Islam Is as Islam Does

I just ran across another article by a bleeding-heart liberal who described the Fort Hood terrorist as a "lone nut" who had difficulty adjusting to military life. His actions, of course, had nothing to do with the co-incidental fact that his religion was Islam. Islam is, according this this article and an increasingly loud majority of liberals, an inherently peaceful religion and we have nothing to fear from it.

As far as I'm concerned, Islam is as Islam does. Apart from the Islamic Terrorist Traitor Major, over 14,000 other acts of terrorism have been committed in the name of this "peaceful religion" since 9/11 with countless thousands of deaths and injuries as a result.

There is no radical Islam. There is no Fundamentalist Islam. There is no Terrorist Islam. There is just Islam, and those who misunderstand the religion are the so-called "peaceful" Muslims who may not overtly support terrorism, but who covertly support it by nurturing, protecting and covering up the more active brothers and sisters amongst them.

Our leaders continually hammer away at the idea that America is not at war with Islam. While that is true, perhaps we should be, and we should make it official. It may be the only way we will all be safe.

Islam is a belief based on hate and grievance and likes to portray itself as a victim while itself victimizing others and victimizing even its own. Kind of like liberalism.

Read more...

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Read more...

The Girl Who Cried Racism

Apparently, it's RACISM DAY, here at "Handbasket." I found this little gem over at Spectator." I particularly like the title. A take on "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," it is easy to see how our society has become jaded to cries of racism that people don't even pay attention any more. This whole situation is an example of the racism is trivialized, making real issues of racism "back-burner" issues.

The Girl Who Cried Racism

By Christopher Orlet on 11.23.09 @ 6:08AM

Kennett, Missouri, is best known these days as the hometown of pop rock diva Sheryl Crow. Sheryl Crow and now Heather Ellis. The latter is no rock star, but she is a bona fide celebrity (or one famous for being famous). Ellis, 24, the celebrated Wal-Mart line-cutter, earned her 15-minutes of celebrity when she accused a Wal-Mart shopper, cashier, assistant store manager, security guard, and Kennett police officers of racism. By the second day of the trial -- which ended last Friday in a plea bargain -- it was clear from mainstream media coverage that pretty much the whole town of Kennett was racist.

The facts were these: Ellis, then a college student, was in line at the local Wal-Mart, when she decided her lane was moving too slowly. She then joined her cousin in a faster moving lane, cutting in front of a line of waiting customers. The customer she cut directly in front of, Teresa Kinder, objected, especially when Ellis repeatedly shoved Kinder's merchandise back down the conveyer belt. The assistant store manager and a security guard arrived and asked Ellis to leave. When she refused, police were called. Ellis was later placed under arrest, and charged with disturbing the peace, trespassing, resisting arrest, and felony assault of police officers.

Not surprisingly, there are two very different versions of what happened. Ellis and her aunt say she was pushed by Ms. Kinder and called racial slurs. They say police roughed her up, tore her jacket, and told her to "go back to the ghetto." Police, store management and witnesses, meanwhile, say that Ellis was belligerent, and that she kicked officer Albert Fisher in the shin and hit Sgt. Joe Stewart in the mouth, splitting his lip. Whatever the truth, it is obvious that a minor instance of rude behavior and bad manners escalated into a felony assault on a peace officer.

The mainstream media was quick to indict Kennett as a racist community. An ABC News headline read: "Heather Ellis Could Face Prison Time After Cutting the Line at Walmart." Not for assaulting police officers, mind you, but for "cutting the line." CNN's Randi Kaye went after the entire town of Kennett, accusing it of being "a community known for racial tension." CNN showed more bias when it suggestively referred to Kennett's "predominantly white police department." (In fact, Kennett has two minority cops, which accurately reflects the percentage of minorities in the town.) Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Southern Christian Leadership Conference noted that the town's police have been accused of racial profiling minority drivers, a charge that has been leveled, one time or another, at just about every American city and town with minorities.

Needless to say, racial tensions exploded after Ellis made her accusations. White supremacist groups began slithering into town to spread their hateful propaganda, while big name minority activists flew in from New York and Washington DC, to further heighten tensions. Ms. Ellis's father, a local Baptist preacher, called the trial a "big, racial discrimination cover-up," which seems an odd comment since trials are supposed to promote justice, not cover up the truth. (Perhaps the state judicial system is racist too?) Ellis and her various coalitions and supporters quickly hired the top criminal lawyers in St. Louis: Scott Rosenblum and T.J. Hunsaker. When asked by reporters to comment on the charge of racism, Rosenblum would say only: "I'm not going to go there."

The fact that Rosenblum and Hunsaker had to settle for a plea bargain suggests Ellis didn't have a prayer in beating the assault charge, regardless of the extenuating circumstances. In the end, Ellis was convicted of the lesser charges of resisting arrest and disturbing the peace. The plea bargain stipulates she must attend two hours of anger management class.

"MANNERS ARE OF MORE importance than laws," wrote Edmund Burke. "Upon them, in a great measure, the laws depend." But good manners are today considered passé, a quaint and spurious remnant of our dark past. So many of today's young people simply do not care how their rude or anti-social behavior affects others. It is almost like no one else exists but himself or herself. I experience this form of anti-social behavior on a daily basis, whether it is the young hoodlums in the street outside my window playing loud and obscene music at 3 a.m. or young people talking loudly and obscenely on their cell phones during a movie. And you can see where they get it. I have attended theater productions where adults bring their toddlers and allow them to chat endlessly throughout the performance, no doubt finding this behavior "cute."

If our young are not taught good manners, they are well-schooled in resentment studies, during which they learn the various benefits of victimhood and the importance of political correctness. Good manners will never get anyone 15 minutes of fame, but bad manners and crying racism is almost guaranteed to buy you fifteen minutes and then some.

The tragedy is that by rushing to Ellis's defense, by excusing her actions, and by concocting blanket racism charges against an entire community, the "various coalitions" and civil rights groups have done great damage to the laudable goal of combating racial prejudice.

Perhaps now that the rock star has returned home to Louisiana, the Ellis-and-mainstream-media-created racial tensions will cool and Kennett, Missouri, can get back to being what it was: a normal southern town trying to deal with serious economic problems.

Read more...

Diversity for Thee, But Not for We

A tip of the hat to Legal Insurrection for pointing out this article by Michelle Malkin.

Host Chris Matthews and his guests on MSNBC were bashing Sarah Palin and her "all-white" followers. The left loves to play the race card.

By the way, have you ever noticed that on MSNBC, all the talking heads and over 90% of the guests are .... white?

Just sort of makes a tingle run up and down your leg, doesn't it?

Read more...

What Year Would You Prefer?

Would you rather grow up in 1957 or 2009 and why?

Scenario 1:

Jack goes quail hunting before school and then pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in his truck’s gun rack.

1957 – Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack’s shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.

2009 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario 2:

Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.

1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins.. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.

2009 - Police called and SWAT team arrives — they arrest both Johnny and Mark. They are both charged them with assault and both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario 3:

Jeffrey will not be still in class, he disrupts other students.

1957 - Jeffrey sent to the Principal’s office and given a good paddling by the Principal. He then returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.

2009 – Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. He becomes a zombie. He is then tested for ADD. The school gets extra money from the state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Scenario 4:

Billy breaks a window in his neighbor’s car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt..

1957 – Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college and becomes a successful businessman.

2009 – Billy’s dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. The state psychologist is told by Billy’s sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy’s mom has an affair with the psychologist.

Scenario 5:

Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.

1957 – