Of course the HuffPo people think he looks "super cool!" or as the always hip Arlen Specter would say, "super-duper" cool. Losers!
P.S. Boos for Obama in St. Louis?! Looks like he's not as infallible as previously thought!
Things to know about me and this blog: No, I'm not obsessed with Ayn Rand, I just thought this title was cool, although I do agree with many of her ideas on liberty. I will post whatever I feel like here, but it will mostly be links to articles I find funny, interesting, or noteworthy, that you will probably not hear about from the mainstream media (MSM). I am socially conservative, neo-con on foreign policy, and fairly libertarian economically.
Before examining how socialized health care affects other conditions, I wanted to follow up on last week's cancer focus with two more cancer horror story articles from the United Kingdom.
UK Telegraph: Patients with suspected cancer forced to wait so NHS targets can be hit
Because of the pressure to cut down on the wait times inherent in universal health care, targets have been put in place to make sure hospitals meet certain time requirements. In response, hospitals put their focus on the cases that are counted towards the targets (i.e. cancer patients referred by GPs) and put the cases that don't count towards targets (emergency cancer patients) on the back burner. When the government runs health care, meeting warped government standards takes priority over treating the sickest.
People arriving at Accident and Emergency departments [Emergency Rooms in the United States] with symptoms which could indicate the aggressive spread of the disease are waiting weeks for diagnosis and treatment while “routine” cases are prioritised.
Hospital managers told researchers that treating desperately sick patients more quickly would “reflect badly” on their performance against Government cancer targets which only cover those referred to specialists by GPs.
...
Katherine Murphy, from the Patients Association, said the report provided “breathtaking” evidence of a confidence trick being played on the public, repeatedly told that waiting times for patients with suspected cancer are falling, while desperate cases were forced to the back of the queue.
She said: “This confirms our very worst fears, and exposes the scandal of what pernicious targets are doing to patients. We have seen other targets being used in ways that damage patient care, but of everything we have seen, this really is the cruellest of the cruel”.
UK Daily Mail: Britain's cancer shame as 15,000 elderly patients could be saved every year
15,000 senior citizens die every year because of the socialized health care system. Britain is considerably smaller than the United States, so the numbers would be far higher here if we were to follow the UK. The problems that lead to these preventable deaths are also hallmarks of universal health care: more delays, poorer treatment, less access to drugs, and more inhuman bureaucracy. Again, government targets have unintended and harmful consequences for patients.
UP to 15,000 Britons aged over 75 are dying needlessly from cancer each year, claim researchers.
Their lives could be prolonged if UK cancer survival rates matched the best in Europe and the US, it is claimed.
A new study is the latest to expose the gap between survival rates in Britain and other developed countries despite huge increases in NHS funding.
Researchers say many older sufferers have more invasive cancers, partly caused by later diagnosis of the disease either through delays in the NHS or by patients themselves.
Another factor is poorer treatment of patients here, compared with other countries which often have a wider range of drugs to use.
…
Shadow Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley said 'This report exposes the huge problems with Labour’s bureaucratic, tick-box culture. Their targets for cancer survival for the NHS only focus on the under 75s, so it’s not surprising older people are suffering.
Originally posted at American Issues Project Blog.
With Obamacare increasingly becoming the focus in Washington, it is important to highlight the horrors of government-run universal health care in other countries so it can be stopped here.
Here's are two recent stories on how government health care affects cancer treatment:
UK:
It revealed that among cancers which affect both sexes, men are 60 per cent more likely to develop the disease and 70 per cent more likely to die from it. ...From this example we can see that when the government controls health care, politicians will use it to get votes from favored constituencies - at the expense of the health of others. Notice also how the author approvingly cites the practices of private health care to encourage better health outcomes.
As a cancer specialist for the past 30 years, I found the study depressingly predictable. It has long been clear to me that we men are unfairly discriminated against by an NHS which has unfairly favoured female health matters ahead of the needs of male patients. ...For the fact is that politicians, eager to court the female vote, have long presided over a huge disparity in funding and treatment of female cancer patients at the expense of their male counterparts. ...
The truth is that by treating the NHS as a political football to be kicked in whichever direction they judge will win them the most votes, politicians have added hugely to the disparity between male and female cancer survival rates. ...I believe we need to look at financial incentives as a possible answer. Recently, private health insurers have started offering reduced premiums for subscribers who agree to join gyms, and even ‘no claims discounts’ for those who remain healthy. Why shouldn’t the NHS adopt a similar approach?...
Canada:
Interleukin-2 is a protein in the human body that stimulates the immune system and helps infection-fighting cells multiply and grow. It is used to treat certain types of cancers such as advanced melanoma and renal cancer. IL-2 was approved by Health Canada several years ago, but its use is not as widespread in Canada as it is in the United States.
OHIP covers pre-approved IL-2 treatments in the U.S. for Ontario residents who need it, but Hunt has been waiting to get the life-saving drug for two months....
He sought treatment in Detroit and had a consultation with an oncologist there but didn't get OHIP's approval to proceed because of a simple mistake in the paperwork, Meghan said.
Frustrated, the couple spent hours on the phone, calling doctors, the Ministry of Health and local politicians, hoping that someone could help them.
But while they were scrambling to secure Hunt's treatment in Detroit, there was a change in OHIP rules.
OHIP will now only cover Hunt's cancer treatment in Buffalo, N.Y., where the Roswell Park Cancer Institute is the ministry's only "preferred provider" of IL-2 treatment for metastatic malignant melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. The Ministry of Health has a number of funding agreements with out-of-country health care facilities, which are chosen based on specific criteria.
After much bureaucratic wrangling, Hunt will finally meet with specialists in Buffalo today and find out when he can begin treatment there. But he still doesn't understand why he and his family have to make the four-hour trip instead of simply crossing the border to get the same medical care in Detroit.
First of all, the fact that Canada is sending its patients to the U.S. for proper care should be enough of an indication of the failures of their system - where will Canadians go if the U.S. gets socialized health care? Second, this story demonstrates the red tape and government control of where people can seek treatment, which is based on cost, not necessarily on better care or patient comfort.
These are just two examples of many of how poorly run universal health care is for cancer patients. Next week, we'll take a look at other aspects of the system.
Originally posted at American Issues Project Blog.
Even among proponents of a congressional apology, reaction to yesterday's vote was mixed. Carol M. Swain, a professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University who had pushed for the Bush administration to issue an apology, called the Democratic-controlled Senate's resolution "meaningless" since the party and federal government are led by a black president and black voters are closely aligned with the Democratic party.
"The Republican Party needed to do it," Swain said. "It would have shed that racist scab on the party."
So how did we get here?
Higher premiums serve to discourage investment and development in disaster-prone areas, such as Florida with it's hurricane season, however the higher prices are not politically popular and may appear unfair when the seas are calm and the weather clear. That may cause the government to attempt to drive prices down artificially, which serves as a market signal for more investment and development on the high-risk lands.
In Florida, politicians created a state-run insurance company with artificially low property insurance premiums backed by an implicit guarantee which encouraged people to build, like the celebrities building elaborate mansions on beaches in hurricane paths. This distortion in the marketplace drove many private insurance companies out of the state, leaving the state of Florida as the largest insurance provider.
When natural disasters hit, like a hurricane, the damage costs are higher, and thus insurance claims greater, than they would have been if the original premium signals had been obeyed and the beach houses not been built. Instead of spreading the risk throughout the private insurance sector, taxpayers are left footing the bill for massive claim payouts.
To cover their behinds so their constituents don't hold them accountable on this self-inflicted mess, many politicians like those in Florida want to spread the risk throughout the rest of the country through the "Homeowners' Defense Act," i.e. pass the buck on and seek a federal bailout. Of course, this would merely recreate the Florida model on a massive scale: the federal government will provide a guarantee and national taxpayers will be on the hook for payouts.
This idea is attractive to other states and localities that face increased natural disaster risks, but is unfair to low-risk states and taxpayers who choose to live and build in stable, safe areas who will end up having to bailout their irresponsible and risky neighbors.
To join CEI in saying "No Beach House Bailouts," sign their citizens petition here.
Originally posted at the American Issues Project Blog
Out of around 40,000 pregnancies more than 20,000 were terminated - the first time more had chosen this option than become mothers.
The figure is higher than 2007, when it just hit 50 per cent, and consistent with a steady upwards trend since the Government started its controversial Teenage Pregnancy Strategy in 1999.
Figures out on May 21 will also show that for the first time the number of abortions performed on women living in England and Wales topped 200,000.
The teenage pregnancy strategy, which has cost taxpayers more than £300million, was meant to halve the number of conceptions among girls under 18 in England between 1998 and 2010.
Ministers have tried to slash teenage pregnancies by freely handing out contraceptives and expanding sex education.
But the fall in pregnancy rates has not met Government targets, and in 2007 the rate actually rose.
Teenage pregnancy rates are now higher than they were in 1995. Pregnancies among girls under 16 - below the age of consent - are also at the highest level since 1998.
A Department of Health spokesman said: 'One of the key aims of this Government, as set out in the Sexual Health and Teenage Pregnancy Strategies, is to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and consequently abortions, through better access to contraception.
'Prescribed contraception is available free of charge under NHS arrangements, and the Department of Health has recently invested additional funds to allow for improvements in contraception services.'
Ann Furedi, of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, has claimed: 'The fact that teenagers felt able to end their pregnancy in abortion is actually a positive sign.
'If they have other plans for their teenage years aside from motherhood, they felt more able to make that choice.'
Reyers and other Democrats currently on the committee told reporters Thursday that the GOP is waging a politically motivated attack on the speaker — and that she has received an unfair ride in the press.
"I tell you who you need to get — that's Hoekstra, who is running for governor
with irresponsible undertakings, and you tell him I said so," said Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), referring to Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the committee and a leading Pelosi critic.

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old—and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."
"I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution. I would not have nominated Justice Scalia though I don't think there is any doubt about his intellectual brilliance. Because he and I just disagree."
I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.

Keep your hands washed. Cover your mouth when you cough ... Stay home from work if you are sick. Keep your children home from school if they are sick.
Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups.
RT @obamasthoughts We must re-make America; because we got off track somewhere along the line. (Personally, I think it was 233 years ago.)
When asked by judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger, whether she believed in gay marriage, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, said "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."
Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, tells FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement.
"As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family."
Miss California's answer sparked a shouting match in the lobby after the show.
But Prejean told FOXNews.com that she has no regrets and is happy with the answer she gave.














