Mar 26 2009

Who wants a dose of socialized medicine?

Published by Jason Blanchard under 1

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 03 2009

Inheritance

Published by Jason Blanchard under Uncategorized

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

Jan 14 2009

Hypocrisy with Inauguration Costs

Published by Jason Blanchard under Uncategorized

Sometimes these entries just write themselves.

Here’s a clip from 2005 commenting on Bush’s inauguration

“Democrats have criticised the $40m celebrations as a tasteless display of excess, saying tradition dictates that wartime inaugurations are restrained affairs.”

And here’s another from the NYT in 2005:

“Some critics say spending so much on these parties seems ill-timed both because of the Iraq war and the tsunami catastrophe in Asia. Anthony D. Weiner, a Democratic congressman preparing to run for mayor of New York, sent President Bush a letter on Tuesday suggesting that the millions in inaugural funds be sent to the troops in Iraq.

“Precedent suggests that inaugural festivities should be muted - if not canceled - in wartime,” Mr. Weiner wrote, noting that in 1945 Franklin D. Roosevelt limited the celebration to a cold luncheon at the White House.”

Both wars are still ongoing, we’re in the “biggest financial mess since the Depression”, and Obama’s party is expected to cost 25% MORE, at least $50 Million.  Yet there are no complaints from the left.

I am not surprised that the man who spent $712 MILLION dollars on his campaign is continuing to burn through other people’s money.  For the record, Hillary spent $221 million, and McCain spent $312 million.  Obama spent 228% more than McCain alone…..and 34% more than Clinton and McCain COMBINED!

Where are all the calls for prudent, frugal behavior now?

Hypocrisy?  You betcha.

4 responses so far

Sep 27 2008

“Sergeant, uh, uh, from the mother of, uh”

Published by Jason Blanchard under Uncategorized

I wonder if Sergeant, Ryan David Jopek’s mom is proud of Obama’s performance last night.  I’m embarrassed for the family of the soldier Obama used as a comeback.  “I’ve got a bracelet, too”  As if somehow his jewelry erases the uh, uh, 900, uh days he neglected to visit Iraq.

I thought the debate was pretty good overall.  I found many things funny, mostly related to the slanted media coverage.  Oh, and the text sent out by the Obama campaign encouraging their viewers to watch the debate on CNN.  Yup.  On Fox and Friends this morning, an Obama spokesman was asked about it.  His response was that the Obama camp wasn’t sure if it would be on all the channels.  LMAO, I kid you not.  Steve then asked if the campaign got TV guide.  Probably not liberal enough for them.

Moving on…I found this today.  Wanted to remind everyone of who REALLY has blocked reform of our mortgage giants.  Too bad the Dems didn’t listen back then - fingers in ears - LAH LAH LAH LAH I CAN’T HEAR YOU

From NY Times - September 11, 2003

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

…..

These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ‘‘The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

So, instead, they weakened EVERYONE’s buying power.  I guess that’s what makes it fair.  I’m sure glad they’re looking out for all of us.

Here are 17 other times the administration made warnings: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/15484/

No responses yet

Sep 23 2008

Racism and the Race

Published by Jason Blanchard under Uncategorized

So, if Obama loses, it’s because of racist white people.  But, what if McCain loses?  Is it because of racist black people?  I don’t feel we’re getting the same treatment here…One might call that HYPOCRISY!

Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them “lazy,” “violent,” responsible for their own troubles.

More than a third of all white Democrats and independents — voters Obama can’t win the White House without — agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don’t have such views.

Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren’t voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn’t vote for any Democrat for president — white, black or brown.

Wow….so, in essence, it’s the racist Democrats that will cost him the election.  The Republicans aren’t affected by his race, they simply DON’T AGREE WITH HIS SOCIALIST POLICIES.  Yet, the Media, and Obama says it’s the right-wing that keeps playing race issues.  BULLCRAP.

I guess this statement is the author’s idea of balance….

On the other side of the racial question, the Illinois Democrat is drawing almost unanimous support from blacks, the poll shows, though that probably wouldn’t be enough to counter the negative effect of some whites’ views.

OK, that’s not racist?  Whatever.

The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America. One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that “if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites.”

I posit, if ANYONE tries harder, they can be as well off as ANYONE else.  Who’s bringing up race?  Not me fellas.

The article also mentions Obama’s acceptance speech given on the MLK I have a Dream Anniversary.  I wish more people knew his dream was AGAINST the Democrats in Washington that have repressed black people for over 100 years.  MLK was a republican, the party created to end slavery.

Full article here : http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race

2 responses so far

Next »

Your Ad Here