Palin to Media: "How About Ya Quit Makin' Things Up…?"

I was sitting in a convenience store parking lot yesterday in Iowa when I heard Gov. Palin say the following:



(Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit)

Good luck with that one. Although I don’t think the new governor, Sean Parnell, is going to have to worry about the media going after his kids.

He’s not the threat Palin is. And now that she is unchained from the restraints of office, I’m sure she’s going to become even more popular with the base.

The left has poked this hockey mom with a stick long enough to make her turn full on pit bull. I can see her giving speeches to thousands, driving home the conservative message of limited government, fiscal responsibility and states rights. She can do this because she is a Washington outsider, the same as all the other conservatives who look at the career Republicans in D.C. who have sold out their principles for a guaranteed re-election. I can see her taking them to the woodshed along with the left. And they deserve it more, in my opinion.

This is gonna be great.

Respond to this: Comments Off

Chuck Norris vs. Bruce Lee, Glenn Beck In Lederhosen and Why Google Won't Last Forever – Your Weekend Links

It’s Saturday and I actually have the day off, so I’m going fishing with the family. You don’t have it so easy. You have some reading assignments, but first, I give you Chuck Norris vs. Bruce Lee.




And now, your weekend links:

And now, who’s talking about the whole Cambridge-Gates-Racism-Obama thing? Pretty much everyone:

Ok, that’s not exactly everyone, but that’s quite a bit. Here’s a few off the topic links you might like:

Respond to this: 3 Comments

How Democrats Destroy Economies Starring Gov. Jennifer Grandholm

Henry Payne at The Corner poses a very valid question. He asks, “Does anyone in the Michigan Democratic party know basic economics?

Here’s why. The governor, Jennifer Grandholm, has called for 45 percent reduction in the use of fossil fuels in Michigan by 2020. The intention of the plan is to replace the fossil fuel with clean, green, renewable electricity. This, as demonstrated in Denmark, will result in a large increase in prices, possibly as much as 300 percent.

dunce.jpg

Following that move, the Democrats have called for a reduction in rates. No, really. They plan to make it law in 2010.

So they plan on meddling in the market, causing the price of electricity to rise, then mandate the cost to be lower than it already is, hence the questioning of Michigan Democrats understanding of basic economics.

Even better, with Michigan’s unemployment rate at a jaw dropping 15.4 percent, they are planing to raise the minimum wage to $10 in 2010.

Yep, that’ll fix it.

Photo Credit: www.ericcastro.biz


UPDATE:

Linked up at Doug Ross. Thanks and welcome to his readers.

Respond to this: 9 Comments

Great Britain's Police Given Powers to Enter Homes And Remove Anti-Olympic Posters During Games

And I thought things were bad during the Chinese Olympics. I could never imagine this happening in the once Great Britain:

Police have been handed ‘Chinese-style’ powers to enter private homes and seize political posters during the London 2012 Olympics.

Little-noticed measures passed by the Government will allow officers and Olympics officials to enter homes and shops near official venues to confiscate any protest material.

Breaking the rules could land offenders with a fine of up to £20,000.

Civil liberties groups compared the powers to those used by the Communist Chinese government to stop political protest during the 2008 Beijing Games.

Anita Coles, of Liberty, said: ‘Powers of entry should be for fighting crime, not policing poster displays. Didn’t we learn last time that the Olympics should not be about stifling free expression?’

The powers were introduced by the Olympics Act of 2006, passed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, supposedly to preserve the monopoly of official advertisers on the London 2012 site.

They would allow advertising posters or hoardings placed in shop or home to be removed.

But the law has been drawn so widely that it also includes ‘non-commercial material’ – which could extend its reach to include legitimate campaign literature.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: ‘This is a Government who just doesn’t understand civil liberties. They may claim these powers won’t be used but the frank truth is no one will believe them.’

Could you imagine? Police show up at your house and say they are here to take your posters because they communicate an idea the government is against. Hard to see happening here, but then how long ago was it hard to believe GM being turned into Government Motors?

This is what happens when you allow civil liberties to be eroded, little by little.

I hope they turn this around before they lose everything.

Hat Tip: Barking Moonbat Early Warning System (and he wasn’t at all please about it!)

Respond to this: 3 Comments

Why John Edwards Is Responsible for More Unnecessary Operations Than "Greedy Doctors"

Last night during his national press conference, President Barack Obama maligned doctors as doing unnecessary operations based on greed, not the best interest of the patient. He said:

“Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that’s out there. … The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out,’” Obama told a prime-time news conference.

The president added: “Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I’d rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid’s tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change — maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference.”

