Sometimes marriages just don’t work. Someone cheats on someone, or someone is beating someone, or whatever. Divorce is an option that is available to those couples that can no longer stand to be together.

It is an option that is probably abused, or used as an escape when things get too difficult in the marriage, but I don’t think this is the solution:

Texans would have to wait two years to get a divorce — unless they take a class designed to save their marriage — under a proposal a key state lawmaker says he plans to revive.

State Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, sought to get a similar measure passed in 2007. He said he’s planning to bring it back as one of his priorities for the legislative session that begins in January.

“The deal is, we need to take marriage more seriously,” said Chisum, who in October will celebrate his 51st wedding anniversary.

I want to know one thing from Rep. Chisum. How much credit can the government take for your marriage lasting 51 years?

Just another reason why the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all. It is a religous institution, not a government institution. I can understand the government recognizing the marriage in terms of it being a contract between two consenting adults, but nothing more than that.

The responsibility for the success of the marriage fall on the two people in the marriage, not the government.

Karl Rove nails it in his latest article in the Wall Street Journal. Both John McCain and Barack Obama are trying to capitalize on the pain people are feeling at the pump, but neither get it:

In Raleigh, N.C., last week, Sen. Obama promised, “I’ll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we’ll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills.”

…

Why should we stop with oil companies? They make about 8.3 cents in gross profit per dollar of sales. Why doesn’t Mr. Obama slap a windfall profits tax on sectors of the economy that have fatter margins? Electronics make 14.5 cents per dollar and computer equipment makers take in 13.7 cents per dollar, according to the Census Bureau. Microsoft’s margin is 27.5 cents per dollar of sales. Call out Mr. Obama’s Windfall Profits Police!

It’s not the profit margin, but the total number of dollars earned that is the problem, Mr. Obama might say. But if that were the case, why isn’t he targeting other industries? Oil and gas companies made $86.5 billion in profits last year. At the same time, the financial services industry took in $498.5 billion in profits, the retail industry walked away with $137.5 billion, and information technology companies made off with $103.4 billion. What kind of special outrage does Mr. Obama have for these companies?

He’s isn’t much kinder with Johnny Mac:

This past Thursday, Mr. McCain came close to advocating a form of industrial policy, saying, “I’m very angry, frankly, at the oil companies not only because of the obscene profits they’ve made, but their failure to invest in alternate energy.”

But oil and gas companies report that they have invested heavily in alternative energy. Out of the $46 billion spent researching alternative energy in North America from 2000 to 2005, $12 billion came from oil and gas companies, making the industry one of the nation’s largest backers of wind and solar power, biofuels, lithium-ion batteries and fuel-cell technology.

Such investments, however, are not as important as money spent on technologies that help find and extract more oil. Because oil companies invested in innovation and technology, they are now tapping reserves that were formerly thought to be unrecoverable. Maybe we are all better off when oil companies invest in what they know, not what they don’t.

And do we really want the government deciding how profits should be invested? If so, should Microsoft be forced to invest in Linux-based software or McDonald’s in weight-loss research?

I know I don’t. I want the government to get out of the way and let these companies do what they do best. I want them to dedicate as much of their profits towards improving and expanding their companies. I don’t want the government, Republican or Democrat, to tell me or anyone else that they are making too much profit. There is no such thing. The market decides the amount of profit a company makes, not a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.

Government does have a roll, but it is protecting the rights of the citizen, not dictating how much profit is acceptable and how much should be returned. Let the free market take control again and watch how smoothly things roll.

According to every liberal (and some misguided conservatives), this will never happen here. But I still think you should know how the government run health care system in Great Britain refused treatment to a grandmother suffering from cancer. She actually thought she had a right to buy her own meds.

How…free market:

Mrs O’Boyle, 64, had been receiving state-funded treatment - including chemotherapy - for colon cancer.

But when she took cetuximab, a drug which promised to extend her life but is not available on the NHS, her health trust made her start paying for her care.

Mrs O’Boyle, an NHS occupational therapist, is believed to be the first person to die after being denied free care because of ‘co-payment’, where a patient tops up treatment by paying privately for extra drugs.

