Archive | December 2012

The “right” to healthcare does not require……a doctor to work for free…

As I’ve stated before after reading this abomination… it is all demand side based.  AS IS THE LIBERAL MIND.  There is no concept as to the immense problems this abomination will create on the supply side of healthcare.  They don’t have a clue.  Universal Coverage doesn’t mean Universal Treatment.  The liberals and democrats know this.  The ignorant voter does not.

Entitlement ALWAYS breed contempt for those that provide the entitlement.  Simple human nature my liberal friends.

[url]http://medcitynews.com/2012/11/one-persons-right-to-healthcare-does-not-require-a-doctor-to-work-for-free/[/url]

Whenever someone tells me about the “right” to healthcare, I ask, “From whom? From me?” This question exposes this “right” for the robbery and slavery that it is. Take it to the next step. Do you really want to exercise your “right” to healthcare on a physician who doesn’t want any part of this bargain? What kind of care do you think you’ll receive?

Years ago, I stopped doing cardiac anesthesia, because well over half of the patients were ’covered’ by Medicare and payment to me for my services was well below what I thought acceptable ($285 for my last 6-hour cardiac anesthetic). Soon thereafter I stopped my dealings with Medicare (and Medicaid) altogether as I increasingly saw myself as the recipient of money taken from my neighbors against their will. As an aside, the angriest patients I’ve ever encountered were the Medicare patients I subsequently treated with no charge whatsoever. My providing charitable care elicited patient rage like none I’ve encountered since.  ( again…Entitlement ALWAYS breed contempt for those that provide the entitlement)

About two weeks after I quit, an angry cardiac surgeon, inconvenienced by my departure from the group of available cardiac anesthesiologists and with his finger in my face, told me that he was going to see to it that I was forced to do these anesthetics, so as not to disrupt his schedule. I guess he thought he had a “right” to my services.  It didn’t help things that I laughed. I said, ’Dr. X, I’ll be happy to visit with the family before their loved one’s elective surgery and inform them that I want no part of this and that I don’t really want to be here, but someone is making me do this. Maybe you all would like to wait for an anesthesiologist who wants to be part of this, because I certainly don’t.’  This cardiac surgeon suddenly understood. Now imagine this on a large scale. Angry mobs of folks waving their ObamaCare ’insurance’ cards in the street demanding their free healthcare outside a closed and vacant doctor’s office.

That is what Obamacare is: an insurance card. Come 2014, you’ll have to certify to the IRS that you have such a card, one that is acceptable to the government. Or else you’ll have to pay the government for the ’choice’ to not have insurance: a minimum of $95 at first, climbing to $695 in a few years.  It is likely that the provider will not be a physician. The physician you might eventually see will not be working for you. He’ll be working for an ObamaCare Accountable Care Organization, which is paid for not providing care.

The Madness of Keynesian Economics

The completely ignorant… I mean.. low information voter that put the Marxist regime back in power will certainly not understand any of this…. but then… neither does the liberal media.  Obama has increased our debt $10T to $16T… and he wants more new spending…. NOT CUTS.  Obama will NEVER put forth a meaningful cut to any government program.  NEVER.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/the_madness_of_keynesian_economics.html

“Keynesian Economics” is the insane belief that the economy can be stimulated by government spending.  It provides the excuse to depart from common sense that allows politicians to ignore the alarm bells.  It is ludicrous mainly because our government doesn’t have any money to spend.  History has repeatedly proven that this is nonsense.  Yet Democrats will not let go of the Keynesian Myth.  The government is the center of society, America’s modern Democrats want to believe.  So they cannot shake the dogma that our entire economy depends upon government spending.

The New Deal was the largest real-world test of the Keynesian Myth in recent history. Franklin Roosevelt’s Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau confessed that the “New Deal” was a failure in sworn testimony before Congress on May 9, 1939.

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.”

[B]It’s like this:  You scoop water from the deep end of a swimming pool with a bucket, run around to the shallow end, and then pour the water into the shallow end of the pool.  Can you make the shallow end deeper?  The entire swimming pool is one inter-connected whole.  You are accomplishing nothing…  except spilling some water (waste) and using up energy (administrative overhead).[/B]

But nothing real has changed.  So the economy will end up right back where it was before — after a sugar rush hangover.  Salaries might be bigger only due to inflation lowering the value of the dollar.

Liberals argue that Roosevelt’s stimulus was not big enough and it took World War II to finally end the Great Depression.  However, Obama’s most out-spoken economist lets the truth slip:   The Great Depression ended partly because Adolf Hitler drove wealth out of Europe and into the United States.  As European war loomed in 1938 and 1939, genuine increases in real investments flowing from Europe fundamentally grew the economy.  This was real money invested in the country, not government manipulation.

