2009-12-18 03:42:00
JJ:
Great letter from Fred Birnbaum. I hope everyone will follow his logic. On the other hand, Robert Smith has been living in Obamaland too long. To think that the healthcare costs will just be magically reduced about 40% by switching to universal health has no basis in reality. The government already provides healthcare for 41% of the population and it costs them $9600 a person, NOT $2400 per person as in Japan or around $3000 in Europe.
We cannot expect the government to reduce costs for the other 59% until they figure out how to do it with the 41% they already cover.
Instead of spending $9600 per person for the rest of us let's concentrate on getting jobs for the 10% unemployed. What would you rather have? Health care or a job? I'd put getting a job about a hundred notches above healthcare by bureaucracy.
"Ericn1300" wrote:
"Your numbers don't sound right, do you have a source or do you just make them up?"
JJ:
I read that figure of 41% some time ago and cannot find the exact reference. However according to Wikipedia it is worse and states:
"Public spending accounts for between 45% and 56.1% of U.S. health care spending."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#cite_ note-content.healthaffairs.org-59
For per capita figures you can go to:
http://www.publicagenda.org/charts/medicare-costs-person
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=480067
Good data on this is difficult to dig up.
JJ:
Jim Spicka's letter deftly illustrates that we already have much more public option than we can afford and we do not need trillions more in borrowed money to support additional bureaucracies.
Those of us who do not work in public option jobs are tired of paying 60% of our money in taxes to support many unnecessary cushy jobs of those who do.
"Badnana":
"You pay 60% taxes? And you pay $2200 a year for insurance (and no medicare)? riiighhht. If those two statements are even close to the truth, you have a thief for and accountant and a magic elf for an insurance agent."
JJ:
Everyone with a median income pays over 60%. Take a look at this site:
http://www.reasontofreedom.com/visible_burden_government_part_1.html
I know, I know you want to reject the figures because the site is not far left and there is always a possibility of some error. That is why I put the figure at 60%. The site itself says over 69% The average person just doesn't realize how many hidden taxes he pays and how much better off we would all e if about 80% of them were eliminated.
As far as my insurance goes, yes that is accurate and I think it is available to anyone in good health. I probably wouldn't even get that if my wife did not insist for I haven't used any health insurance in my life and hopefully never will.
"Bluecrazy":
"When the Insurance company has to pay for poor health, they lose money. They're in business to make money. Duah!"
JJ:
I'm glad you made the discovery that if a product costs more to create then the end price will be higher. You are smarter than most Lefties as few seem to be aware of this. If you discover just a few more facts you will switch to the Right.
JJ:
(This comment was in response to a writer who complained his insurance was ripping him off.)
Why would anyone pay $586.60 when the payoff is not likely to be more than $170? Yet there must be those blissfully unaware enough to do this or the company would not be offering such a product.
I get ridiculous offers like this for all kinds of products. I was just looking into buying a heater and found one for around $600 that looked good, but after some checking I found another for $69 that was better.
And the solution to overpriced products is...?
No. It is not to call Congress and whine that we need their help.
The solution is to simply not buy the product. When people smarten up a bit then bad offers will cease.
I'll bet over half of our tax dollars are wasted just because Congress and bureaucrats do not take the time to add 2+2.
JJ:
Great letters today. It's good to see someone standing up for Fox News. A generation ago all the media at least put forth a good faith effort to present both sides of issues and question the powers-that-be, but things have changed.
Now, of all the stations we have on TV, there is only one where you hear both strong liberals and conservatives speak their mind. There is only one that is fair and balanced -- and that is Fox News.
If you watch the news on the other networks it seems that they all have the same writers and cover only accepted material. The problem is more what they censor out of the news than what they put in.
Because Fox News does not censor and gives the good, the bad and the ugly on all sides they are enjoying unprecedented success.
JJ:
The best way to avoid the horrendous expense of Chemo [chemical therapy] and the drugs that follow is to just not take it. In most cases there are natural cures -- some that would cost no extra money -- that work better and do not destroy your organs and everything about your body that makes life worth living.
Once in a while Chemo may be a wise choice but generally death is preferable. And the trouble is that natural cures are not as effective after chemo has been applied.
Here is an interesting article to read:
http://collinswoodusa.blogspot.com/2008/02/chemotherapy-ineffective.html
"Loner" writes:
"JoJo, You have out whackoed yourself this time. Write again when you have cancer and tell us how you prefer death to trying chemo. Of all the stupid things I have seen on this board that is without a doubt the stupidest."
JJ:
For some types of cancer, such as lung, you only have a 1% chance of extending your life with chemo and if you're over 55 effectiveness of chemo is reduced by about half. How dumb is it to destroy your organs and die a living hell as well as spending a fortune?
My sister had cancer and I tried to talk her into using an alternative treatment and she instead strictly followed doctor's orders. She died a horrible death, not from cancer, but from the chemo.
In the Sixties [1960's] a popular bumper sticker for Democrats was "Question Authority." What happened to these independent thinkers? Now their bumper sticker should read "Follow Authority Without Question."
"Domer76" writes:
"Can you say laetrile? How many poor suckers chased that alternative treatment?"
JJ:
Like a person killed with Chemo is not a sucker -- and Chemo costs 1000 times as much as laetrile.
Thousands have claimed cures with laetrile. Here's a good informative article:
http://alternativecancer.us/laetrile.htm
"Popcorn" writes:
"Joseph [JJ], you said, 'In the Sixties a popular bumper sticker for Democrats was "Question Authority.' What happened to these independent thinkers? Now their bumper sticker should read 'Follow Authority Without Question.'
"What on earth does political affiliation have to do with it?! Not everything falls into your clearly defined lines drawn around 'left' and 'right.'
JJ:
It has a lot to do with it. Every time I question authority I am attacked from the Left and not the Right. Lefties do what they are told without question much more than he Right -- even though they think they are independent thinkers.
Just look at this non political issue of Chemo which is accepted by orthodoxy. I question it and am attacked by the Left -- not the Right.
"Loner" writes:
"JoJo, I will only say 'I hope it never happens to you'."
JJ:
Are you sure you are sincere here? You were just calling me stupid like you wanted me to learn a lesson.
"My2CentsWorth" writes:
"That is because your posts always support the right. If you are a libertarian as you claim you are an super-ultra-conservative libertarian. Oh, and your chemo views are wrong."
JJ:
And I am wrong, why? Because you say so?
My attitudes on health are progressive and libertarian, not conservative as are yours.
"My2CentsWorth" wrote:
"Not because I say so. Because there are statistics to prove chemotherapy works and my father was diagnosed with stage 3b lung and brain cancer 3 years ago. Chemo and radiation has given him 3 years (and counting) that he wouldn't have had. Was chemo hard on him? Yes. Has he enjoyed the three extra years of life. Duh. Yes. Want more examples?"
JJ:
I've already said there are times that Chemo makes sense, but many where it does not. When there is little chance of it extending life, as in lung cancer, for example, then why put yourself through even more grief? When a doctor reaches a dead end, as happened with my sister, they just do more of it even if there is no hope. Having all your organs destroyed by chemo is a terrible way to die.
JJ:
The best way to handle diabetes is to just not get it to begin with. Very few would ever get Type 2 Diabetes if they would just cut out all refined sugars and use honey or maple syrup as their sweeteners instead. If they did this and ate lots of raw foods the disease would not take hold in a healthy person.
Here's a good article that tells us that Type 2 is curable if it has not progressed to far:
http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?site=MensHealth &channel=health&category=other.diseases.ailments&conitem= 4a935e4e40fae010VgnVCM20000012281eac____
"TWall" wrote:
"Another easy way to help yourself stay healthy and it's even easy. Quit drinking soda. Soda is highly acidic and has a lot of sugars, even diet sodas have artificial sweeteners; some of which are worse for your body than sugar. So lay off the big gulps and save your foot."
JJ:
Wow, it's great to agree with you for a change. In addition avoid anything with fructose in it. This is harder on the pancreas than refined sugar.
"Run" wrote:
"Decent advice, Dr. Dewey. Glad to see that not all that you learned at the University of Crackpot School of Medicine consisted of telling those with diseases that they'd be better off to not fight the illness and just die."
JJ:
If you are referring to yesterday's discussion on cancer you have completely misunderstood me. I do not suggest anyone just give up and die. Cancer can be cured with natural methods and the good part is some cost little or nothing. Because chemo is a source of billions of dollars of income, the establishment are more willing to use it than they should.
"Motowrencher" wrote:
"The United States is not a democracy, it is a Republic. The majority will is not always the rule, the good of the Republic should be the rule."
JJ:
Yes, we have a representative government, but the trouble is that the majority is not represented well. In many cases our representatives vote against majority will and majority will makes much more sense. Take nuclear energy, for instance. The majority support it, but Congress, as a whole, does not.
There are two types of rule: majority rule and minority rule. All tyrannies are minority rule. At present we have a minority rule and that is why the Republic is in danger. We therefore need the majority to make their will felt and need to create more public referendums and direct participatory government.