Co-payment was blocked last year by Health Secretary Alan Johnson because he claimed it would create a two-tier Health Service.

So, why wouldn’t NHS just give her the cetuximab so she didn’t have to create this “two-tier system?” Cost.

…her consultant recommended-Cetuximab, which could extend her life. But it is available on the NHS only in Scotland, not in England and Wales.

It is one of many medicines the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence denies to some patients because of cost.

Mrs O’Boyle’s decision to take it meant she and her husband had to spend £11,000 over two months for care from Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.

Mr O’Boyle, an NHS manager for 30 years, said: ‘I think every drug should be available to all of us if there’s a need for that drug to be used.

‘I offered to pay for it but was told I couldn’t continue with the treatmentwe were receiving at the hospital-The consultant was flabbergasted - he was very upset.’

He added: ‘I was always very anti private treatment. But everything she had wasn’t working and it was a last resort.

He almost sounds apologetic, like he’s explaining to all the socialists why he strayed outside of the collective.

One more quote from the article, but it’s a doozy:

Medical experts say the ban on co-payment is one reason why Britain has one of the worst survival rates for cancer in Europe.

Michael Moore, call your office.

Welcome to the beauty of government health care:

Mark Degasperis was furious his mother spent five days on a stretcher at Toronto Western Hospital waiting for a room with 25 patients ahead of her — until the Toronto Sun made a call and she was suddenly moved to a room yesterday.

“They were giving us the same old song and dance why she was in the emergency department with only a sheet draped around her. I couldn’t even call her because she didn’t have a phone,” Degasperis of Georgetown said.

Heather Degasperis, 60, has a dangerous bacterial condition and was sent by her doctor to Toronto Western because it has the experts for her condition.

“She is not well and wasn’t able to sleep and she wasn’t getting any better. She needed peace and quiet to sleep.

In America, you could say, “You all pretty much are the worst hospital I have ever seen. We’re taking her to another hospital.”

In Canada?

I suggested taking her to another hospital, but we were told there are long waits across the region and the doctors we need are here. So there was nothing we could do,” Degasperis said yesterday.

“I’m angry we pay such high taxes and the more money we throw at the health care system the worse it gets. People shouldn’t be lined up on stretchers in the emergency department. If you are sick you should get a room.”

I know, I know. This isn’t what will happen here, or this could never happen here or whatever argument you have to justify this program in America. This will fail, as it is currently failing in Massachusetts.
If you think that the hospitals and emergency rooms are crowded now, wait until everything is free.

RomneyCare is breaking the bank in Massachusetts, and it isn’t even covering everyone:

First, the plan isn’t “universal” at all: About 350,000 more people are now insured in Massachusetts since the reform passed. Federal estimates put the prior number of uninsured at more than 657,000, so there was a reduction. But it was not secured through the market reforms that Governor Romney promised. Instead, Massachusetts also created a new state entitlement that is already trembling on the verge of bankruptcy inside of a year.

Some two-thirds of the growth in coverage owes to a low- or no-cost public insurance option. Called Commonwealth Care, it uses a sliding income scale to subsidize coverage for everyone under 300% of the federal poverty level, or about $63,000 for a family of four. Commonwealth Care also accounts for 60% of statewide growth in individual insurance over the last year, and the trend is expected to accelerate, perhaps double.

One lesson here is that while pledging “universal” coverage is easy, the harder problem is paying for it. This year’s appropriation for Commonwealth Care was $472 million, but officials have asked for an add-on that will bring it to $625 million. For 2009, Governor Deval Patrick requested $869 million but has already conceded that even that huge figure is too low. Over the coming decade, the expected overruns float in as much as $4 billion over budget. It’s too early to tell how much is new coverage or if state programs are displacing private insurance.

Believe it or not, when Great Britain banned knives, only the law abiding citizens gave them up. Crimes by knife-wielding assailants continues on the streets, and rather than give the citizens the ability to defend themselves, they have had them surrender more of their freedom.

Now, British police are carrying metal detectors and are stopping people on the street and searching them for knives.

Teams of 15 officers will be deployed across the 10 boroughs in London that have recorded the most knife crime.

