[Previous] Gateway Pundit: Finally... Obama Takes Responsibility For E...

 [Next] Budget Chief: Health Care Reform Will Weaken Economy -- Politi...

Some related posts from Technorati and Google.

[Uploads from Renegade98] 'The election of Obama would, at a stroke, refresh our country's ...: Even before taking into account whatever fantastically expensive plan eventually emerges to help rescue the financial system from Wall Street's long-running pyramid schemes, the economic and fiscal picture is bleak. During the Bush administration, the national debt, now approaching $10 trillion, has nearly doubled.

[One Wing Left] It’s News To M_A - 10/19/08: The Reagan Revolution included the stupid idea that you can cut taxes, starve government, abolish regulation of securities, banks, & etc., and still grow the economy. The irony is that capitalist markets need to be regulated to avoid .

[subaltern] President Bush is the Most Dangerous Man in this World Who Invents ...: Bush with Vice President Dick Cheney addressing the media at the State Department, August 14, 2006President Bush believes that global warming is real[91] and has noted that global warming is a serious problem, but he asserted there is a "debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused".[92] The Bush Administration's stance on global warming has remained controversial in the scientific and environmental communities. Many accusations have been made against the administration[93] for allegedly misinforming the public and not having done enough to reduce carbon emissions and deter global warming.[94] During his 2008 State of the Union Address, however, Bush announced that the U.S. would commit US$2 billion over the next three years towards a new international fund to promote clean energy technologies and fight climate change, saying, "along with contributions from other countries, this fund will increase and accelerate the deployment of all forms of cleaner, more efficient technologies in developing nations like India and China, and help leverage substantial private-sector capital by making clean energy projects more financially attractive." He has also announced plans to reaffirm the United States' commitment to work with major economies, and, through the United Nations, to complete an international agreement that will slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases;

[Daniel Hannan's blog listings.] Margaret Thatcher saved Britain - Telegraph Blogs: I remember those years, and I have also read a number of books by women married to supposedly Westernized Iranians living in the U.S. who, until that revolution, seemed completely happy as secular residents or citizens of America. (These were men who had come to study at university here and remained as legal residents.) In those books, in news articles and among circles of people I had acquaintance with, there appeared a common story: some men of Iranian origin who had seemed so secular and content in America changed after that revolution, became religious and returned to Iran, in many cases taking their American-born children with them (which is what the women wrote books about: their - mostly unsuccessful - struggles to regain their children).

