Karmic justice smacks Harry Reid in the face

August 9, 2010

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, Majority Leader of the United States Senate, spent roughly a year shoving nationalized health care down the throats of a nation that clearly did not want it, disregarding both the People’s wishes and the harmful effects it will have on the country.

Thus we savor the irony and schadenfreude tonight as we read that Senator Reid (D-Bitter Old Man) has suddenly discovered that he doesn’t like the health care bill he fought so hard to enact:

John Graham of the Pacific Research Institute details a few fun facts in this video about HealthCare.gov, but the one that sticks out is this, a letter from Majority Leader Harry Reid to HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius sent on July 21st. The letter seems to indicate that Reid has finally read the health care bill, and after discovering it hurts Nevada hospitals more than it helps them, is complaining to the administration. You can read the full Reid letter here:

  • In a July 21 letter to U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Service Kathleen Sebelius, the Senate Majority Leader complains that ObamaCare’s cuts to Medicare will “result in a net reduction in payment to Nevada’s hospitals when they are unable to absorb such a cut.” Furthermore, he questions the method used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to calculate the payments to hospitals, and is “very concerned about potential effects on beneficiary access if this regulation is finalized without adjustment.”

As Ben Domenech points out, what Reid is complaining about is the point of the whole danged bill! Half the costs of ObamaCare are (supposedly) paid for by cuts to Medicare. It was at the core of the bill, and yet it only now dawns on Harry that Nevada hospitals and patients will get the shaft?

We are truly lead by idiots, and November can’t come fast enough.

Meanwhile, consider donating to the woman who would like to replace him.


When even Sweden runs away from socialism

May 16, 2010

Here’s an interesting video from Reason.TV, in which Swedish economist Andreas Bergh talks about how Sweden owes its success not to social democracy, but lowered tax rates and deregulation. Of special interest is what he has to say about Sweden’s health care and educational systems. Washington, take note:


Barack Obama stars in “Talking Crap”

April 9, 2010

Andrew Klavan presents another episode of that thrilling series, “Talking Crap,” featuring none other than the Lightworker himself, Barack Obama. This time, it’s all about health care and taxes:


We’ll learn to love it over time, I’m sure

March 23, 2010

Now that Congress and the White House have finished spending over a year doing what’s good for us whether we want it or not, they’re sure to bask in public approval, right? Now that they’ve passed health-care reform and we can learn what’s in Santa’s bag Pandora’s box the bill, we’re all going to be grateful in the end, right?

Er… Maybe not.

A majority of Americans have a dim view of the sweeping health care bill passed by the House, saying it gives Washington too much clout and won’t do much to reduce their own health care costs or federal deficits, according to a new poll released Monday.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that 59 percent of those surveyed opposed the bill, and 39 percent favored it. All of the interviews were conducted before the House voted Sunday night, but the contents of the bill were widely known.

In addition, 56 percent said the bill gives the government too much involvement in health care; 28 percent said it gives the government the proper role and 16 percent said it leaves Washington with an inadequate role.

On the question of costs, 62 percent said the bill increases the amount of money they personally spend on health care; 21 percent said their costs would remain the same and 16 percent said they would decrease.

Note that this poll is from CNN, an organization not known for being critical or even objective about Obama and the progressive agenda.

I wonder how many Democrats will be holding townhall meetings to bask in the accolades of their grateful constituents over the Easter recess?

Yeah, me too.

UPDATE: We’re so happy with this bill that 49% of likely voters want their states to sue to stop it.


Levin: Expel Louise Slaughter from the House

March 12, 2010

For background, see the earlier post on Congresswoman Louise Slaughter’s efforts to find a way to pass the Senate version of ObamaCare without actually voting on it. Radio host Mark Levin is… well, “pissed off” is the only way to describe it and he calls for Slaughter’s expulsion from the House, even though he knows the effort will fail. Tito’s queued up the tape; here’s Levin:

Frankly, I agree with him. Even though she will never be expelled, the Republicans have to do this to make the public aware of just what a naked, unconstitutional power-grab is underway here. This isn’t just fudging a bit here and there to get past some parliamentary inconveniences. No, this is nothing less than usurpation on the part of the legislative majority and an act of tyranny. As Jim Geraghty observed this morning in his Morning Jolt newsletter:

Are they out of their minds? What, the town hall meetings of last summer were too genteel and conciliatory for House Democrats’ tastes? Trying some sort of stunt like this in order to pass a bill without actually making members vote for it — that’s the sort of thing that takes “armed insurrection” talk out of the realm of chat rooms. We’ve long suspected that the Constitution means nothing to our counterparts on the left, but the idea of working around the requirement that bills be passed by the House strikes a new and disturbing we’ve-lost-democracy note.

