Is the Breast Cancer Screening Controversy a Sign of Rationing?

Emotions and tempers have been high in the wake of landmark health care legislation being pushed through both houses of Congress right now. There’s been a tremendous amount of confusion as to what exactly the implications of this bill passing would bill. Claims have been all over the map on this bill, in what has been a highly polarized partisan debate to this point. Among some of the criticisms of this bill include the likelihood that subsidized health care would be rationed to lower the cost curve. This has been a topic democrats have been trying to beat down for quite a while.

Just recently a new wrench was thrown into the debate when an independent government task force came out saying that routine breast cancer screenings were not needed in women under 50 years old. Aside from the outrage sparked in breast cancer patients and survivors who attribute the routine testing as a lifesaver, this is also being hailed as a potential early sign of rationing for the purpose of cutting costs. What is most shocking about this is that the government would effectively be acting as a third-party telling the doctor and the patient how and when screenings should be used.

Although the task force’s recommendations won’t necessarily take effect, it is certainly alarming that something like that would be considered by the government. Breast cancer tests should be done at the discretion of the doctor, government recommendations of that nature would certainly interfere with that and thus has sparked some genuine concern.

The fear of rationed health care is not all that far-fetched. We’ve heard the politicians stress about looking for ways to cut cost of coverage and you don’t have to read to far into the bill to see where its possible. First of all, there will be fewer doctors for a variety of reasons. Many say that would end their practices under this bill. Secondly all the people thrown on the government plan, and this would include those who don’t have care or those forced off their employer-provided care would drastically increase demand. At the same time we have a government trying to control costs. This trifecta would lead you to conclude that rationing of services will be highly likely. Rationing usually starts with routine tests, like mammograms for instance and then builds from there.

People don’t realize what they are getting themselves into. If you look back through the last century you will see that no government program has truly accomplished what it promised it would and certainly none have cut costs. There is too much room for corruption, there is little if any incentive to get people off programs once they are on them and they become a substantial drag on the system. As a country, if we are seeking economic stability than people better start re-evaluating their priorities.

 

Economic Power Usurp – Government’s war on Big Business

An amendment was introduced in the house today that would give government increased authority to break up large financial firms if they were becoming “too big to fail.” This amendment was introduced to a financial bill in the House Financial services committee. Any firm the government determines to be economically risky, it is not specified what a “risky” business is, would be subject to an onslaught of crippling government restrictions and regulations.

Let me ask a question here because there seems to be a misunderstanding of how a free market economy works.

When in history has the government programs, regulations, or subsidies ever stimulated economic growth? The answer is never. Those who continue to think that government will bring us out of this recession are wrong and will be in for a rude awakening. We were told in the beginning of this year that the stimulus bill would rescue our economy. It has done nothing so far and has not been transparent. They set up a whole scheme in the form of a website to give people the illusion of transparency. States were supposed to report back how many jobs were created or saved and where and how much money it took. When the reports came in this week, it was a joke. The numbers were all over the map, clearly fabricated and many jobs were saved in fictitious districts.

There is absolutely no excuse for such an egregious error as to name a 24th district in Connecticut or something like that. If that does not completely disqualify the integrity of the data that was presented, I don’t know what does. The fact this administration is still standing by the numbers posted on recovery.gov should be an example of how out of touch they are. By the way, What’s the standard they are using to determine whether or not a job was saved?

With all the examples of how the government cannot fix the economy we are still plowing ahead toward some imaginary success that is supposedly going to come out of this. It has become a finger-pointing game with big business on the top of the list, despite the government’s debt being astronomically higher than all profits of big business. Yet businesses are the problem. When exactly does the government become the problem in our lawmaker’s eyes. It’s time for the people to inform them.

 

NYC Gitmo Trials, What’s the risk?

Khalid Sheik Mohammed is among 5 terror suspects in connection with 9/11 that will be due for trial for New York in the near future in a Civilian court, a move that many Americans are finding quite controversial. This issue may play a major factor in the outcome of the midterm elections next year in light of recent polls that have been released. Only 29% of Americans approve of the president’s decision. Those who oppose it, which is clearly more than half do for good reason. The consequence of putting these terrorists into civilian courts is the much more strict constitutional guidelines that subsequently take effect.

Now the administration has come and is promising Americans that these people will be brought to justice and will not be released onto America soil in the off-chance they are acquitted. We’ll unfortunately we saw in a 2007 Appeals court ruling that indefinite detainment of Terrorists legally on American soil is not allowed. Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri was ordered to be released by the court during the Bush administration because since he was being detained on American soil, constitutional law then applied. This is overlooked but will acts as a strong precedent because of its proximity in history to this event.

How can we trust then that there is not a risk of this happening again with the detainees being brought in to be tried in civilian courts?

The answer is, We can’t. There is concern being raised that they might be released on technically. Now although this is seemingly very unlikely, let’s take a look at a couple different routes defense attorneys could go about arguing that point. Since the constitution applies, they could bring up the grievances on the fact that Mohammed was detained for 6 years which stands in violation of the rules for a fair trial. They could also contend the likelihood that they could actually assemble an impartial jury. Now, depending on how receptive the judge is of those arguments will be a major player in the outcome of that trial, but it’s definitely something to watch.

The idea that these people who have been detained for war crimes against this county would be given civilian constitutional rights is an abomination against our constitution. It is unprecedented in history. If you weigh in the absolute atrocities being committed against our troops overseas today, its amazing to think that we’d even consider returning any kind of favor to them. Not to mention the fact that these people have openly professed that they would return to their militant ways upon release because they think they are religiously driven. You can’t change them, so it’s ludicrous to undergo that kind of risk.

 

Obama’s bow quite embarrassing

Well we know how we all in the United States have reacted to Obama’s tendency to bow in submission to royalty like no other president has before in US history. He first bowed to Saudi Arabian Royalty a few months ago and it is considered appalling and offensive to Americans. It appears weak and it degrades this nation and the people of this nation.

The million dollar question of the week… Is how did the Japanese react to this? Well according to Hotair.com a Japan Expert had this to say about the president’s gesture:

“Obama’s handshake/forward lurch was so jarring and inappropriate it recalls Bush’s back-rub of Merkel.

“Kyodo News is running his appropriate and reciprocated nod and shake with the Empress, certainly to show the president as dignified, and not in the form of a first year English teacher trying to impress with Karate Kid-level knowledge of Japanese customs.

“The bow as he performed did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms….The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part.

Now ever since Japan surrendered to us in World War II, which again in his speech, Obama seemingly forgot that fact when he talked about Japans willingness to avoid acquiring nuclear weapons. We’ll it wasn’t because they had good hearts, it’s because by treaty they have been prohibited from doing so. The United States promised to protect Japan’s security interests in exchange for their cooperation. Obama bowing to the royalty in Japan has symbolically said to the people of Japan that they have the upper hand on us. That is a frightening message when they are very dependent on us for aid against potential invading countries.

Barack Obama once again has made us look like fools on the world stage. He may be the most traveled president for a first year in office, but in doing so he has compromised the world view of the US so much so that rogue state do not fear us anymore. Chavez has boldly called America out, North Korea has blatantly ignored verbal warnings and Iran has scoffed at what america is now. They all have one thing in common in their defiance. They know the US won’t do anything to them. They are going to keep pushing their limits and asserting their leverage on US leadership until we show them otherwise.

 

A Carbon Credit Bank Account? Coming soon

European countries have acted as good indicators in the past as for what could be coming down the pipe here in American in the near future. The climate conundrum has been known to open up very strange things in the name of protecting the environment or “going green”  Some people in the British legislature feel that giving everyone a Carbon-Allowance would effectively cap carbon emissions in the country.

Here’s how it would work:

Every time you purchase something that has a certain degree of carbon in it, it deducts a set amount of credit from your arbitrary carbon sum you’d have in the account. The account would work similar to the way a normal bank account works and you would get regular balance statements send to you in the mail to help you keep track of how many carbon credits you have left. Once you run out, you are blocked from buying gas, transportation tickets, etc. until you buy additional carbon credit. As you can tell people can buy more Carbon Dioxide rights by paying the government – tax revenue that they absolutely love.

Britain itself has announced an ambitious Carbon Dioxide emission goal to cap 1990 level emissions by 80 percent. It is economic suicide. The impact it will have on the environment will be negligible resulting in a severe net loss for the economy and the people of the country. People don’t even realize that Carbon Dioxide’s impact on temperature is barely even detectable if it exists at all. The idea that Carbon Dioxide is directly linked to Warming has never been sufficiently proven, yet we are all ready to march in step as a globe under its banner.

None of these proposals actually aim to solve the problem either. These are all roundabout ways to dramatically increase people’s taxes. People who are dependent on traveling a lot will not be able to cut back on their air travel and as a result it will just make it another source of tax revenue to the government. It will cripple businesses, force them to raise prices on retail and subsequently the citizens will lose out big time.

Why should we in the United States be concerned about this?

There has been a growing effort to enforce strict Carbon regulations on a Global level. The organization that would be overlooking this is the United Nations, which is composed of a number of nations that would not mind to see the destruction of the US economy. Hence we can expect a similar if not worse scenario in this country if we are not careful. They are already moving Cap and Trade legislation in the Senate which goes as far as to prevent people from selling their own houses without the government’s approval. In addition the risk of this country’s ratification of the treaty in Copenhagen opens up a whole new world of possibilities including international mandates being imposed on the daily lives of US citizens. People need to wake up to this hoax before it destroys them.

