Sarah Palin says (on Facebook) "We can win in Afghanistan by helping the Afghans build a stable representative state able to defend itself. And we must do what it takes to prevail. The stakes are very high. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Afghanistan, and if we are not successful there, al Qaeda will once again find a safe haven, the Taliban will impose its cruelty on the Afghan people, and Pakistan will be less stable."
So what is the Palin definition of "WIN" -- al Qaeda being based somewhere other than Afghanistan?
Does Palin really believe the Taliban -- which runs schools and hospitals -- will tolerate an al Qaeda shadow government? OK, the schools teach things Palin doesn't like ... like the idea that their unmarried daughters should be virgins ... OK ... that's cool. But when did the Taliban ever threaten America? Or its neighbors?
Al Qaeda is run by a Saudi, funded by Saudis, and Saudis will be up front in the (behind the scenes) funding of the next Palin campaign.
Same problem ... DEFINE WIN!
How long will we be there?
The same as in Europe ... 65 years and counting?
The same as Korea ... 55 years and counting? OH THAT WAR? Technically we are still at war.
The same as Vietnam ... The North (bad guys) took over the South, and we declared victory then refused to talk to them.
Did we "win" in Iraq? Or will that be continued for the next half century?
Same problem ... DEFINE WIN!
Set a timeline for getting out after we declare victory.
Even better ... explain how we will pay for the war.
We pay for wars, other industrial nations pay to make the lives of their people better. They provide medical care -- Palin will build the hospitals and pay the doctors in Afghanistan ... and private insurers will raise the cost to those who want coverage here.
Education? We get to build schools there and pay their teachers ... while our kids learn to shoot guns and kill Taliban, or al Qaeda, or the terroist dejour .
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Monday, October 5, 2009
top ten countries to live in
1 Norway,
2 Australia,
3 Iceland,
4 Canada,
5 Ireland,
6 the Netherlands,
7 Sweden,
8 France,
9 Switzerland
10 Japan.
USA is number 13 ... Every one of the top ten has universal health care without the games OR BULL associated with American care.
The Bullshit from the republicans and evangelicals would have you believe that the idea of living a long healthy life is somehow denied to those in the top ten ... but it is a long and healthy - stress free life -- which places them in top ten. Of course, their average incomes are also higher ... as are their educational levels.
But don't wory ... Niger and Afghanistan are at the bottom ... and if the evangelical-republicans have their way, we will be to the very bottom within the next decade ...
2 Australia,
3 Iceland,
4 Canada,
5 Ireland,
6 the Netherlands,
7 Sweden,
8 France,
9 Switzerland
10 Japan.
USA is number 13 ... Every one of the top ten has universal health care without the games OR BULL associated with American care.
The Bullshit from the republicans and evangelicals would have you believe that the idea of living a long healthy life is somehow denied to those in the top ten ... but it is a long and healthy - stress free life -- which places them in top ten. Of course, their average incomes are also higher ... as are their educational levels.
But don't wory ... Niger and Afghanistan are at the bottom ... and if the evangelical-republicans have their way, we will be to the very bottom within the next decade ...
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
OPE LETTER to Senator Olympia Snowe
"The most harm to the most people" seems to be the Republican answer to all real world problems.
I have long be proud to have you representing Maine -- you seem to be someone who opposes anything which will impose "the most harm to the most people."
Healthcare is the issue before us ... the reality of it is that to continue what we have will continue to impose "the most harm to the most people".
America pay twice as much for care as any other industrial nation. Yet millions of people are without coverage, while the other nations cover everyone on their soil -- citizen or foreign (granted there is a use charge to non-nationals, but even that is only a fraction of the comparable cost they would pay in America)
We have Medicare, Medicaid (with it hoops and hurdles), and Veterans Hospitals -- so why not cover everyone and eliminate the costs of hoops and hurdles? Why not open veterans hospitals to everyone -- free of charge? Instead of having multiple programs and staffs, why not one program for all. Why not make people well -- instead of wasting funds making them qualify for the chance to get well (while they continue to get worse)?
Families which the insurance companies screen for a lack of probable need must pay $6000 for coverage they probably don't need -- Government coverage for them would cost nothing and add that $6,000 annually into savings and purchases. Purchases mean more profits and tax revenue. Savings mean more funds for economic expansion.
