Sunday, March 21, 2010

More About the War on America's Doctors


From the Anchoress:
"Meanwhile, I wanted to share this, with a Hat Tip to Deacon Greg Kandra. He posted an excerpt from Cardinal Seans thoughtful musings on healthcare, and then tipped me off to this comment from one of his readers -although I have seen it on several sites, today, so I am not sure where it originated- which I am reprinting in full, because it is sane and sensible:"
I have been a doctor for 19 years. 4 years in the Army and 15 years in private practice. I belong to a doctor owned group of approx 350 doctors in a multi-specialty practice. We employ 4000 people. In addition to being touted as one of the very best clinics in the nation (Acclaim Award winners) we have donated over a million dollars to the local city in grants, scholarships and charity. Regularly voted as top places to work by our employees. US healthcare at its very best. I am very proud of what we do and we provide tremendous care and value to our patients.
We seek to maintain a 3-5% profit margin annually. We operate in the very precarious business model of enormous volume, low margin. As any business owner knows, this is high-risk-low-margin of error model. Consequently any small changes to cash flow vectors, mandates widespread internal policy and practice corrections. Tiny changes = massive consequences.
As many people may know, Medicare and Medicaid, the current government paid ‘insurer’ – pays approximately 70% of the cost of care. ie its more expensive for doctors to care for these patients than we get reimbursed for. Say you are a contractor. Imagine the government mandating a significant number of your jobs whereby your out of pocket costs are ~ 30% + greater than your income. That is Medicare and Medicaid. In perspective, our group alone, year 2008 lost ~$12 million caring for our government patients. This is despite taking over 1 1/2 years to help move our fee-for-service traditional Medicare patients over to Medicare Advantage plans, which are privatized versions of Medicare that reimburse better…still not covering costs…but lessen our losses significantly.
Many people ask, why do private health insurance premiums continue to escalate? The liberals want you to believe its a combination of profiteering and waste. When in fact its due mainly to two other processes. The first is obvious: every year it costs more to care for patients and premiums are trying to keep up with this rising cost. But secondly, and less often discussed, is that every year private delivery systems lose more and more money caring for our government patients. Someone has to make up for these losses in order for your hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, pharmacies, group practices to remain solvent and profitable. Every year these delivery systems open their books to the private healthcare insurers – and the insurers must – they must in order for the entire system at large to stay functional, increase the amount they pay out to cover these losses. If they dont, both the delivery systems and the insurers die. So to keep the boat afloat, the payouts by private insurers MUST increase to subsidize the ever increasing losses doctors incur by taking care of our government patients. So, in a way, you could say that your increasing premiums are a tax that you are paying to cover the losses that are Medicare and Medicaid. It’s a clear and inarguable private subsidation of government cost. Enough said on that.
So to really feel the consequence and full impact of Obamacare, one must simply see the economic dominos. Most people can see how this bill will rapidly reduce private insurance plans and rapidly expand government plan patients. And take whatever number that is being reported, and multiply that by 3. That has been the experience in both Mass and Hawaii. Both government plans were overwhelmed with the enrollees as they significantly underestimated the government migration.
Ok, so now- how can anyone not see the obvious outcome? Government patients = significant loss of profitability. Initially the private insurers will do their best to continue to subsidize this loss, and there will be a huge escalation of premiums. But within a few months this will be unsustainable. Its a cycle that cannot be stopped. Higher premiums = higher recidivism to government plans = higher premiums etc. Within months, every single hospital, every single doctor office, clinic, nursing home, pharmacy – every delivery system reliant on private insurers will no longer be profitable. ie they will go bankrupt. These will most certainly be the headlines to come: Hospital XYZ shockingly announces bankruptcy; Hospitals can no longer remain open; Clinics across the country file for bankruptcy; Loss of Pharmacy access shocks the Nation; Doctors going bankrupt en masse creating healthcare delivery and access to care crises; Where can you go to get care?; Loss of access reported Nationwide
Yes a crises. A crises of access due to widespread business failure. You will not be able to get care for as long as it takes for the government to devise their emergency bailout package and as long as it takes for those insufficient dollars to try and get those doors back open again. But it will be too late, and it will be too expensive. There is absolutely no way that our government can capitalize our entire healthcare system. Try as they might, only a percentage of what we have now will ultimately survive. And those that do survive will be a shell of what they once were. The conditions will be frightening, and the consequences will be dire. The degree of disarray will be unimaginable and the underlap in access to care will be gaping.
I will not expand this discussion to predict what this means to our economy at large because I am not an economist. But anyone can be close to predicting what I am suggesting. Factors such as loss of work hours due to illnesses not treated, pressure on all the other private business models; let alone the out and out loss of enormous capital via the bankruptcy of this entire healthcare industry can clearly be the death nail to our country and imo is a clear and present threat to our very sovereignty. This can make the housing collapse look like a speed bump. This will be massive and rapid and lethal and complete.
I am not certain why this very obvious outcome has not been openly discussed more often – ie the rapid and massive bankruptcy of all of your health care providers and their delivery systems. But this is the inevitable outcome should this bill ever become law and implemented.
Thanks for reading. Please ping, copy and email your friends and try and get this word out. I know it’s a very late hour – but I do think the implementation is not an inevitability as multiple lawsuits may keep it on hold for a while – so public opinion will still be vital for many more months to come.
Unbelievable times. Please do your part and email and make the phone calls. This plea comes an honest and heartfelt love of our country and its citizens, and an honest and heartfelt love of my profession, avocation and the welfare of my patients.
 __________
Related post: Slaughterhouse for American Medicine: It's War on Doctors

Benjamin Franklin's Request for Prayers at the Constitutional Convention

July 28, 1787
Mr. President
The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other-our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.