 

NY-23 Race not over Yet

In a stunning move the House Democrats swore in the apparently newly elected Congressman Bill Owens on Friday, only three days after the election so he could be there to vote on the house health care bill. The seat that seemingly was Owens at the conclusion of the voting on Tuesday widely underestimated the impact that many absentee ballots being sent in would have on the race. As a result, house democrats could end up being embarrassed by seating a representative prematurely and end up having him removed.

Hoffman was quick to concede the race when the vote numbers in some of the counties he had a stronghold in the polls throughout campaign season ended up being closer races than he expected. Since then though, the numbers have rebounded a bit from new absentee votes that had come in and he may find himself in that seat even after his initial concession.

 Since the election results were not challenged by Hoffman, Pelosi was within her rights to seat Owens, but it is apparent that it’s not over yet for the NY-23 Congressional District.

The latest unofficial vote tally has Owens leading Hoffman by an ever so thin 3,000 vote margin: 66,698 to 63,672. This puts a tremendous amount of weight on the still over 10,000 absentee votes that have yet to be counted. Many of the absentee votes come from people in the military, which tend to favor Conservative candidates. Although it would take a substantial majority of these to fall Hoffman’s way as the votes pour in, it remains to be seen. No one at this point in time expected this race to still be left up to a remaining vote tally.

If the race did turn around, the results would signify a significant accomplishment on Hoffman’s part. He ran as a conservative candidate and out did the competing republican candidate. Hoffman was set back a bit when the Republican dropped out to endorse the democrat. There are a lot of factors that go into the results of this recent congressional election, but the apparent news now to not is that it is not over yet. Any seat that can be gained on the Democrats will help in the coming months as the conservatives try to whether the storm that gave democrats a convincing majority in both houses in 2008. There is a lot at stake and even one vote at times is the difference between being able to stop the progress of something or being steamrolled. It is essential that the numbers in the house change dramatically in the next election limit the economic damage.

 

Health Care Mandate – Congress having trouble Justifying it

There has been a lot of concern raised over the mandate for people to buy health insurance at the point of a threat to go to jail. There is no authority given constitutionally for something like this to be passed in a bill, but nonetheless people are threatened with up to five years in prison for not complying with the requirements in the Pelosi. But that doesn’t stop them from imposing it on the American people.

Wouldn’t want the constitution to get in the way of quality affordable health care for everyone. The American people will understand, health care is more important than individual liberty and freedom any day.

Ever since the house passed its version of the bill many representatives have been questioned about the significance and constitutionality of an individual mandate. In this series of questions the governing body made themselves look clueless and illiterate. Senator Reed of Rhode Island, when asked about the constitutionality of the legislation, likened the Individual mandate to Selective Service (the draft). What this man is either too stupid to know or ignores is that selective service is not mentioned in the constitution. It was passed during world war I for the purpose of recruiting troops into the military.

Senators Nelson and Akaka were also not able to answer the question of the constitutionality of such a mandate. That didn’t stop Nancy Pelosi from standing up and defending the mandate today. She called it “fair” that people can be jailed for not buying insurance. She went on to justify it by saying that no one should be stuck paying their medical expenses. She completely missed the point that the bill itself is a complete pillaging of the American people’s wallets. It’s funny though because now she’s tricked half the country into thinking she is trying to make it more affordable for them.

It’s really quite frightening to thing that no one in congress has yet to effectively justify an insurance mandate to any avail. The auto insurance talking point has already been torn apart and exposed because that, in itself, is determined at the state level. There is no federal mandate to buy auto insurance. From there the justifications are all over the map ranging from “I don’t know” to equating it with the selective service. Is there anyone in the Legislature with a normal IQ? The ignorance is truly stunning.

 

Guns may be banned as “health hazard”

The administration has been looking for a way to back door gun restrictions on law-abiding American citizens. Despite the examples every single day in the news of how the government realistically speaking has no way of actually protecting people. This fear stems from a recent nominee of Obama’s to run for the OSHA, David Michaels, who has a history of opposing issues of which the second amendment has an interest, which includes carrying around an unloaded gun.

Keep in mind this - A gunman is going to think twice if he walks into a crowded room and has 50 guns pointing right back at him. It serves a purpose law enforcement can’t possibly do because even the quickest response times would render them too late other than to pick up after the mess.

