Don Singleton

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Health care in Britain

This is London reported Patients who refuse to change their unhealthy lifestyles should not be treated by the NHS, the Conservatives said today.

This is a good reason to oppose universal (government run) health care, this is another.

In a bid to ease spiralling levels of obesity and other health concerns, a Tory panel said certain treatments should be denied to patients who refuse to co-operate with health professionals and live healthier lifestyles. And those who do manage to improve their general health by losing weight and quitting smoking, for example, would receive "Health Miles" cards. Points earned could then be used to pay for health-related products such as gym membership and fresh vegetables.

Sue 'em

Ynetnews reported A Swedish Muslim group on Tuesday said it plans to sue a local newspaper for publishing a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad with a dog's body. The Nerikes Allehanda newspaper in Orebro printed the cartoon

made by artist Lars Vilks in an August 19 editorial that criticized Swedish art galleries for not displaying Vilks' art.

Maybe they did not display it because it is lousy art.

Mahmoud Aldebe, chairman of the Swedish Muslim Federation, said the group would sue the newspaper for inciting hatred against ethnic groups.

What ethnic group is Islam. I thought it was a religion.

"It ridicules our religion.

If this stupid drawing ridicules your religion, then it is ridiculous.

This is discriminating and insulting... they want to see just how far they are able to go by pushing the boundaries of press freedom," he said. (AP)

It's God's Will

DesMoinesRegister reported God’s will is for Iowa to have the first-in-the-nation caucus, Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson told a crowd here today. “Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord should be the first caucus and primary,”

Bill, I have done a search of both the Constitution and the Bible, and I don't see the Iowa Caucus listed either place

Richardson, New Mexico’s governor said at the Northwest Iowa Labor Council Picnic. “And I want you to know who was the first candidate to sign a pledge not to campaign anywhere if they got ahead of Iowa. It was Bill Richardson.”

Michael van der Galiën blogged Umh. Sure Bill.

CQ blogged It sounds more like the typical politician's attempt to pander to his audience, only doing such a clumsy job that it becomes risibly obvious. And again, let's just think about what the reaction would have been had a Republican said this.

Ben Smith blogged Watch out Florida, here come the locusts.

Ron Chusid blogged Having seen other examples of Richardson’s sense of humor, Richardson’s previous statements on religion, and considering that nobody would think God has any interest in who has the first caucus or primary, I have no doubt that Richardson was joking here.

Souter mulled resignation

Ok City Examiner reported According to Jeffrey Toobin’s new book on the Supreme Court, Justice David Souter nearly resigned in the wake of Bush v. Gore, so distraught was he over the decision that effectively ended the Florida recount and installed George W. Bush as president.

There is still time for him to do the right thing. Resign, and take some of the other libs with you.

In “The Nine,” which goes on sale Sept. 18, Toobin writes that while the other justices tried to put the case behind them, “David Souter alone was shattered,” at times weeping when he thought of the case. “For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice,” Toobin continues. “That the Court met in a city he loathed

We all loathe Washington

made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same.”

Liberty Pundit blogged So he, like virtually every other liberal in the nation, went off the deep end when Gore lost. Nice to know we have such stable, nonpartisan people up there on the bench who actually let the laws and the Constitution make their decisions for them, and not some political agenda, isn’t it?

Democrat Soldier commented I’m sure that, with a Pres. Gore, there would be 3000 more Americans alive today as well as 14 highly frustrated terrorists. A Pres. Gore would have listened to the “bin Laden to attack in the US” report, rather than ignoring it like Pres. Bush did.

Or President Clinton / VP Gore did.

kelso commented To this day I can’t understand what gave the court the authority to install our current president. There was no precedent.

Should the Florida Supreme Court have done it?

It’s a disturbing low point in America’s political history.

Ringo commented Yes, and don’t forget that The Great and Powerful Gore would have already cured AIDS, cancer and halitosis…not to mention ending poverty and saving the planet from Global Climate Change. If Gore had become President instead of ChimpskyMcHaliburton, there world peace, two three-day weekends per month and all food products would be 100% organic. And everyone would love us, just like they did when Bill Clinton was President.

Dream on

How did it all go so wrong?

Ret. Col. Jack Ripper blogged Bilbo: “If not stoped….at some point Democrats would be still be RE-COUNTING votes in Florida FOR THE 1459 th time OR until they could have perpetrated a AL Goreilla win.”

Good point

Bullshite. The media consortium report clearly stated that if the entire state had been recounted, Gore would have won under ANY counting standard. The state-wide count would have been complete in just one more week at the time that the Supreme Court ordered a halt to the counting.

Not according to what I read. Gore would have won only under conditions that he had not asked for in the recount.

Bill Clinton 'shocked' Hillary donor was a fugitive

Newsday reported Former President Bill Clinton said he was "shocked" by revelations that a top fundraiser for his wife is a fugitive from justice and claimed he didn't even know what "HillRaiser" Norman Hsu did for a living.

You mean there is gambling, right here in River CIty, in the pool hall.

"You could have knocked me over with a straw, especially when I heard the L.A. people had been allegedly looking for him for 15 years when he was in plain view," he told Newsday while touring a county fair in rural New Hampshire Sunday.

If Bill had known he was a fugitive he would have pardoned him, like all of the other donors he pardoned.

"I never knew how he made a living or anything, but I was shocked," said Clinton of Hsu, who has made millions as an investor in tetxtile and other businesses.

Monday, September 03, 2007

Beaten for refusing to convert to Islam

YONHAP NEWS reported A pastor at the South Korean church whose volunteers were held hostage for six weeks by Afghanistan's Taliban said some of the captives were "severely beaten" by the insurgents when they refused to convert to Islam.

Didn't they know
Surah 2:256 – “There is no compulsion in religion…”
Surah 16:82 – “Then, if they turn away, your duty (O Muhammad) is only to convey (the Message) in a clear way.”
Surah 42:48 – “But if they turn away (from Islam). We have not sent you as a Hafiz (watcher, protector) over them (to take care of their deeds and to recompense them). Your duty is to convey (the Message)…”
Surah 88:21-22 – “And so, (O Prophet!) exhort them, your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.”

USF student with explosives

Yahoo! News reported The father of a University of South Florida student accused of transporting explosives across state lines along with another student facing a terrorism-related charge says his son is not a terrorist. "It's killing me," Samir Megahed said Saturday. "We have no charge like this in my family for 400 years. It's killing all my family in Egypt."

That is better than killing people at the military base they were near.

.... "If he was a white man and not from the Middle East, I'm sorry, he would not be here today,"

Because he would not have undertaken jihad.

the father said. He said his son is not a terrorist and authorities "want the stories they have in mind. It's all in their imagination."

Those imaginary explosives can really be dangerous.

Taliban vows to kidnap, kill more foreigners

NEWS.com.au reported Taliban plan to abduct and kill more nationals from foreign countries whose troops serve under NATO and the US military in the country, a spokesman for the Islamic movement warned today.

Of course. The South Koreans show them it was profitable, ane it is easier work than spending all day in the poppy fields.

The vow comes just days after the Taliban released 19 South Korean hostages after their Government struck a deal that critics said sets a dangerous precedent that could spur more kidnappings and make life even more dangerous for foreigners.

"We consider it (kidnapping) as an arm that can help us in imparting a blow to the enemy," Taliban spokesman Qari Mohammad Yousuf said by telephone from an undisclosed location.

Especially if they are not armed.

"Kidnapping ... and killing of (nationals) of those countries who have come for the annihilation of the nation of Afghanistan, are works which suppress the enemy," he added.

The Taliban are the ones that have come for the annihilation of the nation of Afganistan. The other foreigners are there to help rebuild the country for the Afgans.

Yousuf, one of two Taliban spokesmen, said the group would not target nationals from foreign countries who have no troops in Afghanistan.

It is not that they want to be nice to countries with no troops there, but if they are not there, they can't kidnap them. And they really don't want to target troops, because they have guns and might resist. They prefer innocent Christians who are just there to help.

Mandatory Preventive Care

Forbes reported Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care. "It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK." He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat "the first trace of problem."

Would over weight people be forced to lose weight? What would happen if they do not; would they be sent to prison? What about smokers? Would they be forced to stop smoking?

Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced earlier this year that her breast cancer had returned and spread. Edwards said his mandatory health care plan would cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care. The plan would include mental health care as well as dental and vision coverage for all Americans.

Would mental health doctors send Republications to reeducation camps? Would people that don't floss enough be penalized by their dentists?

"The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death," he said.

mljones blogged What is being lost here is the tradition of freedom. Or maybe the illusion of it. The idea that a government will make doctor visits MANDATORY is absurd. I know, I know; it’s to save me from myself. My own negligence will no longer be tolerated by the state. Because the state loves me more than I love myself.

Following Edwards’ logic, will women still continue to have that “right to choose?” This is not to debate the abortion issue. It is to point out that one’s right to choose has been a public mantra for decades now. Rather than argue for or against it, I place it next to this mandatory aspect of the Edwards’ plan.

Mandatory means that someone else is making a decision for YOU. The only “choice” remaining is whether to comply or suffer the consequences.

The road to an authoritarian state is paved with good but grandiose intentions.

Senator Edwards, with all due respect, let me die a sick and neglected man, but let me die with a smidgen of freedom. I know that’s too much too ask.

But so is asking for my vote.

Betsy Newmark blogged What's the penalty for not going in for your checkup? And how will the government know if you've gone or haven't gone? Will our doctors have to file reports on their patients' pattern of visits?

Yes, we can all agree that regular preventative checkups are a good thing. But should the government really be in the business of requiring everything that is good for us?

Dr. Steven Taylor blogged I guess Edwards is looking to put the “big” back into “big government.”

On the one hand, there is little doubt that it is good medicine to engage in preventive care. Yes, women of a certain age should get mammograms every years, and men of certain ages should get prostate exams and so forth. However, to say that it will mandated that everyone will have to do X, Y or Z is a substantial increase in governmental power over the lives of the citizenry.

For that matter, there are some practicalities to be considered here If one doesn’t go to one’s annual whatever, will there be a fine? Will the CDC dispatch agents to your house to force the tests on you? Will there be reminders and free transportation to make sure everyone remembers and gets to their appointments? What if someone managed to avoid their preventative care and then they get sick, will they then be denied care? For example, what if a woman avoids the mammograms and then gets breast cancer, how will the system deal with such a person?

TinyElvis blogged The irony here is the fact that Democrats are usually the ones up front screaming freedom of expression, freedom of speech, stay out of our bedroom, etc. However, they feel no shame in inviting the government into their colons and vaginal canals.

Brennan blogged Hear that ladies? You want to get an abortion? That’s up to you. You want to decide not to go to the doctor? He’ll force ya to. Oh the freedom! How much is this craptastic, freedom-sucking, socialist medical plan going to cost Americans each year? According to Edwards, who lives in his own world, over $120 billion a year. How will he pay for this? Why, by ending Bush’s tax cuts, of course!

Jon Henke blogged Which one of John Edwards' two Americas gets a freedom of choice and privacy that extends beyond the uterus?

Sunday, September 02, 2007

Democrats signed a pledge

WaPo reported The Democratic candidates have signed a pledge that would forbid them from campaigning in states such as Michigan and Florida that have sought to move their presidential primaries into January 2008.

And they will keep that pledge until a poll is published that shows they are losing ground in one of those states, at which time their pledge will be as worthless as other promises they make.

The move ended weeks-long jockeying over which states get to hold early primaries. Democratic leaders in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, the four states that had been designated by the Democratic National Committee to hold early primaries, demanded in letters Friday that the candidates not participate in the early primaries of other states. The candidates either had to sign the pledge or risk annoying officials in those key states.

What about annoying voters in the other states.

Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.), along with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, signed the pledge within hours on Friday.

None of whom stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination.

By yesterday, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, had joined them.

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," Clinton's campaign said in a statement.

What is that role? An extremely white state, a small state that demands physical presence in living rooms and coffee shops, a state with a lot of gambling, and one state where blacks might have a say.

"And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role."

Bomb Iran

Michael van der Galiën blogged The liberal part of the blogosphere has its panties up in a bunch, because more and more people report that the US is preparing for war (against Iran). Maccabee writes at Daily Kos that (s)he had a conversation with a friend - a friend who “is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz.”

That is what they should be doing, rattling sabers and making Iran think they might attack. But the command to actually do so will come a lot higher in the chain of command than an LSO.

.... According to Barnett, the White House planned a major PR offensive right after Labor Day, after which the US will act.

It sounds like the PR offensive has already started. And no bombs have been dropped.

Now, I understand that this is fascinating for political analysts (to think about), but once again it seems to me that all these people are doing right now is ringing the alarm bells, saying ’stop the war’ without offering a valid alternative. Once again it seems that they are more busy opposing Bush than thinking about possible solutions for the problem with Iran.

Which is what they usually do.

The problem surrounding Iran has escalated today: Ahmadinejad announced that Iran now has 3,000 centrifuges. In other words, Iran is now able to enrich uranium on a fairly big scale. Meanwhile, one should also not forget - as Jason Steck often reminds me - that the Pentagon makes plans for attacks all the time. Not having a plan ready, especially in this situation, would be ludicrous.

Precisely. And the command to implement will not go to an LSO.

The plan in itself sounds perfectly sensible to me: it will not be a ground invasion. Instead, it will be a major air operation, aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities, military infrastructure, governmental buildings and the army itself. The idea is basically to destroy Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities in a few days time. From a military perspective, this makes sense. For one thing, the US doesn’t have the forces to go into Iran. If something happens, it has to be done by airpower (sounds like a Rumsfeld war).

Having said that, it seems to me that the time has not yet come to use force against the Mullahs. There are, at this point in time, other ways to get Iran to give up its nuclear program.

Like getting the left side of the blogosphere to rattle Iran's cages.

The West can still opt for more severe economical measures. We have to make sure that Iran does not get any money anymore. Furthermore, Iran has to be actively opposed in Iraq and the US should try to isolate Hamas and make sure that it does not get much financial and military support from Tehran.

Anger Back Home

NYT reported When 19 South Koreans return home on Sunday after six weeks in Taliban captivity, they will face a nation relieved that the hostage ordeal is finally over, but also increasingly angry at their decision to travel to Afghanistan despite government warnings and at what many here consider overzealous proselytizing by Korean churches.

Where is "here"? Seoul, New York, or Afganistan?

Until their release, criticism of the 19 Koreans, all from Saemmul Presbyterian Church, had been tempered by fears that they might be killed. Now that they are free, a negative reaction is building, with people demanding an accounting of who is to blame for the crisis that some feel damaged South Korea’s reputation.

The Taliban is to blame.

“I expect cannonballs of criticism flying at churches for causing such a disturbance, for squandering national energy and money,” said the Rev. Kim Myung-hyuk, president of the Korea Evangelical Fellowship. “This is a good opportunity for Christian-bashing in a society that has been frowning upon churches.”

So you have the same problem with secularists that we have.

The criticism of the hostages, and of missionary work in Islamic countries, including Afghanistan, has been especially vitriolic on the Web, but newspapers’ editorial pages have also expressed the feeling that the entire country has been, in a sense, held hostage since Taliban insurgents on July 19 kidnapped 23 South Koreans — the 19 just freed and four others. The nation was bombarded for weeks by frightening news reports about repeated Taliban promises to kill everyone and about their eventual killing of two. Two other hostages were released Aug. 13.

Critics seem especially outraged that their government was put in what they believe was a no-win situation, forced to enter talks with a terrorist group despite international objections. Debate on that issue is likely to intensify now that the Taliban is alleging South Korea paid them more than $20 million, which they said would be used for more suicide attacks, according to Reuters.

It certainly will mean more kidnappings, because South Korea just showed it was a good way to make money.

The Korean government has denied such a deal. “How much national resources have been spent on these 23 crazy people?” said one typical posting on the popular Internet site dcinside.com. “Proselytizing in an Islamic country?

Jesus said Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.. He did not say except in Islamic countries.

They prayed for their own death.

Actually they prayed for Afgan souls.

I wonder why the government negotiated for their sake to begin with.” And Shin Yong-gug, secretary general of the nonprofit group People’s Association of Religion Critics, said, “Most consider this a man-made disaster sown by Korean churches’ indiscriminate zeal to proselytize and their disregard for safety.”

be they feel their souls, and those they might save, are more important.

MaySouth Korea — which is about 30 percent Christian — has become the second-largest exporter of missionaries, after the United States, with almost 17,000 in 170 countries.

Although concerns about missionary work in Muslim countries have been especially pronounced since the remaining hostages were released this week, questions about Korean churches’ zeal to spread their faith in such places have been quietly growing in recent years. Critics have feared that trying to spread Christianity among Muslims shows a disrespect for local culture.

And we certainly would not want to disrespect that.

The Korea Times, an English-language daily in Seoul, said in an editorial in its weekend edition: “The Protestant churches need to stop their hitherto egocentric and unilateral missionary style of pushing for their own religion, without respecting the specific different beliefs and cultural characteristics of those whom they intend to convert.”

They should take those factors into consideration in forming their message, but they still should provide the message.

Saemmul Presbyterian Church and the South Korean government insisted that the hostages had not been proselytizing, just providing aid. But many religious experts here consider such a distinction meaningless, because Korean churches provide aid in order to gain converts.

So they should not help people who need help?

South Koreans have generally had warm feelings about missionary work — or at least the work of missionaries here. Although Koreans generally bristle at reminders of the many years their country was controlled by or under the sway of foreigners, American evangelists who came here in the late 1800s are remembered for their contributions. They built some of the country’s oldest hospitals and universities, and Christian pastors fought for democracy during past dictatorships.

Still, as South Korea’s Christians have become more focused on spreading their faith, there has been growing discomfort in this country, whose roots are Confucian and Buddhist. These days, church vans mounted with loudspeakers sometimes race through the streets of Seoul, broadcasting their message, and sign-carrying proselytizers often weave through subway crowds yelling, “If you don’t believe in Jesus Christ, you will go to hell.”

I hope they did not do that in Afganistan.

All major church groups have apologized for the Afghan crisis and vowed to rethink their way of proselytizing. And as part of the deal to release the hostages, the South Korean government promised the Taliban that it would prevent missionaries from traveling to Afghanistan.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

No consensus on Global Warming

DailyTech reported Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Only the people wanting to use it as an excuse to make us do or not do something pretend there is a consensus

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

And that one was probably written by Al Gore

Michael van der Galien blogged I have to say that I would like to read more researches like this (it is a bit premature to draw conclusions on just one research), but if this confirmed by other scientists / researchers, we should stop talking about the global warming consensus immediately, or we should at least nuance that statement a bit. It seems to me that certain factions have hijacked the global warming debate, and have run away with it and have used it for their own political benefit.

AJStrata blogged Now we know - the support for the idea the warming of the Earth is man made has been dropping off as more and more is known about the phenomena. Wake up Al and pay attention. Your position is LOSING ground.

McQ blogged I think that's a fair assessment and certainly one that reflects my thinking on the subject . But it goes directly against what has become both a political movement and a quasi-religion for some. And I assume they'll continue to work ceaselessly and tirelessly to effect expensive and economy killing changes in the name of their movement. We all need to calm down, cool down (no pun intended) and quit playing politics with something as important as this issue.

Noel Sheppard blogged If we had an honest media, this would be a huge part of today's reports. Unfortunately, it is quite likely that only conservative blogs, Fox News, and the Drudge Report will view this survey as being in any way newsworthy. What a disgrace.

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Give up your SUV

ABC reported Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles. The former North Carolina senator told a forum by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, yesterday he thinks Americans are willing to sacrifice.

I'd be willing to sacrifice John Edwards, but I don't really think we do things like that any more.

Edwards says Americans should be asked to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. He says he would ask them to give up SUVs.

First I want to see Edwards and Gore giving them up. Then the rest of the congress critters and the hollywood types that provide money to their campaigns. Then we will talk about regular Americans giving up their SUVs.

Edwards got a standing ovation when he said weapons and equipment used by America's military needs to be made in the United States. He says tanks and ammunition for M16 rifles are being made in other countries.

Are they allies? And is it cheaper, and are the transportation costs less sending it to areas we are fighting in?

He says jobs that provide equipment for America's defense need to be made in the United States.

