"The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people." [Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), WJR's Paul W. Smith Radio Show, Mar. 23, 2010]
"To control the people," huh?
"I think this [health care legislation] began the transforming of the country the way the president had promised. This is what he ran on...Then we have to say the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama." [Rev. Al Sharpton, Fox News, Mar. 21, 2010]
"The American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism," huh?
"There ain't no rules here, we're trying to accomplish something...When the deal goes down...All this talk about rules...We make 'em up as we go along." [Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), impeached Florida judge, commenting on House voting rules regarding health care bill, Mar. 21, 2010]
Say what?!
"The only way to keep [congress] out of the cookie jar is to give them no choice. Which is why, whether its balanced budget acts or pay as you go legislation or any of that - it's the only thing. If you don't tie our hands, we'll keep stealing." [Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA), speaking to Jefferson-area citizens, Mar. 16, 2010]
"If you don't tie our hands, we'll keep stealing," huh?
"You now have a proposal from me that will be in legislation, that...makes sure that people are able to get insurance even if they've got preexisting conditions...This notion that this [health care reform process] has been not transparent, that people don't know what's in the bill, everybody knows what's in the bill..." [President Barack Obama, Fox News, Mar. 17, 2010]
But wait! Try this headline:
"Whoops! ObamaCare Doesn't Cover Pre-existing Conditions After All, Until 2014" [Washington Examiner, Mar. 24, 2010]
Bizarro world continues with this latest blurb:
"Cuban Leader Applauds US Healthcare Reform Bill" [Associated Press, Mar. 25, 2010]
So Comrade Dictator Castro endorses ObamaCare - yippee! This is the same 'strongman' who had to fly a Spanish doctor into Cuba to perform his surgery...Hmmm...makes you wonder about our own prospects.
Hit or miss, Democrats can't deny their progressive, statist stripes. As former Rep. James Traficant used to exclaim, "Beam me up!"
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Lost Freedoms Under ObamaCare
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." [Benjamin Franklin]
So cites David Hogberg in his Investor's Business Daily column yesterday, in which he lists 20 freedoms that Americans have lost under ObamaCare. On this monstrous piece of legislation, Hogberg comments:
"...it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care."
So true. Excerpts from his column follow:
1. You are young and don't want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forgo health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the 'privilege.' (Section 1501)
2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You'll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drinks a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That's because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. (Section 2701).
5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn't allow your employees' slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).
6. You're a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You're a woman who can't have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You're a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).
10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can't do that. (Section 9005 (i)).
13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can't (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a [county] where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).
15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry...Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).
16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers...Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies...Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)
20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).
Hogberg's column can be viewed in its entirety here.
In the meantime, as we reflect on these new rules, let us recall Madame Pelosi's comment from two days ago wherein she referred to this bill as "an American proposal that honors the traditions of our country."
On the contrary, the contents of this legislation, and the manner in which it was passed, smacks of statism. In the forthcoming legal challenges and attempts to repeal this law (beginning with the defeat of every Democrat in the mid-term elections), we should bear in mind Benjamin Franklin's aforementioned quote.
So cites David Hogberg in his Investor's Business Daily column yesterday, in which he lists 20 freedoms that Americans have lost under ObamaCare. On this monstrous piece of legislation, Hogberg comments:
"...it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care."
So true. Excerpts from his column follow:
1. You are young and don't want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forgo health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the 'privilege.' (Section 1501)
2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You'll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drinks a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That's because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. (Section 2701).
5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn't allow your employees' slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).
6. You're a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You're a woman who can't have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You're a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).
10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can't do that. (Section 9005 (i)).
13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can't (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a [county] where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).
15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry...Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).
16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers...Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies...Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)
20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).
Hogberg's column can be viewed in its entirety here.
In the meantime, as we reflect on these new rules, let us recall Madame Pelosi's comment from two days ago wherein she referred to this bill as "an American proposal that honors the traditions of our country."
On the contrary, the contents of this legislation, and the manner in which it was passed, smacks of statism. In the forthcoming legal challenges and attempts to repeal this law (beginning with the defeat of every Democrat in the mid-term elections), we should bear in mind Benjamin Franklin's aforementioned quote.
Monday, March 22, 2010
A Middle Finger Salute To Americans
Amid chants of "Yes We Can," House Democrats approved the health care bill late last night. With Democrat pro-lifers selling out their core beliefs to grander party ideology, their Judas-votes enabled this travesty to occur. Republicans stood unanimous in their opposition to the bill. Although Obama has promised concessions to pro-life Dems, it's unclear that he has the ability to do so. Then again, with Democrats riding roughshod over the rule of law, who knows?
Commenting on the historic nature of the event, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared,
"We will honor the vows of our founders, who in the Declaration of Independence said that we are ‘endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ This legislation will lead to healthier lives, more liberty to pursue hopes and dreams and happiness for the American people. This is an American proposal that honors the traditions of our country."
Our Founders must be turning over in their graves! The Constitution specifically addresses what our government CAN'T do - it limits government powers over its citizens, so as to prevent tyranny (which is what Europeans were escaping when they immigrated to the New World). The Founders never intended the Constitution to be a laundry list of services that the government must provide for its citizens. If anything, Madame Pelosi's comments reveal her obtuseness and idiocy. She's a national embarrassment. And through this entire health care debacle the Democrat party has revealed its true colors: those of Statist Progressives.
The obligation of another $2.4 trillion in spending that this health care bill represents, now makes the U.S. the world's largest debtor nation. What with all of the spending that the Obama administration has already done, we can never - NEVER - fully repay our debts! We are now, undoubtedly, on the road to serfdom. And the world is watching. The markets are watching.