This administration is making this country substantially less safe, and people should be concerned when their means to defend themselves is being undermined by officials of this administration. The second amendment state very clearly, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It cannot be worded more basically than that. It’s amazing to me how there is still misunderstanding to this day over a line that is stated so clearly and boldly. It lives to show that their intention is to undermine the rights of the people, it gives them more power over you.

If the government can label guns as a hazard to human health, much like they have done with Carbon Dioxide, they then can enact measures to restrict them with little check or balance to hinder their progress. This opens the door for bans all over the place. Bans that will only affect those who follow the law. The constitution is then nonnegotiably thrown out the window in some illusion of a human health hazard. When you talk about the administration towing the line and back dooring landmark restrictions,  it brings to light the underhandedness of this adminstration.

Micheals would seek to make it so that firearms couldn’t even be kept in employees’ cars when they are parked on the property of a business. Now how does this even sound sensible? Can someone point out an example to me where the banning of guns actually saved lives. I can come up with scores of examples of where they cost lives, and where their presence saved lives. The banning of guns didn’t stop Hassan from getting one and bringing them into the facility in which they were not permitted. The Fort Hood incident could have been so much worse if it wasn’t for that woman who shot Hassan in the middle of his rampage. Casualties could also have been minimized if soldiers were allowed to carry firearms with them at that time.

 

Government Wants to Know What Websites you visit?

A story came out the other day that the department of Justice requested a complete list of the IP address who visited the news site http://www.indymedia.us/. This is a stunning move and it raises a lot of questions. Isn’t the against amendment four in the Constitution? Isn’t it interesting that the Democrats were so outspoken against phone line tapping of suspected terrorists but remain silent when it comes to information round up of website visitors.  I visited the site and did not see any reason for the department of justice to need the information. This appears to be an otherwise benign website.

 Here is the information they sought according to CBSNews:

The subpoena (PDF) from U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded “all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us” on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to “include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information,” including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers’ Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.

The subpoena of the Indy Media site was later dropped in a curious move leaving open a lot of reason to be concerned. These orders, since they involve the media, must go directly through Eric Holder and I assume they withdrew it after sufficient fear of backlash. Hence the reason they initially tried to place a gag order on indymedia.us to keep them from disclosing any information about the government’s request. Very indicative and quite underhanded on the part of the Obama Administration.

We as Americans should have some concern here because there is no telling what could happen. It is unclear why this information we requested. How can you justify the need for credit and bank account numbers in the interest of security. What other sites might be probed in a similar manner? That lives to be seen. Since there are many unknowns, the doors are left wide open for speculation on the matter. Some of which includes the possibility of imprisonment and other concerns simply for expressing opposition views to the government. All of which in no way has been confirmed but keeps Americans feeling uneasy.

We do know one thing tho – the White house has been very open in its criticism of media outlets dispensing information it doesn’t agree with. Administration officials, more specifically, the diversity Czar has cited the democratic media revolution in Venezuela as “brilliant.” Statements like that cannot be taken lightly and could be indicators of things to come. Remember one thing people, stand up for freedom, Protect it and defend it, because will not realize how valuable it really is until you have lost it.

 

New York May Be Out of Money by December

History wins out every time whether you’ve learned from it or not. Governor Patterson of New York is suffering the consequences of out of control spending and endless subsidies as he continues to search for ways to prevent the state from going broke. He made an announcement today that if cuts are not made to education and hospitals, the state will be broke by Christmas. This could have big consequences for residents in the state because that in turn would spike the already astronomic property taxes people are paying just to be able to stay in their homes.

I find this rather interesting because the governor knew the state was in trouble last year because he made substantial cuts in funding of my school. As a result it sent tuition up by over $1,000 per year, 90% of that increase went directly to the state’s general fund. Patterson didn’t learn though because last year, he in cooperation with the state senate raised state spending by $12,000,000,000.

It’s funny that he is now panicking about the budget gap now, although I’m sure New York residents don’t see the same humor.

Patterson committed the two cardinal economic sins during the receding economy to get himself into this situation. He irresponsibly raised spending, and tried to offset it by raising people’s taxes, a move that has people fleeing this state. Not to mention the fact that he is running a campaign advertisement saying that we need to do the right thing for the people of New York by Re-Electing him. This is the same man who came out six weeks ago saying that he felt his popularity was going down because he was black. If you’ve ever seen a picture of the guy, he looks whiter than some Hispanics I know – but I’m just saying the race card is getting old, and he’s digging in the sand for excuses.

Governor Patterson You Sir, are NOT qualified to be governor of anything larger than a 4 by 6 foot cubicle. Your irresponsible fiscal policies have drowned this state and have mortgaged the future of children who grow up in New York. If you want what’s right by the people of New York than get the hell out of Office. Residents of New York: If you re-elect this man than you must like being the state’s ATM, It’s time to wake up.