To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service-
  __________

Saturday, March 20, 2010

What Comes After ObamaCare: Mentioning the Unmentionable

The British political columnist, Gerald Warner, yesterday offered an across-the-Pond view of Obama's political future that most Americans aren't quite ready to say out loud:
The presiding spirit behind the squalid manoeuvres of Pelosi and Reid is Barack Obama. He is the President and commander-in-chief. The buck stops, etc. So, in the event that the President signed this healthcare legislation, consciously evading Clause 1, section 7 of the Founding Fathers’ protective document for American freedom, and it were then struck down by the Supreme Court, a question arises: could Obama then face impeachment? Think about it. An Exocet is always a tiny speck on the far horizon at first, but it is amazing how quickly it arrives at its target.
I had to look up the word Exocet. My online dictionary identifies it as the trademarked name of a French-made guided anti-ship missile, literally, a "flying fish."

Just days ago, in the House Rules Committee, a tiny speck of a politician infamously unveiled her own microbe-brained attack on the Constitution of the United States. It took a couple of days for a nation of free people, squinting from afar into clandestine negotiations, to ascertain that Slaughter's "deem and pass" is indeed a Demon Pass. Yesterday, the tiny speck loomed somewhat larger as Jeffrey T. Kuhner in the Washington Times asked the question on this side of the Pond: "Impeach the president?":
The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government - meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office. 
It is time Americans drew a line in the sand. Mr. Obama crosses it at his peril.
True. But much, much worse--infinitely worse--Mr. Obama crosses it at the peril of the American people.

Hat tip: Obi's Sister, Never Underestimate the Motivation of Extremely P-O'd Americans. Also, "Kuhner's Impeach the President?"

UPDATE: Keep people posted on ObamaCare developments today and tomorrow at THIS THREAD at Potluck. 

UPDATE: Demon Pass is dead. For now. Better pound a stake through its heart and pour salt on its grave.
__________



Friday, March 19, 2010

222 Democrats for Demon Pass: America Will Not Forget



Roll of Shame: Names of Democrats Who Voted to Slaughter the Constitution

Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lowey
Luján
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Sutton
Tanner
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth


__________
Related posts:

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Legal Foundation Prepares Lawsuit Over Slaughter House Rule

The Landmark Legal Foundation and its president, Mark R. Levin, conservative radio host and author, have published a draft complaint naming as defendants Barack Obama, Timothy Geithner, Eric Holder, and Kathleen Sebelius. According to Levin, the lawsuit "will be filed in federal court the moment the House" uses "the so-called 'deem and pass,' 'self-executing,' or 'Slaughter Rule' to enact H.R. 3590, the legislative version of President Obama’s healthcare proposal that has been previously approved by the Senate."

From the draft Claim for Relief:
20.  Two branches of the United States Government have and presently are intending to transgress the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, rendering the liberty of United States citizens at stake. Clinton, 524 U.S. at 450 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
Read the entire document at Landmark's Draft Complaint.

H/t: Michelle Malkin.

Cross posted at Potluck.
__________
Related posts:

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Slaughterhouse for American Medicine: It's War on Doctors

The New England Journal of Medicine says that nearly half of America's family doctors and internists feel that ObamaCare will force them out of medicine--or make them wish that they could get out.


Nearly three-quarters of doctors in all specialties have gotten that message. Nearly half of the surveyed doctors think that the decline in physician supply will be dramatic.


One quarter are already thinking about early retirement if ObamaCare passes (or is deemed passed, or whatever).


One fifth will try to leave medicine even if they are not near retirement age.


And among those not contemplating leaving medicine altogether, many think they will have to close their private practices and work exclusively through hospitals. Surgeons and OB-GYNs who remain in business, in private practice or otherwise, are worried about the expected serious decline in the availability of anesthesia and anesthesiologists.

Some key findings of the published survey:
  • 46.3% of primary care physicians (family medicine and internal medicine) feel that the passing of health reform will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.

  • 72% of physicians feel that a public option would have a negative impact on physician supply, with 45% feeling it will “decline or worsen dramatically” and 27% predicting it will “decline or worsen somewhat.

  • 24% of physicians think they will try to retire early if a public option is implemented.

  • 21% of physicians would try to leave medicine if a public option is implemented, even if not near retirement age at the time.

  • 36% of physicians would not recommend medicine as a career, regardless of health reform.

  • 27% would recommend medicine as a career but not if health reform passes.

  • 41% of physicians feel that income and practice revenue will “decline or worsen dramatically” with a public option.
Source:“Physician Survey: Health Reform’s Impact on Physician Supply and Quality of Medical Care,” The Medicus Firm, www.TheMedicusFirm.com
 
Call, call, call. Today's the day to do it. 
__________
Related posts:

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

ACORN Pulls Support for Anyone Voting No on ObamaCare

This past weekend, New York State's Working Families Party got together to formally decide that they will not endorse any members of Congress who vote No on ObamaCare.

That's no surprise, especially considering that Obama's political director, Patrick Gaspard, worked with ACORN to set up the Working Families Party in New York. Before working for Obama, Gaspard was a registered lobbyist for SEIU. But not getting the Party's endorsement in New York State is a pretty big deal. Democrat candidates rely on the Working Families Party for votes and deep (not necessarily legal) discounts on campaign expenses. According to New York State law, any votes for a Working Families Party candidate get counted as votes for the Democrat candidate. Pretty slick, eh?

According to Elizabeth Benjamin at New York Daily News, ACORN claims to have "provided the margin of victory for Democratic congressional candidates five times since 2002: Tim Bishop (2002), Brian Higgins (2004), Eric Massa (2008), Bill Owens, and [Scott] Murphy (2009)."
  