It’s interesting that President Obama discusses unnecessary operations as one of the causes of high health care costs. Do you know what the most often performed operation is in the United States? With heart disease being the number one killer in America, you might think it would be related to that, perhaps bypass surgery or angioplasty.

It’s cesarean section. In 1965, only 4.5 percent of children were delivered via c-section. Today, 31 percent are. That’s a huge increase for a procedure that was once reserved to emergency situations. And as the Los Angeles Times notes, it has resulted in “an explosion in medical bills, an increase in complications — and a reconsideration of the cesarean as a sometimes unnecessary risk.”

What is the reason for the increase? Is it greedy doctors looking for a new summer home? No, it’s something far worse.

John Edwards.

The now disgraced former Senator from North Carolina made his name, and his money, as a trial lawyer. In a 1985 case, he convinced a jury that a doctor’s negligence was responsible for a child’s cerebral palsy. He argued that had the doctor performed a c-section earlier, the girl would not have been disabled. He went so far as to channel the girl in court for the jury:

“I have to tell you right now — I didn’t plan to talk about this — right now I feel her, I feel her presence,” he said in his record-setting 1985 lawsuit on behalf of Jennifer Campbell, born brain-damaged after being deprived of oxygen during labor. “She’s inside me and she’s talking to you. . . . And this is what she says to you. She says, `I don’t ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don’t ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.’ “

The jury awarded the plaintiff $6.5 million. The New York Times reports this verdict led to more lawsuits:

In the decade that followed, Mr. Edwards filed at least 20 similar lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in deliveries gone wrong, winning verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million, typically keeping about a third. As a politician he has spoken of these lawsuits with pride.

“I was more than just their lawyer,” Mr. Edwards said of his clients in a recent essay in Newsweek. “I cared about them. Their cause was my cause.”

The effect of his work has reached beyond those cases, and beyond his own income. Other lawyers have filed countless similar cases; just this week, a jury on Long Island returned a $112 million award. And doctors have responded by changing the way they deliver babies, often seeing a relatively minor anomaly on a fetal heart monitor as justification for an immediate Caesarean.

So what has been the result of the increase in Caesarean section births? Occurrences of cerebral palsy have “remained fairly stable” at about “1.5/1000 births.”

In fact, the incidence of CP seems to be increasing slightly with the increased survival rates of infants born before thirty-two weeks gestation.

Whether or not fetal heart rate monitoring during labor has led to a reduction in cerebral palsy has been researched extensively. The conclusion established by multiple scientific evidence is: Fetal heart rate monitoring during labor does not reduce rates of cerebral palsy, although it does increase the rate of cesarean section.

As the L.A. Times notes, they also lead to unnecessary costs:

As the No. 1 cause of hospital admissions, childbirth is a huge part of the nation’s $2.4-trillion annual healthcare expenditure, accounting in hospital charges alone for more than $79 billion.

Because the average uncomplicated cesarean runs about $4,500, nearly twice as much as a comparable vaginal birth, cesareans account for a disproportionate amount (45%) of delivery costs. Among privately insured patients, uncomplicated cesareans run about $13,000.

and:

The problem, experts say, is that the cesarean — delivery via uterine incision — exposes a woman to the risk of infection, blood clots and other serious problems. Cesareans also have been shown to increase premature births and the need for intensive care for newborns. Even without such complications, cesareans result in longer hospital stays.

If the president is really interested in reducing the occurrences of unnecessary operations, he doesn’t need to create the boogey-man of “greedy doctors.” Greedy doctors don’t remove body parts like tonsils. They implant body parts, like silicone breasts. The real culprit here is the trial lawyer, who has helped create a medical world that chooses procedures based on the CYA diagnosis method. However, the president’s speech last night was not critical of this, and didn’t emphasize tort reform.

A 2001 article from National Review explains why the president doesn’t see a need for tort reform:

An estimated 50 cents of every dollar awarded to tort plaintiffs gets eaten up by lawyers and courts-and a great deal of that money ends up benefiting Democratic candidates. Over the last decade, the legal profession has led all other groups in campaign contributions-giving a total of $357 million to federal candidates-and 70 percent of its cash goes to Democrats. The 56,000-member Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) was the top PAC contributor to Democratic federal candidates in the last election cycle; the organization spent $2.6 million, 86 percent of which went to Democrats.

If he were serious about lower costs, this would be the cornerstone of his movement. Instead, he maligns “greedy doctors,” many of whom work 16 hours or more a day trying to help people, and lets the “greedy trial lawyers” off the hook. Remember that next time he accuses the Republicans of bowing down to special interests.