We can afford to give up the pennies in tax revenue from insurance executives making tens of millions. We need rational medical coverage. If we only equal the per person cost of England and France, we would cover everyone and have a surplus against our current costs.
I have long be proud to have you representing Maine -- you seem to be someone who opposes anything which will impose "the most harm to the most people."
Healthcare is the issue before us ... the reality of it is that to continue what we have will continue to impose "the most harm to the most people".
America pay twice as much for care as any other industrial nation. Yet millions of people are without coverage, while the other nations cover everyone on their soil -- citizen or foreign (granted there is a use charge to non-nationals, but even that is only a fraction of the comparable cost they would pay in America)
We have Medicare, Medicaid (with it hoops and hurdles), and Veterans Hospitals -- so why not cover everyone and eliminate the costs of hoops and hurdles? Why not open veterans hospitals to everyone -- free of charge? Instead of having multiple programs and staffs, why not one program for all. Why not make people well -- instead of wasting funds making them qualify for the chance to get well (while they continue to get worse)?
Families which the insurance companies screen for a lack of probable need must pay $6000 for coverage they probably don't need -- Government coverage for them would cost nothing and add that $6,000 annually into savings and purchases. Purchases mean more profits and tax revenue. Savings mean more funds for economic expansion.
We can afford to give up the pennies in tax revenue from insurance executives making tens of millions. We need rational medical coverage. If we only equal the per person cost of England and France, we would cover everyone and have a surplus against our current costs.
Another Most Harm - Michigan
Here's the opening from the news story (30 September 2009):
"IRVING TOWNSHIP, Mich. – Each day before the school bus comes to pick up the neighborhood's children, Lisa Snyder did a favor for three of her fellow moms, welcoming their children into her home for about an hour before they left for school.
"Regulators who oversee child care, however, don't see it as charity. Days after the start of the new school year, Snyder received a letter from the Michigan Department of Human Services warning her that if she continued, she'd be violating a law aimed at the operators of unlicensed day care centers."
NOW! Here's what the law implies ... If you host regular play dates at your home, you are a criminal guilty of running an unlicensed day care center. No money exchanged -- still a crime. Now! Imagine the other parents provided snacks -- exchange of "compensation" ... serious crimes here ....
Want to be how the Michigan Senators voted on Health Care ... or where they stand on saving the life of a woman by aborting a tubal pregnancy?
THE MOST HARM TO THE MOST PEOPLE is hidden behind the misapplication of laws ... or their literal application in an otherwise irrelevant context.
FOOTNOTE:
TIME did a cover story this week (September 2009) about the destruction and ruin of Detroit Michigan -- In the 1960's it was the motor capital of the world, now it is a slum city whose population shrunk by fifty-percent during a period when the American population nearly doubled. All because Republican and big-business Americans argue for short term profits. They have no interest in the long term benefits to the nation -- or even in sustained benefits. The symbol of American intellect is Ronald Reagan removing the Carter solar collectors from the Whitehouse.
Saving energy saves money -- solar utilizes a free energy source ... the sun. Wind saves energy -- it utilizes a free energy source ... the wind. Tidal saves energy -- it utilizes a free energy source ... the daily ebb and flow of tides.
There was a time when saving money was VERY American. That was when this nation was formed and a clown named Ben Franklin was writing "Poor Richard's Almanac" ... think about the practical application of the phrase ... "A Penny Saved is a Penny Earned."
Republicans are anti-American ... but very pro "The most harm to the most people"
"IRVING TOWNSHIP, Mich. – Each day before the school bus comes to pick up the neighborhood's children, Lisa Snyder did a favor for three of her fellow moms, welcoming their children into her home for about an hour before they left for school.
"Regulators who oversee child care, however, don't see it as charity. Days after the start of the new school year, Snyder received a letter from the Michigan Department of Human Services warning her that if she continued, she'd be violating a law aimed at the operators of unlicensed day care centers."
NOW! Here's what the law implies ... If you host regular play dates at your home, you are a criminal guilty of running an unlicensed day care center. No money exchanged -- still a crime. Now! Imagine the other parents provided snacks -- exchange of "compensation" ... serious crimes here ....
Want to be how the Michigan Senators voted on Health Care ... or where they stand on saving the life of a woman by aborting a tubal pregnancy?
THE MOST HARM TO THE MOST PEOPLE is hidden behind the misapplication of laws ... or their literal application in an otherwise irrelevant context.
FOOTNOTE:
TIME did a cover story this week (September 2009) about the destruction and ruin of Detroit Michigan -- In the 1960's it was the motor capital of the world, now it is a slum city whose population shrunk by fifty-percent during a period when the American population nearly doubled. All because Republican and big-business Americans argue for short term profits. They have no interest in the long term benefits to the nation -- or even in sustained benefits. The symbol of American intellect is Ronald Reagan removing the Carter solar collectors from the Whitehouse.
Saving energy saves money -- solar utilizes a free energy source ... the sun. Wind saves energy -- it utilizes a free energy source ... the wind. Tidal saves energy -- it utilizes a free energy source ... the daily ebb and flow of tides.
There was a time when saving money was VERY American. That was when this nation was formed and a clown named Ben Franklin was writing "Poor Richard's Almanac" ... think about the practical application of the phrase ... "A Penny Saved is a Penny Earned."
Republicans are anti-American ... but very pro "The most harm to the most people"
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Senate no on Healthcare
Senate Finance Committee votes against new government-run health insurance plan.
The Finance Committee voted twice Tuesday against the creation of a new government-run health insurance plan. The panel rejected a proposal from Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) on a 15 to 8 vote, then voted down one sponsored by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) on a 13 to 10 vote.
Is this good or bad?
Consider these fact from Michael Moore:
1. Six of the biggest California insurers rejected, on annual average, more than one-fifth of all claims every year since 2002. Basically they are routinely denying the services they being paid to provide. That's FRAUD ... but it's California ... so nobody cares ... How about the rest of nation? Is the fraud rate greater or the same (we know it isn't lower).
2. Insurance companies continue to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollees. Basically selling a product they know the buyer will probably never need to use, thus is worthless to buyer ... Another form of FRAUD. But who cares.
3. Insurance company monopolies, like Anthem in Maine, are legal -- Free marketeers should be screaming about that ... but them thar Republicans a liars about their true beliefs ... and numerous Democrats are joining them.
4. There are no standards of care ... so die if you must ... so long as they make a profit.
As Moore says "We may be slow learners, but the rest of the industrial world has figured it out: Universal, single-payer or national health care systems. That's the reason why all those other countries cover everyone, have better patient outcomes, cause no one to declare bankruptcy or lose their homes because of medical bills, and spend less than half per capita on health care than we do."
"We could do it too, by reducing the starting age for Medicare from 65 to 0. There's still time to act." Which is to say, a third of the nation is already covered ... add those on Medicaid (eliminating that program and all the associated qualification paperwork ... and the real cost comes down to adding those who the insurance firms already know don't need to use the coverage ...
DUH!!!
NOMINAL COST and real savings to those families paying $500 a month, or $6000 a year for nothing but the right to be denied coverage if they ever really need it before they qualify for Medicare ...
The Finance Committee voted twice Tuesday against the creation of a new government-run health insurance plan. The panel rejected a proposal from Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) on a 15 to 8 vote, then voted down one sponsored by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) on a 13 to 10 vote.
Is this good or bad?
Consider these fact from Michael Moore:
1. Six of the biggest California insurers rejected, on annual average, more than one-fifth of all claims every year since 2002. Basically they are routinely denying the services they being paid to provide. That's FRAUD ... but it's California ... so nobody cares ... How about the rest of nation? Is the fraud rate greater or the same (we know it isn't lower).
2. Insurance companies continue to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollees. Basically selling a product they know the buyer will probably never need to use, thus is worthless to buyer ... Another form of FRAUD. But who cares.
3. Insurance company monopolies, like Anthem in Maine, are legal -- Free marketeers should be screaming about that ... but them thar Republicans a liars about their true beliefs ... and numerous Democrats are joining them.
4. There are no standards of care ... so die if you must ... so long as they make a profit.
As Moore says "We may be slow learners, but the rest of the industrial world has figured it out: Universal, single-payer or national health care systems. That's the reason why all those other countries cover everyone, have better patient outcomes, cause no one to declare bankruptcy or lose their homes because of medical bills, and spend less than half per capita on health care than we do."
"We could do it too, by reducing the starting age for Medicare from 65 to 0. There's still time to act." Which is to say, a third of the nation is already covered ... add those on Medicaid (eliminating that program and all the associated qualification paperwork ... and the real cost comes down to adding those who the insurance firms already know don't need to use the coverage ...
DUH!!!
NOMINAL COST and real savings to those families paying $500 a month, or $6000 a year for nothing but the right to be denied coverage if they ever really need it before they qualify for Medicare ...
Abortion -- Most Harm group Grows
Abortion Fight Complicates Debate on Health Care, a September 29, 2009 Tomes article by DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK shows "The Most Harm to the Most People" advocates are growing in number. That bodes ill for America's future as a world power.
The issue here is abortion, but it affects everything associated with growing a population which is strong and health. Consider this quoted summary:
"Abortion opponents in both the House and the Senate are seeking to block the millions of middle- and lower-income people who might receive federal insurance subsidies to help them buy health coverage from using the money on plans that cover abortion."
And now consider the projected outcome:
"Abortion-rights supporters say such a restriction would all but eliminate from the marketplace private plans that cover the procedure, pushing women who have such coverage to give it up. Nearly half of those with employer-sponsored health plans now have policies that cover abortion, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation."
Half of the free market choice the Republicans say they want ... would vanish. And for what? So a woman can die from a tubal pregnancy? Or so that fetus and mother can die because the baby is not viable, but if carried to term would kill the mother?
How about this? A woman wants an abortion because she knows the family cannot afford the baby (rubber broke, diaphragm shifted, that pill evidenced its 1% failure rate) and they were responsibly using birth control. SO! Because of an accident, or product defect, the family is to be saddled with an estimated quarter million dollar expense.
Who pays for the kid? By definition, they are too poor. OH Right, we give tax breaks to the rich, so the burden shifts to the middle class and poor. An estimated 1 million abortions a year (which, is actually reflecting a steady decline relative to population growth, and since ROE both an actual real number and percentage decrease in abortions).
Given social service costs and other costs ... the deficit will grow by a quarter TRILLION DOLLARS ... just to cover those kids ... THINK ABOUT IT! Extra Schools, welfare, special assistance for kids with medical and mental birth defects (the very ones that would be aborted) and YOU and your kids get to pay for them -- for the rest of their lives.
That's how the most harm doctrine works. Take an issue that seems harmless -- and appear to be interjecting morality -- and the net affect is to harm countless numbers over decades ... with no real benefit.
OK. Some are going to yell the morality bit. Question!
1. Is morality a decision for the individual, upon which their personal salvation depends? Or,
2. Is morality something which society determines for the individual and for which they have no personal responsibility?
The moral argument -- society imposed prevention of "sin" -- argues that there is no personal responsibility. The argument becomes, Society did not prevent it; therefore it was not deemed a moral question or responsibility; and therefore those who failed to make the law are moral culpable -- not I.
Think in terms of stealing ... is the individual responsible before or after the act? Think in terms of murder (when birth rights have been achieved by birth process -- as biblically dictated). Do we stop the individual (outlaw guns, imprison anyone with a gun, knife or other weapon which could kill) before the fact -- or wait for the action?
If abortion is murder, as abortion opponents claim, then those involved should be tried and sentenced as premeditated murders. Since they do not enact laws to that effect, they are admitting they are liars about the reality of the action. Again, biblically, the birth right begins at emergence of a limb from the womb -- abortion was well known in biblical times, but there are absolutely no laws related to it. Though there is a law dealing with violence against a pregnant woman that results in miscarriage (effectively an induced abortion).
The Most Harm To the Most People. proponents are growing
The issue here is abortion, but it affects everything associated with growing a population which is strong and health. Consider this quoted summary:
"Abortion opponents in both the House and the Senate are seeking to block the millions of middle- and lower-income people who might receive federal insurance subsidies to help them buy health coverage from using the money on plans that cover abortion."
