Sicko, Healthcare, and Capitalism

I have been reading a lot about Michael Moore’s documentary regarding the status of healthcare in the United States. While the response has been divided along party lines, only the conservatives seem to get the true picture. First, let’s take a look at the current state of healthcare in the United States and then we will contrast it against the socialized medicine model.

There is a lot to be proud of in American medicine. The emergency medical system for example, is one of the best in the world. Where I live, it is an all ALS or Advanced Life Support system with a typical response time of eight minutes or less for priority one calls. Additionally, the fire service also responds because they can typically be anywhere in the city in about three minutes or less. Add in the helicopter fleet, and we can even provide you with blood, central intravenous access, and other advanced life saving procedures in transit to a level one trauma center. Although the front end EMS system is very good at what they do, it is not cheap. In order to place one ALS ambulance on the road with all of its equipment, it will cost about four-hundred and fifty thousand (450,000) dollars and we haven’t even found a crew to run it yet.

When you arrive at the hospital emergency room, you are triaged and then taken care of by Registered Nurses who have a minimum of an Associate’s degree and thousands of hours of training and a medical doctor who has spent 10 years of his life in the pursuit of his profession. The hospital not only has to treat you, but everybody else who comes through their door with a life threatening sickness or injury, regardless of insured status. Why? Because that is the law and it is posted prominently in numerous languages to inform the public when they go to the emergency room. Therefore, when you are billed for your visit, you also are billed for the uninsured’s visit because the hospital cannot operate at a loss, if they did they would soon have to close their doors.

While the American healthcare system is the best in the world, at least I suppose that it is judging by the amount of foreigners who come to our shores for medical treatment unavailable at home or in the time they need or want it, we also have our problems. For example, medical doctors being overruled by a registered nurse employed by the patient’s insurance carrier. How an RN can overrule and MD is beyond comprehension. If we were to take this logic and apply it to the military it would go something like this:

Sergeant: I am sorry General Wilkins, but I cannot approve your strategic strike. It is militarily unnecessary.

General: I don’t think that you understand the strategic importance of the target. If we strike now, it could save millions of lives!

Sergeant: While I appreciate your frustration General, I cannot approve your plan. You must withdraw your combat forces.

While the exchange above seems to be ludicrous, and it is, it is never the less something that an insurance company actually did.

Insurance carriers only make money by denying claims. However, they must approve just enough claims to appear to be reliable. If they manage to keep the balance, then the insurance company will succeed. If they cannot, then they will perish. That is the harsh reality of the situation because the insurance company is accepting your risk. Modest changes could make this system more efficient as long as the balance is maintained. Otherwise, as the insurance company’s profits will dwindle and so to will the number of company’s providing such insurance and the cost of health insurance will sky-rocket.

However, along comes Michael Moore with his propaganda, which is what you call a film that presents half truths in order to fulfill your political agenda, and he says that he has the answer to your frustrations. Moore contrasts the American health care system to Great Britain, France, and Cuba and he finds us severely wanting. What Moore does not tell you, are how these systems are operated. The benefit to cost ratio of treating your illness is too high? You are on your own. You need advanced diagnostics? Wait three months. You need cutting edge medicines that cost a fortune? Forget it. Use the cheaper medicine we give you despite the side effects. You do not have to accept this though, you can always go into your own pocket and pay for needed services at a private facility, but if you can’t pay you are done.

For an example of a world class healthcare system, look at Germany. They have an excellent EMS system, fantastic hospitals, and great medical staffs, but they also have an eighty percent income tax and that is what Moore covers up in his propaganda piece. Can we socialize medicine? Sure we can, but do you want to pay for it? Are you willing to give up your current standard of living in order to do it? Socialized medicine will not work in the United States. We want immediate service, we want the best of the best, but we don’t want to pay for it. We want money for personal computers, game boys, movies, HD TV, and designer clothing. We are willing to pay for these things regardless of cost, but healthcare? Hell no! Pardon me, but are we not edging toward the ridiculous here?

