BEWARE OF THOSE WHO SAY THEY CAN FIX HEALTH CARE

Senator Obama, Senator H. Clinton and every other Democrat candidate for President is traveling around the Country like little Red Riding Hood, bearing a basket of "goodies " they promise to deliver if elected to the Presidency.

But just like in the fairy tale. look out for the wolf in "Red Ridding Hoods" clothes!

Behind the promises some of this countries most liberal academics are meeting to develop plans for the socialization of the finest abd costly, medical system in the world.

The Brookings Institute recently held a forum called The Hamilton Project,moderated by Robert Rubin and included such experts as Ezekiel Emanuel, a bio-ethicist from NIH and Victor Fuchs, an Economics Professor at Stanford University.

The following is a direct quote from the publish report of their first meeting: "The universal basic package should be financed by a dedicated tax that everyone pays, such as a value-added tax.

We would administer the program through an independent National Health Board and 12 regional boards modeled on the Federal Reserve System. They would oversee health plans, define the benefits packages and, through strong incentives, facilitate adoption of patient safety measures and electronic management of medical records.(blogger note;this would produce thousands more government jobs while providing not one medical service to the public)

·We would establish an independent Institute for Technology and Outcomes Assessment to systematically evaluate new technologies and quantify their health benefits in relation to their costs. These evaluations would be used by the National Health Board and health plans.(more bureaucrats no care here!)

Reform based on these measures would eliminate job lock, increase workers' wages and make labor markets more efficient. It would also give Americans -- rather than their employers -- their choice of health plans, doctors and hospitals. And it would eliminate the $200 billion business tax deduction for providing health coverage.
(sounds like the taxes would decrease wages and have no effect on efficiency of markets)
Most important, such measures would improve efficiency and provide cost control for the health-care system. Eliminating employers' vetting of insurance companies and all associated costs would save tens of billions of dollars. Since all Americans would be guaranteed coverage, means testing and determination of subsidies necessary for Medicaid and SCHIP would be eliminated. Finally, the expected consolidation of the health insurance industry would also increase efficiency.(They don't mention that to do all of this $4-5 billion dollars would have to be collected in "value -added taxes")

Only comprehensive change of our broken system can The universal basic package be accomplished. It would be financed by a dedicated tax that everyone pays, such as a value-added tax.(see no numbers here, GAO estimates the 4-5 billion)

The program would be administered( more government employees-no care) through an independent National Health Board and regional boards modeled on the Federal Reserve System. They would oversee health plans, define the benefits packages and, through strong incentives, facilitate adoption of patient safety measures and electronic management of medical records.( sounds like the efficiency of the Postal Service_YUCK!)

· Establish an independent Institute for Technology and Outcomes Assessment to systematically evaluate new technologies and quantify their health benefits in relation to their costs. These evaluations would be used by the National Health Board and health plans.( more bureaucrats-no care here)

Reform based on these measures would eliminate job lock,(what job lock?), increase workers' wages( How?) and make labor markets more efficient. It would also give Americans -- rather than their employers -- their choice of health plans, doctors and hospitals. And it would eliminate the $200 billion business tax deduction for providing health coverage.(Typical socialism that sounds like Karl Marx)

Most important, such measures would improve efficiency and provide cost control for the health-care system. Eliminating employers' vetting of insurance companies and all associated costs would save tens of billions of dollars. Since all Americans would be guaranteed coverage, means testing(soak those who have,and give to have nots) and determination of subsidies necessary for Medicaid and SCHIP would be eliminated. Finally, the expected consolidation of the health insurance industry would also increase efficiency.

Only a comprehensive change of our broken system can The universal basic package be implemented, and it should be financed by a dedicated tax that everyone pays, such as a value-added tax.

What Ezekiel and Victor don't highlight is the Plan they propose would very soon eliminate Medicare and Medicaid, and end the tax exemption for employers health plans for their employees!

"Big Brother"is alive and well, and this time instead of meeting in closed door sessions directed by Hillary Clinton. They are holding forums allegedly for the purpose of fixing a broken medical system. What they actually are doing is planning the further socialization of our way of life.

DEMOCRATS A MASTER AT THE BLAME GAME!

