Thursday, January 20, 2011


Prime Minister David Cameron on Wednesday proposed a radical reorganization of England’s health care system, introducing legislation that would hand responsibility for most of the country’s health budget to its 42,000 general practitioners and, his political opponents say, open the door to private competition that could threaten the foundations of socialized care.

Mr. Cameron argues that the bill, said to be the biggest overhaul of the National Health Service since it was founded in 1948, is essential to increase efficiency and allow doctors, patients and localities more control of how the health budget is spent.

The bill would allow general practitioners to commission services from “any willing provider,” which the government says would encourage efficiency and quality, as providers competed for business.

Under the government’s plan, some $127 billion a year — about 80 percent of the total health care budget — would be handed directly to the country’s 42,000 general practitioners, who would join together into consortia that would negotiate to buy treatment from hospitals and specialists. The 151 bodies that currently make such spending decisions, known as primary care trusts, would be abolished, as would another layer of bureaucracy, 10 regional groups known as Strategic Health Authorities.

The government argues that the plan will cut waste, allow patients more autonomy over their treatment and give doctors and localities, rather than bureaucrats, more direct control of the system. Like other health care systems around the world, the N.H.S., which provides treatment free at the point of service, has struggled to keep up with rising costs and increased demand.

Dr. Michael Dixon, chairman of the N.H.S. Alliance, which supports clinicians’ ability to commission health care, said it was inevitable that the proposals would provoke opposition.

“Giving power to frontline clinicians and their patients is bound to upset those with vested interests, such as some of the more centralist senior N.H.S. managers who are used to ruling the roost,” Dr. Dixon said.

One of the plan’s boldest components is the pledge that patients will now get to choose their doctors, their hospitals and their treatments — a radical proposal for a service in which patients can now sometimes wait months for specialist care.

Cameron Seeks Vast Changes in England's Health Service
The New York Times
January 20, 2011

So let's review.

We were sold on ObamaCare using the British plan as an example of an icon of Europian socialized medicine. We were going to eliminate waste and control costs using their example. We were also assured by Emporer O'Kenya that freedom of choice would not be compromised.

Britian is now proposing to go to a system more like the one we're dumping, in order to elimiate waste, control costs, eliminate long waits for care delivery and allow freedom of choice.

And this story, for the record, is not in The New American. It's from the New York Times.

Still think ObamaCare is a good idea?

Note the paragraphs I have emphasized.

"Giving power to physicians and patients" is viewed as a bad thing. Letting the consumer and the provider decide what is best for the consumer is bad. Instead, let's let the government decide. Isn't that the ObamaCare knock on our current system-that the payor has too much authority?

The plan's "boldest component" is allowing the patients choice.

Imagine that!

A patient, actually allowing to choose their doctor, a relationship that is very personal and intimate. How utterly revolutionary of the British to suggest such a thing. That would almost be like a free market!

And finally the last sentence-that the wait time for care can be months.

In our American utopia of twenty-four hour groceries, drive-through restaurants and liquor stores and retail outlets open until midnight (not to mention at three a.m. on Black Friday), do you really think adding a several month wait time is going to go over well?

Instead of letting Obama and his cronies run our health care (we've seen how they do it with other government functions and it ain't pretty), we should probably be turning to NetFlix.

Now there's a business that runs well-IN SPITE OF THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE!

Monday, January 10, 2011

I Have Found The Enemy...And I Think It's The Soccer Moms

Today I saw a bumper sticker that disturbed me.

It read "Report an unbuckled child" and gave a phone number to call if you decided you wanted to tattle on your neighbor.

I wondered if this could be real-if our society had really de-evolved to this-snitching as a public service.

So I did an internet search, and guess what?

We have de-evolved to this! In twenty states!

Twenty states where the walking dead are willing to become stool pigeons when they themselves were probably raised in a day and age where the was nothing in the car to buckle! And they came out of it okay!

Accoring to, if you want to be a rat, you can turn in your neighbor for this horrible offense.

The Phoenix Police Department has a hotline number set up to take these reports.

If you observe a child under the age of 5 not properly restrained while riding in a car, you can call 1-800-505-2229(BABY). They ask that you leave the following information:

1) The vehicle license number and state.

2) The city you are in when you observed the child not being buckled up.

3) Where the child was sitting in the vehicle.

