If Democrats Are Serious 

At All About That 

Fiscal Cliff Plan Obama 

Offered Last Week.........

You now have your answer: 

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/05/huh-thats-odd-harry-reid-declines-to-bring-a-vote-on-obamas-cliff-plan/

On the Senate floor on Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell offered to give Democrats a chance to go on the record and demonstrate just how serious they are about averting the fiscal cliff by proposing a vote on the package that President Obama proposed last week. Take it away, McConnell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JHQFe1qrxSo

This forced Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid to claim that an attempt to get Democrats to publicly vote on Obama's own plan was a 'stunt'.  

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/harry-reid-denies-senate-chance-vote-obamas-plan_665091.html

How DARE these Republicans try to force Democrats to vote on the record over Obama's own fiscal cliff plan! The nerve of some people?!

It must be remembered in his years as President Obama has proffered one terrible plan after another that Democrats have to run away from.  Three budgets have been proposed by Obama since 2009.  Not one single Republican voted for any of them.  BUT THAT'S OK - not a single Democrat in the House OR the Senate cast a vote for them either.  

So Obama was totally unserious with this fiscal cliff plan. And Democrats in Congress KNOW this.  And they can't hide it. 

Say, That Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman 

Prosecutor Is Just A 

Chug-Chug-Chugin' Along

Towards Disbarment, Isn't She? 

Yep.  Lessee here, she waited until the NINTH supplemental discovery to release THIS photograph:

Note I said supplemental discovery; not the MAIN discovery.  Which was supposed to have been done months ago.

For purposes of comparison, here's what George Zimmerman's nose looks like when it's not blown up to blimp-size proportions from having been broken:

Jim Treacher at The Daily Caller probably puts it best: 

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/03/a-photograph-of-george-zimmerman-we-havent-seen-before-for-some-reason/

Weird. Remember when there was some question whether Zimmerman was really injured that night? Whether his story matched up with the evidence? Remember how the people conducting Zimmerman’s trial by media assumed he made it all up?

Well, I’m sure there’s a perfectly good reason we haven’t seen this photograph until now. I have no idea what it could possibly be, but I’m sure it’s really good.

Think about the huge amount of media coverage that surrounded this case for over 3 months.  No, wait! Let me rephrase that, ok?  Think about the huge amount of media coverage that surrounded this case DRIVING A RACIAL NARRATIVE for over 3 months.  

And a big part of that narrative was that since Zimmerman was some kinda hulking redneck that leaped from his SUV to attack, pistol-whip and then cold-bloodedly murder a tiny unarmed black teenager, Zimmerman must be MAKING UP this story about Martin having hit him first and jumped on top of him and in the process of beating the sh*t out of him when he was shot.  

And from the VERY BEGINNING the prosecution had in it's possession evidence that backed up Zimmerman's story. And they suppressed it.  

Ace of Spades shows that there was a REASON the only thing they released before now was a very crappy, grainy, black and white photocopy of this picture: 

http://minx.cc/?post=335406

They previously released a grainy black and white photocopy of the picture in their main discovery.

Why? Why would they release the photocopy but not the best evidence (the actual picture)? 

Because, of course, the best evidence makes it very clear that Zimmermann was pummeled whereas the black and white picture, being grainy, is open to a bit of interpretation. In the black and white picture, you can't tell his face is bloodied -- it just looks like the hair of his mustache and goatee.

AWESOME. So another prosecutor heard the siren song of a national media that got the basic facts of the case wrong as they shoe-horned the story into their usual false narrative so they could have another one of those 'teachable moments' about how inherently racist America is.  Angela Corey will end up trying to convict the defendant anyway, and likely end up getting disbarred.