Update:

Thanks to those who liked and linked, including Jimmie at the Sundries Shack, Melissa Clouthier at Melissa Clouthier.com and Right Wing News, Jenn Sierra at Fort Hard Knox, Kathy Shaidle at fivefeetoffury. You all helped me get my first Memeorandum thread!

If I missed you, it’s not intentional. I just haven’t found your link yet.

Don’t forget to retweet and stumble! Thanks again!

Update 2:

I guess this story has some legs. Welcome Lucianne and American Thinker readers. Please remember to subscribe and follow me on Twitter! I’m closing in on 3,000 followers.

Respond to this: 90 Comments

Emanuel: We Rescued the Economy; Boehner: I Don't Think So

This guy can’t get enough of himself on television.

But you know what I honestly think…Obama thinks he is so charismatic that if he goes on television and says it’s so, then the masses will slowing start to nod their heads in unison and start mumbling “Yes…we…can…” again. Why else would he be on television so much that even his supporters are saying enough is enough!

Now, he is going to go on television, again, tonight, to tell us he’s rescued the economy. No, really:

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told The New York Times Obama intends to use the news conference as a “six-month report card,” to talk about “how we rescued the economy from the worst recession” and the legislative agenda moving forward, including health care and energy legislation.

Rescued? Really? Where?




Gateway Pundit has a video that I’ll share with you below, showing 134 Republicans in the House asking “Where are the jobs?”




Obama said we had to pass the stimulus bill fast and that it would create or save millions of jobs. He said it would start immediately, not in two years:




So now he is telling us that the stimulus plan was supposed to start immediately, that it is ahead of schedule, that it has done its job, but it is a two year plan. Oh yeah, and you rescued the economy even though you predict higher unemployment.

Obama’s path leads to bondage. A people more and more dependent on a central government to provide for them. As more people find it easier to do this, there will be less people to do the providing.

He hasn’t rescued the economy. He has worsened it.

Respond to this: Comments Off

Obama Not Familiar with House Health Care Bill?

It was during a conference call with a bunch of lefty bloggers that President Obama let it be known that he wasn’t familiar with the House health care reform bill.

Heritage reports:

During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” (quote begins at 17:10)

This is a truly disturbing admission by the President, especially considering that later in the call, Obama promises yet again: “If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period.” How can Obama keep making this promise if he is not familiar with the health legislation that is being written in Congress? Details matter.

Details matter, but as I have seen from this president, facts don’t.

The Lewin Group is familiar with the House bill and have produced a study showing what will happen if it is enacted:

    * Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and as a consequence about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.

   * About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.

   * Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare.

You will lose your health care. Period.

Respond to this: 6 Comments

Democrats Hammered In Public Forums Over Government Run Health Care

Rep. Russ Carnahan was outright laughed at when he suggested the government run system would be more efficient than the free market. The question at the end of the video is especially important. I still want an answer for it:



Another Democrat faced off against one of his in a town hall meeting. Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland had to answer if he would really fine a person $2500 if they chose not to have health insurance. His answer? Yes, because you wouldn’t pay for your health care otherwise:



Someone needs to ask him why the government is picking up the tab in the first place.
Hat Tip: Freedom’s Lighthouse

Respond to this: 9 Comments

My American Issues Project Article: The Upcoming Explosion of Medical Tourism

This week over at AIP, I wrote about the coming exodus of American doctors to foreign countries. They will invite their current patients to visit them there where they can be treated for what ails them and recuperate on the beach.

The article is titled,”The Upcoming Explosion of Medical Tourism.” Here’s a taste:

My favorite doctor retired several years ago. He spent a lot of time during his retirement practicing medicine in different countries. When asked why he did that, he said he could just practice medicine without all the red tape. Doctors who find themselves tired of dealing with the bureaucratic nightmare that the Democrats are trying to foist upon them have few options. They can continue to work in the system, they can quit or they can move their practice to a better locale and just practice medicine. Some have already made it clear: they’re leaving.

Given the situation of having to wait for months, possibly years, for surgery or going to the Bahamas for a week’s worth of treatment, what would you do? Medical tourism is already on the upswing. As the New York Times reports, some insurance companies are paying travel expenses to go overseas.

If the Democrats succeed in taking over health care, this market will really take off.

Respond to this: 3 Comments

Rosie Was a Truther, Whoopi Is a "Mooner?"

My grandpa was a mooner. I just found that out the other day while I was talking to my dad. We both got a chuckle as he recounted my grandpa telling my dad not to be stupid. “They can’t go to the moon,” he said.

