During this season there will be some Light Blogging here, but you're not completely rid of me. If you'd like to email, 
send it using the “eMail” tab on the Header above. HAPPY NEW YEAR, FOLKS! ~ Pesky Emotional Republican
December 23, 2009 / AnnCoulter.com
By Ann Coulter
Irritated at the bumps on the road to the Democrats’ Thousand-Year Reich, liberals are now claiming that Republican Senator Tom Coburn requested a prayer for the death of Sen. Bob Byrd during the health care debate last Saturday night.
Here is what Coburn actually said: “What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can’t make the vote tonight. That’s what they ought to pray.”
After reporting Coburn’s remark, The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank added: “It was difficult to escape the conclusion that Coburn was referring to the 92-year-old, wheelchair-bound Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.).”
Contrary to Milbank’s claim, I find it extremely easy to get away from that conclusion. In fact, I’m a regular Houdini when it comes to that conclusion. That conclusion couldn’t hold me for a second.
There are a million ways a senator could miss a vote, other than by dying. Ask Patrick Kennedy. At 1 a.m. on a Sunday night in the middle of a historic blizzard in the nation’s capital, I don’t think the first thing that came to anyone’s mind was death. More likely it was: “Last call.”
Milbank was employing the MSNBC motto, “In Other Words,” which provides the formula for 90 percent of the political commentary on that network. The MSNBC host quotes a Republican, then says “in other words,” translates the statement into something that would be stupid to say, and spends the next 10 minutes ridiculing the translated version. Which no one said. Except the host.
Also, by the way, Sen. Coburn did not “go to the Senate floor to propose a prayer,” as Milbank reported. He was giving a floor speech in which he used the turn of phrase, “What the American people ought to pray is …”
Inasmuch as liberals want to talk about anything but their plan to take over one-sixth of the American economy, let’s talk about health care!
Democrats tout Medicare as their model for a government-run health care system, bragging about what an extremely popular government program it is.
Medicare is tens of trillions of dollars in the red. It is expected to go bankrupt by 2017. In order to pay for Medicare alone, the government will either have to cut every other federal program in existence, or raise federal income taxes to rates as high as 77 percent.
Medicare is like a $500 hamburger: I assume it’s good — it had better be — but no one would say, “THAT’S A FANTASTIC SUCCESS!”
Until 10 minutes ago, the liberal argument for national health care was that it wasn’t fair that some people — “the rich” — have access to better health care than others.
In liberals’ ideal world, everyone lives in abject poverty and stands in long lines, but we all live in the same abject poverty and stand in the same long lines — just like in their beloved Soviet Union of recent memory! (Except the commissars, who get excellent health care, food, housing, maid service and no lines.)
Instead of being honest and telling us that their plan is to make health care worse and more expensive — but fairer! — liberals have recently begun claiming that providing universal health care will actually save money. Overnight, they went from wailing about basic human needs being “more important than bombs” to claiming: “Our plan will be cheaper!”
Hmmm, I didn’t make any notes to debate the manifestly insane points. But I’m pretty sure that extending full medical benefits to 30 million people who don’t currently have them — 47 million once the federal health commission rules that illegal aliens are covered — will not be less expensive than the current system.
You can say — mistakenly — that the liberals’ plan is more compassionate. You can say — also incorrectly — that it will be fairer. On no set of facts can you say it will be cheaper.
Democrats keep citing the Congressional Budget Office’s “scoring” of their bills as if that means something.
The CBO is required to score a bill based on the assumptions provided by the bill’s authors. It’s worth about as much as a report card filled out by the student himself.
Democrats could write a bill saying: “Assume we invent a magic pill that will make cars get 1,000 miles per gallon. Now, CBO, would that save money?”
The CBO would have to conclude: Yes, that bill will save money.
Among the tricks the Democrats put into their health care bills for the CBO is that the government will collect taxes for 10 years, but only pay out benefits for the last six years. Will that save money? Yes, the CBO says, this bill is “deficit neutral”!