Monday, August 27, 2007

Palestinians back caliphate over politics

Telegraph By day, they are the middle class, putting in days as mild-mannered teachers, factory supervisors and office clerks. But by night, the growing number of supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Islamic fundamentalists who reject modern democracy in favour of a pan-Islamic religious caliphate, are gathering in the West Bank to recruit the thousands who have grown disillusioned with the vicious stand-off between the secular Fatah and Islamist Hamas. "Any person living in Palestine now realises political parties, especially the Islamic ones, have not achieved anything for the individual,"

And so you favor a Caliphate, which is a rule by religion, which is what Hamas favors, and which you say has failed the most.

said Sheikh Abu Abdullah, a thin-framed man with a wiry beard.... "Any talk about a return to the caliphate, any talk about a return to religious values is something that is attractive to people,"

What Islam needs is Separation of Mosque and State. That way you could worship as you choose, and have whatever religious values you want, and have a well ordered state that did not interfere.

said Majid Abu Malah, 55, an Arabic-language teacher who attends regularly. He, like many others, says he has given up on both Hamas and Fatah, and will not vote in the next election. "I believe in what [Hizb ut-Tahrir] gives."

Which is a promise of World Domination, but without the violence in the street that you hve with two other parties that want to control things.

Hizb ut-Tahrir, founded in Jerusalem in 1953 but largely dormant until recent years, is banned in dozens of countries, though it is legal and has a strong presence in Britain. Its platform calls for the eventual overthrowing of Arab-world governments to be replaced by a caliphate, which would also encompass Israel.

I wonder what Israel thinks about that, and if Hizb ut-Tahrir will be satisfied with control of just all Arab lands. Not.

The organisation argues that it does not advocate violence; however, it has been accused of inciting racism and hatred, and is known for activities such as demonstrations against cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed last year.

Which certainly did not involve violence.

Sunday, August 26, 2007

A political primer on primaries

Andrew Malcolm blogged on Los Angeles Times Primary elections were instituted by the Founding Fathers in legislative earmarks to boost hotel, restaurant and television station revenues in New Hampshire and Iowa at a time of year when no one in their right mind would go to either place. Iowa turned a daytime primary election into a nighttime caucus because the farm chores are supposed to be done by dark and Monday Night Football is over by January.... Iowa has become such an important part of the presidential selection process because with all of its empty space and 95% white population it is so totally unrepresentative of the American nation. New Hampshire is an essential part of the primary process because the Manchester Union-Leader says it is and no politician wants to be the one to tell that newspaper that the 19th century ended some time ago.... In recent years a lot of other states, most of them equally unimportant and unrepresentative, decided to horn in on all the TV coverage and hotel revenues. Nevada, which leads the nation in sandy desolation, has a caucus now on Jan. 19, the same day as South Carolina Republicans vote, while their state's Democrats wait for Jan. 29 just to be different.... And a whole bunch of states, including California, have moved their primaries to Feb. 5, thinking earlier will make them more important. (In fact, don't tell New Hampshire, but Californians can actually start voting Jan. 3 when absentee ballots go out.)

And it provides the press something to do in 2007 concerning themselves with a process to choose someone that will not take office until 2009.

Saturday, August 25, 2007

DNC vs Florida

Politico reported The Democratic Party has taken a swipe at the nation's fourth biggest state, stripping Florida of all of its '08 delegates as punishment for jumping the gun with its Jan. 29 primary. Florida's early date could force other states to move up and up to stay at the front of the pack.

Florida should respond by passing a law that says none of the states electorial votes can go to any party that will not seat its delegates.

Then the national parties should come up with a plan that allows the states to rotate so that 1/4 of the state have their primaries first one year, then go to the back of the list while another batch of states go first the next election, etc.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

SCHIP

NYT reported The Bush administration, continuing its fight to stop states from expanding the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program, has adopted new standards that would make it much more difficult for New York, California and others to extend coverage to children in middle-income families.

Good for him. Middle income families should be able to pay for their own insurance.

Administration officials outlined the new standards in a letter sent to state health officials on Friday evening, in the middle of a month-long Congressional recess. In interviews, they said the changes were aimed at returning the Children’s Health Insurance Program to its original focus on low-income children and to make sure the program did not become a substitute for private health coverage.

Which is what it was supposed to be. Not a backdoor way to get us into a single payer insurance system like Canada has, where they can't afford neonatal services for babies

After learning of the new policy, some state officials said today that it could cripple their efforts to cover more children by imposing standards that could not be met..... The poverty level for a family of four is $20,650 in annual income. New York now covers children in families with income up to 250 percent of the poverty level. The State Legislature has passed a bill that would raise the limit to 400 percent of the poverty level — $82,600 for a family of four — but the change is subject to federal approval.