[Conservative Blog: Urban Conservative 2.0 - Conservative News & Politics] Obama's Greatest Challenge Yet to Come: Replacing Ben Bernanke ...: my bad!  So, my question is "When did this happen, or was it just a gradual increase that occurred?  I suspect it was gradual.  One thing I KNOW we should do is to eliminate all of the frivilous lawsuits that are rampant today.  That alone should help lower doctor's insurance costs, and COULD result in lowering their costs to us.  COULD is the key word here, and I think we might end up requiring some task force to get involved in managing/controlling their salaries.  I hate to even say that!!  I know we conservatives believe in free market economies, and I believe it has worked for a long time, but it seems that greed has taken over the system somehow, and I'm not sure how we stop it without allowing someone to control it.  I'm just not sure the government is the place to do it.  Maybe we need a private organization (call it MediHelp) made up of a mixture of doctors, drug companies, insurance companies, corporate executives, and provate citizens whose job would be to make those kinds of decisions.  But there is much we can do first which should impact the cost of healthcare.  I mentioned eliminating frivilous lawsuits.  Republicans always bring this up, but Democrats always shoot it down!  Why is that?  Since it is obvious that these lawsuits are a key reason for higher costs, why would the Dems be against it?  We're right back to the lobbyist issue!  They get tons of money from trial lawyers!!!  Duh, why would they want to end frivilous lawsuits?  One thing that they all agree on is that we should be computerizing all of the record systems to cut administrative overhead.  And we have had that technology for a LONG time, so why hasn't it been done already?  I suspect there are reasons that we aren't aware of like administrative people losing their jobs, and unions would be right in the middle of that one!  So who do unions support?  Bingo, the Dems again!  I'm not sure who most of the drug companies support, and maybe their issues are merely greed in nature.  How do we solve the greed problem using free market principles?  Competition is the key to this.  I don't know how many drug companies there are in the U.S., but I'm sure there are a lot more worldwide that we could allow to compete with our own "if" our government would allow it!  But, the FDA and our government has regulated this industry to the point where it is uncompetitive.  Yes, we should make sure that we test drugs from other countries, and we should work with them on ways to comply with our regulations WITHOUT putting them out of business.  We have those kinds of trade agreements with almost every other type of goods and services.  So why couldn't we do it with drugs as well?  Does our government REALLY want it tohappen?  I'm thinking they don't.  Jackie hit on a very inmportant issue which is the practice of doctor's doing too many unnecessary tests.  Why do they do this?  Two reasons.  First, they can make more money when they do more tests.  Second, they're afraid of frivilous lawsuits.  If the patient requests a test be done and they refuse, they are opening themselves up for a lawsuit.  Therefore, I believe that patients and doctors need to work more closely together to make decisions which are best for both.  There should be a "handbook of care" if you will that is developed by the private company (MediHelp) to be used by doctors and patients to guide them in their strategies for determining and solving health issues.  I think another of the reasons that we have gotten to this point where patients are dictating to doctors what tests to run is the fact that most people are now using HMO's for their healthcare.  I don't know how long HMOs have been around, but I believe that they were probably developed for a few reasons such as 1) a way to keep healthcare costs down by leveraging the masses of the people, 2) a low cost way for corporations to provide health insurance for their employees.  HMOs have been successful in those things, but I have noticed that they have created a different problem which I believe is now causing a lot of our pain.  When I was growing up I don't remember HMOs being around, but maybe they were.  We had a private family physician who we used.  He knew us and kept our costs at a point he knew we could afford.  We were pretty poor, so I suspect that we paid less than some of his other patients, but I don't know that for a fact.  But I suspect that doctors back then were more willing to do that, and it is actually a smart strategy.  Let's call it free market healthcare at it's best!  I'm sure he didn't charge us less than what he paid for drugs, tests, etc.  But he could charge us less and make up for it with other people who could afford to pay more.  And by doing this, he was able to build up a very good business!  I know you will say that HMOs do the same today.  But do they really?  It seems that they are more alike than different.  The other thing I see with HMOs is that their quality of care is much less than what we got with our private doctor.  We "trusted" him!  We do NOT trust our HMO doctors.  They are not that friendly for the most part.  They want to get you in and get you out as quickly as possible.  Otherwise, they lose their leverage and can't see as many patients.  This is a BIG problem for me and my family!  We MAKE the doctor spend time with us.  And there are times when we HAVE TO force him to give us a particular test.  Otherwise, he will not even recommend it.  We have heard a lot of war stories about people dieing because they mis-dignosed them or didn't perform the right tests on them.  This needs to stop!!  That is where the handbook might help a lot!  Docotrs and patients will have a sort of roadmap to help them diagnose issues, at least potential life threatening ones.  I could probably go on for a while, but I'll stop here.  I think I have rasied a lot of issues that our politicians should be looking at, but I have very little faith that they will.  And I have talked about why that is the case.  In summary, I think they have their eyes so focused on nationalizing healthcare that they will refuse to do the right things to actually solve the problems!  Nationalized healthcare is a MUST for socialism to advance, and I just beleiev that socialism has been the Democrats goal for a long time, and now they have the crisis to make it happen.  We'll see what happens, but I know where I would put my money if I were a betting man.  I can only hope and pray that God will get involved!!

[politicalbetting.com] politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is this man worth a bet as ...: Is it credible for Balls to stand in the HoC criticizing a Conservative Government's actions when the retort will be “well you got us into this mess”. Varios FoI requests will reveal his involvement in the gold sale, .

[Combined Arms Center Blog] The Challenge of Retaining Majors in Our Army - Reflections by ...:  Many of this blog's audience are prior enlisted types who exhausted earlier versions of the GI bill to pay their own way through college or West Pointers.  When I was referring to an equivalent to the new GI Bill which allows transfer of existing benefits to children, my idea of an equivalent benefit to retain majors nearing retirement age was something that benefits the audience who does not qualify for the new GI Bill - something like a TSP matching fund program to set up a college fund for our children.

[Lim Kit Siang] Lim Kit Siang » Blog Archive » No Glitter to Merdeka's Golden ...: is unprecedented in annals of Malaysian political history, promising the development of further controversial public issues, now that his Labis Division has thown their support behind him to continue, and the Presidential Council of MCA is immediately having an emergency sitting (See Page N4 of The Star 2nd Jan) now, raising question of what would happen if the MCA Presidential Council’s decision is different from that of the Prime Minister’s, by whose grace Dr Chua’s ministerial position depends.

[The Plural Life (Brooke Adams)] Tribune Blogs -- Polygamy Files: The Tribune's blog on the plural life: The difference between America and Somalia is that, while America has government officials who get it wrong sometimes, they are held accountable, in Somalia your wife could get her brains blown out all over your infant son and your only recourse would be to buy some better guns to protect your other wives. In return for your freedom to contest government actions, you are expected to give your daughter's certain protections until they are 18 years of age, whether you think they're mature enough to decide to live the way you want them too or not.

Reflected tags on Technorati: Blog, Economy, EconWatch.com