Thank Sonny we’re not California

Thinking Right’s weekend free-for-all. Pick a topic:

Drop Sonny a note and thank him for managing the small cuts that keep Georgia from being California, where budget “solutions” are mostly just gimmicks that hide the problem and roll it over into another year. Thank goodness for a constitutional prohibition on deficit spending – and for a governor who started managing the nickels early in the downturn. The gimmee crowd – the teachers’ union, for example – really should shut up. It could be far worse.

Fifteen Georgia counties have unemployment rates above 13 percent. State financial incentives for businesses to locate here should be limited to those with high unemployment caused by plant closings. Once skilled and disciplined workers leave to find jobs in metro Atlanta or elsewhere, they’re not going back, worsening those counties’ predicament. Kelly McCutcheon, executive VP of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, notes that “hundreds of scholarly studies and decades of real-world experience reveal no clear benefits in state tax incentives” and are “particularly questionable” in a business-friendly state like Georgia. Use them sparingly. And target ‘em.

Murray County schools are free to go to a 160-day school year, rather than the required 180 days. It’ll make up the time by extending the school day one hour. Schools this legislative year got authority to exercise more local control. The end destination for all education-related decisions is results, outcomes, performance. Inputs should be left to parents and their chosen school leaders.

Georgia is among 17 states with the lowest graduation rates, according to an advocacy group. Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be in schools with low graduation rates. Blacks and Hispanics are also more likely to be born without a married mother and father in the home. There is a correlation. It’s not the schools’ fault. We can’t fix education’s problems until we fix the family – or as an inadequate alternative, change the school model.

Once again the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services wasn’t omnipotent in preventing the death of a child, which authorities say occurred at the hands of the mother’s boyfriend. It doesn’t take a village; social workers won’t always render perfect judgment. It’s the mother and father thing, again. Government can’t raise healthy children or protect them.

Atlanta may have to return $30 million in federal empowerment zone money that it couldn’t spend productively. Too much “red tape” say some critics. Shoot fire, your red tape is my accountability for public money. It wasn’t spent because it was too much money chasing too little real opportunity for productive use. The last thing in the world that should happen now is that politicians and bureaucrats start pushing money out the door.

From a news story: “Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), a member of the Finance Committee, is seen as a potential defector from her party on…” You complete the sentence: a) health care legislation b) the Sonia Sotomayor nomination c) the $787 billion “stimulus” porker d) anything Harry Reid wants e) all of the above.

Is the war against terrorism up or global warming down? In India, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gives an impassioned speech demanding that the country and others do more to confront terrorism and global warming. Global warming won’t kill us; terrorists will.  She also joined a television discussion of what’s wrong with education in the U.S. and India. One world, one solution.

Which is more important — the F-22 or paid jobs among the non-profits? The one is cut, the other funded through the $787 billion “stimulus” bill. The arts are important, sure, and donors are strapped. But to metro Atlanta and to the nation, the F-22 jobs and the fighters they produce, when abandoned, leave us less secure. The “stimulus” will funnel another $342,000 to Georgia’s arts-related nonprofits.

211 comments Add your comment

One Voice

July 26th, 2009
12:30 am

John Doh,

I doubt you know what socialism is. Socialized medicine works quite well in Europe and almost every industrialized country in the world, and our own country has always had strong elements of socialism. I bet you didn’t know that, did you? I am in agreement with Bernie Sanders, the socialist in the U.S. Senate, but I don’t have time to explain our position here. And do I read? I probably read more every year than you have in your life; however, unlike you, I do not get my information from partisan blogs dominated by delusional extremists.

My prowess fantasy? I have fought real men in the ring, athletes who know how to fight and do so for a living, including a 300 lb professional heavyweight boxer and two UFC fighters, one of whom went on to become the light heavyweight champion. The last thing I’d worry about is an overweight hillbilly woman like yourself whose only experience was bullying a couple of kids half her size in junior high school. Ever had your elbow snapped in juji gatame? That could be your prize when your fat arse gets knocked to the ground due to your glass double chin. And you must have a strange perception of time if you think I blog “all day, every day”. I rarely post, maybe a few times a month, because I actually have a real job and a life. Either you have some sort of derangement or that’s your patent accusation towards other posters. It makes little sense, but that’s consistent with most of what you’ve written.

And you’re talking about success? Again, you must have a strange perception of success. I get paid to use my mind, teach, and assess others’ cognitive capacity. That’s a pretty good job to me. But unlike conservatives, I don’t measure success by my paycheck, although with each subsequent degree, that looks much better, too. On the other hand, it’s difficult to see how you could be successful in any field given the intellectual handicaps you have shown- you write poorly, you have difficulty weighing evidence, you cannot discern fact from opinion, and your knowledge of the world is strikingly lacking. Why don’t you inform us of your scientific credentials, considering you’ve chosen to pontificate on the subject? How about your credentials in history, politics, economics, the medical field? Somehow I’m guessing your only “credentials” are a GED, a blog membership, and being a regular viewer of Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck.

The more you write the dumber you appear. You suggest Obama has kept his college records hidden? So you think it’s a left wing conspiracy that he went to Harvard and was the president of the Harvard Law Review? And he tried to hide his birth records, even though his birth certificate has been authenticated numerous times and the hospital he was born in in Hawaii has records of his birth? You have absolutely and completely lost touch with reality, haven’t you?

Yes, I’m sure “true” Americans are not with Obama on healthcare. I guess that’s why he was elected in a landslide with healthcare reform as the top item on the agenda, huh? I hate to burst your delusions of grandeur, but you’re far, far out of synch with the majority of Americans who put Obama in office precisely to overhaul healthcare. Just because you retards yell real loudly doesn’t mean there are any more of you than there actually are. If you took all of the tea baggers (I’m guessing you’re one) across the entire country it would still be fewer people than who attend a Braves game on an average weeknight. You may want to look up the word ‘misguided’ and see if your lard arse is pictured next to it.

And if you think the Republicans have a real shot at defeating Obama in 2012, then you know nothing about statistics or the demographic shift in America (surprise, surprise…). The two fastest growing groups in America are African Americans and Latinos, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic and will continue to do so, especially after the GOP’s racist attacks on Sotomayor. I’m guessing you’re not aware that the GOP will need to tally at least 70-75% of the white vote in 2012 to defeat Obama. That has never happened and will not happen, especially considering that whites who are 35 and under also voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008 at almost a 2-1 ratio. You simply have nothing to back up the plethora of absurd claims you make. But keep trying. One of these days you’ll get something right just by random chance, although something about your cognitive functions seems to consistently lead you to the wrong conclusions. That can’t be good for the level of success in your life. I sincerely recommend you get yourself some help and further your education. It may not be too late for you.