Inside the Party, Benjamin reports, tempers are running high. One Party faction wants to run challengers against anyone who votes No on ObamaCare.  
The WFP has run insurgent candidates against Democratic incumbents before, successfully winning five [New York] City Council races that fell into that category last fall.
At least six New York House votes are believed to be in play at the moment. But the members coming under the most pressure are two who voted "no" last time around: Rep. Mike McMahon (NY-13) and Rep. Scott Murphy (NY-20). Both are currently on the fence.

McMahon got a personal visit last week from SEIU 32BJ's Mike Fishman, who made it clear that labor will not at all be happy if the freshman Democrat casts another "no" vote.

Murphy was presented on Sunday with 7,000 signatures gathered by the WFP urging him to support the bill. 
I wonder how many times Mickey Mouse signed that petition.

As Monroe Rising pointed out, knowing that a candidate has vexed ACORN sounds like a pretty good incentive to give the guy a vote. And a call.

Just so you know. . . .

Contact Mike McMahon (Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn) here. Washington phone: (202) 225-3371; local phone: (718) 351-1062.

Contact Scott Murphy (Lake Placid, Saratoga Springs, Glens Falls, Hudson, Rhinebeck, Delhi, Walton) here to respond to Murphy's Health Care Survey. Washington phone: (202) 225-5614; local phone: (518) 581-8247.


__________

Other phones to melt:

Monday, March 15, 2010

Buffalo and Rochester Are Demanding Martial Law? I'm Not Buying It

Trying to figure out what's going on in the House of Representatives these days is like being sucked into a black hole and spit out on a planet designed by Franz Kafka and Groucho Marx.

It's hard to tell how painful it is because it's so absurd.



The Democrats might have enough votes to pass ObamaCare.  Or . . . they might not.

On the other hand, they might do an end run around the Constitution and just order America to purchase gov't health care or go to jail. No vote needed.

The following cannot be republished enough. From the Washington Examiner: (via Pundit and Pundette)
Would House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow House Democratic leaders try to cram the Senate version of Obamacare through the House without actually having a recorded vote on the bill?
Not only is the answer yes, they would, they have figured out a way to do it, according to National Journal's Congress Daily:
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.
There's a big problem with this proposal. It's not Constitutional. The Constitution of the United States specifically mandates that Congress actually has to vote on bills.

Going on record with votes for this bill (as the Constitution requires) would be a big problem for Democrats because the majority of voters in this country despise this bill.

Mark Levin on the matter:
Here we have the President of the United States and Congressional leaders actually talking about the possibility of a brazen and open violation of one of the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution and Republic! How we actually make laws!
[snip]
This is a crucial lesson for those of you who... aren't sure what your beliefs are, or if you have any beliefs. Or aren't sure if you even care. We have an effort underway by the one of the most powerful chairmen in Congress, the woman who heads the Rules Committee, ...openly discussing gutting Congress. Gutting Congress.

And if this is done, this is about as close to martial law as you'll ever get... So Louise Slaughter, a Representative from New York, is discussing, in essence, martial law. Now I can tell you, if they pursue this process, and try to impose this kind of a law, without actually passing a statute, that I will be in a race -- with scores of others -- to the courthouse to stop this.
Louise Slaughter, who wants to upgrade that old-fashioned idea of passing legislation by voting on it, is--I am heartbroken to admit--a New York Congresswoman representing Buffalo and Rochester (28th Congressional District), where she is a media darling and local bloggers go crazy over her cute Kentucky accent. She's also an ACORN darling, having run on ACORN's Working Families Party ticket.

The Buffalo News admires her "persistence" in getting the state some stimulus money to fund a little section of high-speed rail. She may have persistence, but she is not exactly a world-class pork trader, at least when it comes to the public good. Even by selling out the Constitution of the United States, a high-stakes trade, Slaughter's high-speed rail proposal came in 10th out of 11 proposals. The Buffalo News went out of its way to praise her for raking in $151 million; for the same purpose, California got $2.3 billion and Florida got $1.25 billion.
 
And--I kid you not--The Buffalo News loved Slaughter's "quote of the day"  at Obama's Health Reform Summit, her statement in defense of the Buffalo woman who wore her deceased sister's false teeth. In its coverage, the News noted only positive reactions to her comments, such as: "Thank God for Louise Slaughter."

Thank God? Louise Slaughter's proposal is also about the slaughter of the innocents: everybody in the country will be required to pay for abortions, like it or not.

Interestingly, neither the Buffalo press nor the Rochester press has found the ink to print a single word about what is now being called "the Slaughter solution" or the "Slaughter slight-of-hand," the one undeniably historic episode that already assures that Louise Slaughter's name will be recorded, infamously, in the history books.

This is a map of Slaughter's congressional district, which includes parts of Erie, Monroe, Niagara, and Orleans Counties. From Slaughter's Web site (which, by the way, completely ignores the Slaughter "Solution"):
Parts of Buffalo and Rochester, the second and third largest cities in New York, are joined by all or part of Appleton, Barker, Brighton, Burt, East Rochester, Fairport, Grand Island, Greece, Hamlin, Hilton, Holley, Irondequoit, Kendall, Kent, Lewiston, Lyndonville, Model City, Morton, Newfane, Niagara Falls, Olcott, Penfield, Perinton, Ransomville, Sanborn, Stella Niagara, City of Tonawanda, Town of Tonawanda, Waterport, Wilson, and Youngstown to make up the 28th Congressional District.
If you are a patriot living in Slaughter's district, you owe it to yourself, your children, and the rest of the country to raise a big fuss about Slaughter's Slight of Hand. Do it now. The clock is ticking.