Christina D. Romer is Obama’s most eager cheerleader for the Keynesian madness.  But she cannot avoid giving away the store in the process.  Romer reluctantly lets the cat out of the bag.  It was not World War II deficit spending but the military draft removing nearly 10 million men from the work force.   [B]After the war, many of America’s global competitors had been laid waste while the USA was untouched.[/B]

[B]Top economists show us that the government cannot expand the economy through deficit spending because borrowing disrupts and displaces other economic activities[/B], including Milton Freedman, E. Cary, John Taylor of Stanford, Gary Becker and Eugene Fama of the University of Chicago and Greg Mankiw and Robert Barro of Harvard. In the end, the government simply moves economic activity around (benefitting campaign donors) without any real improvement. [B]As economist Hal Varian of the University of California at Berkeley points out, private investment  in the economy builds a foundation for long-term, sustainable growth and prosperity, whereas government spending does not.[/B]

The Welfare Debate ….. the perfect analogy

Leftists and progressives throw dispersions at Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged continually. Principally because they cannot refute the core premis. There is no way possipble to refute the premis of the debate in this video.It is a PERFECT description on the current welfare debacle we have in the USA today. And for you liberals and leftists… this is how conservatives and producers view the world…

This is a must watch…. 10 times or more for the progressives…

Detroit going broke, Taxpayers lose Billions on GM and Obama wants to do this to the rest of the country

As a reminder – He saved GM

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/12/19/its-official-taxpayers-will-lose-big-on-the-gm-bailout

And he saved Detroit –

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121207/OPINION03/212070365

State laying groundwork for managed bankruptcy for Detroit

And now, he wants to save the proletariat by imposing taxes on the rich instead of controlling spending.  These negotiations are a joke.  The starting point is off a BS baseline budget number that goes up forever.  Spending isn’t cut.  Spending increases are reduced, maybe.  Those keep coming of the table too.  No spending cuts are ever real.

The obamacare taxes, AMT, pending tax increases, inflation and $16T+ in debt are real.

Merry Christmas

Obama sinks to new lows

Wow, he offends me multiple times in one basic comment.  First, tying the budget negotiations to the Newton tragedy is sad and disturbing.  Second, ‘folks to be willing to compromise’.  I am so sick of him being the lone arbiter of what is fair.  His very statement implies compromise means agreeing with him.  It is something OTHERS must do, not him.  Finally, the greater good.  Could he be more socialist in his comments?  And once again it implies that only he has the intelligence and clarity to know what that greater good is.

Well Barry, I define the greater good as having a President in the White House that speaks for all of us, not just some of us.  One who doesn’t constantly demean his office by lying, pitting American against American and shamelessly exploiting tragedy for political gain.  I define it as a nation that acts responsibly about it’s financial debts so not to pass the burden onto our children and grandchildren.  As a nation that protects liberty, not theft of private property by a majority vote.  So, anytime YOU’RE willing to compromise for the GREATER GOOD – I stand ready to accept.

This was gross.
During his press conference this morning Barack Obama used the masssacre at Sandy Hook School to push Republicans to agree to his tax hikes.

“After what we’ve gone through over the past several months, a devastating hurricane and now one of the worse tragedies in our memory, the country deserves the folks to be willing to compromise for the greater good.”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/12/gross-barack-obama-uses-sandy-hook-massacre-to-push-tax-hikes-video/

Obamanomics: auction on the sale of stolen goods.

Folks, we have a spending problem.  The reason we do, we have a Marxist occupying the White House supported by leadership in the House and Senate.  They are actively redistributing the wealth of this country.  Not from rich to poor, but from young to old.  From the unborn to the present.  It is making us all poorer.  We are creating a worse future for our children.  And it is all to support a ruling class that lives by different standards.  Obama talks about ‘people like me’ that can afford to pay more in taxes.  How many people do you know have tax payer funded living, travel, housing, healthcare and retirement expenses?   The ruling class lives above the system.  They are insulated from the very policies they make that destroy your wealth and quality of life.

The President, who has never worked a day in the private sector.  Who lied about his citizenship to get into ivy league schools and have that education paid for by others – lectures about fairness.  Mr. Schiff has a reply:

Peter Schiff, American investment broker, author, financial commentator, and CEO and chief global strategist of Euro Pacific Capital, holds a different view.  “After the tax hikes go into effect, more than half of my total income is going to the government,” said Schiff recently. “Now you tell me, what’s ‘fair’ about that? I don’t care what the majority voted to do. They don’t have a right to steal our money just because they voted for it.”

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/18/give-it-to-me/1

This Video is Brilliant.  It should be required viewing for all members of Congress:  The Nortax, How to explain entitlements to an 8 year old:

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsTbkB9hOuw

The left loves to hide behind the moral arguments for wealth redistribution.  But their definition of social justice is warped.  They work to anger 51% of this country into voting to take away my personal property and liberty.  That isn’t justice.  It’s theft.  Your need is not a claim on my life.   I submit as evidence quotes from our Taker-in-Chief:

Those on the left will look you straight in the eye and profess they defend liberty and property; but one need only to read the words of the president in regards to his definition of “social justice.”

“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”

“I actually believe in redistribution”

“Spreading the wealth around is good.”

‘Bring about significant re-distributional change”

“Actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change”

“I do not believe that those two things — fair distribution and economic growth — are mutually exclusive”

“I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts”

“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.”

“I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”

And of course the classic lines “You didn’t build that” and “those who do not pay their fair share” underline the president’s belief that private property is available to be confiscated while ignoring the unalienable rights defined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.