Why should tax payers in the 49 other states pay the insurance bill for a New York family making $82,600.

California wants to increase its income limit to 300 percent of the poverty level, from 250 percent. Pennsylvania recently raised its limit to 300 percent, from 200 percent. New Jersey has had a limit of 350 percent for more than five years.

That is ridiculous

As on other issues like immigration, the White House is taking action on its own to advance policies that were not embraced by Congress.

A republican President taking action that is not embraced by a Democratic Congress? Maybe that is what the Founding Fathers planned for when they set up the checks and balances of our system.

.... In the letter sent to state health officials about 7:30 p.m. on Friday, Dennis G. Smith, the director of the federal Center for Medicaid and State Operations, set a high standard for states that want to raise eligibility for the child health program above 250 percent of the poverty level. Before making such a change, Mr. Smith said, states must demonstrate that they have “enrolled at least 95 percent of children in the state below 200 percent of the federal poverty level” who are eligible for either Medicaid or the child health program. Deborah S. Bachrach, a deputy commissioner in the New York State Health Department, said, “No state in the nation has a participation rate of 95 percent.”

Then shouldn't you focus your attention on children that are really in poverty, rather than having the government pay for children in families earning $80K?

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Born in the U.S.A.

Calgary Herald reported A rare set of identical quadruplets, born this week to a Calgary woman at a Montana hospital, are in good health and two of them were strong enough to be transported back here Thursday. The naturally conceived baby girls -- Autumn, Brooke, Calissa and Dahlia -- were delivered by caesarean section Sunday in Great Falls, their weights ranging between two pounds, six ounces and two pounds, 15 ounces. Their mother, Calgarian Karen Jepp, was transferred to Benefis Hospital in Montana last week when she began showing signs of going into labour, and no Canadian hospital had enough neonatal intensive-care beds for all four babies.

Fortunately for the quads, the US does not have National Health Care. Yet.

Don Surber blogged I’m sure most Canadians like their health system. Just remember, though, that Canada’s backup system is in Montana. Americans spend 15% of their income on health care. That’s why Great Falls has enough neo-natal units to handle quadruple births — and a “universal health” nation doesn’t.

Kate blogged I thought today would be a good time to revisit my 2005 piece on zero-tier health care for newer readers to SDA. Saskatchewan spends $4 billion a year on health - 44% of the total provincial budget - on a population of under one million, and those dollars are increasingly directed to more centralized systems of delivery. While debate about "wait times" tends to revolve around diagnostics and scheduling of surgery (especially "elective" surgery such as knee and hip replacement), few consider the "wait time" facing the farmer in Val Marie with a crushed pelvis or severed artery.... Discussing the abysmal quality of care my mother received with a friend who works in the bureaucracy, I suggested that the imbalance might be partially restored through a holdback system, in which a percentage of wages or fees would be released only upon patient or family signoff - in the way that holdbacks are used in the construction industry to ensure the job is well and truly complete. She disagreed with the idea, for, as she correctedly argued, "Some people might withhold payment unfairly." To which I replied; "Welcome to the world the rest of us live in."

Merv blogged In a growing American city where the free market is allowed to work there would be no trouble getting hospital beds for a growing population. But, in Canada with rationed health care, you can't even get in for an emergency delivery of babies. Congratulations to the Jepps and boos for Canadian socialized medicine.

Kim Priestap blogged Question: where would have Mrs. Jepps given birth if America and her vastly more accessible health care system weren't available right next door? If the US goes to a universal health care system, we, too, will find ourselves with a government that has a limited amount of money to spend on health care and, therefore, limited space

Mark Steyn blogged Well, you can't expect a G7 economy of only 30 million people to be able to offer the same level of neonatal ICU coverage as a town of 50,000 in remote rural Montana. And let's face it, there's nothing an expectant mom likes more than 300 miles in a bumpy twin prop over the Rockies.

Iowa Voice has gone “national” as Liberty Pundit

Iowa Voice has gone “national” as Liberty Pundit

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)