But what about the next 10 years and the next 10 years and the next 10 years after that? Will the health care plan continually pay benefits only in the last six years of every 10-year period? I think their plan assumes we’ll all be dead from global warming in a decade.
Also, I note that the Democrats claim it’s urgent that we pass ObamaCare by Christmas, but the bill doesn’t get around to paying out any benefits until 2014. Poor uninsured chumps.
In other words … Democrats are praying for the death of Bob Byrd!
December 26, 2009, 11:07 AM
Intro by Stephen Frank of Stephen Frank’s California / Political News and Views
Obamacare is a doozy. One of the effects is to allow health insurance to be sold across State lines.
“Currently, any health insurer selling policies in California must comply with the state’s extensive consumer protections. The reform measures would allow insurance firms to sell policies across state lines if certain conditions were met, bypassing California’s rules in favor of the requirements in the state where the policy is issued.”
States claim 10th Amendment rights to set conditions on health care policies sold in their States–and to demand that only insurers approved by their Insurance Commission can be sold in their State.
One good thing about Obamacare is that it allows consumers to buy the best policy FOR THEM, not the greedy special interests in their State.
For instance in California, Nuns are forced to buy health insurance that includes abortion coverage–as does your grandmother in Fresno.
The bottom line: this is another move by Obama to get rid of power outside of Washington. As a Socialist, he truly believes in the power of a centralized government–and this helps make it happen–why? Because instead of elected officials in Sacramento deciding what is covered, unelected folks controlled by politicians will make those decisions. In the real world, that is called Socialism.
Either way, Americans are going to lose health care coverage, wait in longer lines and fewer doctors and higher costs–Obamacare a bigger loser than the New Jersey Nets.
National health reform could jeopardize California patient protections
By Mike Zapler, San Jose Mercury News, 12/23/09
WASHINGTON A host of medical services that insurers must pay for in California from cancer screenings to diabetes treatment to two-day hospital stays for delivering mothers could be weakened or lost if the health care measures pending in Congress become law.
Currently, any health insurer selling policies in California must comply with the state’s extensive consumer protections. The reform measures would allow insurance firms to sell policies across state lines if certain conditions were met, bypassing California’s rules in favor of the requirements in the state where the policy is issued.
The result, critics warn, would be a “race to the bottom,” in which insurance companies set up shop in states with the weakest consumer rights and skirt California’s lengthy list of mandated health care services.
“This has the potential to wipe out all of these hard-fought protections,” said Rep. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, who led the drive for several of those mandates as a state legislator earlier in her career and is now threatening to vote against a health care overhaul that weakens California’s standards.
Speier and 28 other Democratic House members from California outlined their concerns about interstate health insurance sales in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., last week.
“Practically speaking, insurers will domicile their plans in states with less stringent regulations and market to the population in more protective states like ours, just like nationally chartered banks have done,” stated the letter, which was signed by several other Bay Area Democrats. “California residents will lose out if state protections are undermined.”
California could take steps to preserve the state’s protections, but that could be tricky given the power of the insurance lobby.
Selling insurance across state lines has long been touted by Republicans and insurance firms as a way to spur competition and reduce premiums. More interstate sales, they say, would mean more choices for consumers.
“One of the challenges and barriers to competition is all the varying and conflicting state mandates that exist across the country,” said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for the industry trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans, arguing that the patchwork of rules contributes to higher premiums.
The health care reform legislation would create a few avenues for interstate insurance sales. Under one scenario envisioned by the Senate bill, insurers could sell so-called “multistate” policies with benefits meeting minimum standards that would be defined by federal regulators after health care legislation passes.
If California wanted to mandate benefits that exceed federal standards including those now in place it would have to add them back through new legislation passed in Sacramento. Moreover, California would have to pay the extra costs of any additional benefits it mandated either by compensating individuals enrolled in the plans or by paying insurance companies directly.
That could lead to a situation, critics say, in which many of the state’s current consumer protections are stripped away. To get them back, “We would have to go back and fight these battles again, one by one” in the state Legislature, said Jerry Flanagan, a health care advocate for Santa Monica-based Consumer Watchdog.
Under another scenario, states could enter into compacts in which insurance companies would be subject to the regulations of the state where they issue policies instead of the customer’s home state. For that to happen, California leaders would have to voluntarily enter into agreements with other states, knowing that California’s own health care protections could be ignored.
Although that might seem far-fetched, it’s not inconceivable, Speier argues, given the insurance industry’s political influence in Sacramento.
Allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines could affect California’s top insurers in different ways. Those owned by large national companies, such as Anthem Blue Cross and UnitedHealth Group, would likely benefit from the ability to sell streamlined policies to customers in many states, while potentially avoiding California’s strict rules.
But the change could mean more competition for insurers concentrated in California, such as Kaiser Permanente.
UnitedHealth declined to comment, while representatives for Blue Cross and Kaiser Permanente did not respond to requests for comment. The list of mandated benefits in California numbers in the dozens, ranging from asthma care for children to post-mastectomy reconstructive surgery. Aside from such benefits, state laws give consumers other protections designed to boost their leverage with insurance companies. For example, if a medical procedure is denied or delayed by an insurer, patients can seek an independent third-party medical review.
According to Speier, more than half of the 7,000 denials or delays of care reviewed through that appeals process since 2000 have been reversed.
“There really is a lot at stake,” she said.
A vote in the Senate on health care reform is scheduled Thursday morning.
In another potential detriment to California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday said that the health reform measures would saddle the state with an additional $3 billion to $4 billion in annual Medicaid costs to provide insurance to low-income residents. In a letter to Pelosi and other California congressional members, he warned that the health care measures would impose a “crushing new burden” on the state and urged the lawmakers to amend the legislation before final votes in Congress.
“As the partner responsible for implementing this program,” wrote Schwarzenegger, who has been generally supportive of the push for national health care reform, “I am telling you that our Medicaid program is already at the breaking point, and if federal health care reform is passed without addressing the underlying faults in the system, health care reform will fail.”
OPINION: JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL
DECEMBER 23, 2009, 12:48 P.M. ET / The Wall Street Journal
The latest example of violating principles of transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative victory.
By John Fund
Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi
Look for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to try to circumvent the traditional conference committee process by which the different versions of health care reform passed by each house will be reconciled. If so, it will be the latest example of violating principles of transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative victory.
Conferences involving members from both houses are messy things. They are usually conducted in public and often televised, and can produce a compromise version of the bill that leaves rank-and-file members tempted to vote against the final version. That could be perilous in the case of health care since it’s likely to pass without a vote to spare in the Senate and the House’s version passed by only five votes.
North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, chair of the Budget Committee, has already warned that if the final bill “isn’t close to the Senate bill, there will be no way to get the 60 votes here” to shut off debate and pass the final product. But many House members, led by Michigan Rep. John Conyers, are insisting on major changes in the Senate’s version.
Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi would love to come up with a way to bash heads in private and skip any public discussion that further reveals just how incoherent and unworkable both the bills are. Luckily, there is a subterfuge readily available that wouldn’t require the House to swallow the Senate’s bill unchanged but also ducks the traditional give-and-take of the conference committee.
When Democrats took over Congress in 2007, they increasingly did not send bills through the regular conference process. “We have to defer to the bigger picture,” explained Rep. Henry Waxman of California. So the children’s health insurance bill passed by the House that year was largely dumped in favor of the Senate’s version. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel and other Democrats complained the House had been “cut off at the knees” but ultimately supported the bill. Legislation on lobbying reform and the 2007 energy bill were handled the same way — without appointing an actual conference.
Rather than appoint members to a public conference committee, those measures were “ping-ponged” — i.e. changes to reconcile the two versions were transmitted by messenger between the two houses as the final product was crafted behind closed doors solely by the leadership. Many Democrats grumbled at the secrecy. “We need to get back to the point where we use conference committees . . . and have serious dialogue,” said Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama at the time.
But serious dialogue isn’t what Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are interested in right now. Look for the traditional conference committee to be replaced by a “ping-pong” game in which health care is finalized behind closed doors with little public scrutiny before the bill is rushed to the floor of each chamber for a final vote.
Is this the kind of hope and change that people expected when they voted for Barack Obama? ~ P.E.R.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Scott Haig Thursday, Dec. 24, 2009 / Time
81A Productions / Corbis
The old folks in our neighborhood are hard to operate on. They are suspicious. They ran away, years ago, from war and hunger and government officials making powerful speeches. They escaped places they loved, where they first had plenty, then enough and then nothing. They made the boat but the new land of opportunity was also one of educated opportunists and swindlers — the diplomas on my wall don’t impress them. It takes a while to gain their trust.
Even then surgery is usually out of the question. Many of our local patients are in their 80s and still working. Our patient Tony, 82, is a gardener. He looks like a root: strong hands, twisted by arthritis, five-feet-nothin’ and bowlegged. He’s been listening to me recommend knee replacement for 10 years, but would never have the surgery. He takes the arthritis pills I give him, but leaves my physical therapy prescriptions on the counter (“Don’t need no exercise, Doc. I work.”). At most he’ll take an injection when it gets bad. Even when he was limping, Tony would not even talk about an operation — until now. He came in two weeks ago and asked me to schedule his surgery.
Ira is about the same age; his shoulders, hands, hips and knees have all bothered him for years. Unlike Tony, he likes physical therapy. I’ve been warning him about letting the problems go too long, especially the numb hands, but since the ’90s he has refused every procedure. About four months ago, something changed with him too. He requested surgery — first a shoulder, then the hands. He’s been having an operation a month since then, quite happily. He still has another scheduled.
Why the rush? I’ve asked both men. And in two different accents, with two vastly different levels of political awareness, they say the same thing: “Because I don’t know what’s going to happen.”
Among the changes my patients seem to believe in, in this twilight of our crazy decade, is a newfound need to talk about the bigger health care picture with their orthopedic surgeon. They love talking about the government plan, insurance companies, overseas surgery outfits, electronic medical records. Often, I enjoy it too. It can slow down office hours but it beats droning on about glucosamine. From many hours of chat with many patients like Tony and Ira has emerged one strong theme: “Get it while you still can.”
Low expectations of America’s medical future are now the rule in my patient population. Not with all the patients; the very well-to-do still show little concern for the future availability of care or what it will cost. But this group generally means business anyway; they’ve looked me up and are usually ready for an operation when they first come. The lawyers and teachers, similarly, don’t seem too worried about losing access to my services anytime soon. And some fraction of patients always seems clueless about the world beyond the tips of their noses: they don’t worry about insurance or anything else as far as I can tell. read more…
by Dan Freeman / Big Government
Recent headlines seem lifted directly out of an Ayn Rand novel. President Obama decries the “fat cat bankers on Wall Street”. Harry Reid attacks insurance companies for making too much profit. House Democrat leaders call Tea Partiers “Racist, Nazi, Gun Nuts”. How about this nauseating statement made by Army General George Casey after the Muslim terrorist attack on Ft. Hood?
As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well
Each of these headlines might well have been uttered by an Ayn Rand character. Rand, whose father’s pharmacy was confiscated by the Soviets during the communist revolution of 1917, and who came to America in 1926, seems uniquely able to speak to us about the inverted morality of our times. Virtue is to be apologized for. Depravity commands respect. Success is cast as evil and punished while failure is blamed on others and rewarded. Rand’s insights into the psychological state of collectivists—those who demand that we sacrifice our individual freedom and happiness for the sake of the state—explain what often seems incomprehensible to thinking people.
December 25, 6:53 AM
The Michelle Obama Examiner
By Clifford Bryan
The Michelle Obama Examiner has been following President Barack Obama and the First Lady closely for a little over a year now. The opportunity to devote a whole column to Michelle Obama and Barack Obama is hard to pass up. The topic of this article came to us out of nowhere. We can’t put our finger on it as of yet but we think it should be noted as containing quite a bit of significance.
After attending Morehouse College its not that much of a stretch for one to become a “De Facto” expert on the inner workings of black society in the United States in general and the subtle nuances involved in interpreting the current state of affairs. One of the most famous graduates in recent history has managed to make quite a good living on his interpretation of black society on the big screen. With that in mind the Michelle Obama Examiner decided to take a look at the relationship between Barack Obama and Michelle Obama. Was it born out of love ?, was it a “marriage of convenience“?, or a magical combination of both.
Rev. Michael Bresciani
By Rev. Michael Bresciani Friday, December 25, 2009 / Canada Free Press
Santa came early on Christmas Eve 2009 for the embattled Democrats of the Senate who passed the Obama Healthcare bill as expected.
Being forced to buy healthcare by the U.S. government will hardly be seen as a gift from Santa by the citizens of this country and even now, some republicans are planning to test the constitutionality of the bill.
Special sweetheart deals for Florida and Connecticut are overshadowed by what may be the most expensive and openly public bribe in U.S. history for the state of Nebraska. The Corn Husker’s are mostly insulted by Sen. Nelsons last minute deal to circumvent paying some 100 million dollars a year to help foot the costs of the bill but even the Governor of that state, Dave Heineman, says Nebraskans don’t want this kind of exclusion.
12/25/2009 / Rick Moran / Right-Wing Nuthouse
Rick Moran
Atheism is usually its own worst enemy. By that, I mean there is a large number of unbelievers who make great sport of those who worship a divinity, mocking them, referring to them as “superstitious” and generally lording their supposed superior intellect and perception of the “real world” over those who see things differently.
Yes, there are times when Christians especially deserve this treatment. It becomes impossible to respect the beliefs of people who think that the AIDS virus or 9/11 were punishments from God. And forget the loony Muslims who believe it efficacious to live in the 8th century rather than embracing modernity. These believers have demonstrated that they are a clear and present danger to the west and everything we have built up over a thousand years of bloody wars over placing religion in its proper place in our society.
But true atheism takes the best thinking from religions and incorporates some of the more universal moral tenets into everyday life. For example, if you can get by the story of how they came into being, most of the Ten Commandments are an excellent starting point if you seek to live a moral life. At bottom, they are nothing more than common sense rules in how to organize a society around basic moral precepts. Don’t kill the fellow walking towards you even if he’s a stranger and not of your tribe. Don’t steal from your neighbor. Take care of your parents. Don’t play around with your neighbor’s wife. Workers deserve one day off a week. Don’t lie.
Obama Green Plan: Substitute Dependence On Chinese Metals For Dependence On Saudi Oil
Friday, December 25, 2009
By William A. Jacobson / Legal Insurrection
From where do the ingredients of “green” technology come? Apparently, mostly from some environmentally toxic mines in China:
Some of the greenest technologies of the age, from electric cars to efficient light bulbs to very large wind turbines, are made possible by an unusual group of elements called rare earths. The world’s dependence on these substances is rising fast.
Just one problem: These elements come almost entirely from China, from some of the most environmentally damaging mines in the country, in an industry dominated by criminal gangs.
Western capitals have suddenly grown worried over China’s near monopoly, which gives it a potential stranglehold on technologies of the future.
So the green revolution which is the centerpiece of Obama’s economic plan essentially relies on substituting our dependence on Saudi oil with a dependence on Chinese metals.
This should work really well. Because our dependence on Chinese money to fund government programs we cannot afford is not enough.
Campaign theme 2020: “We must lower our dependence on Chinese dysprosium and terbium!”
RSS - Posts
P.E.R. lives out west with a dog named Cheyenne.
