Mar 26 2009

Who wants a dose of socialized medicine?

After years of hearing the media and the politicians bash the state of US healthcare, I was pleasantly surprised to run across some real facts.    The media doesn’t tout our fantastic advancements, our longevity, our world class care.  Neither do the politicians…Hillary even MADE UP stories during her failed presidential bid to highlight how bad it is…remember this?

From the NYTimes:

Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.

But, as usual in politics, the facts were few and far between with plenty of embellishment:

But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.

The lies aside, what she was trying to do is use FEAR to motivate people to vote for her.  Just like Bush used fear to motivate a war in Iraq, just like Obama uses fear to take over every bank in site.

What troubles me the most is how easily the facts are ignored.  On the Mark Levin radio show last night, he read 10 facts about our healthcare system in the US, and how it compares to Socialized medicine in other countries…Canada, UK, Norway, Germany….the panaceas of how the left says it should be…

Please take the time to read these facts, they will surprise you I’m sure.  I bet you’ve never heard such stuff mentioned on a platform, or nightly news show.  To brag about the state of our union would undermine their cause to control every facet of our life…

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1] Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.[2] Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.

Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3] Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.[4] Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:

* Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
* Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
* More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
* Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).

Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor.”[5]

Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]

Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either “fundamental change” or “complete rebuilding.”[9]

Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the “health care system,” more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).[10]

Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade.[11] [See the table.] The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.[12]

Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.[13] The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country.[14] Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined.[15] In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.[16] [See the table.]

Conclusion. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.

So, who’s up for a healthy dose of socialized medicine now?

3 responses so far

Mar 19 2009

The AIG Hypocrisy

Published by Jason Blanchard under 1

I am tired of hearing about AIG because the politicians are AGAIN missing the boat.  But, I figured a post was needed to tell the story you’re not hearing in the Main Stream Media….

Who were top 7 recipients of AIG campaign donations in 2008? $290,000 to top democrats while only $80,000 to two republicans….that were RUNNING for PRESIDENT!. I guess AIG was hedging it’s bets…

From opensecrets.org
Obama, Barack (D-IL) Senate $104,332

Dodd, Chris (D-CT) Senate $103,900

McCain, John (R-AZ) Senate $59,499

Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) Senate $37,965

Baucus, Max (D-MT) Senate $24,750

Romney, Mitt (R) Pres $20,850

Biden, Joseph (D-DE) Senate $19,975

Chris Dodd is especially hypocritical…
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/dodd-cracks-aig—time/

While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. The provision, now called “the Dodd Amendment” by the Obama Administration provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009″ — which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax.

What’s worse is I keep hearing Geithner saying our economy will get back on track when the banks start lending again…we need to free up the market…etc… ISN’T THAT WHAT GOT US HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE???? HELLO?>?? Sometimes, I feel like the only one who is actually paying attention.

The AIG bailout, among others, is just a PRIME example of why the government should keep its nose out of the free market. Our government is reactionary, not visionary, period. The government will always be a step behind, reacting to the people’s opinions. In that sense, the government never foresees market problems, and therefore can NEVER prevent them. It will always be playing catchup…so it shouldn’t play at all.

No responses yet

Mar 05 2009

The IPCC Continues to be a CO2 Cult

The Public Works Congressional Committee heard from Dr. Christopher Field of the Carnegie Institution of Science earlier this week.  He is also a co-chair of the IPCC, and he continued the tirade against CO2, and greenhouse gases.   First off, we have to remember the IPCC is a political arm of the UN, not a scientific community like they’d have you believe.

I’ve pasted a few excerpts below…the whole testimony can be found here.

At continental, regional and ocean basin scales, numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed. These include changes in arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones.

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”  Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.

Drought-affected areas will likely increase in extent. Heavy precipitation events, which are very likely to increase in frequency, will augment flood risk.

The last one is priceless….more drought, and more rain.  As if the world has never seen this happen before.  Advanced civilizations have disappeared off the face of the earth for no known reason (possibly climate related) LONG before greenhouse gas became a household word.
My argument is this:

I find it hard to believe that limiting CO2 will have any noticeable effect on temperature around the globe. I find it much more likely that the actual engine heat, not it’s CO2 emission, is warming the earth. I’ve not seen anyone discuss this angle, but maybe I’ve just missed it.