Does NOBODY remember what happened to Mike Nifong after the Duke Rape Case fell apart?

http://drawandstrike.blogspot.com/2012/04/we-just-could-be-watching-duke-rape.html

The media tried that case in the press and DEMANDED that those lacrosse players be prosecuted for rape.  By the time Nifong figured out he HAD no rape case, it was too late.  He'd answered the call.  He heard the siren song and he responded.  He was gonna be a hero and put those racist white asses in prison!  

So he ended up trying to MANUFACTURE a case and got caught.  

Corey is now following the exact same pattern, and she won't get away with it either.

Politicizing Tragedy 101:

Bob Costas Uses Halftime Show of

Sunday Night Football To Call 

For Banning of Handguns

In case you didn't see what Costas did, here's the clip: 

Several observations can be made here, so let's throw'em out: 

1. Chicago has THE strictest control of handguns in the nation.  How's that working out?  Not too swell, actually.  But in the Liberal mindset, this apparently means Chicago doesn't have ENOUGH strict gun control yet.  Just wait until they pass a few more laws, I'm sure they'll fix the problem. 

2.  Guns aren't just used in crimes.  They are also used for self-defense.  Guns don't just take lives, they save them, as the author shows in point #5 here: 

http://www.justfactsdaily.com/five-fallacies-about-guns-and-violence

Fallacy # 5: Guns are rarely used for self-defense

In a commentary published by CNN, David Frum, a CNN contributor and former speechwriter for George W. Bush, asserted that

a gun in the house is not a guarantee of personal security — it is instead a standing invitation to family tragedy. The cold dead hands from which they pry the gun are very unlikely to be the hands of a heroic minuteman defending home and hearth against intruders. They are much more likely to be the hands of a troubled adolescent or a clumsy child.

Like many issues in the field of social science, the question of how often guns are used for self-defense is surprisingly complicated. In the words of the above-cited National Academies of Science study, the

the data on defensive gun uses are … potentially error ridden. Without reliable information on the prevalence of defensive gun use, researchers are forced to make implausible and unsubstantiated assumptions about the accuracy of self-reported measures of resistance.

However, when counting only the bare minimum of defensive gun uses implied by the most rigorous surveys, the number of defensive gun uses far exceeds the number of violent crimes committed with guns.

For example, anti-gun researcher David McDowall and others conducted a major survey of defensive gun use that was published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology in 2000. The authors did not take their survey results to their logical conclusions by using the common practice of weighting them, but when one does this to find what the results would be for a nationally representative survey sample, the results imply that U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year. This figure accounts only for “clear” cases of defensive gun use and is based upon a weighting calculation designed to minimize defensive gun uses.

Likewise, when one minimizes the defensive gun uses from a survey conducted by pro-gun researchers Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz that was published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in 1995, the results imply at least 1,029,615 defensive gun uses per year. For comparison, based upon survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 436,000 violent crimes were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun in 2008.

It's amazing how people accept the fact police officers and soldiers carry guns to protect themselves and others, but somehow a gun in the hands of a private citizen is some kind of public menace.  

3.  The people wringing their hands over the Belcher 'tragedy' so they can use it to politicize the gun issue seem to think murders won't happen if there is no private gun ownership.  Hello? 

It's almost as if some people out there would have been happier if Belcher had strangled his girlfriend then jumped off a bridge. No evil gun involved.....so......better?

4.  NBC & other media keep trying to INCLUDE Belcher in their 'tragedy' talk, as if he himself is some kind of victim of the gun he used.  Like it was some kind of evil voodoo object that bewitched him or something.  Of all the media coverage I saw yesterday, ONLY  Rodney Harrison at the post game show showed any anger at this, pointing out Belcher MURDERED someone.  

This blame the gun, ignore the person who used it mentality has reached bizarre levels when a murder victim is repeatedly described throughout the day as having 'lost her life in a tragedy' so they can somehow include her murderer as a victim of the evil gun he used on her and then himself. 

Needless to say, Costa's absurd pontificating invoked a backlash that NBC is still dealing with.  

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 companies in the private sector.  

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 State's 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?

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.

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!