Ram the legislation through--they're inconsequential

July 26th, 2009
1:00 am

Editorial: Health Care Reform and You NYT 7/26/09

The health care reform bills moving through Congress look as though they would do a good job of providing coverage for millions of uninsured Americans. But what would they do for the far greater number of people who already have insurance? As President Obama noted in his news conference last week, many of them are wondering: “What’s in this for me? How does my family stand to benefit from health insurance reform?”

Many crucial decisions on coverage and financing have yet to be made, but the general direction of the legislation is clear enough to make some educated guesses about the likely winners and losers.

WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF REFORM? The House bill and a similar bill in the Senate would require virtually all Americans to carry health insurance with specified minimum benefits or pay a penalty. They would require all but the smallest businesses to provide and subsidize insurance that meets minimum standards for their workers or pay a fee for failing to do so.

The reforms would help the poorest of the uninsured by expanding Medicaid. Some middle-class Americans — earning up to three or four times the poverty level, or $66,000 to $88,000 for a family of four — would get subsidies to help them buy coverage through new health insurance exchanges, national or state, which would offer a menu of policies from different companies.

IS THERE HELP FOR THE INSURED? Many insured people need help almost as much as the uninsured. Premiums and out-of-pocket spending for health care have been rising far faster than wages. Millions of people are “underinsured” — their policies don’t come close to covering their medical bills. Many postpone medical care or don’t fill prescriptions because they can’t afford to pay their share of the costs. And many declare personal bankruptcy because they are unable to pay big medical debts.

The reform effort should help ease the burdens of many of them, some more quickly than others. The legislation seems almost certain to include a new marketplace, the so-called health insurance exchange. Since there will be tens of millions of new subscribers, virtually all major insurers are expected to offer policies through an exchange. To participate, these companies would have to agree to provide a specified level of benefits, and they would set premiums at rates more comparable to group rates for big employers than to the exorbitant rates typically charged for individual coverage.

Under the House bill, the exchanges would start operating in 2013. They would be open initially to people who lack any insurance; to the 13 million people who have bought individual policies from insurance companies, which often charge them high rates for relatively skimpy coverage; and to employees of small businesses, who often pay high rates for their group policies, especially if a few of their co-workers have run up high medical bills. By the third year, larger businesses might be allowed to shift their workers to an exchange. All told, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 36 million people would be covered by policies purchased on an exchange by 2019.

IS THERE MORE SECURITY FOR ALL? As part of health reform, all insurance companies would be more tightly regulated. For Americans who are never quite certain that their policies will come through for them when needed, that is very good news.

The House bill, for example, would require that all new policies sold on or off the exchanges must offer yet-to-be-determined “essential benefits.” It would prohibit those policies from excluding or charging higher rates to people with pre-existing conditions and would bar the companies from rescinding policies after people come down with a serious illness. It would also prohibit insurers from setting annual or lifetime limits on what a policy would pay. All this would kick in immediately for all new policies. These rules would start in 2013 for policies purchased on the exchange, and, after a grace period, would apply to employer-provided plans as well.

WHO PAYS? Current estimates suggest that it would cost in the neighborhood of $1 trillion over 10 years to extend coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans. Under current plans, half or more of that would be covered by reducing payments to providers within the giant Medicare program, but the rest would require new taxes or revenue sources.

If President Obama and House Democratic leaders have their way, the entire tax burden would be dropped on families earning more than $250,000 or $350,000 or $1 million a year, depending on who’s talking. There is strong opposition in the Senate, and it seems likely that at least some burden would fall on the less wealthy.

Many Americans reflexively reject the idea of any new taxes — especially to pay for others’ health insurance. They should remember that if this reform effort fails, there is little hope of reining in the relentless rise of health care costs. That means their own premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses will continue to soar faster than their wages. And they will end up paying higher taxes anyway, to cover a swelling federal deficit driven by escalating Medicare and Medicaid costs.

WHO WON’T BE HAPPY? Healthy young people who might prefer not to buy insurance at all will probably be forced to by a federal mandate. That is all to the good. When such people get into a bad accident or contract a serious illness, they often can’t pay the cost of their care, and the rest of us bear their burden. Moreover, conscripting healthy people into the insured pool would help reduce the premiums for sicker people.

Less clear is what financial burden middle-income Americans would bear when forced to buy coverage. There are concerns that the subsidies ultimately approved by Congress might not be generous enough.

WHAT IF I HAVE GOOD GROUP COVERAGE? The main gain for these people is greater security. If they got laid off or chose to leave their jobs, they would no longer be faced with the exorbitant costs of individually bought insurance but could buy new policies through the insurance exchanges at affordable rates.

President Obama has also pledged that if you like your current insurance you can keep it.

Right now employers are free to change or even drop your coverage at any time. Under likely reforms, they would remain free to do so, provided they paid a penalty to help offset the cost for their workers who would then buy coverage through an exchange. Under the House reform bill, all employers would eventually be allowed to enroll their workers in insurance exchanges that would offer an array of policies to choose from, including a public plan whose premiums would almost certainly be lower than those of competing private plans.

Some employers might well conclude that it is a better deal — for them or for you — to subsidize your coverage on the exchange rather than in your current plan. If so, you might end up with better or cheaper coverage. You would probably also have a wider choice of plans, since most employers offer only one or two options.

WILL I PAY LESS? Two factors could help drive down the premiums for those who are insured. In the short-term, if reform manages to cover most of the uninsured, that should greatly reduce the amount of charity care delivered by hospitals and eliminate the need for the hospitals to shift such costs to patients who have private insurance. One oft-cited study estimates that cost-shifting to cover care for the uninsured adds about $1,000 to a family’s annual insurance premiums; other experts think it may be a few hundred dollars. In theory, eliminating most charity care should help hold down or even reduce the premiums charged for private insurance. When, if ever, that might happen is unclear.

In the long run, if reform efforts slow the growth of health care costs, then the increase in insurance costs should ease as well. And if the new health insurance exchanges — and possibly a new public plan — inject more competition into markets that are often dominated by one or two big private insurance companies, that, too, could help bring down premiums. But these are big question marks, and the effects seem distant.

WILL MY CARE SUFFER? Critics have raised the specter that health care will be “rationed” to save money. The truth is that health care is already rationed. No insurance, public or private, covers everything at any cost. That will not change any time soon.