We have all the money we want for expensive houses, high priced automobiles, dining out at the best establishments, and purchasing our toys, but the government has to pay for our healthcare because it is too expensive. Spare me.

Moore’s diatribe and the conjoining opinions expressed by the American Communist Party or Democrats as they prefer to be called, is merely a blow aimed squarely at capitalism. If you feel that the profits enjoyed by American corporations are an outrage, then perhaps you would be happier if you immigrated to Cuba. I understand that they have a marvelous healthcare system there.

E85: Why Its Time Has Come

E85 is a bio-fuel made from ethyl alcohol and 15% gasoline. By transitioning to E85 we will reduce our national consumption of gasoline burned in automobiles by 75%. Such a reduction will greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil and because ethyl alcohol comes from corn, it will also give the American farmer a boost as well. Additionally, the environmental effects of burning E85 will drastically reduce the carbon footprint of the American automobile.

Essentially what I am telling you is that E85 is an all around, great solution to our dependence on foreign oil. However, E85 will also prove to be an effective weapon in the global war on terror. The current sale of Middle Eastern oil to the world has funded terror organizations and radical Islam as well as supported corrupt and extreme governments. By severely curtailing our national expenditure for Middle Eastern oil we can starve out the terrorists by indirectly eliminating the funding they depend on. Additionally, by offering an alternative fuel source to the world, America can emerge as the new fuel leader. This can be done by leveraging our agricultural might into the creation of the crops necessary to create E85.

Currently, Detroit is manufacturing automobiles that can burn E85 or the 10% ethanol blend of gasoline currently in use. However, these flex fuel vehicles have few places to fuel up on E85. This is because of distribution problems associated with the newer fuel. The primary reason for the distribution bottleneck is the amount of the gum that accumulates in the transport system. However, given time and research, we can solve these problems in a matter of a few years.

The chief competitor to E85 fuel is the hybrid vehicles that combine gasoline and battery technology. However, these vehicles are expensive and there is also the problem of the battery. When the battery needs to be replaced, it represents a potential environmental hazard as well as a potential danger should the vehicle become involved in a rear end collision. Additionally, existing electrical power infrastructure is not equipped to handle these vehicles in large numbers and while many have touted that the vehicles will act as storage devices for the power grid, this is merely a pipe dream.

While the hybrid vehicles will reduce CO2 emissions, the E85 fuel will cause a still greater reduction in these levels. Unfortunately, the costs associated with increasing electrical power generation and solving the distribution problems with E85 is approximately equal, but the hybrid technology will prove ineffective in combating terror funding and radical Islam.

As far as the environmental impact is concerned, E85 is clearly superior to the hybrid technology. Further, emerging economies will benefit from the significantly reduced emissions and cost without sacrificing economic growth. It is with these economies that E85 will prove its environmental value because it burns far cleaner than today’s fuel while not applying the brakes to an expanding economy. While hybrids can also reduce pollutants in these areas, it will also serve as a brake on economic progress because of the higher total cost of ownership and necessary infrastructure.

The reasons are clear. The time to push for E85 is now. It will combat man’s contribution to global warming, be an economic boon to the American Farmer, assist foreign nations in the reduction of their CO2 emissions without slowing their economy, make the United States the global leader in this fueling technology while expanding our own economy, and finally, drive a nail in the coffin of international terror. Contact your Congressman or U.S. Senator and tell them that you want this fuel and you expect the Federal government to move in that direction.

Identifying the Democrats: Who They Are Part IV

Corruption can be defined as follows:

1. the act of corrupting or state of being corrupt.

2. moral perversion; depravity.

3. perversion of integrity.

4. corrupt or dishonest proceedings.

5. bribery.

6. debasement or alteration, as of language or a text.

7. a debased form of a word.

8. putrefactive decay; rottenness.

9. any corrupting influence or agency.

While it is true that no party can claim to be free of corruption, the Democrats have damned near made a virtue of it. Remember when Nancy Pelosi made her “first, ever, woman Speaker of the House” speech? She said that she would preside over the most open, transparent, honest, and ethical Congress in the history of the United States. Everybody around her was smiling and applauding and the news media had an orgasm while the foot soldiers of the apocalypse, excuse me, Democratic base, cheered.

However, when we examine the shining example of how politics are supposed to be done at the Federal level, we see a picture far different than the one promised by Speaker Pelosi. Let’s take a look at the current state of affairs: the Democrats are trying to create slush funds containing BILLIONS of dollars so they can fund their pet pork projects without the public being aware, they are diligently attempting to sneak through immigration reform that the American voters do not want, they continue to stymie securing the borders and thereby increasing our national security, and Congressman William Jefferson’s relentless pursuit of the title, “Most Corrupt Politician in American History.” Is it any wonder that the Congress now has a lower public approval rating than President Bush? Brilliant job Madame Speaker! Bravo!! You actually managed to do absolutely none of what you promised.

Hark; is that the Democratic base calling for her removal? Never mind, it’s just another chorus of impeach Bush. Despite the incompetence of Nancy Pelosi, she of course is above approach, because if she were to go down as the incompetent, effete, boob that she is, it would be a disaster for the Democrats and women everywhere. But why worry about Pelosi or our national security when we still have Teddy “The Traitor” Kennedy or John “Step and Fetch It” Conyers or Harry “White Power” Byrd still in office? After all, the voters serve them right?

Despite the blatant lies and ineptitude of Ms. Pelosi, the outreach to the intelligence services of our nation’s enemies in an effort to undermine an American President, crass racism, and using Federal employees for fun and profit, it is refreshing to know that the Democrats have not changed. Corruption is the hallmark of the Democratic Party. From Dan Rostenkowski to William Jefferson the Democrats have lied, snuck by legislation, funded pork, and danced with the devil in their unflagging support of communism in order to achieve their political goals. Worse, they lionize those who get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Conyers uses his Federal staff to pick up his dry cleaning, baby sit his kids, and God knows what else and he still gets a leadership role in the House (again, bravo Speaker Pelosi for giving us that shining example of Democratic ethics)

Linda Chavez reporting in the Jewish World Review said the following regarding the habit of Democrats to trivialize the crimes of their members:

“Gerry Studds, a liberal Massachusetts Democrat, described his activity with a male page a decade earlier as "a mutually voluntary private relationship between adults," despite evidence that he plied the 17-year-old boy with alcohol before initiating sex. The House Ethics Committee also charged that Studds unsuccessfully solicited sex from two other male pages. Studds not only kept his job, but received standing ovations from Democratic crowds following the censure votes.” I suppose that statutory rape is only for the “common” folks or as we are called outside of D.C., voters.

Interestingly, this behaviour does not extend to those outside the party. Take Congressman Mark Foley for example. He sent some inappropriate emails to a male intern and when they were made public, that ended his political career. Did the Democrats also cheer him for attempting to do what Gerry Studds did? Not a chance, they howled like a stuck pig, cried about the “culture of corruption” in the Republican Party while they snickered in private.

Nor did they seek to prosecute Bill Clinton for doing exactly the same thing that Scooter Libby did. I heard excuse after excuse for the behavior of Clinton but when it comes to Libby you hear nothing but screams for him to be crucified. Speaking of Libby, its funny that I don’t hear a soul crying for Valerie Plame to be impaled for her lack of ethics regarding her having arranged for her husband to travel on the tax payers dime to investigate a matter of state. Where I come from, we call that a conflict of interest, but inside the beltway they call it business as usual.

Then there are the steller examples of politicians such as James “Hold My Gun” Webb, who served up a staffer for political execution because he apparently could not park his car while armed and Harry “Pennies From Heaven” Reid, who managed to make a tidy sum off of a property that he no longer owned. Additionally, there is Diane “High Handed” Feinstein who had to shed stock in corporations doing business with the government to avoid unpleasant questions about possibly illegal profiteering.

What do the foot soliders of the apocalypse, excuse me again, Democratic base have to say about all of this? Not a damned thing. In fact, I can only hear the crickets. So while the Democrats weave themselves into the fabric of corruption yet again, their supporters will obfuscate and divert attention in order for them to get away with it. The Democratic base does not care about corruption, lies, cover ups, freedom, or pork. All they care about is pushing their social agenda and that makes them dangerous.