And now consider the projected outcome:
"Abortion-rights supporters say such a restriction would all but eliminate from the marketplace private plans that cover the procedure, pushing women who have such coverage to give it up. Nearly half of those with employer-sponsored health plans now have policies that cover abortion, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation."
Half of the free market choice the Republicans say they want ... would vanish. And for what? So a woman can die from a tubal pregnancy? Or so that fetus and mother can die because the baby is not viable, but if carried to term would kill the mother?
How about this? A woman wants an abortion because she knows the family cannot afford the baby (rubber broke, diaphragm shifted, that pill evidenced its 1% failure rate) and they were responsibly using birth control. SO! Because of an accident, or product defect, the family is to be saddled with an estimated quarter million dollar expense.
Who pays for the kid? By definition, they are too poor. OH Right, we give tax breaks to the rich, so the burden shifts to the middle class and poor. An estimated 1 million abortions a year (which, is actually reflecting a steady decline relative to population growth, and since ROE both an actual real number and percentage decrease in abortions).
Given social service costs and other costs ... the deficit will grow by a quarter TRILLION DOLLARS ... just to cover those kids ... THINK ABOUT IT! Extra Schools, welfare, special assistance for kids with medical and mental birth defects (the very ones that would be aborted) and YOU and your kids get to pay for them -- for the rest of their lives.
That's how the most harm doctrine works. Take an issue that seems harmless -- and appear to be interjecting morality -- and the net affect is to harm countless numbers over decades ... with no real benefit.
OK. Some are going to yell the morality bit. Question!
1. Is morality a decision for the individual, upon which their personal salvation depends? Or,
2. Is morality something which society determines for the individual and for which they have no personal responsibility?
The moral argument -- society imposed prevention of "sin" -- argues that there is no personal responsibility. The argument becomes, Society did not prevent it; therefore it was not deemed a moral question or responsibility; and therefore those who failed to make the law are moral culpable -- not I.
Think in terms of stealing ... is the individual responsible before or after the act? Think in terms of murder (when birth rights have been achieved by birth process -- as biblically dictated). Do we stop the individual (outlaw guns, imprison anyone with a gun, knife or other weapon which could kill) before the fact -- or wait for the action?
If abortion is murder, as abortion opponents claim, then those involved should be tried and sentenced as premeditated murders. Since they do not enact laws to that effect, they are admitting they are liars about the reality of the action. Again, biblically, the birth right begins at emergence of a limb from the womb -- abortion was well known in biblical times, but there are absolutely no laws related to it. Though there is a law dealing with violence against a pregnant woman that results in miscarriage (effectively an induced abortion).
The Most Harm To the Most People. proponents are growing
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Enjoy the Hypocrites
FROM THE NEWS:
"The Senate Finance Committee rejected a Republican effort on Wednesday to delay a final vote on a broad healthcare overhaul as it slowly battled through a crush of amendments on its cost, size and timing.
"Republicans demanded more information on the bill's budgetary impact and called for the Democratic-controlled panel to slow its deliberations on Chairman Max Baucus's healthcare reform plan, which he hopes to bring to a final vote this week."
*****************
Think about this: Regean and Bush basically double the national debt with the "expert" economic assistance of the same Republicans whom are opposing healthcare on budgetary grounds.
In simple terms -- if it is good for the average American it is bad for the budget. If it helps to harm the average American, it is exactly what Republicans must support.
I love these guys ... more power to them and their doctrine of "The Most Harm to the Most People".
"The Senate Finance Committee rejected a Republican effort on Wednesday to delay a final vote on a broad healthcare overhaul as it slowly battled through a crush of amendments on its cost, size and timing.
"Republicans demanded more information on the bill's budgetary impact and called for the Democratic-controlled panel to slow its deliberations on Chairman Max Baucus's healthcare reform plan, which he hopes to bring to a final vote this week."
*****************
Think about this: Regean and Bush basically double the national debt with the "expert" economic assistance of the same Republicans whom are opposing healthcare on budgetary grounds.
In simple terms -- if it is good for the average American it is bad for the budget. If it helps to harm the average American, it is exactly what Republicans must support.
I love these guys ... more power to them and their doctrine of "The Most Harm to the Most People".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)