Numbers to call listed in these posts:
I'd like to offer special thanks to Pundit and Pundette for keeping readers informed about Slaughter's travesty and providing excellent links on the subject. Make sure to visit there to learn more.
__________

Related post: Hurting? Wait Until ObamaCare Stops Paying for Anesthesia

    Sunday, March 14, 2010

    What? It's Finally Okay to Say "God" in California Schools?

    Back in 2002, Michael Newdow, a Sacramento, California athiest, challenged the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance because it contains the words, "under God." References to God, Newdow claimed, infringed on his religious beliefs. A 9th Circuit panel of the Federal Appeals Court agreed with Newdow, and declared the Pledge "a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism," and thus unconstitutional.

    The panel's decision barred 9.6 million children in 10 states from "teacher-led recitation" of the Pledge. It also flew in the face of many previous judicial rulings supporting the Pledge, leading to public outrage over judicial activism.

    That was then. Fast forward through a serious of appeals and challenges to this past Thursday, when the same 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court ruled in favor of a defense of the Pledge by 50 members of Congress, represented by the American Center for Law and Justice. This time the Court, with 2 out of 3 different members than in 2002, saw things differently:
    The Pledge is one of allegiance to our Republic, not of allegiance to God or to any religion. Furthermore, Congress’ ostensible and predominant purpose when it enacted and amended the Pledge over time was patriotic, not religious.

    [snip]

    The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded and for which we continue to strive: one Nation under God—the Founding Fathers’ belief that the people of this nation are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; indivisible—although we have individual states, they are united in one Republic; with liberty—the government cannot take away the people’s inalienable rights; and justice for all—everyone in America is entitled to ‘equal justice under the law’ (as is inscribed above the main entrance to our Supreme Court). (Full decision available here.)
    In a separate ruling, the Court gave a constitutional thumbs up to use of the National Motto, "In God We Trust," as a ceremonial and patriotic phrase.

    What is going on in California? Only last week a Federal Judge in that state ruled that it is constitutional for a math teacher to display in his classroom patriotic banners that mention the word "God," even if his political views are "unpopular."

    Wow.
    __________
    Related post: Federal Judge Rules Against Hostility to U.S. Religious Heritage in Classroom

    Saturday, March 13, 2010

    Tracking the National Debt

    Last year at about this time, I started tracking the weekly rise in America's national public indebtedness: what you and I owe as a result of government spending, purportedly on our behalf.

    Every Friday, I compared the national debt to that of the previous Friday, to see how much more in the hole our country had gotten, and then I converted that amount to something tangible.

    For example, last year in the seven days between March 6 and March 13 (one year ago today), the U.S. National debt grew by $36 billion. To pay back that one week's debt, all American banks would have had to give the U.S. Treasury every dime that they collected--for an entire year--when somebody in America overdrew their bank account.

    Somehow, that didn't sound too bad, maybe because I'm careful about my accounts. But in some weeks, the new debt was much more alarming. To repay a mere two weeks of debt in July ($113 billion), the nation's farmers would have had to donate to the U.S. Treasury an entire year's revenue from their agricultural exports. Yep. Every dollar earned in an entire year by exporting those amber waves of grain and those California and Florida fruits and vegetables would have been just about enough to pay back just two weeks of new national debt. Even the computer giant Microsoft didn't earn enough in all of 2008 to pay back just one week's new debt in May of 2009. 

    One week the U.S. debt grew by $107 billion. To cover it, the nation's employers would have had to divert every dollar that they put into traditional pension plans--for an entire year--to the Treasury Department. Every dollar.

    In two weeks in July, we borrowed every cent the federal government spent for a year on green jobs and transportation, research included. 

    When our national debt hit $12 trillion, I stopped keeping track. But I can tell you one thing: the U.S. Treasury certainly does not have the $2.3 trillion that Obama's health-care overhaul will cost. It's going to have to come out of people's hides.

    From time to time I like to mention that only about half of adult Americans actually pay income taxes. There is no way that Congress is going to be able to squeeze enough money out of this population to keep us afloat.

    Everybody is going to end up paying, in hundreds of new ways. And each new way is going to be a loss of freedom and opportunity. And health.
    __________

    Friday, March 12, 2010

    What If ObamaCare Were A Sick Patient in Canada?

    Obama wants ObamaCare up on its feet and ready for signature by March 18th, a mere 6 days away. [Update: Obama has just extended his "deadline" by 3 days to March 21.] But what if ObamaCare were not subject to the tender mercies of Congress, but instead were a Canadian patient waiting for cardiac bypass surgery?

    Let's see. In that case, the president could expect to see ObamaCare wheeled into the operating room on May 22, 65 days from now (if it were still alive).

    But let us say, for the sake of argument, that the Nanny State bill had, well, breast cancer. Average expected surgery date in Toronto: August 27.

    Perhaps ObamaCare, like Nancy Pelosi keeps telling us, is not as sick as all that: it's merely been limping along. In Ontario, it could expect that knee replacement on December 28th, just in time to watch crowds celebrate the arrival of 2011.


    Tell Congress you don't want to be forced to wait for health care.

    Data source: Canadian Ministry of Heath and Long Term Care. Via theblogprof.
    __________

    Related post:

    Thursday, March 11, 2010

    More NY Reps Wavering on ObamaCare: Numbers to Call

    Yesterday I started listing the recent public positions (and phone numbers) of New York State's potential swing voters on the Senate ObamaCare bill.

    Here are two more:

    Dan Maffei (NY-25, Syracuse, Dewitt, most of Wayne County) was an enthusiastic supporter of the House bill, but now his intentions are not as clear. According to syracuse.com, Maffei, a first-term Congressman, "has publicly opposed the Senate bill because of the tax on so-called Cadillac insurance plans."