This has nothing directly to do with Socialized Medicine in Wisconsin, but it has a lot to do with the Democrats crass indifference for the taxpayers that ignorantly vote for these left wing Robin Hoods.
The tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis,Minnesota which is another bastion of left wing socialists, immediately started the liberal MEDIA putting the blame on the vast right wing conspiracy,especially on our President George Bush.
The truth is that affer ignoring the known facts of structural defects of thousands of defectively built and obsolescent bridges across the United States for years, while squandering billions of dollars in mostly worthless programs.
The liberal answer to this inexcusable problem is to add on more taxes to the working man by increasing gasoline taxes which are outrageously excessive at present.
Democrats think their "gods" will somehow answer their passion for a wide open spigot for taxation of the working masses to solve all the problems of the world.They peach tax the rich,but a Democrats view of "rich" is anyone above the poverty line who is working.
Every Democrat running for office since I can remember has boastfully claimed that if he or she is elected they will improve the roads in their state or across the nation.
I don't remember a bridge not being part of a vehicle highway except the foot bridges that taxpayers also pay for in parks, school crossings,etc.
Thank God that President George Bush has the common sense and wisdom to see that increasing gasoline taxes would be another disastrous liberal mistake that would further hurt America's economy by cutting back even more their driving to malls TO SPEND MONEY,taking vacations,etc.
It IS IMPORTANT to mention putting further restraints on the family budget,and the President rightly rejected such shallow thinking nonsense as unworkable.
Yes,providing medical service to the deserving poor is a wonderful idea,but to brazenly take over an industry by the State or Federal government is a Marxist act of folly.

We can have good,safe bridges,highways,and motor vehicles that travel them if tax money is spent prudently by people who show respect for those who work for their money.
The liberal philosophy of self gratification of peoples wants instead of peoples needs is just another way to get votes to be elected.
It is such selfish, self serving arrogance that has brought countries to financial ruin in the past.The only fiscally responsible way for running any free type of government, and of this the left wing Socialists just have no clue, is to start with the word RESTRAINT, from taxing and spending recklessly.

Red Versus Blue as Blue Fought Grey in 1860's

This great country of ours is just as divided today as it was in 1861 when the eleven Southern States seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America.
The reason historians give for the split was slavery, and perhaps it was, and should have been an issue of great importance.
But those who took this Country into a war that lasted until 1865 and caused the death of 811,000 uniformed combatants who were in some cases brothers fighting each other. Because one believed in States rights granted to the States by Thomas Jefferson in his Kentucky and Virginia Papers, and the other believed in preserving the Union. But the Northern "abolitionists" didn't even consider the possibility of granting the freed slaves, civil or voting rights. This had to wait until the 1960s.

Today the Country is even more divided over who will decide how we live and speak. The Blue State people believe in taxation, abortion rights, gay rights, hate speech legislation, gun control,reduced military and amnesty for illegal aliens. All dictated by Big Government.
The Red States, that voted in President Bush twice, believe the individual not the State should be responsible for him/her from cradle to grave. Big government and punitive taxation are anathema, and a strong military is necessary to protect our freedoms.

A good example of the irresponsible promises made by Democrats in Federal Government service was made by Hillary Clinton. Senator Hillary Clinton said she would, if elected, establish a national academy to train public servants.
"I'm going to be asking a new generation to serve...I think just like our military academies, we need to give a totally all-paid education to young men and women who will serve their country in a public service position."
Once again, to he** with encouraging individualism, Senator Clinton prefers the government to train young Americans how to serve their country. Sounds to me like a page out of Franklin Roosevelt's "CC Camps" during the great depression. You can be sure she's not advocating compulsory military service, with the animus, despite her tepid support for the troops in Iraq, she and husband Bill have for the military.

The question needs to be asked of Ms.Clinton and all the other socialists running for President of the United States. How are you planing to pay for all the government largess you are promising to enact if you are elected President?

Liberals are all for repealing the tax cuts implemented by President Bush. Cuts that have resulted in economic growth that brought in more tax dollars to the U.S Treasury since 2003 than before the cuts were made. They also want to grant amnesty to 20 million illegal immigrants that will immediately allow them benefits of big government.

During this weeks Forum in Chicago the Candidates for President made not one single reference to the dwindling solvency of the Social Security system or Medicaid and Medicare. Hillary almost shouted out, above the loud Union crowd, that she would not let the Privatization of social security happen, but that was the extent of any show at physical responsibility by the "Democritus!

The following is a quote that illustrates a real fiscal problem this country faces that was not even mentioned by the seven "dwarfs" in Chicago.
"Medicare and Social Security combined are on track to eat up the entire federal budget.
The trustees estimate the 75-year burden on general revenues from these two programs at $31.9 trillion, more than six times the current outstanding federal debt.
Looking beyond 75 years into the indefinite future, the combined long-run funding gap is $74.8 trillion in today's dollars.
Further, Congress will not have to wait long to feel the pinch, says Goodman:

"Last year the combined deficits in the two programs claimed 5.3 percent of federal income tax revenues; in 15 years these two programs will require more than a fourth of income tax revenues.
By 2030, about the midpoint of the baby boomer retirement years, these two programs will require almost half of all federal income tax dollars; by 2040 it will require two-thirds.
What can be done? We are going to have to start thinking about choosing between health care and other uses of money, says Goodman. We are also going to have to start thinking about having each generation of retirees save for its own retirement and its own retirement health care needs. If we wait too long, the solutions will be drastic and painful."
Source: John C. Goodman, "A Fundamental Shift in Thinking," Washington Post, August 8, 2007.

A vote for any Democrat in 2008 is nothing short of financial suicide for Americans who work for a living!

THEY ARE CALLED CHEESE HEADS FOR GOOD REASON

While the Democrat candidates for the President bicker with each other. They have at least one thing in common with all other socialists. They advocate socialized medicine, or as one of the participants who appeared on TV, wearing what looked like his older brothers clothes, said during the Bush Bash in Chicago. "I will establish a single payer medical plan for all Americans."

It seems the great state of my birth is racing to beat the National political aspirants to the punch! Wisconsin has recently passed a bill in their senate that would give health insurance to every person in the state.If passed it will be against the law to buy health insurance from any company outside of Wisconsin,and you can expect amass influx of immigrants from other states who want to get in on the "health insurance" goodies".

I left Wisconsin, actually I left the Milwaukee area many years ago, because I hated the severely cold winters and even at a young age could see that a City that consistently voted in a socialist mayor was not the place to live.

Despite my animus for the politics of the sate I have remained a loyal Packer fan through good and bad seasons. But I never could quite grasp why the fans wanted to be called "cheese heads"?

Now I know two things for sure. Wisconsin is, or was, a big cheese producing cheese state. That is until the tax burden caused many of the small but better quality cheese producers to close shop.

The other fact is that if the polls taken are correct. The people are 67% behind this "Healthy Wisconsin" bill.Then instead of needing to show their loyalty to the Packers football team, all they need do is expose their heads. They must be filled with cheese not brains!

An article explaining the estimated costs for this socialized medicine scheme follow.
"The Wall Street Journal editorial-page editors are correct in saying that Wisconsin's universal health care plan is "openly hostile to market incentives that contain costs," and that the state can "expect to attract health-care free-riders while losing productive workers who leave for less-taxing climes" says news correspondent John Stossel.
Consider:
"The Wisconsin plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes.
Further, the $15 billion is based on the usual Pollyannaish assumptions such as millions in savings "from putting more emphasis on primary care."
As usual, most of the new taxes will be imposed on employers, says Stossel."

Liberals believe money taken from them doesn't cost anything; rich corporations will simply waste less on lavish perks and excess profits.
But taxes on business are often paid by workers, stockholders and consumers.
Consequently, businesses that can't pass the taxes on to someone else will close or move out of state.
America needs "Healthy Wisconsin" because the fall of the Soviet Union deprived us of the biggest example of how well socialism works, says Stossel. We need laboratories of failure to demonstrate what socialism is like. All we have now is Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the U.S. Post Office, and state motor-vehicle departments. It's not enough. Wisconsin can show the other 49 states what "universal" coverage is like.

Source: John Stossel, "Let Wisconsin Experiment with Socialized Medicine," Townhall.com, August 8, 2007.

WATCHING THE SEVEN DEMOCRAT DWARFS

It is not in my Conservative nature to listen to the hyperbole and outright untruths uttered by politicians who seek the high office of the President of the United States.

But last night quite by accident while channel surfing I came upon the Union "love fest" in Chicago being aired on MSNBC. I quickly turned to another channel muttering to the effect "why listen to those seven dwarfs lie to the viewing audience. there was another person in the room who had different ideas. My wife said,"lets hear what the opposition has to say". The end result was I watched 90 minutes of pandering by the seven Democrats to a captive audience of AFL-CIO members.

The moderator of this "Forum" aka debate was well known Bush hater Keith Olbermann, so I knew from the beginning the questions would be couched to make Bush look bad and the Democrats on stage as the "cavalry" coming to the rescue of the endangered union members.

I was not disappointed or surprised. Mr. "O" fed questions about the Iraq war, NAFTA, workers rights, and foreign trade. All subjects that allowed the seven dwarfs to fall all over themselves pandering to the labor vote.