Just this morning Bloomberg is reporting that "The bond market is saying that it’s safer to lend to Warren Buffett than Barack Obama." The story includes this quote from Mitchell Stapley of Fifth Third Asset Management:
"It’s a slap upside the head of the government...It could be the moment where hopefully you realize that risk is beginning to creep into your credit profile and the costs associated with that can be pretty scary."
The story continues:
"Moody’s Investors Service predicts the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K...moving [it] 'substantially' closer to losing its AAA rating."
Real nice, huh?
What this health care vote showed was that one party - the Republicans - voted on behalf of Americans, on behalf of the country, and while they'll surely reap the rewards in the November elections, it will be challenging to undo what the Constitution-shredding Democrats have now done. After all, when has the government ever successfully rolled back an entitlement?
In the meantime, enjoy paying substantially higher taxes from here on out. But don't expect any benefits for another 4 years, which is when the supposed reforms are to go into effect. No longer will you and your doctor decide which course of treatment is best for you; rather, a government bureaucrat will decide your fate based upon your age, your current health, and what's in the best interest of society (in other words, your cost-benefit).
What the hell kind of reform is this anyway? Democrats have just "fundamentally transformed" (in the words of Obama) the best health care system in the world to an antiquated Soviet-style health care abomination. Thank you, Obama. Thank you, Democrats. Thank you, Hopium-addicted voters.
As I said, real nice, huh?
Sunday, March 21, 2010
There Ain't No Rules Here
Impeached judge and current Florida Representative Alcee Hastings[D] let the cat out of the bag by revealing the Democrat strategy in passing health care reform:
Transcript: "There ain't no rules here, we're trying to accomplish something...When the deal goes down...All this talk about rules...We make 'em up as we go along."
Oops! What a revelation for this former judge, who now serves on the House Rules Committee! Did I mention that he was impeached for corruption and perjury while serving on the bench?
We can only hope that there are enough elected representatives with a moral center and a genuine commitment to follow the rule of law (as explicited stated in the Constitution) to vote down this Democrat-contrived monstrosity of a bill.
Transcript: "There ain't no rules here, we're trying to accomplish something...When the deal goes down...All this talk about rules...We make 'em up as we go along."
Oops! What a revelation for this former judge, who now serves on the House Rules Committee! Did I mention that he was impeached for corruption and perjury while serving on the bench?
We can only hope that there are enough elected representatives with a moral center and a genuine commitment to follow the rule of law (as explicited stated in the Constitution) to vote down this Democrat-contrived monstrosity of a bill.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
A Man Of Ideas
Six-term Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan[R] is putting the lie to Democrat charges that the Republican party is devoid of ideas. In his 'Roadmap for America's Future,' Ryan outlines his solutions to our nation's most vexing challenges. An issue-by-issue summary of his cogent ideas include:
- A refundable tax credit for individuals and families ($2,300 and $5,700, respectively) to purchase portable insurance policies from across state lines (which promotes competition among the country's 1,700 health insurance companies). Any remaining funds are then pocketed by the consumer.
- Enable effective comparison shopping for the consumer via transparency in health care pricing and service quality.
- Allowing small businesses to pool their resources nationally so as to better afford coverage for their employees.
- Create state-based exchanges wherein individuals and families can purchase affordable coverage without being discriminated against for pre-existing conditions.
- Offer states high risk pools so that everyone can access coverage.
None of these measures are included in Democrat reforms, which are scheduled for a vote this weekend. If you think reconsideration is in order (instead of the oft-cited reconciliation, which is a complete ruse), go to Free Our Healthcare Now and voice your opposition. But I digress...
The Roadmap continues:
- Preserves the program for those currently enrolled, and for those enrolling in the next 10 years.
- Reforms the program to make it permanently solvent.
- Fully funds Medical Savings Accounts.
- Preserves the program for those who are 55 years of age or older.
- Offers to those under the age of 55 the option of investing up to 1/3 of their social security taxes into personal retirement accounts that are fully inheritable by their beneficiaries, and are guaranteed against the loss of every dollar contributed.
- Reforms the program to make it permanently solvent.
- Offers tax payers the option of filing their returns via the current tax code or doing so via a simplified version that is the size of a postcard.
- Adopts 2 tax rates: 10% (on income up to $100K joint; $50K single), and 25% on income above these thresholds. A generous standard deduction also applies, whereby a family of four would be exempt from the first $39K in income.
- Eliminates the AMT.
- Eliminates taxes on interest, dividends, capital gains, and death (inheritance).
- Replaces the current corporate tax (second highest in the world) with a consumption tax of 8.5%, which is half that of other industrialized nations (thereby making the U.S. all the more competitive and attractive to foreign investment).
A cursory overview of the aforementioned Roadmap begs the question, then, "Which party is lacking in ideas?"
Friday, March 19, 2010
U.S. Health Care Second-To-None
As we approach the eleventh hour of the pending health care vote, it's crucial to understand what passage of the current health reform bill means to us all. While the oligarchs in Washington, D.C. (Obama, Pelosi, et al.), continue to push their monstrous reforms, we (the serfs) are left ignorant of their contents. But according to Madame Pelosi, we are not to worry. As she recently commented, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it..."
What we do know, however, is that every single American would be required to carry government-approved health insurance, or face fines amounting to thousands of dollars. And, yes, the bill authorizes the IRS to act as the enforcer, which would make monthly sweeps of every American's insurance status. Company payrolls would also be monitored for compliance. Those individuals and companies deemed to be in violation (read: law-breakers) would face fines that could be collected via the withholding of tax returns or wage garnishment.