    The League of Women Voters is running a TV ad asking voters to encourage Maffei to Vote No. The League is running a similar ad for Mike Arcuri (NY-24).


    Dan Maffei's Phone: Washington (202) 225-3701; Local (315) 423-5657



    John Hall (NY-19, Peekskill, Stony Point, Mount Kisco, Port Jervis, Beacon, Arlington), another enthusiastic supporter of the House bill, is a word mincer. According to Hall: 
    • Basic Medicare will not be affected (Don't worry about those Medicare Advantage cuts, or cuts for hospitals and doctors). 
    • Only the richest Americans will pay (Not you)
    • Rationing of care is not explicitly in the bill (Socialized medicine? Never heard of it).
    Hall's basic message on ObamaCare, as far as I can tell: Shut up, voters, and go back to sleep.

    Despite Hall's strong support for ObamaCare, Dick Morris has pegged him as a possible No vote for the Senate ObamaCare bill.

    Somebody must be calling. Why not you?


    John Hall's Phone: Washington (202) 225-5441; Local (845) 225-3641 x49371

    __________
    Related posts:

    Wednesday, March 10, 2010

    NY Reps Sitting on Health Care Fence: Tell Them to Kill the Bill



    In the competition for most "progressive" state, New York is definitely a contender. In terms of carrying heavy tax burdens, New York residents are nearly at the top in the world. ACORN (whatever its name is these days) has its own political party on the ballot, and a vote for a candidate of that party, the Working Families Party, automatically goes to the Democrat candidate. In significant sections of New York City, Obama won by over 99% of the vote. New York State's senior senator, Chuckie Schumer, is largely recognized as one of Obama's biggest hand puppets, and the junior senator, Kirstin Gillibrand, was appointed by the Democrat governor to fill the seat abandoned by Hillary Clinton when she became secretary of state.

    Those are a few reasons why it is interesting to note that large swaths of the state are represented by Congressmen who are considered possible swing votes in the current battle for our nation's future health. Much of the state is rural and, in these areas, Obama is not exactly popular. Even in the state capitol, Albany, his name evokes considerable grumbling. On the state's liberal campuses, where Obama's election inspired dancing in the streets, Obama's name eerily goes unmentioned by most faculty and staff.

    All this has not escaped the attention of the state's politicians, who are beating the ObamaCare drum slowly these days. Nevertheless, being politicians, they are by definition people who are good at getting what they want, and New York's ObamaCare potential swing voters are on record as having wanted ObamaCare very badly in the past.

    I'll focus on three of them today, and I hope you'll find the time to give them a call or send them an email telling them to vote No on the Senate bill. If New York Congressmen can be convinced to abandon ObamaCare, the message will reverberate powerfully throughout Congress.

    Congressman Mike Arcuri represents NY's 24th Congressional district, which includes Utica, Auburn, Rome, and most of the suburbs of Binghamton. A liberal's liberal, he's been backing Pelosi with his votes all the way, and he gave a big thumbs up to the House version of the ObamaCare bill. Now his staff says that he is opposed to the Senate bill.

    Mike Arcuri's Phone: Washington (202) 225-3665; Local (315) 793-8146


    Bill Owens (NY-23, near the Canadian border) is the guy who narrowly defeated Doug Hoffman in an attention-grabbing special election last fall when Hoffman seemingly appeared out of nowhere and rapidly gained popularity as an opponent to ObamaCare. Owens was seated just one day before the House vote, and he provided one of the five deciding yes votes that carried ObamaCare in the House. Hoffman has announced that he will run against Owens again. Owens reportedly is "undecided pending the final language of the bill":
    My concerns at this point really go to issues related to making sure we cover as many people as possible, you know the Senate bill reduced the number that the House bill covered, there's some concern about taxing health care benefits, there's been some modifications made, but I haven't seen the final language of the bill.  
    Bill Owens' Phone: Washington (202) 225-4611; local (315) 782-3150


    Tim Bishop (NY-1, Long Island) actually went on record as opposing the Senate bill in a January letter to Nancy Pelosi in which he stated: "If the Senate bill does come to the floor for a vote, I will have no choice but to vote no." His reasons, back then:
    The Senate bill is, in my judgment, flawed in several fundamental respects; I will cite two.

    One, the excise tax on so-called “Cadillac plans” would subject a number of my constituents to this tax, including a great many who have foregone salary increases for stronger benefits. Further, the fact that it is not properly indexed will subject even more people to the tax in years to come.

    Second, and as important, the Senate provision relating to FMAP[*] would represent for New York a $5 billion swing; the House provisions with respect to FMAP would save New York $4 billion a year, while the Senate provisions would add $1 billion annually to New York’s yearly Medicaid expenses.
    *[The Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAPs) are used in determining the amount of Federal matching funds for State expenditures for assistance payments for certain social services, and State medical and medical insurance expenditures.]

    Tim Bishop's Phone: Washington (202) 225-3826; Local (631) 696-6500


    Take the time to call. Think of it as an investment in future time. If ObamaCare passes, you'll be spending a lot more time in your doctor's waiting room, that's if your doctor doesn't close up shop.

    __________

    Related post: Entertainment to Call By

    Tuesday, March 9, 2010

    Entertainment to Call By: Rahm Emanuel's Machiavellian Ballet

    There's still time to kill the bill. Below is a contact list of Congressional swing voters on health care, courtesy Dick Morris.