There were no questions to Hillary Clinton about the scandals her and husband Bill were involved in while Bill Clinton was President. Things like Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate(Mr. Berger),her being the first "First Lady" to be suoenaed to testify before a grand jury(Whitewater),renting the Lincoln bedroom in the Whitehouse to wealthy supporters, and the Lewinski scandal were not broached, even though Hillary said numerous times that the first thing she would do "is clean up the mess in Washington caused by Bush". No mention of Vincent Fosters strange and unsolved death,or the note allegedly written by him being withheld for some time before it was turned over to the police investigating the "suicide".

During the first round of questions Senator Clinton included in her response that the Democrats should "come together to be a united party." Then she proceeded to attack Obama at every opportunity. By ten minutes to eight, 50 minutes into the 90 minute "forum", blood was on the floor, as they all heated up their attacks on each other, and Mr."O" could not control the time limits for responses or the crowd reactions including "boos" to candidates responses that obviously made them angry or unhappy!

I and my wife will not be watching anymore of the Democrat propaganda television "debates". One was enough for this Conservative who has seen the Bush tax cuts produce an economy that brings in more tax revenues than before they were enacted, a 4.6% unemployment, 3% per year growth in the nations economy that has produced 8.2 million jobs, and a Country that is safer at home than we were before 9/11 despite all the "wannabee" protestations to the contrary!

It Took The Colonial Forces Six Years to Beat the Britts!

The leftist media and the left wing of the Congress of the United States keeps reminding the public how long it is taking to win in Iraq. The un-patriots like Senator Reid and Congressman Murtha have gone so far as to say the war is already lost.
Of course the war is a tragic way to lose the lives of our young people in uniform, but The cause is noble and even the sceptics are beginning to see the progress made by the new military leadership of General Petraeus and the additional 25,000 troops inserted in operation "break al Qaeda's back".

History is a boring thing to any people, but it tells us many things that are applicable to today.

In 1773 the Colonists in the New America grew tired of the "taxation without representation" so they dumped a ship load of tea into Boston Harbor. Many historians claim this was the beginning of the Revolutionary war for OUR Independence.

Most history books, if you can still find them, will show that the Revolutionary war began at Lexington on the 19th of April 1775, and was continued two months later at Bunker Hill. The colonists were soundly defeated in both battles. In fact if it were not for the help of the French Naval Forces, the colonists probably would have lost the war. Most of the land battles were won by the superior trained and disciplined British forces.

But we did win in six years, and by that time had the Declaration of Independence ratified by all the colonies. Virgina, the home of Thomas Jefferson, the writer of The Declaration of Independence, was the first to ratify it in and declare their independence from England, even though the war was raging on.

Then Americans proceeded to give themselves a Constitution which they hoped would hold them together more effectively than the Congress which carried them through the war.Then they held a Convention for that purpose at Philadelphia during the summer of 1787. The difficulty was to find terms of union between the three great states—Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts—and the smaller ones, which included New York. The great states would not allow equal power to the others; the small ones would not allow themselves to be swamped by mere numbers. Therefore one chamber was given to population, and the other, the Senate, to the states on equal terms. Every citizen was made subject to the federal government as well as to that of his own state. The powers of the states were limited. The powers of the federal government were actually enumerated, and thus the states and the union were a check on each other. That principle of division was the most efficacious restraint on democracy that has been devised; for the temper of the Constitutional Convention was as conservative as the Declaration of Independence was revolutionary.

The Federal Constitution did not deal with the question of religious liberty. The rules for the election of the president and for that of the vice–president proved a failure. Slavery was deplored, was denounced, and was retained. The absence of a definition of State Rights led to the most sanguinary civil war of modern times. Weighed in the scales of Liberalism the instrument, as it stood, was a monstrous fraud. And yet, by the development of the principle of Federalism, it has produced a community more powerful, more prosperous, more intelligent, and more free than any other which the world has seen.

What has this got to do with Iraq? We are trying to help establish a freely elected constitutional based society in a country that was ruled by a tyrant dictator for years. It took us six years to establish OUR REPUBLIC, and it will take many years to assist Iraqis in forming their new country. How long? Until the job is done!

Political Correctness and Religious Beliefs Clash

The European Union was established by the Treaty of Rome in 1957. It is a union of 27 European countries who have given up their individual rights, laws and in some cases freedoms to a supranational intergovernmental body that still has no Constitution. The EU is run without a capital, although it's defacto government headquarters are located in Brussels, and it's Parliament meets in Strasbourg. They operate with a "Reform Treaty"(Rome 2004) that dictates secularist policies to it's member nations. Norway, Switzerland and Russia do not belong, but the rest of Europe and most of the United Kingdom are represented in the Parliament.