Assistant Commissioner Tim Godwin, head of territorial policing in the capital, said officers would be deployed in areas blighted by stabbings to stop and search teenagers suspected of carrying weapons.

Police admit the “in your face policing” is expected to raise community tensions in some areas.

But they say they are getting significant support from communities desperate for them to crack down on the problem.

Yes, there will always be a sufficient number of people to help the nanny-staters justify their actions. But there is also another population they have to deal with: the race baiters. See, the bobbies are spending a lot of time in black neighborhoods. At least, they are according to some:

One Metropolitan Police Authority member, barrister Peter Herbert, criticised the plan today. He said: “It will undoubtedly lead to more stop and search, and more racist stop and searches where people are stopped on the basis of their appearance or ethnicity.

and:

There has been criticism of the powers because research has found it hits black communities disproportionately.

Stop and search has been strongly criticised in the past but police say there is now more support for the action - provided it it is done with sensitivity.

Ah, there it is. The police are just being insensitive to the people. I mean, if you are going to shake a person down on the street, the least you can do is be sensitive to their feelings.

How about this for a solution: let the people defend themselves. I know, I know. Crazy, right?

Hat Tip: The Northern Muckraker

Well, that probably won’t be the catalyst, but come on! These are guys that are given a gun and asked to kill as many of the enemy as they can. But get that nudie book out of the Exchange. That could do permanent damage:

mebeliWe’re not talking here about what most people would call pornography, the wild stuff. In question are magazines that feature photographs of nude or barely clad women, interspersed with articles on general subjects. Playboy and Penthouse are the ones usually put in this category.

Magazines like that were banned from base sales in the nineties. But a Defense Department review board subsequently ruled that their content was not explicit enough to continue the prohibition. It remained in regard to real porn, the kind that shows raw sexual acts, or worse. Now 16 congressmen, led by Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., want the less explicit publications banned, too.

Nanny staters are not confined to traditional boundries. They can be liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. Generally though, there are no Libertarian nanny-staters. In this case, it is a Republican, Rep. Paul Broun, (R-Ga), that is trying to ban nudie books on base. THe most ridiculous part of this story is what s found on Broun’s website. One of the first things you see is:

I am committed to protecting the constitutional rights and pocketbooks of every American.

Yeah, right. Here’s the thing, you legislating busy-body. These guys keep us free, not you. They go for days without sleep, dodge bullets and bombs and then look forward to a little free time with a two-dimensional girlfriend in the rack. Who exactly is it hurting?

Well, Broun says it leads to rape:

“Allowing the sale of pornography [not further defined] on military bases has harmed military men and women by escalating the number of violent, sexual crimes, feeding a base addiction, eroding the family as the primary building block of society, and denigrating the moral standing of our troops both here and abroad.”

No. You are punishing everyone for the actions of a few. This is no different than banning a cheeseburger because of some fat people. If a person rapes another person, they don’t suddenly come to and say it was Playboy that made them do it.

And as far as moral values and the family go, military men and women have churches and chaplains to help anyone who needs it. Until the military starts forcing servicemen and women to look at porn, Congress really has no role here. It is a private matter.

It’s still ironic to me that we have no problem with these folks killing, but it’s morally wrong to look at a naked woman. Anyone else think this is bizarre?

Let the fellas have their nudie books. They have a lot of stress already. Why add to it?

By the way, Rep. Broun’s phone number is (202) 225-4101.

I guess Jay thinks that you have money to burn, so he plans to use your tax dollars to give to poor people in order for them to buy gas. That’ll fix everything, won’t it?

U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller has proposed legislation that would provide low-income families with a monthly stipend of $100 to $165 to offset soaring gasoline costs.

Rockefeller’s bill would mirror the eligibility requirements for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helped 79,493 West Virginia households last year with home heating costs.

According to the West Virginia Democrat’s plan, recipients would have to show that they drive 30 miles a day, or 150 miles a week, for work, education or health care. Recipients also would have to fall between 110 percent to 150 percent of the federal poverty level. In West Virginia, that means a family of four could receive the gasoline stipend only if the household income was less than $26,845. For an individual, the cutoff point would be $13,273.

That’s what poor people need: a handout? How about you open the 85% of America’s coastline to oil drilling for American companies? How about you let ANWR be available to drilling? If you and your friends had done that back in the 90s, when the Republicans wanted to, we would have oil from ANWR today. How about you stop standing in the way of progress in the name of environmentalism and the greatest hoax ever played, i.e. global warming, and let American oil companies drill for oil in America.

Poor folks don’t need a handout, they need cheaper commodities. Your policies on oil are standing in the way of that.

Now here is a quote that shows the true Democrat spirit:

“Congress must take action now to provide immediate relief. This is about people and families who are struggling, and many of them have no choice but to drive far away because that’s where the jobs are,” Rockefeller said.

So, rather than create legislation that might foster growth in the job market in West Virginia, you instead give away my tax dollars for someone’s gas. How about signing on to the Fair Tax bill? That would bring jobs to West Virginia? There are a lot of different solutions to this issue, but free money isn’t the answer. It rarely is.

Unfortunately, Grover Cleveland foresaw what many Democrats are doing today when he said:

“Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again.”

Whatever problem arises, throw money at it until it goes away. If it doesn’t go away, you haven’t throw enough money. That about sums up Congressional problem solving anymore.

What about setting up a charity, Sen. Rockefeller, that would dole out assistance to those who needed it? A West Virginia Energy Assistance Association, or something like it. You could do it yourself, and ask some of your rich friends to donate. Maybe get Warren Buffett to give it a billion or two, since he thinks he should be paying more in taxes.

And don’t tell me charities can’t solve problems. Behold, your family tree:

Rockefeller spent the last 40 years of his life in retirement. His fortune was mainly used to create the modern systematic approach of targeted philanthropy with foundations that had a major effect on medicine, education, and scientific research. His foundations pioneered the development of medical research, and were instrumental in the eradication of hookworm and yellow fever. He is also the founder of both University of Chicago and Rockefeller University.

You think you would have learned a little something from great-grandpa.

Or here’s an even better idea! Oh, this one is tops. Have members of the House of Representatives pay for their own cars, gas and maintenance.

Representative Anthony D. Weiner, Democrat of Brooklyn and Queens, drives a 2008 Chevrolet Impala, leased for $219 a month. Representative Michael R. McNulty, a Democrat from the Albany area, gets around in a 2007 Mercury Mariner hybrid, a sport utility vehicle, for $816 a month.

“It gets a little better than 25 miles a gallon,” Mr. McNulty said.

Charles B. Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is not so caught up in the question of gas mileage. He leases a 2004 Cadillac DeVille for $777.54 a month. The car is 17 feet long with a 300-horsepower engine and seats five comfortably.

“It’s one of the bigger Cadillacs,” Mr. Rangel, of Harlem, said cheerfully this week. “I’ve got a desk in it. It’s like an airplane.”

Modest or more luxurious, the cars are all paid for by taxpayers. The use of a car — gas included — is one of the benefits of being a member of the House of Representatives.

Congressman Gregory W. Meeks leases an ‘07 Lexus LS 460, which gets 17 mpg. Do you think we need to pay almost $1000 a month, just on the lease payment, so this guy can drive in luxury? That is where our tax dollars are going. Maybe instead of paying for Congress critters, you could cut those taxes and give them back to the people. If the House had to pay its own way, maybe they would understand how their energy policies have impacted America. I know you are in the Senate, but you have the pull to get them in line. Talk to Howard Dean about it. He’s got that kind of power.

Instead of handing out money, perhaps you should look to rein in spending. We spend too much without adding more.

Neal Boortz made “a short list of the things that Americans now feel the federal government should help them do:

• Pay for their medical care.
• Pay to heat their homes.
• Pay their children’s day care
• Educate their children
• Buy them gasoline every month
• Find then [sic] a job
• Guard their mental health with government counselors

Now would be a good time to read, or re-read, Atlas Shrugged.

A father in Great Britain helped decorate for his daughter’s pirate themed birthday party. He hung the Jolly Roger outside his house, some namby-pamby busybody took offense, and Dad faces legal action for his efforts.

No, really:

David Waterman, 41, is being threatened with court proceedings after a neighbour complained about the skull and crossbones.

