How President Obama can regain his popularity

Keep it up, Mr. President! Good job, bro!

Drop the far leftist agenda that he has been pursuing.  He ran as a centrist, pooh-poohing at the idea that we conserv atives were warning the country that he was a radical who would seek to imple ment all of the left’s radical ideas. 

Sadly, we were right. He was lying.  He lied about lowering taxes for 95% of U.S. citizens.  He lied when he claimed Afghanistan was a war worth fighting and winning–now  he is considering cutting and running so that his far left kook base will continue to support ObamaCare.  He lied when he said he wasn’t a socialist.  He favors restricting travel to Honduras, because they legally overthrew a would-be socialist dictator. Meanwhile, he favors lifting restrictions with Cuba, which is ruled by the iron fist of a socialist dictator. 

But I digress.  Free advice, President Obama: Want to regain your popularity? Just quit pursuing your socialist agenda. Instead of cramming legislation down the throats of unwilling Americans in a rush so great that the legislators and public don’t even have time to read the damn legislation, slow down and do what a majority of Americans want. We realize that you wouldn’t have been elected but for the help from the looney left. But you were elected by a vast majority who aren’t part of the looney left. You lied to them to get them to support you, and now you are betraying them. 

Granted, you have the political power to enact much of your legislation.  But you will lose and your party will lose in the long run.  You are chasing away moderates and independents, RINOs and non-partisans, at an incredible rate.  Pretty soon the Democrat party will consist of blacks and the looney left, and empty seats.

I realize that you know-it-alls would never deign to accept advice from a conservative. That’s fine, I don’t want  you or the Democrat party to prosper.  This great country lasted through four years of Jimmah Carter, it will survive four years of your abuse.  In fact, the Democrats are going to suffer a bloodbath in the next U.S. Congressional election if you keep going the way that you are.  Come to think of it, Mr. Obama, disregard everything that I’ve said here…

What does a senile racist look like?

West Virginia and Sen. Byrd are perfect for each other

If the Government can’t fix Medicaid, why should we trust it with ObamaCare?

From a Richmond Times-Dispatch article about a recent bipartisan conversation about health care: 

“Mary Evans had a diffe rent perspective. The Richmond resident is a patient-services counselor in a local emergency room, where she helps patients who mostly rely on the federal Medicaid program for the poor.”

“Evans said she sees more people coming to the emergency room with nonemergency concerns because they can’t get timely appointments with doctors who see Medicaid patients.”

“‘If the government can’t fix Medicaid . . . why should we turn this over to them?’ she asked, referring to a health-care overhaul.”

EXACTLY RIGHT!  As a lawyer who has dealt with hundreds of clients who are poor and on Medicaid, I can tell you that the system is broke.  Politicians–who know nothing about how the free market works–say that they want to lower the cost of healthcare, so what do they do? They cut the price that Medicaid will pay for certain medical procedures.  If the physicians charge $100 for a visit or a particular treatment, for instance, then Medicaid will pay them only $20.  And when the politician wants to lower the cost of services, they reduce even that amount, and say, OK, now Medicaid will only pay $17 for that same treatment. Sounds great in theory, hero politician reigns in the cost of health care! Ta da! Politician gets re-elected and trots off on his white horse to “fix” some other problem.

But in reality what happens is that physicians find that they can’t afford to treat patients who are insured by Medicaid.  You can opt out, but if you opt in, a physician can’t charge a Medicaid patient more than what Medicaid reimburses.   So many physicians opt out.  Then there is an artificial shortage of physicians who will treat Medicaid patients. 

Medicaid patients are poor, but not stupid, so as a result of them not being able to find regular doctors to treat them, they go to where they know that they can’t be denied service: they go to hospital emergency rooms.  For colds, for sore throats, for hang-nails, for constipation, for every little thing that the rest of us would go to a Patient First, a “Doc in Box” or our primary care physician.   Thus, they clog up the E.R.s around the nation seeking care for problems that aren’t really true emergencies, and make it harder for true emergencies to get help.

A similar problem is caused by the fact that since the hospitals and doctors only get reimbursed by Medicaid a fraction of what the actual cost of the goods or services are.  The same goes with Medicare, which is the government program for those over sixty-five. As a result of the government only paying a small percentage of what the actual cost of the goods or services are worth, the doctors and hospitals pass on the rest of the cost of those goods and services to us who pay full price and/or have private insurance. 

A large percentage of our current  ”health care crisis” is directly caused by the U.S. Government!  The Government’s programs, also including SCHIP and the V.A. Hospital Administration, provide sub-standard care at such low prices that the true cost of providing such procedures are passed off on the rest of us, thereby making our own costs for such procedures or costs for private insurance, to skyrocket. As a result of skyrocketing costs, caused in large part by the Government programs, more and more people can’t afford insurance.  And so dishonest or naive politicians swoop in, claiming to have the fix for the problem that they in large part created in the first place.  And dupes such as those idiots at We Will RockDem, swallow the Democratic party line hook, line and sinker.  

“Government isn’t the solution to the problem, government is the problem.” Ronald Reagan.

Black African Americans are the real racists: Finally someone says what I’ve been saying all along

 

Say it loud, I'm black and I'm proud TO BE A RACIST!