Well, just like when Rosie doubted that fire could melt steel, Whoopi is wondering, “Who shot that footage on the moon?




Ed Morrissey has an interview with the boys from Mythbusters on CNN:

I went to YouTube and found the show that should explain to Ms. Goldberg why the flag rippled on the moon:








Respond to this: Comments Off

Democrat Senators Vote Against Having the Same Health Care Plan They'll Force on You

Hospital Corridor.jpgThe Wall Street Journal points out that an amendment authored by one of my favorite senators, Tom Coburn (R-OK), that would “require all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new government-run health plan” barely made it. There were 12 who voted for it, 11 against it.

All were Democrats, except the socialist from Vermont, Bernie Sanders and Republican Judd Gregg, who said “the public option ‘will be so bad that I don’t think anyone should be forced to join.’”

Of course, they also qualify now for generous Congressional coverage. Most Americans won’t have the same choice. Some will be transferred to the new entitlement as it uses its taxpayer bankroll to dominate insurance markets. Others work for businesses that will find it easier to dump their policies and move employees to the federal rolls. Democrats also know that the public option will try to control health spending by squeezing payments made to doctors and hospitals, and by not paying for treatments that Washington decides are too expensive, which will result in inferior care.

No doubt Mr. Dodd acceded to the Coburn amendment to blunt such objections, and in any case he’ll strip it out later in some backroom.

I was listening to Mark Levin last week when a caller from Missouri said she called Sen. Claire McCaskill’s office to find out if she would be using the public option. She was told by an aide that would be a personal choice for Sen. McCaskill. Would that it were that easy for us.

The Heritage Foundation has some grim data on the results of this boondoggle. Bottom line: You Will Lose Your Current Insurance. Period. End of Story.

Here’s the truth, brand-new analysis(pdf) from The Heritage Foundation — conducted by The Lewin Group— shows that the public plan component within the House Democrats’ health reform bill is in conflict with how the Congress and the President are selling their reform plan.

“If you like your health plan, you can keep it, the only thing that will change is that you’ll pay less.” Remember that? Well, according to the new Lewin study:

  • Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and as a consequence about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.
  • About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.
  • Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare.
Respond to this: Comments Off

22 Year Old Alcoholic Refused Liver Transplant, Dies In UK Hospital

Like Obama keeps telling people, sometimes there are procedures that just don’t make sense. So it’s the job of the government to decide what doctors should do in each particular case. In this case, we have an alcoholic with severe cirrhosis of the liver. He couldn’t prove he would stop drinking, so by government regulations, he was denied a liver and died.Gary Reinbach.jpg

He was 22. Oh yeah, he was so sick he couldn’t leave the hospital to prove he’d stay sober:

Gary Reinbach, who died in hospital on Monday from a severe case of liver cirrhosis, did not qualify for a donor liver under strict NHS rules.

The alcoholic, from Dagenham, Essex, had admitted binge drinking since he was 13 but was only taken to hospital for the first time with liver problems 10 weeks ago.

He was never discharged.

His mother Madeline Hanshaw, 44, said: “These rules are really unfair.”

She told the Evening Standard: “I’m not saying you should give a transplant to someone who is in and out of hospital all the time and keeps damaging themselves, but just for people like Gary, who made a mistake and never got a second chance.”

Welcome to socialized medicine, where treatment is denied for the greater good. Coming soon to America.

Respond to this: 56 Comments

Democrats Refuse Pledge to Read Health Care Bill Before Signing

Let Freedom Ring has a pledge it wants lawmakers to take. It’s pretty straightforward. Before you vote to enact the health care reform bill, you will read the health care reform bill.

Here it is:

pledge-to-read.png

Right now it has 72 signatures. According to the Colin Hanna, no Democrats have signed on yet:

As you remember, Steny Hoyer found it funny that legislators would actually read the health care reform bill before voting on it.
My Congressman has signed the pledge, but Kit Bond hasn’t. I don’t expect Claire McCaskill will. Where does your representative stand on this?
Respond to this: 6 Comments

Today's Bloglines: Lorie Byrd

200907201214.jpg

I just finished (literally, I’m uploading the interview while I’m typing this) talking with Lorie Byrd of Wizbang. She’s a great blogger who had some great things to say about the craft of blogging. She’s my guest today on RFC Radio‘s Bloglines.

The show starts at 5 pm EST. You can chat with other listeners live in RFC Radio’s Chatroom. You can hit the RFC Radio widget in the sidebar to listen to the show and read the blog too.

Respond to this: Comments Off