In a letter dated 21 April, seven weeks after the flag was unfurled, the official said he had seven days to remove it.

…

Mr Waterman, who works at Battersea fire station, said: “I find it ridiculous that the council are fighting me over this.

“It’s a £5 flag, not hurting anyone, and they’re probably spending hundreds of pounds of our cash getting me to take it down. That could be spent on improving the local area — it’s disgraceful.”

I guess this “former trooper with the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment” turned firefighter actually let’s his kids play outside, too. That has got the hackles up on these knucklehead neighbors, but Watterman says they are taking their frustration out on the flag.

The bad part about this all isn’t that these neighbors are causing a ruckus. Everyone has bad neighbors. The bad part is that the government is backing them. Can’t have anyone be offended by anything, you know.

Lawmakers in New Jersey has decided that if you are going to eat fast food, you are going to pay more for it. They are suggesting a tax on fast food to help struggling hospitals. Yeah, you read that right:

The thought of taxing a Big Mac or a Wendy’s burger came up at a New Jersey Hospital Association meeting where Gov. Jon S. Corzine was asked if it could be an option to help fund struggling hospitals. At the meeting, he reportedly called it a “constructive suggestion.”

This is the typical government reaction to a problem. I wonder how many of these lawmakers considered organizing a fund-raiser or charity auction for the hospital problem. My instinct tells me that “charity” is a foreign concept to these folks.

There is some outrage over the idea, with some referring to a “sin” tax on fast food as a “tax on the poor.” But of course, the nanny-staters love the idea:

“I think this country has gone too much in the direction of fast and unhealthy food, and if people are taxed they may terminate that and turn toward more healthy foods,” said West Orange resident Maureen Felix.

Well, since Maureen thinks you shouldn’t eat a chocolate Frostie and a baked potato with chili, taxing your Extra Value Meal is a great idea. Here’s my great idea. I want a tax on morons, and I get to decide who qualifies as a moron. If Maureen Felix thinks she knows what is best for my health, it’s only fair I get to judge her intellect.

Cough it up, Felix. You and the other nanny-staters are going to fund a foundation to teach people about personal responsibility and how to mind your own business.

Amid the hustle and bustle of downtown Los Angeles, there exists another world, an underground world of illicit trade in—not drugs or sex—but bacon-wrapped hot dogs. Street vendors may sell you an illegal bacon dog, but hardly anyone will talk about it, for fear of being hassled, shut down or worse. Our camera caught it on tape. One minute bacon dogs are sold in plain view, the next minute cops have confiscated carts, and ordered the dogs dumped into the trash.

Elizabeth Palacios is one of the few vendors willing to speak publicly. “Doing bacon is illegal,” she explains. Problem is customers love bacon, and Palacios says she loses business if she doesn’t give them the bacon they demand. “Bacon is a potentially hazardous food,” says Terrence Powell of the LA County Health Department. Continue selling bacon dogs without county-approved equipment and you risk fines and jail time.

(Source.)

Personal minute:

Following kicking a Marine’s backside in a Tijuana bar back in my Navy days, I feasted on a bacon dog from a Mexican street vendor. If I can survive eating that, there is no way that one in America should be considered a “potentially hazardous food.” Of course, the amount of adrenaline in my system could have killed any cooties on the dog, but I ate two.

How sad is it that a bacon dog has become a symbol of freedom?

The future of American medicine under HillaryCare or ObamaCare:

Paul Baxter knew he was unwell when he suddenly developed severe pains in his stomach. ‘I felt like someone was stabbing me. The pain was so bad that I was crying,’ he recalls. He was baffled and worried. But his GP put his mind at rest by insisting that it was a bad stomach upset and prescribed some strong anti-indigestion pills.

Seven months later Baxter, 44, a travel agent, learnt the truth. He had testicular cancer, which by then had already spread to his stomach and chest. Despite Baxter suffering serious weight loss and constant tiredness - classic symptoms of cancer - his GP, another doctor at the surgery and staff at his local hospital in Runcorn, Cheshire, had all failed to diagnose his condition.