It is true that the long-term goal of health reform is to get rid of the fee-for-service system in which patients often get very expensive care but not necessarily the best care. Virtually all experts blame the system for runaway health care costs because it pays doctors and hospitals for each service they perform, thus providing a financial incentive to order excessive tests or treatments, some of which harm the patients.

An earlier wave of managed care plans concentrated on reining in costs and aroused a backlash among angry beneficiaries who were denied the care they wanted. The most expensive treatment is not always the best treatment. The reform bills call for research and pilot programs to find ways to both control costs and improve patients’ care.

The bills would alter payment incentives in Medicare to reduce needless readmissions to hospitals. They would promote comparative effectiveness research to determine which treatments are best but would not force doctors to use them. And they call for pilot programs in Medicare to test the best ways for doctors to manage and coordinate a patient’s total care.

Any changes in the organization of care would take time to percolate from Medicare throughout the health care system. They are unlikely to affect most people in the immediate future.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR OLDER AMERICANS? People over 65 are already covered by Medicare and would seem to have little to gain. But many of the chronically ill elderly who use lots of drugs could save significant money. The drug industry has already agreed to provide 50 percent discounts on brand-name drugs to Medicare beneficiaries who have reached the so-called “doughnut hole” where they must pay the full cost of their medicines. The House reform bill would gradually phase out the doughnut hole entirely, thus making it less likely that beneficiaries will stop taking their drugs once they have to pay the whole cost.

Not everyone in Medicare will be happy. The prospective losers are likely to include many people enrolled in the private plans that participate in Medicare, known as Medicare Advantage plans. They are heavily subsidized, and to pay for reform, Congress is likely to reduce or do away with those subsidies. If so, many of these plans are apt to charge their clients more for their current policies or offer them fewer benefits. The subsidies are hard to justify when the care could be delivered more cheaply in traditional Medicare, and the subsidies force up the premiums for the beneficiaries in traditional Medicare to cover their cost.

Reformers are planning to finance universal coverage in large part by saving money in the traditional Medicare program, raising the question of whether all beneficiaries will face a reduction in benefits. President Obama insisted that benefits won’t be reduced, they’ll simply be delivered in more efficient ways, like better coordination of care, elimination of duplicate tests and reliance on treatments known to work best.

The AARP, the main lobby for older Americans, has praised the emerging bills and thrown its weight behind the cause. All of this suggests to us that the great majority of Americans — those with insurance and those without — would benefit from health care reform.


July 26th, 2009
4:40 am





July 26th, 2009
6:59 am

Being dilutional must be a great asset when blogging.

Michael H. Smith

July 26th, 2009
7:56 am

Beautiful AJC sensors. Great job. And, you take down my link to Robert Reich (Big Democrat) revealing his hate toward white male construction workers? :lol:




Note to AJC Editor: Now you KNOW why YOU (the AJC) have EARNED the tag LIBERAL BIAS.

Okay, now AJC prove me right, show us your “journalistic objectivity”, take it down.

Michael H. Smith

July 26th, 2009
8:15 am

AARP needs to get its act together seniors, medicare recipients will get royally screwed by this Public Option Obumer-Care.

Michael H. Smith

July 26th, 2009
8:21 am

Obumer-Government-Care Assaults Seniors

Robbing Peter to pay Paul will usually assure you of Paul’s vote. In this instance, Older White Voters turnout in the last election was down about as much as Black Younger Voters were up, both under 5%.

Younger voters are most often among the uninsured as they see little current need for health care, barring accidents. Seniors, however are much more interested in obtaining Medicare coverage and private drug and supplemental coverages due to anticipated usage.

As pointed out in detail below, Seniors will be highly negatively impacted, or screwed, by ObamaCare.

GovernmentCare’s Assault on Seniors WSJ By Betsy McCaughey
Since Medicare was established in 1965, access to care has enabled older Americans to avoid becoming disabled and to travel and live independently instead of languishing in nursing homes. But legislation now being rushed through Congress—H.R. 3200 and the Senate Health Committee Bill—will reduce access to care, pressure the elderly to end their lives prematurely, and doom baby boomers to painful later years.

The Congressional majority wants to pay for its $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion health bills with new taxes and a $500 billion cut to Medicare. This cut will come just as baby boomers turn 65 and increase Medicare enrollment by 30%. Less money and more patients will necessitate rationing. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 1% of Medicare cuts will come from eliminating fraud, waste and abuse.

The assault against seniors began with the stimulus package in February. Slipped into the bill was substantial funding for comparative effectiveness research, which is generally code for limiting care based on the patient’s age. Economists are familiar with the formula, where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYs, or quality-adjusted life years) that the patient is likely to benefit. In Britain, the formula leads to denying treatments for older patients who have fewer years to benefit from care than younger patients.

When comparative effectiveness research appeared in the stimulus bill, Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., (R., La.) a heart surgeon, warned that it would lead to “denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care.” He and Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) proposed amendments to no avail that would have barred the federal government from using the research to eliminate treatments for the elderly or deny care based on age.

In a letter this week to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, White House budget chief Peter Orszag urged Congress to delegate its authority over Medicare to a newly created body within the executive branch. This measure is designed to circumvent the democratic process and avoid accountability to the public for cuts in benefits.

Driving these cuts is the misconception that preventative care can eliminate sickness. As President Obama said in a speech to the American Medical Association: “We have to avoid illness and disease in the first place.” That would make sense if most diseases were preventable. But the two most prevalent diseases of aging—cancer and heart disease—are largely caused by genetics and their occurrence increases with age. Your risk of being diagnosed with cancer doubles from age 50 to 60, according to the National Cancer Institute.

The House bill shifts resources from specialty medicine to primary care based on the misconception that Americans overuse specialist care and drive up costs in the process (pp. 660-686). In fact, heart-disease patients treated by generalists instead of specialists are often misdiagnosed and treated incorrectly. They are readmitted to the hospital more frequently, and die sooner.

“Study after study shows that cardiologists adhere to guidelines better than primary care doctors,” according to Jeffrey Moses, a heart specialist at New York Presbyterian Hospital. Adds Jeffrey Borer, chairman of medicine at SUNY Downstate Medical Center: “Seldom do generalists have the knowledge to identify the symptoms of aortic valve disease, even though more than 10% of people over 75 have it. After valve surgery, patients who were too short of breath to walk can resume a normal life into their 80s or 90s.”

While the House bill being pushed by the president reduces access to such cures and specialists, it ensures that seniors are counseled on end-of-life options, including refusing nutrition where state law allows it (pp. 425-446). In Oregon, some cancer patients are being denied care by the state that could extend their lives and instead are afforded the benefit of physician-assisted suicide instead.

The harshest misconception underlying the legislation is that living longer burdens society. Medicare data prove this is untrue. A patient who dies at 67 spends three times as much on health care at the end of life as a patient who lives to 90, according to Dr. Herbert Pardes, CEO of New York Presbyterian Medical Center.

What is costly is when seniors become disabled. In a 2007 Health Affairs article, researchers reported that surgeries to unclog arteries and replace worn out hips and knees have had a major impact on steadily reducing disability rates. And nondisabled seniors use only one-seventh as much health care as disabled seniors. As a result, the annual increase in per capita health spending on the elderly is less than for the rest of the population.

Nevertheless, Medicare is running out of money. The problem is the number of seniors compared with the smaller number of workers supporting the system with payroll taxes. To remedy the problem, the Congressional Budget Office has suggested inching up the eligibility age one month per year until it reaches age 70 in 2043, or asking wealthy seniors to pay more.

These are reasonable solutions—reducing access to treatments and counseling seniors about cutting life short are not. Medicare has made living to a ripe old age a good value. ObamaCare will undo that.

Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York state.

Michael H. Smith

July 26th, 2009
8:52 am

So, the loony liberal left is worried about Sarah Palin?

Get a load of Joe Biden acting stupidly, speaking stupidly.

“Russia has to make some very difficult, calculated decisions,” Mr. Biden said. “They have a shrinking population base, they have a withering economy, they have a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years, they’re in a situation where the world is changing before them and they’re clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable.”

Way to go Joe, you may have Reset relation with Russia back about 30 years!

Somehow I feel better with the idea of Sarah Palin just seeing Russia from her house than knowing Joe Biden from the White House is opening his mouth speaking stupidly about Russia.


July 26th, 2009
10:37 am


Michael H. Smith

July 26th, 2009
12:05 pm

The AJC is not going to permit my reply?


Michael H. Smith

July 26th, 2009
12:11 pm

So much for journalistic objectivity.

Michael H. Smith

July 26th, 2009
12:15 pm

So much for objective journalism. :lol:

Michael H. Smith

July 26th, 2009
12:22 pm

The loony liberal left eagerly awaits the conservative voice of Kyle Wingfield. They can’t stand the fact Kyle’s blog isn’t open for comment. Some have even made accusation, wrongly of course, that he is dodging ducking etc. . Truth is, as some would know who probably e-mailed Kyle, the matter probably is one of schedules.

However, Kyle is right on target in his latest Op Ed. A more timely perspective would be absent had he not made this call on the 2010 race for governor: It’s going to be a wet one, fortunately, though very unusual relative to the due course of past Georgia history.

Usually, what transpires after the up-evils of a drought, after all the political gamesmanship, finger pointing and blaster subsides with the return of rain on Georgia’s dry hard baked red clay the issue and concerns simply get washed away while the politicos go back to their aquatic slumbers as it were, placing all their urgent well thought-out plans of eminent action back on the old dusty shelf in the musty basement under the Gold Dome.

Now with global warming as an item, a thing which will continue in debate more so on the merits of what appropriate actions will be taken rather than focusing on continuing defeatist denials arguing over its’ actual existence and whether it is “induced by man” or “influenced by man”, the opportunity to make connections might occur in regards to the ever changing climate that presents global challenges on the local level – Or, as Thomas Friedman might say, Gloacal.

So all that gobbled-garbage is supposed to mean something?

Hopefully yes. Georgia is not the only place on earth that has water problems. Along with global warming there is global dryness. The world, not only Georgia and the Southern half of the U.S. faces water challenges near future. Two thirds of the earth’s surface is water and only about one percent of that water is fresh drinkable water. What do to and where to get water, fresh drinkable water, is no less of a challenge that must be met than global warming. Praying to the heavens for meteors to bring in a few ice crystals from some far slung place out in space is certainly not the answer nor is asking God for more abundance, especially when that God has already given earth and humans everything that is needed right at the ocean’s shores.

Instead of turning to the heavens in prayer, turning to prey the oceans is the most logical answer: Costly perhaps, though cheap when the alternative is the inevitable absence of fresh drinkable water and hence the thought of possible absence of life. Desalinization was of course kicked around once upon a time, actually money was appropriated or said to be for that very purpose to study employing desalinization to deliver needed fresh drinkable water to Atlanta. Fortunately time has wrought advances to the process of desalinization: Like co-generation, which gives the green co-benefits of producing electricity, fresh water and zero CO2.

Unfortunately, the loony liberal left dominated by a faction of evrio-wingnut-jobs (to coin a phrase) that sways the Democrats now in power and total control of the Federal Government will oppose nuclear co-generation despite the proven science behind it and despite the fact it produces no CO2; and they my friends are part, if not all of the problem and absolutely none of the answer as proud members of the B.A.N.A.N.A. Republic – Governed by the sole law of Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.

Michael H. Smith

July 26th, 2009
1:59 pm

Want jobs? Want to know where the jobs are, short term and long term that can’t be exported, will return a yield on a national investment unlike Obumer’s national porkulus spending and actually build some real critical infrastructure?

Best ask the Democrats in Congress that will stand in the way of allowing Georgia to build, or in conjunction with sister states to build, advanced nuclear co-generation plants including the needed accompanying reservoirs without any delay to provide water for drinking and crop irrigation.

Crop irrigation? :shock:

Did someone just drop South Georgia’s voters into the side pocket and leave the Democrats behind the proverbial eight ball, Kyle?


July 26th, 2009
2:58 pm

Only the names are changed to protect the innocent.

I’ve read Kyle Wingfield a couple of times.Didn’t care for his style.Don’t care if he blogs or not.

If I were the cop I wouldn’t be going to The White House.He has nothing to gain and a lot to lose.He’ll never again have any credibility.Good time to look for another career.The race card was played by a master and his perp was turned loose.


July 26th, 2009
3:06 pm

Go ahead and yuck it up Republiconned.

You are the very last of the unevolved to even realize you’re going the way of the dodo.

Zogby: GOP Faces Extinction Risk

Pollster John Zogby tells Newsmax that the Republican Party could be “teetering on the brink” of extinction as it fails to appeal to the fastest-growing demographic groups in America.

Michael H. Smith

July 26th, 2009
4:17 pm

You gotta love it when a liberal makes your case.

Martella noted that the United States is still said to be a center-right nation, and polls have been showing that Americans increasingly believe President Barack Obama is a liberal. “Could that pave the way for a possible Republican resurgence?” he asked.