And let's not forget what else such a takeover of 1/6 of the U.S. economy represents (which is an order of magnitude equal to the entire economies of Great Britain or France!): government ownership of 48% of private industry. And you thought this could only happen in Cuba or Venezuela? As Rep. Michele Bachmann has adroitly explained, adding government-run health care to the already government-owned GM, Chrysler, AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and the banks, brings the grand total to almost 50% of private industry. In her words, "That's the true Obama story."
Very Soviet, wouldn't you say?
No? Then perhaps you might be thinking that the ends justify the means. Well, let's examine some of those ends.
While liberals and progressives here in the U.S. laud the Canadian health care system, why do Canadians regularly cross the border to seek medical services in American hospitals? Could it be that their median wait time for surgeries or therapeutic treatments is 16 weeks? (Fraser Institute, Oct. 29, 2009) Why would Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams fly to Florida for his heart surgery? Could it be that the Canadian health system has not adopted the latest procedures that are less intrusive and provide the quickest recovery time? Or maybe it was the 16 week wait time - then again, he's 60 years old, so he's already almost dead anyway (at least in the eyes of the Canuck health care bureaucrats). How about the regular airlifts of expectant British Columbian mothers to U.S. hospitals due to bed and neonatal unit shortages?
If our health care system was so medieval, so archaic, so horrid, why the persistent influx of Canadians across our borders, hmm?
While Michael Moore glorified the Cuban health care system in his mockumentary, "Sicko", Comrade Castro flew a Spanish doctor in to perform his intestinal surgery in 2006. Makes you wonder, huh? Then again, where are all those stories about health care tourists descending en masse to that communist mecca?
Then what about Great Britain? Surely they must have a utopian health care system for its citizens. Not so. After years of government finagling with health care laws, British hospitals have begun denying treatment to patients by letting them wait in the ambulances which brought them in for treatment in the first place! Why? As long as the individual is not admitted, he does not have to be treated. Speaking of which, just last week a 22-year old patient died of thirst after 3 days of neglect - while in the hospital. No joke! You can read the UK DailyMail article for yourself. He eventually phoned the police for help, but ultimately died.
These so-called health care utopias are more akin to health care purgatory. What they all have in common is the rationing and denial of care. In their grand economic equations there can be only one variable when cost is considered. At the end of the day, hospitals, doctors, and nurses must get paid by the government, so the one who always gets the raw deal is the patient. After all, it is his treatment that can be varied or denied in the name of cost containment. But what else would you expect when you vote for the government to become a partner in your health?
Our country has the best health care in the world. If you or a family member required immediate life-saving treatment, where but the United States would you go? Our laws require that every individual who seeks treatment in a hospital gets treated. Our system is not perfect, but that is mostly due to government regulation and intrusion. The evil guy here is not the insurance company, it is government. They are to blame for the imperfections in our health care system, and it is they (Democrats) who stand in the way of true health care reform now.
As our elected leaders prepare to vote this weekend, let your voice be heard. Register your opposition to Obamacare at Free Our Healthcare Now!
What we do know, however, is that every single American would be required to carry government-approved health insurance, or face fines amounting to thousands of dollars. And, yes, the bill authorizes the IRS to act as the enforcer, which would make monthly sweeps of every American's insurance status. Company payrolls would also be monitored for compliance. Those individuals and companies deemed to be in violation (read: law-breakers) would face fines that could be collected via the withholding of tax returns or wage garnishment.
And let's not forget what else such a takeover of 1/6 of the U.S. economy represents (which is an order of magnitude equal to the entire economies of Great Britain or France!): government ownership of 48% of private industry. And you thought this could only happen in Cuba or Venezuela? As Rep. Michele Bachmann has adroitly explained, adding government-run health care to the already government-owned GM, Chrysler, AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and the banks, brings the grand total to almost 50% of private industry. In her words, "That's the true Obama story."
Very Soviet, wouldn't you say?
No? Then perhaps you might be thinking that the ends justify the means. Well, let's examine some of those ends.
While liberals and progressives here in the U.S. laud the Canadian health care system, why do Canadians regularly cross the border to seek medical services in American hospitals? Could it be that their median wait time for surgeries or therapeutic treatments is 16 weeks? (Fraser Institute, Oct. 29, 2009) Why would Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams fly to Florida for his heart surgery? Could it be that the Canadian health system has not adopted the latest procedures that are less intrusive and provide the quickest recovery time? Or maybe it was the 16 week wait time - then again, he's 60 years old, so he's already almost dead anyway (at least in the eyes of the Canuck health care bureaucrats). How about the regular airlifts of expectant British Columbian mothers to U.S. hospitals due to bed and neonatal unit shortages?
If our health care system was so medieval, so archaic, so horrid, why the persistent influx of Canadians across our borders, hmm?
While Michael Moore glorified the Cuban health care system in his mockumentary, "Sicko", Comrade Castro flew a Spanish doctor in to perform his intestinal surgery in 2006. Makes you wonder, huh? Then again, where are all those stories about health care tourists descending en masse to that communist mecca?
Then what about Great Britain? Surely they must have a utopian health care system for its citizens. Not so. After years of government finagling with health care laws, British hospitals have begun denying treatment to patients by letting them wait in the ambulances which brought them in for treatment in the first place! Why? As long as the individual is not admitted, he does not have to be treated. Speaking of which, just last week a 22-year old patient died of thirst after 3 days of neglect - while in the hospital. No joke! You can read the UK DailyMail article for yourself. He eventually phoned the police for help, but ultimately died.
These so-called health care utopias are more akin to health care purgatory. What they all have in common is the rationing and denial of care. In their grand economic equations there can be only one variable when cost is considered. At the end of the day, hospitals, doctors, and nurses must get paid by the government, so the one who always gets the raw deal is the patient. After all, it is his treatment that can be varied or denied in the name of cost containment. But what else would you expect when you vote for the government to become a partner in your health?