    PLEASE CALL! DC OFFICE LOCAL OFFICE
    Harry Mitchell (202) 225-2190 (480) 946-2411
    Gabrielle Giffords (202) 225-2542 (520) 881-3588
    Ann Kirkpatrick (202) 225-2315 (928) 226-6914
    Jerry McNerney (202) 225-1947 925-833-0643
    John Salazar 202-225-4761 970-245-7107
    Jim Himes (202) 225-5541 (866) 453-0028
    Alan Grayson (202) 225-2176 (407) 841-1757
    Bill Foster (202) 225-2976 630-406-1145
    Baron Hill 202 225 5315 812 288 3999
    Mark Schauer (202) 225-6276 (517) 780-9075
    Gary Peters (202) 225-5802 (248) 273-4227
    Dina Titus (202) 225-3252 702-256-DINA (3462)
    Carol Shea-Porter (202) 225-5456 (603) 743-4813
    Tim Bishop (202) 225-3826 (631) 696-6500
    John Hall (202) 225-5441 (845) 225-3641 x49371
    Bill Owens (202) 225-4611 (315) 782-3150
    Mike Arcuri (202)225-3665 (315)793-8146
    Dan Maffei (202) 225-3701 (315) 423-5657
    Earl Pomneroy (202) 225-2611 (701) 224-0355
    Steven Driehaus (202) 225-2216 (513) 684-2723
    Mary Jo Kilroy (202) 225-2015 (614) 294-2196
    Zach Space (202) 225-6265 (330) 364-4300
    Kathy Dahlkemper (202) 225-5406 (814) 456-2038
    Patrick Murphy (202) 225-4276 (215) 826-1963
    Christopher Carney (202) 225-3731 (570) 585-9988
    Paul Kanjorski (202) 225-6511 (570) 825-2200
    John Spratt (202) 225-5501 (803)327-1114
    Tom Perriello (202) 225-4711 (276) 656-2291
    Alan Mollohan (202) 225-4172 (304) 623-4422
    Nick Rahall (202) 225-3452 (304) 252-5000
    Steve Kagen (202) 225-5665 (920) 437-1954


    If you get put on hold, you might be interested in watching the following video of Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel's biggest fan, at a Rahm Roast (start around 55 seconds):

    Destroying America's health care system, political system, and economy--it's all in good fun for the Democrat leadership. I wonder if the Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy (CURE) who hosted the event are still laughing. I think not. It's hard to imagine anything worse for medical research than ObamaCare.
    __________

    Recent Related:

    Monday, March 8, 2010

    Kill The Bill: A Call You Can Make Right Now (Updated)

    I'm cancelling my scheduled post today to bring breaking news of a call you can make that could throw a monkey wrench into the Democrat's ObamaCare-at-Any-Cost machine.

    Suspiciously, the Dems have been attacking some of their own in New York, not the least of which is Rep. Eric Massa, who has been accused of making inappropriate remarks to a male aide. Okay, maybe he did, maybe he didn't. The Dems have not revealed exactly what those remarks were supposed to have been.

    From Roll Call, via Legal Insurrection:
    Massa maintained his comments were inappropriate, but he blamed "political correctness" and accused Dems of a setup. Massa voted against health care legislation in Nov., and he has not been a reliable vote for Dem leadership. That, he said, has put a target on his back.
    "When I voted against the cap and trade bill, the phone rang and it was the chief of staff to the president of the United States of America, Rahm Emanuel, and he started swearing at me in terms and words that I hadn't heard since that crossing the line ceremony on the USS New Jersey in 1983," Massa said. "And I gave it right back to him, in terms and words that I know are physically impossible."
    "If Rahm Emanuel wants to come after me, maybe he ought to hold himself to the same standards I'm holding myself to and he should resign," Massa said.... [emphasis, Legal Insurrection]
    From Legal Insurrection:
    Here is Massa's office contact information. Call or send an e-mail asking him not to resign:
    Washington DC Office: 1208 Longworth House OfficeBuildingWashington, DC 20515, Phone: (202) 225-3161, Fax: (202) 226-6599, email here.
    I tried getting through to the Washington number. No luck. Their phones are jammed. Massa's home page and contact page are down, too, with the message: "There are too many people accessing the Web site at this time."

    I suggest trying one of Massa's local offices. The number at Massa's District Office in Corning, NY worked for me:
    • Phone: (607) 654-7566
    • Fax: (607) 654-7568
    Mention Massa's health care vote.

    Update: Hear some of the audio at Another Black Conservative.
    Update: Nice Deb points out that Massa voted against ObamaCare in the House because the bill was not liberal enough.

    More mud in the water is that Massa's district is fairly conservative (for New York).

    Update: Massa is scheduled to be on Glenn Beck tomorrow. This is turning into Mr. Toad's Wild Ride.
    __________

    Sunday, March 7, 2010

    Federal Judge Rules Against Hostility to U.S. Religious Heritage in Classroom

    Via the Thomas More Law Center:

    When Bradley Johnson, a math teacher at Westview High School in San Diego, California, was ordered to remove two patriotic banners from his classroom walls because they "overemphasized God," the Thomas More Law Center took up his case.

    Johnson's banners displayed historical mentions of God from the Declaration of Independence, the Pledge of Allegiance, and well-known patriotic songs such as Irving Berlin's God Bless America, as well as the official motto of the United States.
     
    Interestingly, the Poway Unified School District had no problem with other displays of religious, anti-religious, and political views in the school, including:
    • a 35 to 40 foot string of Tibetan prayer flags with images of Buddha,
    • a poster with the lyrics from John Lennon’s song “Imagine,” which starts off, "Imagine there’s no Heaven,"
    • a poster with Hindu leader Mahatma Gandhi’s “7 Social Sins,” 
    • a poster of Muslim leader Malcolm X, and
    • a poster of Buddhist leader Dali Lama.
    In the eyes of various school and district officials, the slogans mentioning God "might make a Muslim student uncomfortable," but the Tibetan prayer flags were "purely decorative."