“The premise of your question is true,” Zogby responded.

“About 40 percent of the electorate does in fact consider themselves to be conservatives; 20 percent or 22 percent [consider themselves] liberals. It’s that big middle that’s a concern.

“And for conservatives, there have been some that have been turned off over the [George W.] Bush years, for a variety of reasons.

“But the issue is, winning the middle. It’s still a long way to go from 40 percent to 51 percent, and that’s a difficulty.


Yeah, John boy, and it’s even a farther distance from 21 percent to 51 percent. :lol:

My calculations say conservatives only need to persuade 11 percent out of the middle 39 percent to reach 51 percent. The liberals will have to persuade 30 percent out of that middle 39 percent to reach the magic 51 percent. Gotta like the reading of what those political tea leaves are saying, if you’re a conservative.

Yep, winning the middle is the issue. It is not winning the ethnocentric groups through the bigoted strategy of playing divisive derisive identity politics.


“Republicans certainly score points by being critical of Obama, by raising questions about spending. But for now, there is no pro-active program. There’s just putting up a hand as a stop sign and saying halt.”

Martella asked if Obama’s declining approval ratings could be good new news for Republicans.

“It certainly could be for the GOP,” he said.

“I have the president at about 50 percent . . . Good news, but always think of the horizon — what’s the next act for the Republicans? And is this a factor of just saying no to a change program, putting up the yellow light for caution, or is this a response to a Republican conservative agenda? Right now I don’t think it’s a response to a Republican conservative agenda.”


You actually now have Obumer at 48 percent, John. Ah, but who is counting a couple of percentage points: Like Dick Morris didn’t sweat drops blood for two percentage points to improve Bill Clinton’s falling numbers?


Martella pointed out that the cap-and-trade program to curb carbon emissions and the major healthcare overhaul both appear to be stalled, and asked if that too could be good for Republicans.

“Potentially it could be, so long as there is an alternative,” Zogby said.


And, Conservatives do have alternatives. Very good, cost effective alternatives to Obumer’s liberal socialists national bankrupting agenda on energy, practical environmental conservation and healthcare.

But for now, there is no pro-active program.

Did I say anything like that recently publically to the Republicans, goading them to go on the offense with their healthcare plan which offers the Private Public Option or as it is now called Co-Op healthcare, which even conservative – Go Blue Dog – Democrats like and probably could agree upon in passing as a major bi-partisan healthcare bill in lieu of the extremely partisan fiscally unsound healthcare rationing ObumerCare-Public Option?

Obummer Plan

July 26th, 2009
4:20 pm


July 26th, 2009
4:42 pm

“You gotta love it when a liberal makes your case.”

“My calculations say conservatives only need to persuade 11 percent out of the middle 39 percent to reach 51 percent.”

Might as well be 100%. WAY too many Americans have finally woken up to the obvious fact that the the Republican Party is in it’s current hemmorhaging condition, the antithesis to American conservatism.

Worse like some petulant and spoiled teenage brat they can’t figure out why nobody likes them.

And even worse than that, they have nary a freaking clue what conservatism actually is. LOL!

So the reality is the millions and millions of independents, undecideds, moderates and disgusted Republicans (many lifelong) have bolted your faux-conservative clusterf&ck quicker than a UGA Young Republican can cross the street to avoid getting near an AFEES station.

But keep on dreaming. Maybe you can improve on that jaw dropping 94% losing percentage over the past two national elections. From sea to shining sea.

But really, who are you kidding? Besides yourselves…

Michael H. Smith

July 26th, 2009
4:52 pm

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 29% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11. That’s the first time his ratings have reached double digits in negative territory…

Have fun Jerko. America truly is waking up to Obumer. No kidding.

Obumer’s Presidential Approval Index Rating now stands at -11.

Michael H. Smith

July 26th, 2009
5:02 pm

53% Now Oppose Congressional Health Care Reform

The big problem appears to be that Americans just aren’t into the health reform plan, the more they find out about it. Now voters oppose the plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats by a nine-point margin, 53% to 44%. In late June, it was the other way around: 50% supported it, 45% were opposed.

There is a huge partisan divide on the health care plan. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Democrats favor it. However, the plan is opposed by 80% of Republicans and 60% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Northside Towing

July 26th, 2009
5:49 pm

Hey folks…Ever see those beautiful $100000.00 plus bright green box trucks called HERO UNITS running around the interstate system here in Georgia? Yeah they will bring you gas, change your tire, try real hard to restart your car and all this for FREE? As a towing and roadside assistance provider I am already a victim of the new socialist agenda. My company would do this for a fair rate and I would pay an employee and pay taxes on the revenue. I bet they do upwards of 500 service calls a day FREE? Remember this is all FREE? So remember Teachers, Police men and women. fire fighters, GSP when you are out enjoying your furlough days and you have a flat or run out of gas simply call 511 to redeem your free service :-) OUR TAX DOLLARS KILLING TAX DOLLARS…WHAT A COUNTRY :-)


July 26th, 2009
6:03 pm

Michael H. Smith: you are pissing in the wind dealing with these atrocious hater representatives of the current left. Do you think these American freedom haters care about your links and TOTUS poll numbers? You may as well yap with a brick wall.


July 26th, 2009
6:22 pm

Had the pleasure of listening to NPR this morning and some pinhead was defending socialized health care. The priceless moment came when he said “people who listen to Fox News aren’t informed of the facts.” Yup. Tell me how hilarious that is. Naturally, the bot NPR interviewer didn’t ask questions like WHY IS SWEDEN LOOKING AT GOING PRIVATE AGAIN.

You have to keep in mind the same idiots who believe in government run health care in this nation also believe in other socialist ideologies in EU nations. Except, of course nuclear energy.

Peter Hoffman Atlanta

July 26th, 2009
6:28 pm



July 26th, 2009
6:31 pm

‘53% Now Oppose Congressional Health Care Reform”

Micheal H. Smith: you do realize that 87% of this nation actually HAS a health care plan, and of those, nearly 90% are actually HAPPY with their coverage, right? But don’t take my word for it:

Yep, let’s destroy 20% of this nation’s economy and turn it over to the libtard run government. Yeah, that same libtard government that told us unemployment wouldn’t get above 8% and is now saying they “miscalculated.”


July 26th, 2009
6:49 pm

Huh. The Washington Post is actually questioning the COST of Obamacare. I’m going to pinch myself. But, they failed to mention the CBO’s report that completely contradicted Speaker Pelosi’s comment that it will pay for itself with savings of government itself. They also fail to mention the non-success story of Medicare’s money pit. But for a libtard news outlet, this is better than nothing.


July 26th, 2009
7:04 pm

“You gotta love it when a liberal makes your case: “Martella noted that the United States is still said to be a center-right nation, and polls have been showing that Americans increasingly believe President Barack Obama is a liberal. “Could that pave the way for a possible Republican resurgence?” he asked. “The premise of your question is true,” Zogby responded.”

Michael H. Smith – methinks the mindless libtards are starting to get concerned, and that’s why you see such vitriol from the horseassed left on this blog. I thought we Conservatives were not longer relevant. Yet, here these fecal slinging monkey are on this blog wasting their wretched lives away. Laughable.


July 26th, 2009
7:07 pm

“WASHINGTON, July 24 (Reuters) – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Friday there had been some progress toward reviving Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in the “near future” and announced $200 million in U.S. aid to the Palestinians. Clinton said the money, which is part of a $900 million pledge she made in March at a donors conference in Egypt, was transferred directly to the Western-backed Palestinian Authority and would help it meet a budget shortfall.”

Yup, we’ll see if the Israeli hating libtards have any comment about the US spending money THERE. [chirp...chirp...chirp...chirp...chirp...chirp...]


July 26th, 2009
7:15 pm

“Hey folks…Ever see those beautiful $100000.00 plus bright green box trucks called HERO UNITS running around the interstate system here in Georgia? Yeah they will bring you gas, change your tire, try real hard to restart your car and all this for FREE? As a towing and roadside assistance provider I am already a victim of the new socialist agenda.”

Hey Northside Towing: all you have to do is bend over for libtard run Fulton County and pay their tax rape fees. Hell, who knows, you may even be eligible for having an advertisement paid by State Farm as the last one I saw had.


July 26th, 2009
7:16 pm

Failed (or whatever moniker you will use next week) at 6:03,

I have no earthly idea, and care even less of course, where you have been, what you have or have not done and learned in life and who you know.

But I have traveled to 44 out of the fifty United States. From Miami to Seattle. From San Diego to Boston. From Kauai to Kansas. From tiny villages to New York City and Los Angeles. From gullah communities to Beverly Hills. Deserts, prairies, mountains and forests. I have known and been befriended by black men, white men, brown men, red men and yellow men.

And in all of those enormously satisfying and extensive travels I have never once met an American who as you assert, hates freedom or hates America herself. Not one. Ever. Never.

That you seem to use the term so cavalierly indicates that maybe you are hanging out with the worst of people, in the wrong places, at the wrong time.

Or even more likely with a miserable family and dishonorable friends who do in fact hate a whole host of other Americans for all sorts of concocted reasons.

But obviously your impotent anger and loathing for that which you cannot understand nor even see coming, makes you feel like a real man here.

Endless light entertainment to be sure, but really, What a waste…

Michael H. Smith

July 26th, 2009
7:23 pm


July 26th, 2009
6:03 pm

If I were dealing with these loony liberal lefties for their benefit – which I’m not – then you would be geographically correct in assuming the direction and location of my micturition.

Just 11 percent out of the 39 percent in the middle-centrists have to care enough to read what I say, articles re-posted, the links (noticed you used one of those ;) ) and Obumer’s poll numbers that reveal he is not as popular as the mainstream news media makes him out be in the eyes of Americans.

While more non-political people probably read these blogs than ever dare to make comments, I would not insult their intelligence by considering them or their minds to be impenetrable brick walls. After all, I’m dousing the liberal’s agenda and not the centrists in the middle that conservatives need to win elections in 2010.


July 26th, 2009
7:33 pm

“I have no earthly idea, and care even less of course, where you have been, what you have or have not done and learned in life and who you know.”

Uh huh. But yet here you are replying to a post of mine ShamVet.

“But I have traveled to 44 out of the fifty United States. From Miami to Seattle. From San Diego to Boston. From Kauai to Kansas….” blah blah.

Who gives a damn? I’ve been behind the IRON CURTAIN. So what?

“And in all of those enormously satisfying and extensive travels I have never once met an American who as you assert, hates freedom or hates America herself. Not one. Ever. Never.”

Yup, and raising taxes on those who are successful (ie: those enjoying FREEDOM) and wishing to destroy 20% of this nation’s economy (read: GM government success story) so a minute amount of people can have health “care” (as if they don’t ALREADY) is just so ALL about freedom now, isn’t it?

Oh, and I won’t EVEN get into the “freedom” of owning a gun like your ilk vilifies – whether or not you agree with that is irrelevant. Those areYOUR people. The record speaks for itself, as does libtardism in general.


July 26th, 2009
7:49 pm

The irony on a libtard attempting to defend libtard anti-freedom in America just oozes with irony.


July 26th, 2009
7:54 pm

“I have no earthly idea, and care even less of course, where you have been, what you have or have not done and learned in life and who you know.”

By the way, when the HELL did I ever make a comment about who I am, where I’ve been, and what I’ve done?

See, this is the mentality of libtardism. They attempt to get personal because they are nothing but a bunch of emotion driven children who can’t actually debate back what you’ve thrown out.

Michael H. Smith

July 26th, 2009
10:20 pm


Folks we are seriously be intentional kept in the dark on what is in these healthcare ObumerCare bills. I can only hope this comment is posted and people that normally don’t get involved in politics, the middle of the road people that don’t follow politics at all will visit this Website. You are not going to believe some of the things you are going to read. If you are a senior citizen take action now, AARP is selling you down the river literally by signing on to this garbage, especially if you are on Medicare.

Whatever health insurance bill is passed in Congress MUST apply to members of Congress and other federal employees.
No Exceptions.

I’m with you all the way on that statement Betsy McCaughey.

Ram the legislation through--they're inconsequential

July 27th, 2009
12:29 am

LOL–What keeps Michael Smith in the dark all his life is his frontal lobe. Michael Smith like all pubtards don’t understand anything remotely medical including health care issues–which is why in the final analysis, it won’t be their decision.

As the band played “She’s a brick house” the door slammed and banged untreated Borderline Personality in the mooseburgers. Rambling and stupid as always:

Phoebe Maurer and LB Abbey, also in their 20s, said they live near the Park Strip and wanted to see the picnic, have some free food. Maurer said Palin can’t be expected to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate after quitting her job as governor. Abbey said he thinks Palin is a “moron” who has been kind of embarrassing for Alaska.