Levin in his rant claims that the Slaughter Rule violates Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. For reference, here’s the clause in question:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

The highlighted portions are what I believe Levin has specifically in mind. A bill cannot be considered passed and ready for presentation to the President unless it has been voted on and the Yeas and Nays recorded in the House ledger with the name of each person voting and how they voted.

Can the Democrats be sued for false advertising for using the word “democratic” in their name?

(via Hot Air)


They wouldn’t give him a drink of water…

March 7, 2010

Life (and death) under socialized medicine: a patient at a London hospital was so badly neglected by nurses that his death was referred to the police for criminal investigation:

A man of 22 died in agony of dehydration after three days in a leading teaching hospital.

Kane Gorny was so desperate for a drink that he rang police to beg for their help.

They arrived on the ward only to be told by doctors that everything was under control.

The next day his mother Rita Cronin found him delirious and he died within hours.

She said nurses had failed to give him vital drugs which controlled fluid levels in his body. ‘He was totally dependent on the nurses to help him and they totally betrayed him.’

A coroner has such grave concerns about the case that it has been referred to police.

This is just one of many scandals at National Health Service hospitals that are being reported almost, it seems, daily in the British press. The situation is so appalling, the Mail Online reports, that a government commission has called on nurses to sign a public pledge that they will give everyone decent care.

Take a good look at Britain’s NHS; that’s our likely future under ObamaCare.

Comforting, isn’t it?

(via Dan Collins)


A gigantic hypocrite, eh?

March 6, 2010

About a month ago, we reported on Danny Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada who suddenly fled the Canadian single-payer health-care system to seek treatment for a heart ailment in the United States. We wondered at the time was his reason was.

It’s simple, he’s an elitist hypocrite:

An unapologetic Danny Williams says he was aware his trip to the United States for heart surgery earlier this month would spark outcry, but he concluded his personal health trumped any public fallout over the controversial decision.

In an interview with The Canadian Press, Williams said he went to Miami to have a “minimally invasive” surgery for an ailment first detected nearly a year ago, based on the advice of his doctors.

“This was my heart, my choice and my health,” Williams said late Monday from his condominium in Sarasota, Fla.

“I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics.”

Good for you, Danny. I’m sure your constituents will understand while they have to languish on a wait-list for needed treatment or even participate in a lottery to get an appointment with a doctor, because the Canadian system you vehemently defend rations care for those who can’t jet off to Miami.

But don’t think it’s a reflection on Canadian health care:

Williams said his decision to go to the U.S. did not reflect any lack of faith in his own province’s health care system.

“I have the utmost confidence in our own health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador, but we are just over half a million people,” he said.

“We do whatever we can to provide the best possible health care that we can in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Canadian health care system has a great reputation, but this is a very specialized piece of surgery that had to be done and I went to somebody who’s doing this three or four times a day, five, six days a week.”

Danny, buddy. Do you notice something off here? If your system didn’t ration care, you wouldn’t have had to flee across the border! Don’t you think it somewhat telling that the free-market system to the south had just the guy you needed available right away?

Wouldn’t it be nice if all Canadians could enjoy that level of service?

I guess Newfie pols are more important than Average Joe Canuck.

Oh, folks, lest I forget: Danny plans to get the Canadian health service to pay for his medical vacation in Miami:

Williams also said he paid for the treatment, but added he would seek any refunds he would be eligible for in Canada.

“If I’m entitled to any reimbursement from any Canadian health care system or any provincial health care system, then obviously I will apply for that as anybody else would,” he said.

Jerk.  Waiting

(via International Liberty)

LINKS: More at Sister Toldjah.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,726 other followers