Our country has the best health care in the world. If you or a family member required immediate life-saving treatment, where but the United States would you go? Our laws require that every individual who seeks treatment in a hospital gets treated. Our system is not perfect, but that is mostly due to government regulation and intrusion. The evil guy here is not the insurance company, it is government. They are to blame for the imperfections in our health care system, and it is they (Democrats) who stand in the way of true health care reform now.
As our elected leaders prepare to vote this weekend, let your voice be heard. Register your opposition to Obamacare at Free Our Healthcare Now!
My Canadian Healthcare Horror Stories
A Message for Americans
by Cathy LeBoeuf-Schouten
I was born in the same year that my government adopted socialized healthcare in Canada. I am an educated, middle-class woman and I have never known any kind of healthcare but the kind that is provided by our government-run system. It has been a nightmare for my family and me. The following stories, told in second person and based on my personal experiences with socialized healthcare in Canada, constitute my personal warning to Americans.
Imagine that you and your spouse, and three children under the age of six move to a new city and must find a family doctor. You are told at the local clinic that the doctors there are not accepting any new patients. (Canadian price controls have created shortages of everything when it comes to healthcare). The receptionist suggests that you go through the yellow pages and try to find a physician whose practice is not "full." You spend days, and weeks, doing this, and are repeatedly told "Sorry, we are not accepting new patients." You put your name on several waiting lists and persist in calling doctors’ offices.
Finally, a receptionist tells you that, while the doctor is still accepting new patients, he requires a full medical history and an interview with each family member before you can be added to his roster of patients. Based on the questions asked during the interviews, you come to understand that he is screening out sick or potentially sick people. You are all healthy, fortunately, so he takes you on as patients. Others are just out of luck.
There is a chronic shortage of doctors in Canada because price controls on doctors’ salaries have resulted in a "brain drain" where the best and brightest practice medicine in the U.S. and elsewhere, after being educated in Canada. In addition, the Canadian government cut medical school enrollment in half in the 1990s as a "cost-cutting measure," making the problem of doctor shortages much worse.
Next, imagine that all of a sudden your six-year-old begins showing what seems to be signs of an appendicitis attack, shortly after recuperating from chicken pox. You take him to a hospital emergency room and carry him in because he is unable to walk. There is no one to help you as you enter the building, so you must lumber along to the reception area. A nurse interviews you for a couple of minutes, asks you for the reason for your visit, and then takes your son’s government health card and asks you to fill out paperwork while your son writhes in pain in your lap.
You tell the nurse that your son must be seen by a doctor immediately – it’s an emergency! – as his condition is worsening by the minute. The nurse tells you, stone-faced, to go and sit in the waiting room to wait for a triage nurse. Having no choice, you do what you are told and join twenty or so others in line in front of you. You are given nothing to help make your son more comfortable – no damp facecloth, no bedpan for the vomit, nothing.
When a triage nurse finally strolls in a half hour later your son is too weak to respond to her and you begin to panic. Finally, a doctor appears and says it’s just a "bug" and that you should not be playing "armchair doctor" by "diagnosing" appendicitis. He orders some time-consuming tests anyway, because you have shown him that you are very, very angry. Six hours later the test results come back positive for appendicitis.
Your son is whisked away for an emergency appendectomy, after which the surgeon tells you that, had the surgery been delayed by another few minutes, he would probably have died. Your son’s appendix was gangrenous and on the verge of bursting. It reminds you of reading in the local news of three other people who were sent home from the emergency room, only to have their appendices burst and die. You are grateful that you were much more persistent and ornery than they apparently were.
Our Soviet-style emergency rooms have waiting rooms equipped with hard metal chairs, vending machines that sell junk food, and maybe a television in one corner. There is no access to any medical equipment, beds, or even stretchers. In the emergency room everyone passes through triage and is given a code based on a nurse’s cursory evaluation of their affliction. If you are not satisfied with the "care" that is provided there is nowhere else to go, except to an American hospital if you are close enough to the border and can afford to pay cash. Canadians know that if you call an ambulance you can bypass the 10–12 hour wait in the emergency room, but this drives up the costs of healthcare even further.
If there ever was a good fight, Americans, this is it. As we say in Canada, "Youse guys just gotta give ’er, eh!
August 11, 2009
Cathy LeBoeuf-Shouten lives in Hudson, Quebec, Canada.
Reprinted from LewRockwell.com
To put up the good fight, please visit Free Our Health Care Now!
by Cathy LeBoeuf-Schouten
I was born in the same year that my government adopted socialized healthcare in Canada. I am an educated, middle-class woman and I have never known any kind of healthcare but the kind that is provided by our government-run system. It has been a nightmare for my family and me. The following stories, told in second person and based on my personal experiences with socialized healthcare in Canada, constitute my personal warning to Americans.
Imagine that you and your spouse, and three children under the age of six move to a new city and must find a family doctor. You are told at the local clinic that the doctors there are not accepting any new patients. (Canadian price controls have created shortages of everything when it comes to healthcare). The receptionist suggests that you go through the yellow pages and try to find a physician whose practice is not "full." You spend days, and weeks, doing this, and are repeatedly told "Sorry, we are not accepting new patients." You put your name on several waiting lists and persist in calling doctors’ offices.
Finally, a receptionist tells you that, while the doctor is still accepting new patients, he requires a full medical history and an interview with each family member before you can be added to his roster of patients. Based on the questions asked during the interviews, you come to understand that he is screening out sick or potentially sick people. You are all healthy, fortunately, so he takes you on as patients. Others are just out of luck.
There is a chronic shortage of doctors in Canada because price controls on doctors’ salaries have resulted in a "brain drain" where the best and brightest practice medicine in the U.S. and elsewhere, after being educated in Canada. In addition, the Canadian government cut medical school enrollment in half in the 1990s as a "cost-cutting measure," making the problem of doctor shortages much worse.
Next, imagine that all of a sudden your six-year-old begins showing what seems to be signs of an appendicitis attack, shortly after recuperating from chicken pox. You take him to a hospital emergency room and carry him in because he is unable to walk. There is no one to help you as you enter the building, so you must lumber along to the reception area. A nurse interviews you for a couple of minutes, asks you for the reason for your visit, and then takes your son’s government health card and asks you to fill out paperwork while your son writhes in pain in your lap.
You tell the nurse that your son must be seen by a doctor immediately – it’s an emergency! – as his condition is worsening by the minute. The nurse tells you, stone-faced, to go and sit in the waiting room to wait for a triage nurse. Having no choice, you do what you are told and join twenty or so others in line in front of you. You are given nothing to help make your son more comfortable – no damp facecloth, no bedpan for the vomit, nothing.
When a triage nurse finally strolls in a half hour later your son is too weak to respond to her and you begin to panic. Finally, a doctor appears and says it’s just a "bug" and that you should not be playing "armchair doctor" by "diagnosing" appendicitis. He orders some time-consuming tests anyway, because you have shown him that you are very, very angry. Six hours later the test results come back positive for appendicitis.
Your son is whisked away for an emergency appendectomy, after which the surgeon tells you that, had the surgery been delayed by another few minutes, he would probably have died. Your son’s appendix was gangrenous and on the verge of bursting. It reminds you of reading in the local news of three other people who were sent home from the emergency room, only to have their appendices burst and die. You are grateful that you were much more persistent and ornery than they apparently were.
Our Soviet-style emergency rooms have waiting rooms equipped with hard metal chairs, vending machines that sell junk food, and maybe a television in one corner. There is no access to any medical equipment, beds, or even stretchers. In the emergency room everyone passes through triage and is given a code based on a nurse’s cursory evaluation of their affliction. If you are not satisfied with the "care" that is provided there is nowhere else to go, except to an American hospital if you are close enough to the border and can afford to pay cash. Canadians know that if you call an ambulance you can bypass the 10–12 hour wait in the emergency room, but this drives up the costs of healthcare even further.
If there ever was a good fight, Americans, this is it. As we say in Canada, "Youse guys just gotta give ’er, eh!
August 11, 2009
Cathy LeBoeuf-Shouten lives in Hudson, Quebec, Canada.
Reprinted from LewRockwell.com
To put up the good fight, please visit Free Our Health Care Now!
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Idaho, Virginia To Sue Over Health Overhaul Measures
"Idaho First to Sign Law Aimed at Health Care Plan" [AP, Mar. 17, 2010]
"[Attorney General] Cuccinelli's Office Confirms Virginia Will Sue Over Health Care" [Washington Post, Mar. 17, 2010]
So the legal challenges to government-imposed health insurance coverage have begun. While Idaho and Virginia are among the first states to vow law suits against the federal government, 36 other states are also considering similar legal action. Taking issue with the violation of individual rights and freedoms that such monstrous legislation would foist upon his constituents, Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter explained:
"What the Idaho Health Freedom Act says is that the citizens of our state won't be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control."
Exactly right! Talking heads have long debated the rights of individuals, but government-run health care ratchets the issue up several notches. Such reforms would radically (and forever) alter the relationship of the individual and the government. No longer would your own body be yours - your own body! Instead, the federal government and the approximately 150 new bureaucratic offices would have a say as to what treatment you deserve (if any) and when (if ever). This is a truly radical proposition!
And the Democrats are hell-bent on forcing this into law without fulfilling the constitutional requirement of a vote occurring in both houses of Congress. While the Senate passed the reform bill that is currently in the House, House leaders are seeking to simply deem the bill passed without members actually voting on it (i.e. - the Slaughter rule). It is this constitutional violation that is at the center of Virginia's legal challenge.
In a letter to Speaker Pelosi, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, said, in part:
"I am writing to urge you not to proceed with the Senate Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act under a so-called "deem and pass" [Slaughter] rule because such a course of action would raise grave constitutional questions. Based upon media interviews and statements which I have seen, you are considering this approach because it might somehow shield members of Congress from taking a recorded vote on an overwhelmingly unpopular Senate bill.
"Should you employ the deem and pass tactic, you expose any act which may pass to yet another constitutional challenge. A bill of this magnitude should not be passed using this maneuver. As the President noted last week, the American people are entitled to an up or down vote."
So let's see...the majority of Americans are against this legislation, states are preparing to sue the federal government over this legislation, one-third of our physicians will quit their professions over this legislation, and yet this administration and congressional Democrats continue full steam ahead like Captain Smith of the Titanic (and we're the passengers, no less!).
So what to do? Make your opposition to Obamacare known! Go to Free Our Healthcare Now!
"[Attorney General] Cuccinelli's Office Confirms Virginia Will Sue Over Health Care" [Washington Post, Mar. 17, 2010]
So the legal challenges to government-imposed health insurance coverage have begun. While Idaho and Virginia are among the first states to vow law suits against the federal government, 36 other states are also considering similar legal action. Taking issue with the violation of individual rights and freedoms that such monstrous legislation would foist upon his constituents, Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter explained:
"What the Idaho Health Freedom Act says is that the citizens of our state won't be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control."
Exactly right! Talking heads have long debated the rights of individuals, but government-run health care ratchets the issue up several notches. Such reforms would radically (and forever) alter the relationship of the individual and the government. No longer would your own body be yours - your own body! Instead, the federal government and the approximately 150 new bureaucratic offices would have a say as to what treatment you deserve (if any) and when (if ever). This is a truly radical proposition!
And the Democrats are hell-bent on forcing this into law without fulfilling the constitutional requirement of a vote occurring in both houses of Congress. While the Senate passed the reform bill that is currently in the House, House leaders are seeking to simply deem the bill passed without members actually voting on it (i.e. - the Slaughter rule). It is this constitutional violation that is at the center of Virginia's legal challenge.
In a letter to Speaker Pelosi, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, said, in part:
"I am writing to urge you not to proceed with the Senate Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act under a so-called "deem and pass" [Slaughter] rule because such a course of action would raise grave constitutional questions. Based upon media interviews and statements which I have seen, you are considering this approach because it might somehow shield members of Congress from taking a recorded vote on an overwhelmingly unpopular Senate bill.
"Should you employ the deem and pass tactic, you expose any act which may pass to yet another constitutional challenge. A bill of this magnitude should not be passed using this maneuver. As the President noted last week, the American people are entitled to an up or down vote."
So let's see...the majority of Americans are against this legislation, states are preparing to sue the federal government over this legislation, one-third of our physicians will quit their professions over this legislation, and yet this administration and congressional Democrats continue full steam ahead like Captain Smith of the Titanic (and we're the passengers, no less!).
So what to do? Make your opposition to Obamacare known! Go to Free Our Healthcare Now!
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Physicians: One-Third To Quit Over Health Care Overhaul
The New England Journal of Medicine is reporting that one-third of physicians surveyed would quit their professions or elect early retirement should current health care reforms be passed into law. Worse, if a public option is adopted, that number rises to 45%. The survey, conducted by The Medicus Firm, also found:It's also worth noting that while the Obama Administration trumpets the support of the American Medical Association, only 38% of U.S. physicians are members of this professional organization, and of this percentage 15% are medical students. So this puts the lie to all claims that a majority of doctors support current Democrat reforms.
Commenting on the survey's findings, Managing Partner Kevin Perpetua, stated:
"Physicians feel that they cannot continue to practice if patient loads increase while pay decreases. The overwhelming prediction from physicians is that health reform, if implemented inappropriately, could create a detrimental combination of circumstances, and result in an environment in which it is not possible for most physicians to continue practicing medicine."
Managing Partner Jim Stone also made the following observation:
"What many people may not realize is that health reform could impact physician supply in such a way that the quality of healthcare could suffer...Based on the physicians' responses to the survey, health reform could significantly intensify the effects of the physician shortage. Depending upon which version of the health reform bill passes, the reality is that there may not be enough doctors to provide quality medical care to all of these newly insured people."
Should you share these physicians' concerns, please take a moment to visit Free Our Healthcare Now and let your opposition be heard.
We are blessed to have the best health care in the world - let's not let it be dismantled in the name of statism!
- More than 50% of physicians predict that the quality of health care would deteriorate in the United States.
- Less than 24% of physicians unequivocally support a public option in health care reform.
- 63% of physicians would not recommend the profession if current health reform legislation is passed.
Commenting on the survey's findings, Managing Partner Kevin Perpetua, stated:
"Physicians feel that they cannot continue to practice if patient loads increase while pay decreases. The overwhelming prediction from physicians is that health reform, if implemented inappropriately, could create a detrimental combination of circumstances, and result in an environment in which it is not possible for most physicians to continue practicing medicine."
Managing Partner Jim Stone also made the following observation:
"What many people may not realize is that health reform could impact physician supply in such a way that the quality of healthcare could suffer...Based on the physicians' responses to the survey, health reform could significantly intensify the effects of the physician shortage. Depending upon which version of the health reform bill passes, the reality is that there may not be enough doctors to provide quality medical care to all of these newly insured people."
Should you share these physicians' concerns, please take a moment to visit Free Our Healthcare Now and let your opposition be heard.
We are blessed to have the best health care in the world - let's not let it be dismantled in the name of statism!
Monday, March 15, 2010
Badges? We Don't Need No Stinking Badges!
This line from Mel Brooks' 'Blazing Saddles' perfectly characterizes the House Democrats' attitude in trying to ram the Senate's health care bill through their chamber. What, pray tell, do I mean? According to the National Journal's Congress Daily (courtesy of the Washington Examiner):"House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday."
Key line: "...avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill..." Why? Because they don't have the votes! The story continues:
"Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version."
Key line: "...preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed..." Again, why? Because they don't have the votes! And finally:
"Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. 'Once the CBO gives us the score, we'll spring right on it,' she said."
This not only flies in the face of the majority of Americans (of which more than 80% are perfectly happy with their current health care policies), but it is blatantly unconstitutional - and I'm not throwing around this accusation loosely. As Mark Levin so aptly points out, you don't have to be a constitutional scholar (like him) to understand that what the Democrats are trying to do here is entirely contrary to what our Founding Fathers spelled out in our Constitution. Here is the pertinent verbiage from Article 1, Section 7:
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States...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."
To which the Democrats are saying, "Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution!" Hell, why bother casting votes on anything anymore? Why not assume that whatever the Speaker's heart so desires, is considered passed? Utterly ridiculous and reprehensible! Their brazenness is truly shocking.
So this is what it must be like living under an oligarchy! No longer do we have a government that represents us. Instead, our current crop of temporary office holders are frantically trying to pass a witches brew of legislation prior to facing their constituents in the next election cycle. Why? Because they know that we don't want any of it!
These imperious lawmakers must be stopped. So what can you do? Take a minute to voice your opinion to your elected representative at Free Our Healthcare Now.
Why? As Edmund Burke once said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Health Care Reform Explained
With President Obama and his Democrat allies hell-bent on shoving their health insurance reforms down our throats, wouldn't it be nice to know just what lies between the buns of this crap-sandwich-of-a-bill they so dearly want us to swallow? As the saying goes, there's nothing better than hearing it straight from the horse's mouth (or in this case, the donkey's mouth). So without further ado, let's earnestly listen to some of the key points of their health reform bill, shall we?
Question 1: Could you please elaborate on the content of said bill?
Say what? Pass it first, then we find out? Is she really our Speaker of the House, or a stand-in from the carnival that rolled into D.C. in 2007?
Question 2: How much will said reforms cost?
Guess what? TelePrompTer had the day off (in case you couldn't tell).
Question 3: Why the urgency to pass a bill, any bill, post haste?
Pardon me, sir, but didn't Democrats hold a super-majority in your chamber prior to Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts? How about chastising your own party for its internecine squabbles, huh? Were it not for that (thank God), you could have passed any bill you so desired, regardless of how frantically Republicans stomped their feet or screeched to high heaven. And by the way, were it not for Republican votes, the Civil Rights Act would not have passed. So Sen. Reid, just who are you criticizing here? But I digress...
Anyway, brilliant answers all. So why wait? Let's reform now!
Question 1: Could you please elaborate on the content of said bill?
Say what? Pass it first, then we find out? Is she really our Speaker of the House, or a stand-in from the carnival that rolled into D.C. in 2007?
Question 2: How much will said reforms cost?
Guess what? TelePrompTer had the day off (in case you couldn't tell).
Question 3: Why the urgency to pass a bill, any bill, post haste?
Pardon me, sir, but didn't Democrats hold a super-majority in your chamber prior to Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts? How about chastising your own party for its internecine squabbles, huh? Were it not for that (thank God), you could have passed any bill you so desired, regardless of how frantically Republicans stomped their feet or screeched to high heaven. And by the way, were it not for Republican votes, the Civil Rights Act would not have passed. So Sen. Reid, just who are you criticizing here? But I digress...
Anyway, brilliant answers all. So why wait? Let's reform now!
Monday, March 8, 2010
Facing The Enemy Within
I have long had the highest respect for Americans who serve our country. Whether they come from any branch of the military or law enforcement, or whether they serve in a local fire department, all of these men and women are owed a debt of gratitude that mere words cannot always fully convey. These individuals willingly put their own lives at risk to protect and defend the United States and its citizens from harm. There is no coercion here - they volunteer to do so. While a bad day at work for us 'plain folk' may consist of a tongue-lashing by a demanding boss, a bad day on the job for these other brave men and women may see them dead, never to return home again. Specifically referring to those in the military, Sir Winston Churchill summed it up best in this way:
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
Against this backdrop is the continuing saga of three Navy SEALs who are facing court-martial for their handling of a captured terrorist. Last September, Spc.Ops. Huertas, McCabe, and Keefe, were part of a mission to capture Ahmed Hashim Abed, who was responsible for the 2004 killing and mutilation of four American Blackwater contractors in Fallujah, Iraq. Their mangled and charred corpses were prominently hanged on a bridge for all to see.
So what kind of hell was rained upon this captured terrorist? A punch in the gut, or so he says. Hence, three of our elite fighters, our best of the best, are facing court-martial proceedings.
Bid adieu to the days when our soldiers simply killed and broke things, and embrace the glory days of the modern era when our soldiers must coddle sworn enemies and avowed killers, and extend to them all the legal rights formerly reserved for the lowly American citizen!
Under our current administration, however, and the dominance of politically correct congressional dogma (hat tip, Democrats), does this story really come as a surprise? Still have doubts? Then consider the following paragraph from an Investor's Business Daily story - a story that our mainstream media largely ignored:
"Thanks to the vigilance of a couple of bloggers and House Republicans...the $50 billion intelligence authorization bill was stripped of a last-minute amendment that would have made criminals of many U.S. intelligence agents." [IBD, Mar. 1, 2010]
Specifically, this Democrat amendment would have imposed huge fines and a minimum 15-year prison term on any officer who handled their captives in a "cruel, inhuman, and degrading way." Huh? What kind of claptrap is this anyway? Maybe a little clarity, please? The aforementioned article continues:
"Among the transgressions the bill would have outlawed were 'exploiting the phobias of the individual,' 'depriving the individual of necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care,' or even 'cramped confinement' or 'prolonged isolation.'" [Ibid]
So let's see - if I had to choose between electric shock, corporal mutilation, and certain death due to beheading (courtesy of these terrorist 'folks') OR having loud music played while trying to sleep, and being frightened at the prospect of insects crawling all over me (not the actual occurrence, just the thought of it), well geez...I guess I'd take the second option.
The sheer outrageousness of this Democrat amendment can be witnessed by the hushed silence in which it was withdrawn. Deserving of meritorious mention in this failed congressional hoodwink is Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra (hero), while the ignominious citation goes to Democrat Rep. Jim McDermott (villain).
It's challenging enough for our military and intelligence personnel to fight our sworn enemies abroad, but to have to deal with them in our homeland, in our nation's capital, among our elected representatives, is simply reprehensible!
Semper Fi.
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
Against this backdrop is the continuing saga of three Navy SEALs who are facing court-martial for their handling of a captured terrorist. Last September, Spc.Ops. Huertas, McCabe, and Keefe, were part of a mission to capture Ahmed Hashim Abed, who was responsible for the 2004 killing and mutilation of four American Blackwater contractors in Fallujah, Iraq. Their mangled and charred corpses were prominently hanged on a bridge for all to see.
So what kind of hell was rained upon this captured terrorist? A punch in the gut, or so he says. Hence, three of our elite fighters, our best of the best, are facing court-martial proceedings.
Bid adieu to the days when our soldiers simply killed and broke things, and embrace the glory days of the modern era when our soldiers must coddle sworn enemies and avowed killers, and extend to them all the legal rights formerly reserved for the lowly American citizen!
Under our current administration, however, and the dominance of politically correct congressional dogma (hat tip, Democrats), does this story really come as a surprise? Still have doubts? Then consider the following paragraph from an Investor's Business Daily story - a story that our mainstream media largely ignored:
"Thanks to the vigilance of a couple of bloggers and House Republicans...the $50 billion intelligence authorization bill was stripped of a last-minute amendment that would have made criminals of many U.S. intelligence agents." [IBD, Mar. 1, 2010]
Specifically, this Democrat amendment would have imposed huge fines and a minimum 15-year prison term on any officer who handled their captives in a "cruel, inhuman, and degrading way." Huh? What kind of claptrap is this anyway? Maybe a little clarity, please? The aforementioned article continues:
"Among the transgressions the bill would have outlawed were 'exploiting the phobias of the individual,' 'depriving the individual of necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care,' or even 'cramped confinement' or 'prolonged isolation.'" [Ibid]
So let's see - if I had to choose between electric shock, corporal mutilation, and certain death due to beheading (courtesy of these terrorist 'folks') OR having loud music played while trying to sleep, and being frightened at the prospect of insects crawling all over me (not the actual occurrence, just the thought of it), well geez...I guess I'd take the second option.
The sheer outrageousness of this Democrat amendment can be witnessed by the hushed silence in which it was withdrawn. Deserving of meritorious mention in this failed congressional hoodwink is Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra (hero), while the ignominious citation goes to Democrat Rep. Jim McDermott (villain).
It's challenging enough for our military and intelligence personnel to fight our sworn enemies abroad, but to have to deal with them in our homeland, in our nation's capital, among our elected representatives, is simply reprehensible!
Semper Fi.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
The Iceman Melts In Mexico
Formula 1 World Driver's Champion (2007), Kimi "The Iceman" Raikkonen, made an early exit from Rally Mexico this weekend - and he did so in spectacular fashion. Check out the video below:
Quite a wild ride, huh? And to think that he was virtually in sight of the finish line, too! Nevertheless, I'd say that The Iceman lived up to his reputation in the interview - he didn't appear to be fazed at all. Like Michael Schumacher, perhaps he'll consider a return to F1 sometime in the future. I know he is missed.
Quite a wild ride, huh? And to think that he was virtually in sight of the finish line, too! Nevertheless, I'd say that The Iceman lived up to his reputation in the interview - he didn't appear to be fazed at all. Like Michael Schumacher, perhaps he'll consider a return to F1 sometime in the future. I know he is missed.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
The False Prophets Among Us
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. [Matthew 24:11, KJV]
Her officials within her are like wolves tearing their prey; they shed blood and kill people to make unjust gain. [Ezekiel 22:27, NIV]
The hoax of anthropogenic global warming has claimed its first victims, although not by way of any actual ecological destruction. Rather, an Argentinian family recently fulfilled a suicide-homicide pact over their fears of man made global warming, and their government's apparent lack of interest in addressing the issue. Found dead in their Goya, Argentina, home were Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 22, both of whom bore gun shot wounds in their chests. Also found dead was their 2-year-old son, who had been shot in the back. However, the couple's 7-month-old daughter was found alive by officials, who were summoned to the home by neighbors complaining of foul odors. While suffering from a bullet wound to her chest, she survived for 3 days before being discovered. A note found in the home detailed the parents terror over global warming, which culminated in the grisly crime scene.
So one must wonder what the preeminent expert on the subject, former Vice President Al Gore (and every other global warming alarmist, for that matter), has to say about this story, especially since every so-called truth that he revealed in his Oscar-winning movie, An Inconvenient Truth, has been proven false by actual scientists. In fact, in Great Britain the UK Independence Party is seeking to ban the film in schools altogether. The only inconvenient truth for Al Gore at the moment is that he has profited immensely from peddling his environmental rotgut. Current estimates peg his personal wealth in excess of $100 million, and as the UK Telegraph reported last November, "Al Gore could become the world's first carbon billionaire."
Now, I have no problem whatsoever with individuals earning vast sums of money, but to do so on false premises is immoral, and in the case of the Argentinian family, downright criminal, wouldn't you say? Do not the above-mentioned bible verses perfectly apply to this case? Just where is the outrage? Where are the congressional hearings?
Despite this news story, however, and the email dump from East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit (which detailed a global effort among leading scientists to falsify climate data), and the concession from the facility's leading scientist, Phil Jones, that there has been NO 'statistically significant' global warming in the last 15 years, the University of Tennessee will be awarding preeminent scientist, Al Gore, an honorary doctoral degree. Commenting on the university trustees decision to do so, Chancellor Jimmy Cheek stated, "Vice President Gore's career has been marked by visionary leadership, and his work has quite literally changed our planet for the better."
How? By padding his wallet and killing more people? Let us not forget the admonishment in Ezekiel, "...they shed blood and kill people to make unjust gain."
Draw your own conclusions.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Earth From 435 Miles Above
NASA has just released two of the sharpest images of Earth yet. Commenting on the photos, a NASA spokesman has stated, "These are spectacular 'blue marble' images, which show the beauty of our small planet." You can see them for yourself here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