A packet of useful information will then be mailed to the registered owner stating that their vehicle was observed transporting an unbuckled child. The material describes the hazards of transporting an unbuckled child under the age of 5, and encourages the owner to purchase a child restraint system. However, because the program is designed to provide information to those who might need it most, the information reported is not provided to the police, insurance companies, or to the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division.

Our tax dollars at work.

The "Baby On Board" stickers used to piss me off-this just makes me want to go nuts!

People! Fifty years ago there was a baby boom, and there were no seat belts, car seats, bicycle helmets, roller skating helmets, bicycle lights, reflective gear, warning labels or parental advisory stickers.

The cildren of the sixties turned on, tuned out, smoked anything that would burn, ingested anything that might get you high and drank if it smelled like it might get you drunk.

And now you are all worried about preservatives in your potato chips and ratting out your neighbors for not buckling in their kid.

Anyone who has ever called that number, I wish you had listened to Roger Daltry and died before you got old!

But tell me this one thing-why with all of this protection for their own good, are today's children DUMBER (lower SAT scores-look 'em up) and less self-reliant?

When I was growing up, the lowest form of life was a rat. Even our parents told us that nobody likes a rat. People who would willingly call a number like this are rats. They think they are being helpful and educating the parent in the other car, but don't let them kid you even as they're kidding themselves.

They're a rat.

And nobody likes a rat.

Thursday, January 6, 2011


Conservatives and liberals are always calling each other names, which I find funny. I am not sure that any one philosophy is correct for every situation. There are times when acting conservatively is prudent (for example, when walking across an Interstate during rush hour) and times when liberal is the way to go (like a liberal serving of ice cream!).

Unfortunately, the definition of liberal has been perverted. Liberal means "favorable to progress or reform," which I am sure most conservatives would consider themselves to be.

In the United States, "Liberal" has become synonomous with "Socialist," which is not too far off from "Marxist."

When the American colonies were still part of the British empire, and later when they declared their independence,the capitalistic system, as we know it today, did not exist. Modern capitalism developed after the Civil War, but while we were still colonies, the ideas of capitalism were governing the British and Colonial economies. The Founding Fathers favored "capitalism" in that they disliked and fought against the British Empire enforcing strict taxation of and control over American products and trade. The Founding Fathers favored merchants, farmers and anyone else who worked for their own profit.

Make no mistake about it, America was founded as a Capitalist and Christian nation.

Modern liberals seek to change this, but instead of simply living freely, the way our society allows them to, they want to legislate the change to deny others the right to live freely.

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless
it's a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

And so on.

The other problem I have with modern liberalism is the elitist attitude of the liberals. Many of the liberals in America today are celebrity entertainers (actors, atheletes and musicians). They have achieved financial success through a God-given talent, and thrived in our capitalist system. After achieving that success, they want to now impose their Marxist views on the world.

The problem is, just because you can act does not mean you are smarter than the average bear. If you play the President in a movie, you're not really the President. Now in the case of the last several administrations, an actor may have been an improvement. But my point is, financial success does not necessarily equate to intelligence.

The same goes for musicians and atheletes. What qualifies Bruce Springsteen or as experts in whether a national healthcare plan is in order?

Maybe they could take the fortunes they've amassed and provide healthcare for the needly, like modern day Robin Hoods with guitars and digital sampling machines.

Which brings me to my other problem.... It's sham!

Remember John Lennon?

"Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger a brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing for the world"

It’s a shame how poor he was when he died, huh?

From giving away all of his posessions?

Oh that's right-HE DIDN'T!

Modern liberals are for redistributing wealth, as long as that wealth belongs to OTHER PEOPLE.

This narrative is from one of those e-mails that winds its way through cyberspace, but I found it well-written enough to want to post it. It's a very good illustration of how modern liberal views fall apart when push comes to shove.

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct
1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0? That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off! "

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "welcome to the conservative side of the fence."

Recognizing all of it's faults, our capitalist system allowed a high school dropout from Freehold, New Jersey to become one of the most celebrated rock and roll singers of his era. It has made millionaires out of street kids playing basketball around a hoop with no net, and household names out of high school misfits who acted in school plays.

And it is all predicated upon the concepts of "private property" and "reaping what you sow." 

Maybe instead of fighting to change American into a Marxist country, modern day liberals can move to one of  the countries they hold out as Utopia: Canada or France.

I'll help ya load the truck!