According to wiki, there were 806 million cars around the world in 2007. 806,000,000 heaters turned on every day. This doesn’t count for all of the blacktop on which they drive, or all the parking lots created to store them, or all of the black shingles on our garages and houses - every bit of that absorbs, stores, and radiates heat. I find that a much more likely culprit of human caused warming. Not our 3% addition of a gas that only makes up .038% of the atmosphere. The Alarmist crowd talks about the complexities of the climate, but CO2 is their only smoking gun? It doesn’t add up for me.

In addition, most of our electricity is created by generating heat…HEAT with something to boil water into steam and spin a turbine. It’s either created by burning coal, natural gas, cow farts, landfill methane, plutonium / uranium. We’re BURNING these elements to create steam. That heat has to go somewhere. Methane is considered a greenhouse gas, and that it traps heat…so what do we do?  BURN IT!!?!? and CREATE HEAT!!?!   Again, the CO2 argument seems weak to me in the face of our widespread heat creation.

Here are some of the ways we create heat:  Engine heat from cars or construction equipment, Electricity generation (through creating steam), light bulbs, computers, televisions, snow blowers, lawn mowers,  all gas powered lawn equipment, ovens, stoves, microwave ovens, kitchen mixers (and anything else with an electric motor), ammunition for guns, bombs, nuke testing, bonfires, fireplaces, wood burning stoves, Gas and oil furnaces, radiators, geothermal heat systems that bring heat from inside the earth and dump it into the atmosphere.  OH, and EVERY human on the planet radiates 300 Btu/hr..every day.

Even if we limit CO2 from coal, cars etc, the heat we generate is still here.

5 responses so far

Mar 03 2009

Inheritance

Published by Jason Blanchard under Uncategorized and tagged: , ,

I am TIRED of hearing the current administration talk about the mess that they “inherited”.

Am I off base here? If so, please correct me…but here’s how I see it:

Obama was a Senator for 4 years VOTING on budgets, and opposing regulation for Fannie and Freddie that the Bush admin was pushing?
Biden has been a Senator since BEFORE I WAS BORN (he started 1/3/73 for those who are counting).

YET, they’re complaining about what they inherited? CONGRESS VOTES OUR BUDGETS INTO LAW!!! Democrats controlled Congress for 2/3 of the time that Biden was in office….yet THEY INHERITED THIS MESS?   Huh?   THEY F@$#%ing helped CREATE it!!!

Do NOT let them continue to re-write history as they see fit.

One response so far

Feb 26 2009

Anthropogenic global warming theory still hypothetical

Published by Jason Blanchard under Uncategorized and tagged: , , , , , , ,

“Anthropogenic global warming theory still hypothetical” is a statement from a Japanese Commision studying IPCC claims that CO2 is driving temperature changes on our planet.

The Japan Society of Energy and Resources released a report last month that has been translated by The Register. In it they describe some of the many faults with the IPCC assertions.  One such issue is “the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis”   In laymans, they are saying our temperature stations across the US suck.  They are right… http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htmPoint 1.1: Global Warming has halted

I have posted some excerpts below, and encourage everyone to click the Register link above and read the entire article.

Global Warming has halted

Global mean temperature rose continuously from 1800-1850. The rate of increase was .05 degrees Celsius per 100 years. This was mostly unrelated to CO2 gas (CO2 began to increase suddenly after 1946. Until the sudden increase, the CO2 emissions rate had been almost unchanged for 100 years). However, since 2001, this increase halted. Despite this, CO2 emissions are still increasing.

Regardless of whether or not the IPCC has sufficiently researched natural variations, they claim that CO2 has increased particularly since 1975. Consequently, after 2000, although it should have continued to rise, atmospheric temperature stabilised completely (despite CO2 emissions continuing to increase).

Conclusion: Anthropogenic global warming theory still hypothetical

To summarize the discussion so far, compared to accurately predicting solar eclipses by celestial mechanics theoretical models, climate models are still in the phase of reliance on trial and error experiential models. There are still no successful precedents. The significance of this is that climate change theory is still dominated by anthropogenic greenhouse gas causation; the IPCC 4th Evaluation Report’s conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to continuously, monotonously increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis; it will be necessary investigate further and to evaluate future predictions as subject to natural variability.

One response so far

Next »

Your Ad Here