    That happened early in 2007. Earlier this week, a California Federal District Court Judge ruled that the school district had violated Johnson's constitutional rights.
    That school officials banned Johnson’s patriotic displays while permitting other teachers to display personal posters and banners promoting partisan political issues such as gay rights and environmental causes, including global warming, played a crucial role in the Judge’s decision.
    In his opinion, Judge Roger T. Benitez wrote:
    [The school district officials] apparently fear their students are incapable of dealing with diverse viewpoints that include God’s place in American history and culture. . . .  That God places prominently in our Nation’s history does not create an Establishment Clause violation requiring curettage and disinfectant for Johnson’s public high school classroom walls.  It is a matter of historical fact that our institutions and government actors have in past and present times given place to a supreme God. 
    Judge Benitez had a few choice words on "fostering diversity":
    Fostering diversity, however, does not mean bleaching out historical religious expression or mainstream morality.  By squelching only Johnson’s patriotic and religious classroom banners, while permitting other diverse religious and anti-religious classroom displays, the school district does a disservice to the students of Westview High School and the federal and state constitutions do not permit this one-sided censorship.
    About that Muslim student, the judge noted:
    An imaginary Islamic student is not entitled to a heckler’s veto on a teacher’s passive, popular or unpopular expression about God’s place in the history of the United States. 
    And about those Tibetan prayer flags:
    [T]he judge flatly rejected the school district’s argument that Tibetan prayer flags were permissible because they were decorative, describing the argument as “a transparent pretext."
    According to the Thomas More Legal Center:
    Judge Benitez concluded that Johnson was entitled to a declaration that the school district violated his individual rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, §§ 2 and 4 of the California Constitution.  He ordered the school district to pay nominal damages and Johnson’s attorney’s fees and costs.  And he ordered the school district “to permit Johnson to immediately re-display, in his assigned classroom, the two banners at issue in this case.”  Johnson returned the displays to his classroom that same day. 

    Robert Muise, the Thomas More Law Center Senior Trial Counsel handling the case, commented, “Judge Benitez’s strong opinion sends a clear message to school districts across the country that hostility toward our Nation’s religious heritage is contrary to our constitution.  Indeed, it was refreshing to read an opinion that does justice to our Nation’s history, rather than rewrite it.”
    Thank you, Judge Benitez.  Many Americans will sleep a lot better tonight knowing that you are serving on the Federal District Court.  And thank you to Attorney Robert Muise at the Law Center, for standing guard on our nation's Constitution.

    (Read the entire article and the Judge's decision here.)
    __________

    Saturday, March 6, 2010

    It's a Tough Life: "Mo" Hassan Weeps Again



    Last year, in Orchard Park, New York, Muzzammil Hassan's wife, Aasiya, filed for divorce. A couple of days later, Hassan beheaded her.

    Poor guy. It's just one thing after another. First his wife makes Muzzammil "the victim" by "humiliating" him. And now, according to one of his team of defense lawyers, Frank Bogulski, "Mo" Hassan is the victim of "Islamophobia."

    Julie Atti Rogers, another of Hassan's lawyers, agrees: "The reality is that based on his name, based on the color of his skin, and based on the fear and the panic of all Americans of terrorists and Muslims, this man's got a difficult time as it is."

    Cry me a river.


    (cross-posted at Potluck)


    __________
    Related post: All He Did Was Chop Off Her Head

    Thursday, March 4, 2010

    Hurting? Wait Until ObamaCare Stops Paying for Anesthesia

    That's right. Obama's got to cut health care costs somewhere, so why not cut back on all that anesthesia people get during surgery and childbirth. In the dentist's chair. Before painful medical tests (remember when the nurse gave you that remarkably effective injection?). Bet you never thought that Obama and his Democrat "colleagues" were going to ration that. But they are, big time. 

    Come to think of it, if the Democrats make it hard to get pain relief, that will greatly reduce demand for surgery, which is not on most people's list of preferred activities to begin with. Not all consequences are unintended.

    This cost savings is not just some amorphous, "Hey, we'll do it someday" promise, like Obama's about-face claim that medical malpractice tort reform is right around the corner, even though it's not in the Senate bill that he intends to sign no matter who doesn't like it (especially the American people). Cutbacks on payments for anesthesia are already in the Senate bill, cutbacks so severe that payments to anesthesiologists will not cover the cost of providing anesthesia. ObamaCare, as written, will pay only 33% of an anesthesia bill (see 1/14/10 link) as compared to the 80% now paid by private insurers.

    It stands to reason that anesthesiologists are not too happy about that. Neither are OB/GYNs, because when women in labor need anesthesia, they need it NOW. I can't imagine that dentists are happy about those kinds of cutbacks either. And then there are surgeons. They cannot be happy campers.

    I know I'm not. And I need no more convincing demonstration than rationing of anesthesia to show me that Obama doesn't care how much pain I feel. Or care about the pain of every American I know, and every American I don't know, with the exception of Barack and Michelle's entire entourage in the White House and in Congress and in various federal agencies--and their families.

    Come to think of it, it's starting to look like the only rational choice for pain-avoiding humans is to get on Obama's good side--his really good side, the side that gets a protected health care system. That probably explains why so many Democrats are behind ObamaCare.


    However, you've got to be eating pretty high on the hog to be in that health care system. Witness the  list of physicians' organizations who wrote to the U.S. Senate opposing the Senate bill "because it will threaten patient access and harm quality":
    • American College of Surgeons
    • American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 
    • American Academy of Ophthalmology 
    • American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 
    • American Association of Neurological Surgeons 
    • American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons 
    • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 
    • American College of Osteopathic Surgeons 
    • American Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedics 
    • American Society of Anesthesiologists 
    • American Society of Breast Surgeons 
    • American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 
    • American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons 
    • American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery 
    • American Society of Plastic Surgeons 
    • American Urological Association 
    • Congress of Neurological Surgeons 
    • Society for Vascular Surgery 
    • Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic 
    • Surgeons Society of Gynecologic Oncologists 
    Time to hit the phone. Mail is good too. It litters up offices and results in visible piles on desks and tables, overflows recycle bins, and, in general, reminds both Congress Critters and staff about future attendance at "town hall" meetings and polling places.