John Hawkins:

at TownHall: “Black Democrats put race first to elect Obama: It’s no longer a surprise when black Democrats vote as an almost monolithic block for Democratic candidates over Republicans. It’s just something that has come to be expected. However, when black Americans started voting for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton by the same lopsided margins that people normally saw in general elections, it sent a simple message: With black Americans, race comes first. If white Americans felt the same way, there’s certainly no way that Barack Obama could ever have been elected President. Additionally, many white Americans pride themselves on having internalized Martin Luther King’s immortal words, “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” It’s rather discouraging to know that the overwhelming majority of black Americans only believe those words when it suits their purposes.”

I’ve been pointing this out for months. “Shittiest President since Carter still enjoys 96% approval among blacks.” The Congressional Black Caucus is the most blatantly racist organization that is tolerated in America, here, here, and here.  Boycott black businesses? You are a racist! Only shop at black owned businesses? You are a black hero!

The Democrats’ “Northern Strategy”

Barack Obama’s crack team of Presidential Advisors has developed a new stategy to keep a Democrat in the White House for the indefinite future. It’s called “the Northern Strategy.”  It calls for calling racists all opponents of any idea put forth by the Obama Administration, especially if the opponents are from south of the Mason-Dixon line.  And, oh by the way, if anyone who is north of that line happens to voice any opposition of “The Won,” then by virtue of that fact they may also be thereby labled “homophobes” or “employees of the drug industry,” etc. ad nauseum.  Oh, and if those poor unfortunate souls who criticize Him are black? “Uncle Toms” of course.

But what if the one who is criticizing “The One of Whom the Prophtets Foretold” is a liberal Democrat? Then he or she must be forever labled “A Turncoat” or a “False Brethren”! 

But Sir, even I have my doubts…

“Get thee behind me, Satan!” Now go and do as ACORN doth!

Remember “Westworld”? It’s closer than you think…

Westworld was a 1973 movie set “in the near future” where regular people could go on vacation and experience what it was like to live in certain periods of the past with robots.  For example, if they chose the wild west period of time in America, they could dress as cowboys, and have gunfights with robots who never won, and purchase whores who were easy, etc. yada yada yada.

Here is a trailer for those too young to remember, so old that they have forgotten:

And those days are closer than you think. Now you beta males can purchase your own sex companion for only $3,820. Isn’t she lifelike?   And she never nags you to get a job or to quit playing computer games all day!

Oooh. She's so lifelike. This is the closest that you will ever come to a real woman, so go for it big guys!

Order yours today!

Public Option plan that all conservatives can rally around!

Scott Ott is a genius!  Why didn’t Obama think of this? Increase choice and competition, improve service, everybody is free to choose which option that they desire, all the while reducing waste and inefficiency, without increasing the budget by “one dime.”  I can guarantee you that 9 out of 10 conservatives would gladly support this plan for a ”public option.”  Who says Republicans are unwilling to compromise?

Study shows persons without medical insurance more likely to die than those who do have medical insurance

Government run health insurance: What could go wrong?

A recent study is being touted as proof that “more than 44,000” *  U.S. citizens per  year die because they have no insurance.  Sounds terrible, but rather than slurping down this so-called “scientific evidence” hook line and sinker (as “Dumbass Dougie” would do), I looked behind the scenes and analyzed their methodology.  Lo and behold, I’m sensing either a liberal agenda (Hey, let’s create a bogus study that supports ObamaCare!?) or gross stupidity (third, remote possibility–they are  trying to convince those without insurance to purchase private insurance).  Could go either way. 

First, I did not purchase the actual study, but the abstract of the study  shows gross errors in judgment of those in charge of the study, IMHO.  “After additional adjustment for race/ethnicity, income, education, self- and physician-rated health status, body mass index, leisure exercise, smoking, and regular alcohol use, the uninsured were more likely to die (hazard ratio=1.40; 95% CI=1.06, 1.84) than those with insurance.” 

My question is, why adjust for anything?  For instance, if the “uninsured” are more likely to be fat, or smokers, or lazy, or drunks, etc., why “adjust” for that? Wouldn’t that be important to know, as it would affect the conclusion of the study. In other words, instead of the conclusion ”the uninsured were more likely to die than the insured”, a more proper conclusion might be ”the uninsured are more likely to be obese lazy drunken smokers than the insured.”  [Note: I'm not saying it is true, I'm saying why adjust anything? Just throw all the uninsured in and compare them with all the insured, that would give you the true results instead of doctored up results.] 

And I see further evidence that the results of this study are being skewed to fit some political agenda, and/or those in charge of the study are guilty of gross stupidity.  The Scientific American published this regarding the study:  “The findings show that uninsured Americans—between the ages of 17 and 64—have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have private insurance. (Those enrolled in government insurance programs, such as Medicaid and Department of Veterans Affairs insurance, were excluded from the study.)” [Emphasis added.]

Those in charge of the study unilaterally removed recipients of Medicare and Medicaid and Veterans Affairs insurance from the study.  Why? Those three programs are “insurance.”  Why are they cherry picking who will be considered “insured”? Come on, people, if those marvelous Government run insurance programs work so well, include those recipients in the study.  A more interesting study would be to see how the death rate compares between those programs along with SCHIP and those who have private insurance.  If government run health insurance is so wonderful, it ought to meet or exceed the death rate for private insurance.   

Top Secret revealed: What Obama got in exchange for selling out Poles and Czechs

Top Secret: From Prime Minister Putin, to President Obama–here you go Big Guy! Here is the Most excellant bargain that I made wit you.  Oh, and don’t forget this.

Is it 2012 yet?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go to “Jim Treacher’s blog that is on the internet” for the entire cartoon…