We slowed the rate of government growth, and I vetoed hundreds of millions of dollars of government excess,” she said, veering into a rant about Hollywood and the right to bear arms.

You’re gonna see anti-hunting, anti-Second Amendment circuses from Hollywood. They use Alaska as a fundraising tool for their anti-Second Amendment causes… Hollywood needs to know: ‘We eat, therefore we hunt….

“What I promised, we accomplished.

“We can resist enslavement to big central government. Beware of accepting big government largesse… melting into Washington’s powerful arms….. I resisted the stimulus package.In honor of the American soldier, ya quit makin’ things up!”

Rick in Grayson

July 27th, 2009
5:35 am

From Roy Beck regarding complete medical coverage for illegals and their children. Nancy Pelosi is apparently sponsoring this enormous expense:

So, what does CHC, (Congressional Hispanic Caucus), want Pelosi to add to the House Health Bill to make sure 12-20 million illegal aliens get full taxpayer-paid health coverage?


That is because CHC apparently feels that the House Bill as written pretty well guarantees the coverage. Look:

Asked if CHC leaders will ask Pelosi to specifically spell something out in the bill to address illegal immigrants, the Member said no. Rather, the Member said the CHC simply wants to make sure the bill � as drafted � doesn’t prohibit illegal immigrants from accessing care.
– Roll Call

Our allies on the Hill have been making just this point. Speaker Pelosi and others have been trying to say that the House plan doesn’t cover illegal aliens because it doesn’t specifically say that it does. Our allies, however, point out that unless legislation specifically bars illegal aliens from anything — and requires verification — illegal aliens always end up getting the benefit.

The fact that the Hispanic Caucus appears to be satisfied with the language the way it is suggests that our allies are right.

This bears repeating! Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrats and the Hispanic Caucus intend to pass a HEALTHCARE BILL that gives BENEFITS TO ILLEGAL ALIENS!

We will have enough trouble providing healthcare benefits to US citizens! US citizens are not OBLIGATED to support ILLEGAL ALIENS!

The cost will be 20 million (including their children including ANCHOR BABIES) X $7,000 = $140 BILLION EACH YEAR to provide healthcare for illegal aliens. At the same time, they take jobs from US citizens and legal residents, have a high birth rate, and will bring in their extended families via further immigration to balloon this cost to over $250 BILLION EACH YEAR over the next 15 years (not adjusted for inflation).

JOIN NUMBERSUSA at! It is free and they provide excellent programs to fax your discontent to President Obama and members of Congress!

Join NUMBERSUSA to help stop this healthcare bill granting benefits to illegal aliens at a HIGH COST TO US CITIZENS!

Saxby Chambliss at work for Georgia

July 27th, 2009
10:29 am

Ram the legislation through--they're inconsequential

July 27th, 2009
10:39 am

The Obama healthcare plan will give healthcare benefits to you Grayson, and you could start by getting at least as educated as a 3rd grader as to your own health. It would take me 90 seconds to embarass you and show you that you don’t have a clue as to how to minimize your own health risks.

Blaming aliens, peole of color and Acorns has your party crushed and out of power where they will stay until you die.

Ram the legislation through--they're inconsequential

July 27th, 2009
11:19 am

July 27, 2009

Op-Ed Columnist

An Incoherent Truth By PAUL KRUGMAN, Nobel Prize Economics, 2008

Right now the fate of health care reform seems to rest in the hands of relatively conservative Democrats — mainly members of the Blue Dog Coalition, created in 1995. And you might be tempted to say that President Obama needs to give those Democrats what they want.

But he can’t — because the Blue Dogs aren’t making sense.

To grasp the problem, you need to understand the outline of the proposed reform (all of the Democratic plans on the table agree on the essentials.)

Reform, if it happens, will rest on four main pillars: regulation, mandates, subsidies and competition.

By regulation I mean the nationwide imposition of rules that would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on your medical history, or dropping your coverage when you get sick. This would stop insurers from gaming the system by covering only healthy people.

On the other side, individuals would also be prevented from gaming the system: Americans would be required to buy insurance even if they’re currently healthy, rather than signing up only when they need care. And all but the smallest businesses would be required either to provide their employees with insurance, or to pay fees that help cover the cost of subsidies — subsidies that would make insurance affordable for lower-income American families.

Finally, there would be a public option: a government-run insurance plan competing with private insurers, which would help hold down costs.

The subsidy portion of health reform would cost around a trillion dollars over the next decade. In all the plans currently on the table, this expense would be offset with a combination of cost savings elsewhere and additional taxes, so that there would be no overall effect on the federal deficit.

So what are the objections of the Blue Dogs?

Well, they talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, which basically boils down to worrying about the cost of those subsidies. And it’s tempting to stop right there, and cry foul. After all, where were those concerns about fiscal responsibility back in 2001, when most conservative Democrats voted enthusiastically for that year’s big Bush tax cut — a tax cut that added $1.35 trillion to the deficit?

But it’s actually much worse than that — because even as they complain about the plan’s cost, the Blue Dogs are making demands that would greatly increase that cost.

There has been a lot of publicity about Blue Dog opposition to the public option, and rightly so: a plan without a public option to hold down insurance premiums would cost taxpayers more than a plan with such an option.

But Blue Dogs have also been complaining about the employer mandate, which is even more at odds with their supposed concern about spending. The Congressional Budget Office has already weighed in on this issue: without an employer mandate, health care reform would be undermined as many companies dropped their existing insurance plans, forcing workers to seek federal aid — and causing the cost of subsidies to balloon. It makes no sense at all to complain about the cost of subsidies and at the same time oppose an employer mandate.

So what do the Blue Dogs want?

Maybe they’re just being complete hypocrites. It’s worth remembering the history of one of the Blue Dog Coalition’s founders: former Representative Billy Tauzin of Louisiana. Mr. Tauzin switched to the Republicans soon after the group’s creation; eight years later he pushed through the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, a deeply irresponsible bill that included huge giveaways to drug and insurance companies. And then he left Congress to become, yes, the lavishly paid president of PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry lobby.

One interpretation, then, is that the Blue Dogs are basically following in Mr. Tauzin’s footsteps: if their position is incoherent, it’s because they’re nothing but corporate tools, defending special interests. And as the Center for Responsive Politics pointed out in a recent report, drug and insurance companies have lately been pouring money into Blue Dog coffers.

But I guess I’m not quite that cynical. After all, today’s Blue Dogs are politicians who didn’t go the Tauzin route — they didn’t switch parties even when the G.O.P. seemed to hold all the cards and pundits were declaring the Republican majority permanent. So these are Democrats who, despite their relative conservatism, have shown some commitment to their party and its values.

Now, however, they face their moment of truth. For they can’t extract major concessions on the shape of health care reform without dooming the whole project: knock away any of the four main pillars of reform, and the whole thing will collapse — and probably take the Obama presidency down with it.

Is that what the Blue Dogs really want to see happen? We’ll soon find out.


July 27th, 2009
2:03 pm

The best way to get rational, non-partisan (read: normal) people to discredit your entire opinion is use childish, insulting nick-names like “Obummer”. Are you in middle school or something? Seriously- write like an adult, stop the name-calling, quit copy-and-pasting, and argue your own points.

And Sonny has been a disgrace to Georgia for a long time. He has done absolutely NOTHING productive about transportation, education, water, or anything else of any real consequence, and he’s a corrupt crook on top of that. So thank him? No. He can go Sonny-Do himself.

Timmy T

July 27th, 2009
2:15 pm

I agree with cutting the F-22 program (if the Sec of Def says we don’t need it- WE DON’T NEED IT), but it’s hilarious to hear these people calling the Raptor “ancient” and “old technology” and saying they’re falling apart from old age. The dates of design concepts aren’t don’t mean the planes are old. The first production F-22 didn’t come out until 2003! Saying the software is from 1983 is asinine- a lot of the most cutting-edge computers and software today still use derivatives of UNIX code invented in the 60’s and 70’s. The F-22 is BY FAR the most advanced and capable air superiority fighter on the planet.
It’s a good call to use our defense dollars on what we actually need today and in the foreseeable future- and that’s not F-22’s- but I sure hope they keep the blueprints around somewhere for whenever WWIII breaks out.

Ram It Through--We Don't Want 'em

July 27th, 2009
4:27 pm

When WW III breaks out, Michael Jackson and cops doing what they do thousands of times a day, arresting people who dare to stand up to them in their own home, after getting into their own home with suitcases, will still be dominating the news in we be stupid America.

The website Politico is funded and run by Publitards, and still makes them look stupid.

Is being the Republican party’s most popular politician equated to being the least popular or most popular STD?

Ram It Through--We Don't Want 'em

July 27th, 2009
4:33 pm


Maybe you can trade in your SUV for one of the 183 either sitting around gathering dust or buildingic up millions in maintenance costs per flight hour and run the hummers and all the idiots with fog light headlights off the road. The F22 prototypes have been around for years and years prior to 2001 that are very similar, and the avionics software package was on line in 2001 and now the F22 is dead, and the porkers Issacson, Chamblis and anyone who voted for it (Cal, Ct., blue dogs, Palin supporters) is exposed as wasteful porkers.

Ram It Through--We Don't Want 'em

July 27th, 2009
4:38 pm

LOL do Americans get any f_cking dumber? The woman who called in the Gates’ “breakin” and reported 2 suitcases with them has retained an attorney. No matter how stupid they are, they all have attorneys.

Why isn’t there a National Legal Defense Program being debated with a public lawyer plan really funded well instead of the joke funding for defender programs?

Michael H. Smith

July 27th, 2009
4:39 pm

brucie wilcox you pathetic socialist liberal DEMbecile with your last two remaining half functional oxygen depleted brain cells you wouldn’t know if it was night or day.

For the rest of us with live functioning brains who don’t need the assistance of external oxygen devices in order to walk to the mailbox and back with out collapsing, here’s a glimpse of what might be in store for some poor lifelong government teat sucker like brain dead brucie who could become the victim of social justice, if the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Sweet dreams brucie.





July 24, 2009 –

THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They’d decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

Yet at least two of President Obama’s top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. “Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change,” he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, “as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others” (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that’s what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider “social justice”, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they’ll tell you that a doctor’s job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that “communitarianism” should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia” (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. ‘96).

Translation: Don’t give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson’s or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years” (Lancet, Jan. 31).

The bills being rushed through Congress will be paid for largely by a $500 billion-plus cut in Medicare over 10 years. Knowing how unpopular the cuts will be, the president’s budget director, Peter Orszag, urged Congress this week to delegate its own authority over Medicare to a new, presidentially-appointed bureaucracy that wouldn’t be accountable to the public.

Since Medicare was founded in 1965, seniors’ lives have been transformed by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These innovations allow the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too “enamored with technology” and is determined to reduce access to it.

Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser, agrees. He recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending.

Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they’re “associated with longer waits” and “reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices” (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it “debatable” whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you’ll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)

Obama appointed Blumenthal as national coordinator of health-information technology, a job that involves making sure doctors obey electronically delivered guidelines about what care the government deems appropriate and cost effective.

In the April 9 New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal predicted that many doctors would resist “embedded clinical decision support” — a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.

Americans need to know what the president’s health advisers have in mind for them. Emanuel sees even basic amenities as luxuries and says Americans expect too much: “Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy . . . physicians’ offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms” (JAMA, June 18, 2008).

No one has leveled with the public about these dangerous views. Nor have most people heard about the arm-twisting, Chicago-style tactics being used to force support. In a Nov. 16, 2008, Health Care Watch column, Emanuel explained how business should be done: “Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration’s health-reform effort.”

Do we want a “reform” that empowers people like this to decide for us?


For some strange reason taking a fascist assigned dirt nap doesn’t appeal to me. Like I said folks:

Whatever health insurance bill is passed in Congress MUST apply to the POTUS, members of Congress and all other federal employees.

No Exceptions!

If the Public Option is good enough for anyone of us, then it should be good enough for every single one of them.

Ram It Through--We Don't Want 'em

July 27th, 2009
4:50 pm

brucie wilcox is a figment of this unimployed male Palin Micheal Smith’s delusions.

Michael H. Smith

July 27th, 2009
5:36 pm

The nearly ever present always oxygen deprived delusional brucie wilcox is so brain dead he hasn’t noticed I don’t spend all of my time on these blogs – unlike brucie posing under pseudonyms making endless tangential commentaries.

Jeez brucie, could that mean I actually have job that occupies the time of my missing presence from these blogs?

DUH! :lol:

Stomp the tards--they make it easy.

July 27th, 2009
5:45 pm

The more you see someone like “Smith” posting garbage, because they lack education the better you understand why Democrats stomped the Tards in 2012. The male Palins that dominate the pubtards insure we will continue to win, continue to do what we want to get done to improve the lives of Americans, and continue to dominate votes in the House and the Senate.

The only thing Tards are left to do is to sit at their keyboards and cry..