If you think life can all be peace, love and fairy tales you might not appreciate the humor in this sword fighting movie parody cartoon. The rest of us can have a good laugh.
|
||||||
|
I’ve been trying to explain this to people for many many years now:
Does this clarify it a bit? Sometimes all it takes is a different person’s words to understandingly explain. No American Should Have to Choose Between Insurance and Getting Drunk Another great video – Serious With a Laugh I finally ran across an article advocating single payer that openly admitted that there would be rationing. They’re absolutely right. They’re right as well when they say rationing takes place today. The important question is who decides what health care is worth what. If it’s the patient, or those around them, that’s fine. The problem is when it’s a disinterested 3rd party that makes an irrevocable choice. When Canadians need health care (in a timely fashion – instead of waiting for months) They come south of the border and can get it here. Tests and procedure that they may have to wait 6 months for there can be gotten in two days here. Where will we go if we can’t get the health care we need and want in the US? Go south of OUR border into Mexico? There’s another issue it brings up as well, and that is the “cost” of a human life. I would like to see that codified in any health care legislation … and in any OTHER legistaltion that’s supposed to be for our own good. Health standards, product safety, OSHA and the like. It’s not uncommon to see “safety” legislation costing $50 million to save one life. If it’s your own life or that of someone you know, it’s hard to say that there is any price to high to pay for even just a few more months of life. When we’re all paying that price for someone else that we don’t know, that’s a different matter. “Even if it’s just one life” is the battle cry, but that’s a totally untenable standard. Even when it gets to the courts, there is a saying: Hard cases make bad law. When you’re looking at the person face to face (or their grieving widow or parents or whoever) and have to say that it just would have cost too much to make that change that would have prevented that 1 in 100 thousand cases form happening to your loved one, it’s had to tell them – so sorry, but life has no guarantees. Given unlimited funds, there aren’t many patients who’s life can’t be extended by a few days, months, oe even years. Where do we draw the line and, more impotantly, who draws it? Something to think about. It appears the world is finally waking up. Will it be in time to save us a lot of money and grief? That I’m not so sure about. The house passed their bill today, adding a 300 page amendment at the last minute. The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.) I tried, I really tried to read the whole stinking bill and the amendment. In the less than 12 hours between its introduction and passage it would be absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to read, rearrange and understand the bill as finally voted on unless you are a photographic memory speed reader … and even then I don’t think you could have time to sort it all out and understand it. This is a sad day for America and for the world in general. The religion of gobal warming (excuse me, climate change or whatever term of the day is being used) has no more basis in fact than any other mythology of the present or past.
This just totally confuses me… how some thing like this gets put out and how people actually fall for it. This is supposed to save money, but create 2.5 million jobs? And what about all the people that worked for the insurance companies. How many of those jobs would be lost? Boost the economy by $317 dollars? Only if it takes over $317 billion dollars out of the private economy (after all, it’ll take a few … ok, probably a lot, of bureaucrats to run such a program with their expenses and the support staff to cover them, and the the regulators to make sure it’s all done according to the rules and then the political staff to decide what the current year’s rules will be, and all the lobbyists trying to get their piece of the pie to be larger, and … Add $100 billion in employee compensation? Once again, paid for by whom? The evil nasty greedy corporations, CEO, business people, and other assorted demons? If their costs go up the same (or worse) in a different part of the business, there wouldn’t be any money left to pay anyone more. Money doesn’t grow on trees. Corporate executives have a legal fiduciary duty to maximize the value of the company and it’s bottom line. Smaller businesses try to live on what’s left over after all the costs are paid out. A lot of them are already on the brink. Yep, those employees will make more … right up until they get fired or the business fails. Infuse public budgets with <plug your own number in>. New tax revenues? That means someone, or a lot of someones, will be paying more in taxes. Where does that money get cut? Let’s say it’s some rich jerk. He’s not making as much so he decides not to build that new house after all. The construction workers don’t get work, the suppliers don’t sell the construction material, there’s no new house for maintenance workers to maintain, the money that they aren’t making means they don’t get to buy their kids that birthday present, they can’t afford the new car this year, they can’t even afford the fast food dinner once a week any more. You see the money “spent” by the government but you don’t see the other things that money would have been spent on if it hadn’t been taken by the government in the first place. There’s an essay that was published in 1850 which still lays it out in very understandable terms this whole process. It was written by Frederic Bastiat and titled That Which is Seen And That Which is Not Seen Well worth the read. |
||||||
|
Copyright © 2010 MyGauntlet - All Rights Reserved |
||||||