This Eu is totally secularist. When it was formed the Christian Countries tried to include religious references in the Constitution. But as the Vatican has said it "is a militant atheism Union".This could well be attributed to the following quote taken from an article in the Brussels Journal written by Paul Belian 6/23/06.

"According to a report of the COE’s Parliamentary Assembly, creationists are dangerous “religious fundamentalists” who propagate “forms of religious extremism” and “could become a threat to human rights.” The report adds that the acceptance of the science of evolutionism “is crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies.”

“Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon,” the report says.

“Today creationist theories are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states. […] [T]his is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism, synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights. […] The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that the advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy. [...] If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists.”

This language as all speech, has consequences, and a perfect example is found in what recently happened in Erlangen, Germany.
A German court sentenced a 55-year old Lutheran pastor to one year in jail for “Volksverhetzung” (incitement of the people) because he compared the killing of the unborn in contemporary Germany to the holocaust. The European governments are asked to fight the expression of creationist opinions, such as young earth and intelligent design theories. According to the Council of Europe these theories are “undemocratic” and “a threat to human rights.”

Without legalized abortion the number of German children would increase annually by at least 150,000 – which is the number of legal abortions in birth dearth Germany. Pastor Johannes Lerle "compared the killing of the unborn to the killing of the Jews in Auschwitz during the Second World War". On 14 June, a court in Erlangen ruled that, in doing so, the pastor had “incited the people” because his statement was a denial of the holocaust of the Jews in Nazi-Germany. Hence, Herr Lerle was sentenced to one year in jail. Earlier, he had already spent eight months in jail for calling abortionists “professional killers” – an allegation which the court ruled to be slanderous because, according to the court, the unborn are not humans.

Other German courts convicted pro-lifers for saying that “in abortion clinics, life unworthy of living is being killed,” because this terminology evoked Hitler’s euthanasia program, which used the same language. In 2005, a German pro-lifer, Günter Annen, was sentenced to 50 days in jail for saying “Stop unjust [rechtswidrige] abortions in [medical] practice,” because, according to the court, the expression “unjust” is understood by laymen as meaning illegal, which abortions are not.

Volksverhetzung is a crime which the Nazis often invoked against their enemies and which contemporary Germany also uses to intimidate "home schoolers".

And IF you think this is an isolated incident, the following happened in France. People such as Johannes Lerle and Christian Vanneste, the French parliamentarian have been convicted for “homophobia.” Free Speakers are being persecuted by Western Europe’s political regimes – a phenomenon which is ignored completely by the Western mainstream media, who participate in the persecution. I refer to the many statements comparing President Bush to Hitler by people who know better, but say it because of hate for the man and his religious beliefs.
In Germany, believing abortion to be as murderous as the holocaust is a crime, and educating your own children is a crime too. In France, saying that “homosexual behaviour endangers the survival of humanity” is a crime, and so is the distribution of pork soup to the poor. In Belgium, speaking out against immigration is a crime.

My question to those of you who read this blog is this. Are we Americans heading toward the same secularization of our Country because of Political Correct Speech? Abortion on demand is presently the law of the land, but the case used in this blog was for illustration as to how the control of speech leads to the control of thoughts and beliefs. The Secular -Leftists in this Country would love to imitate what Hitler did in Germany in the 1930's, but they will do it by claiming anyone who opposes their secularization is a Nazi or an uninformed idiot.





"In his 1939 book, Days of Our Lives, Pierre van Passen wrote: “Germany is much farther on the road to dechristianization than the Soviet Union, even if the churches in the Reich remain on and the incense still rises from the altars. In the place of God has come the would be almighty state which, insatiable as the Moloch of old, demands man’s entire devotion, mentally and physically.” As Walker writes, “Heinrich Himmler despised Christianity and members of the SS had to formally renounce their Christian faith and formally become agnostic in order to become a member of the Schultzstaffel,” and, “The only people who opposed the Nazis solely on grounds of moral conscience when opposing on grounds of moral conscience placed them in mortal danger were Christians.” As Franklin D. Roosevelt said on January 6, 1942: “[The Nazis] know that victory for us means victory for religion. And they could not tolerate that. The world is too small to provide adequate living space for both Hitler and God.”