Identifying the Democrats: Who They Are Part III

First, let me say that patriotism does not mean that one agrees with everything that your government does and that sometimes, patriotism requires you to take a stand against your government’s policies. That having been said, that does not mean that you can protest against the war and support our troops. That is like a girl telling her parents that she is a little bit pregnant. It is a non-sequitur statement. So why do the Democrats do this? Because they don’t want to be on the wrong side of patriotic Americans, that’s why.

You see, the Democrats have had a long history of hating the U.S. military. They view the military as a ruthless, imperialistic force that crushes the little guy overseas in order to expand American power. This attitude extends back to the 1960’s when the current Democratic leaders were in their teens and early twenties protesting the war against Vietnam. Along with accepting funding from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, having sympathy for those struggling to establish a communist government, fleeing to Canada to avoid the draft, and burning their draft cards, they blamed the U.S. military for not refusing to stand against the government of the United States and disobeying their orders.

As a result, they called soldiers returning from overseas baby killers and assaulted them as well as spat on them. In fact, few soldiers reported to civilian airports, bus stations, or train stations in uniform for fear of falling afoul of this contempt for them and their service. While the left vehemently denies that soldiers were beaten or spat upon, the returning veterans tell a far different story. In fact, there was a recent incident of a 10^th Mountain Division soldier in civilian clothes at a New Jersey airport being approached by a young woman and asked if he was a soldier. When he said that he was, she immediately spit in his face and walked away. The incident was reported to the airport police and the woman was arrested, but it is obvious that these hard feelings toward the military are alive and well and being passed through the generations.

While one could argue that only the Democratic supporters have these attitudes and not the elected officials, they would be wrong. Democrats have reduced defense spending beginning with Carter and continuing with Clinton. Time and again, the Congress, when in control of the Democrats, has consistently cut defense spending and military programs and used the money to fund their social agenda. Additionally, they have used the military as a social experimentation laboratory because of the “captive” participants. If this were not bad enough, these same Democrats sought to, and were successful in, denying the right to vote to military personnel serving overseas in Florida because they feared that their vote would give George W. Bush an unassailable victory over Al Gore in the election of 2001.

Hatred of the American military not withstanding, the Democrats have also reached out to foreign governments in order to foil the policy of the United States Government. That type of behavior is known as collusion. Take Edward Kennedy for example, a member of the United States Senate. Senator Kennedy reached out to the KGB of the U.S.S.R. and offered assistance to that agency in order to actively undermine the President of the United States. Senator Kennedy had the support of a few cohorts in the Democratic Party when he sent a letter to the KGB offering both his support and the support of his party to the Soviets. I don’t know about you, but I call that treason. However, treason is nothing new for the Democrats. Jane Fonda herself once gave aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese Army during the Vietnam War. As I have already written about Hanoi Jane’s hijinks in North Vietnam, I shall not do so here.

So why do the Democrats say that they support the troops, but not the war? That my friend is the wrong question, the question should be: How do the Democrats support the troops? The simple answer is that they do not. Telling lies and wearing a yellow ribbon matching the stripe down your back does not make you a patriot. It does make you a Democrat in the tradition of the 1960s liberals.

Next installment we will discuss the Democratic culture of corruption.

Addendum

Did I mention how the Democratic supporters also like to accuse their opponents, the Republicans, of evil and wrong doing in order to divert attention away from themselves? Take a look.

"The thing of it is, though, that the GOP is so inherently racist, all the way down in its DNA, that they don't even really notice the ways in which they contradict themselves -- let alone recognize the ways in which they're abusing the very people they readily admit they depend on most to ensure their own future."

Sara @ Orcinus

If I were you Sara, I would examine my own party before uncorking a keg of vitriol and drenching the Republicans with it. Or is it that you admire Hillary Clinton so much you just had to have a "vast, right wing conspiracy" moment of your own? The left does this in order to put the right on the defensive while it conducts business as usual. I recommend that you read part II of this series.