JJ:
The other day "Badnana" was touting the virtues of Olbermann and Maddow as to how virtuous and accurate they are in relation to Fox commentators. I haven't watched them for a while so I thought I would tune in a few times to see if there has been any improvement. Unfortunately, there hasn't been. There are distortions every few sentences and some outright untruths. Just one example: Yesterday Olbermann was making fun of the "Republican" tea party people, pointing out how outrageous they are and for a video what did he show?
He shows a video of a group of LaRouche Democrats holding up Hitler and/or Obama signs at the Barney Frank meeting.
If Fox News made such an outrageous mistake of calling Democrats Republicans the news would have hit all the liberal blogs and Olbermann and Maddow would have been repeating for a month. As it is, without Fox News, MSNBC would have little material, but Fox News ignores them and talks about the issues and presents both sides fairly with few mistakes. That's why they have more viewers than all other cable news shows combined.
"Badnana":
"Since you brought up Olbermann's (which I don't know about or agree with) showing the wrong video, what about Hannity showing September's view of the 9/12 project and claiming it was the most recent tea-party gathering? He admitted it when Jon Stewart made fun of him for doing it. Saying it was an error. That same latitude extended to Keith? I didn't think so."
JJ:
A thousand times more latitude was extended to Keith because no one on Fox even mentioned Keith's glaring mistake and neither did Rush or any other conservative I know.
Why?
Because the Right doesn't record every word made by Leftist commentators to look for mistakes, but concentrates on issues important to the American people.
Hannity's mistake was extremely minor and made little difference to the viewer, but stating that Democrats holding up Obama and/or Hitler signs are Republicans is about as bad as you can get.
If the Right attacked the messengers as do the Left there would be no time for the discussion of issues.
"Badnana":
"Hannity's photo 'mistake' was designed to show that there were many more protesters than actually were there."
JJ:
It didn't look that way to me. Looked like it was just a more panoramic view. All clips showed lots of people. Critics are picking at straws.
"Badnana":
"As far as Olbermann's photo 'mistake' I still am unaware of what was misinterpreted, real or imagined."
JJ:
Are you not paying attention? Take a look at this picture of a group of Democrats with Obama/Hitler posters:
http://www.bestcyrano.org/?p=3621
Olbermann and others in the media portray these as Republicans. This forum was deceiving into thinking this a while back even though it is now widely known the group were disgruntled Democrats.
"Badnana":
"You think there are no Obama/Hitler references in your tea parties?"
JJ:
When you have a million people making signs you can find anything on the Left or Right. But the Barney Frank Town Hall was significant because this was the only time there was an entire group with Obama and/or Hitler signs and these were Democrats!
It is hypocritical to get so upset about the tiny amount of bad posters from the Right when you look at a typical rallies from the Left. Take a look:
http://www.thomasalbert.com/politics/protest/san_francisco.htm
I attended both tea parties and do not recall seeing any Hitler signs. These guys were Mother Teresa compared to the Anti Bush Rallies.
"Badnana":
"Where did you get your info about that if you didn't see it on Beck, Rush, or Hannity?"
JJ:
You guys are like a broken record, thinking I get all my data from these guys. This is rarely the case for what I post here. It has been acknowledged many places on the Internet, even in Lefty publications like the Washington Post.
I already responded concerning Maddow. She makes lots of errors or distortions. I saw a number last night.
"Graymatter":
"LaRouche democrats haven't been around since the 80's."
JJ:
Wrong. They've never gone away. They were subdued somewhat when their guy was in prison, but he is now out.
"Graymatter":
"Anti-Obama tea baggers did have Hitler altered Obama photos during a tea party rally."
JJ:
There were a small handful but not as many as the Bush Hitler signs in the past. The only group that handed Obama and/or Hitler signs out were Democrats.
"Graymatter":
"Please cite source for this claim."
JJ:
Here's one from your accepted media on the LaRouch Democrats:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/08/ town_hall_talk_frank_grills_op.html
Note the headline:
"Frank Blasts Nazi Comparisons From LaRouche Backers."
The LaRouche people are Democrats.
"Graymatter":
"You are completely biased for FauxNews, which is anti-Libertarianism."
JJ:
Wrong. Fox is the most libertarian of all the news media. Very seldom do you even hear he words "freedom" and "liberty" on the others.
"Venetianglass" wrote:
"Just a few weeks ago you held this woman as proof of tea baggers protesting at town halls without disparaging our president because you didn't see the evidence from the correct perspective."
JJ:
You must have missed some of the posts so let me recap. Someone referenced the Barney Frank town hall as an example of Republicans using disgusting pictures of Hitler and/or Obama. I checked the reference and could not see any evidence that the woman at the center of attention had such a poster.