    No time like the present. And nudge your spouse, parent, siblings, and neighbors to do the same. 

    Unless you really, really like pain. Then don't bother.
    __________

    Tuesday, March 2, 2010

    About That Hearing Test, Mr. Obama . . .

    Ho-hum news: Obama had a medical check-up and he’s okay. More interesting news, especially to anyone who has ever had a colonoscopy: Obama’s physical included a much more comfortable and safe “virtual” procedure than ordinary mortals get. Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit quipped, “So can I assume that an average 49-year-old man will be able to get one of those under ObamaCare?”

    Of course not. Medicare doesn’t cover this improved procedure, accomplished with a scan instead of an inserted camera. “So,” as one Instapundit reader noted, “you can bet your sweet bippy they won’t be covered under Obamacare.” Virtual colonoscopies are considered too “experimental” for use on average folk, but not for use on the President of the United States. Right.

    It’s little experiences like getting the inserted-camera when Barack Obama, Chuckie Schumer, and Harry Reid are eligible for the comfortable little scan that makes the average Joe (or Glenn) a mite suspicious about their future under ObamaCare.

    But what got my attention was Reynold’s observation that Obama is 49 going on 50. That’s when I remembered: In the “complete lives system” advocated by one of his chief health care advisors, Obama at the age of 49 is tottering on the brink of seriously reduced eligibility for medical treatment.

    The health care advisor in question is Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Ezekiel, who holds both an MD and a Ph.D. in Political Philosophy from Harvard. Below, on one of Zeke’s charts, it’s pretty clear where Barack Obama would stand in the complete life system.



    Lucky thing for Obama that he doesn’t have to worry about ObamaCare for himself. In fact, it’s a lucky thing for Obama that Chuckie and Harry and Nancy don’t have to worry about ObamaCare for themselves, or I suspect that right now he’d be standing in a cold hospital room in socks with holes in the toes and a drafty hospital gown staring at a bucket of used medical waste instead of thumping his chest over ObamaCare Jr.

    Interestingly, in his 2009 article, “Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions,” Dr. Emanuel (perhaps unwittingly) had one or two things to say about ObamaCare:
    As well as recognizing morally relevant values, an allocation system must be legitimate. Legitimacy requires that people see the allocation system as just and accept actual allocations as fair. Consequently, allocation systems must be publicly understandable, accessible, and subject to public discussion and revision. They must also resist corruption, since easy corruptibility undermines the public trust on which legitimacy depends.
    It seems that President Obama is suffering from selective hearing. Giving Grandma a pill instead of surgery is okay, but insuring that health care systems are publicly understandable and resistant to corruption is not okay? Is there a medical treatment for listening deficiency, Dr. Zeke?

    Cross-posted at Potluck. (Join the discussion.)
    __________

    Monday, March 1, 2010

    The Inverse of Vote Buying

    One well circulated worry of the more than 80% of non-Democrats who oppose ObamaCare is the likelihood--even certainty--that gov't care will be used as a political tool to buy the votes of powerful special interest groups who demand that health care dollars be directed toward politically correct treatments (such as for smoking cessation and contraception) and away from treatment of less fashionable injuries and disease (like severe head trauma, advanced cancers, and diseases of the elderly). This equivalent of the governmental "death panel" is horrifyingly well established in the UK and is getting entrenched in the state of Oregon, where lactose intolerance, obesity, drug abuse, pathological gambling, and sterilization have much high priority in the Oregon Health Care Plan than peritonitis, injuries to internal organs, appendicitis, ruptured spleens, tuberculosis, deep open wounds, and gangrene. (Could I make this up?)

    But Snaggletoothie of the Loyal Opposition has pointed out an inverse danger, one which has gotten much less attention: the eagerness of groups of followers (in this case, Democrats) to have their demands designed by the government.

    It all started when the cartoon program, Family Guy, openly mocked and insulted Sarah Palin and her baby, Trig. After Frank Luntz wired up a group of Democrats and Republicans to discover their reactions (watch it here), he was shocked and visibly upset to find out that the Democrats, who self-identify as the nation's defenders of compassion, had no problem with finding humor in the Down syndrome of an innocent child.

    Snaggletoothie observed:
    The Democrats often talk about how much more compassionate they are than others. But if they gleefully enjoy an attack on a powerless toddler because it fits some political agenda they have shown that there are severe limits to their compassion. They are too ready to mold their feelings to agendas and quotas set from on high for their feelings to be seen as any more than a conditioned response to orders from their leaders. These do not qualify as actual human feelings originating in the heart. In the end they are not distinguished by having compassion but rather by a near nonhuman readiness to follow orders and mold themselves to some norm they have little or no part in creating.

    I would be afraid to give such people any power in the run-from-Washington health care system they want to institute. Who and what they will find worthy of receiving support and resources will be in constant flux. They are too conditioned to take direction from above. Their leadership will rule by fiat and they see it as their duty to obey. The shallowness and inconstancy of their feelings indicts them as unworthy to run or design a humane healthcare system.
    It is undeniably frightening to observe a group of Americans abandon even the pretense of compassion because the object of the attack is the child of a political adversary. What might the inconstant undertows of the politics imbedded in a gov't health care system have in store for tomorrow's crop of political adversaries? The very thought of it makes private enterprise and competition the only possible alternative.

    Time to call Congress, again.
    __________