Just an abberation right? This can be something that happens all the time. The fact is, they don’t know how often it happens. They don’t keep track of that kind of thing. But there are some interesting numbers from “unpublished research”:

Previously unpublished research by the Department of Health and the National Patient Safety Agency watchdog reveals that some patients with cancer have waited for 23 months before their illness is correctly identified and treatment begun. The study also uncovered 1,916 cases in 35 months where a cancer patient had suffered a late or missed diagnosis, an average of 55 people a month. But the agency admits the figure is a serious underestimate.

Fifty-five people a month, not diagnosed appropriately.

So what happens if you get diagnosed with cancer in America, where we don’t have socialized medicine? Turns out, you have a better chance at beating it:

According to the survey of cancer survival rates in Europe and the United States, published recently in Lancet Oncology:

• American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women. [See Figure I.]U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One. fig1
• American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men.
• Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent.
• For women, only three European countries (Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland) have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.

These figures reflect the care available to all Americans, not just those with private health coverage. Great Britain, known for its 50-year-old government-run, universal health care system, fares worse than the European average: British men have a five-year survival rate of only 45 percent; women, only 53 percent.

Hat Tip: Say Anything Blog

“There ought to be a law against that!”

From no smoking laws in public places to seat belt laws in private vehicles, there seems to be a law for everything. It reminds me of Ralphie’s brother in “A Christmas Story.” I walk out of my front door, and I find myself wrapped up and knocked over by a multitude of laws, with no recourse but to writhe on the ground screaming, “I can’t get up. I CAN’T GET UP!”

On SheboyganPress.com, there is a question about a typical nanny state law, one that would make it mandatory to wear a helmet if you are riding motorcycle. It reads: “Should Wisconsin require motorcycle riders and passengers to wear a helmet?”

Jim Wolf of Sheboygan, answers it best when he writes:

No. And the state should not require me to wear a seat belt, and the state should not require owners of bars and restaurants to ban smoking, and the state should pretty much just stay out of my life.

Well said, Jim. All of those things are put in place because the state feels that it needs to protect the individual from a bad choice.

A couple of others chime in with the same sentiment:

• No. This should be an individual choice. If someone chooses to ride without a helmet, that should be his or her choice, even though the risk of serious injury or death is increased by the lack of wearing a helmet. We have enough of government entering our lives and making decisions for us.

  Jack Wirtz, Sheboygan

• Government is not my mommy or daddy. It is my decision whether or not to wear a helmet. What next? Force me to wear seat belts, or forbid me to smoke in the tavern? Government busybodies should stop trying to restrict our freedoms on the basis that we are like children and need to be told what is good for us.

  Frank Lubotsky, Sheboygan

These three were the minority on the page however. While there were other comments supporting the law, Steve Carter of Lawton, Okla., nailed the attitude of the nanny-stater best:

We have drunken driving laws because people are stupid enough to get behind the wheel after drinking. We have seat belt laws, because some people aren’t smart enough to figure that staying with a vehicle is safer than being ejected out. Therefore, I think if people aren’t smart enough to figure out on their own that a helmet hitting the asphalt is better than a head, then we, society, need to step in and protect them.

Conservative or liberal, that is the mindset of the nanny-stater. They know what is best for you and have no problem eliminating your choice in the matter.

How arrogant can a person be? (more…)

Remember when I wrote this:

As the state of Massachusetts has shown, along with Great Britain and Canada, socialized health care generally runs a higher cost than is initially expected. In order to meet the financial goals, the quality of care offered to the patient is compromised. If either Democrat candidate wins the 2008 election and enacts a universal health care program in America, there is no reason to doubt that we’ll face similar results here.

Well…I hate to say I told you so, but, I told you so:

Cambridge Health Alliance, a key part of the Boston area’s healthcare network, is facing a potentially “catastrophic” loss this year and is looking to eliminate up to 300 jobs, or about 9 percent of its workforce, in an effort to stabilize finances.
more stories like this

The alliance, which includes Cambridge Hospital, Somerville Hospital, and Whidden Hospital in Everett, says it is being hit hard by the state’s new healthcare reform law, which has left it responsible for providing free care for those without insurance while reducing the hospitals’ compensation for such services.

Soon jobs will be cut, resulting in fewer staff to work with the patients, then you have patients waiting in ambulances outside the hospital for hours.