Then someone posted another reference showing that she indeed had such a picture as well as numerous other attendees. I admitted this was correct.
Then later I discovered that these people were not Republicans but Democrats who had printed a bunch of these for their group and handed them out.
There were quite a few Democrats who attended the various town halls.
"DarkMatter" wrote:
"Again, nothing in the video links you provided supports your claim these were backed by former or current LaRouche democrats.
"Please cite your claims."
"Venetianglass"
"What is your proof these Hitler and/or Obama defacers were democrats? Nothing you have provided backs up your claims."
JJ:
Good grief! Cannot this bunch read? Did you not see my reference to the Washington Post article that began with the headline: "Frank Blasts Nazi Comparisons From LaRouche Backers?"
Here's another headline:
"Barney Frank Challenged at Town Hall Meeting by LaRouche Democrat."
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2095185/barney_frank_ challenged_at_town_hall.html?cat=9
Here's another which states:
"LaRouche PAC had a table outside the event" at which it was giving out Obama-with-Hitler-mustache posters, and says that LaRouche can be traced to most of the Hitler noise:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/whos-behind-the-obama-as-hitler-posters/
JJ:
Mr. Ringelsletter advises us to give to the less fortunate. That's all well and good but Obama is making it much more difficult by wanting to limit the tax deductibility of charitable donations:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03 /24/AR2009032402462.html
When we have to pay so many taxes that are supposed to go to "help" people many people feel they have already given their quota and thus the charitable giving goes down - especially among the liberals. The more conservative people and the religious right are the largest givers to charity in this country.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1
Bush, to his credit usually gave, about 14% of his income to charity and sometimes when he read an article about someone in trouble he would send them a check out of his own account.
Al Gore gave about $250 according to his tax return the year he ran for President.
JJ:
I haven't heard any criticism of Gore over smart meters. The complaint is that he is pushing us toward the cap and trade legislation which makes no sense. It will produce negligible results in reducing CO2, but since Gore has ownership in a company that sells carbon credits he stands to become the first green billionaire.
"Badnana":
"Joseph, you are a proponent of natural healing. If you own a business that sells natural remedies, should you be targeted? Gore believes in trying to save this planet, as we all should. I do disagree with you about carbon credits. They make sense. That's what Kyoto Protocol is about..oh."
JJ:
Of course I should not be targeted, but neither should I get rich because I forced legislation that takes money by force from every American, even the poor.
"Badnana":
"What forced legislation?"
JJ:
Where have you been? Have you not heard of Cap and Trade? They are trying to force this upon us against our will. Only 24% of the public even know what it is.
"Poisonedapple":
"Who is forcing this on us? If people do not wish for cap and trade, they need to do something about it, not make up pure lies like you are doing. Nobody is forcing anything, laws are being passed, that's all. Not so hard to understand really."
JJ:
So you are saying a law does not apply force? Dream on. We do not need a law like this that robs the poor, will make Gore rich and do nothing for the environment.
"GrayMatter":
"I never knew Al Gore himself was so almighty, so absolutely virile and so persuasive that he alone could force legislation upon the American people.
"I also never realized that Al Gore was so powerful that he ruled the world! Gee, no wonder 'certain bloggers' are so negative and...."
JJ:
Only a wild imagination would make such a statement. Al Gore is far from the only one, but is indeed a powerful force for "Cap & Trade."
"InterestedObserver":
"The fact that people choose to not inform themselves does not equate to forcing something upon us against our will. There are plenty of ways to educate oneself on this topic. You cannot blame Al Gore or anyone else for those who choose to remain ignorant."
JJ:
No one from the Right has any problem with people informing themselves. The opposite is the case as over 70% of the public do not even know what "Cap & Trade" is. The people need to be educated before a vote is made. And when they are, they will rebel against this tax on the poor.
"Badnana":
"Still waiting on the critique of Rachel Maddow. ...waiting...waiting...c'mon Joseph...all blow and no show?"
JJ:
You missed the show. I already gave it to you.
"My2CentsWorth":
"Don't hold your breath. I'm still waiting for the page and paragraph reference for the 'Death Panels' in the Health Care Legislation."
JJ:
For about the tenth time you shouldn't hold your breath for something that is not there. The effect will be death panels though.
Here, let me paint a picture you can understand. If you order a pizza and divide it with a dozen people most will leave hungry even though neither the clerk or the pizza box specifically told you so.
Even so, a shortage of money and doctors will create death panels no matter what they say about it now and even though it will probably called something like "a panel of benevolence."
Copyright © 2009 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved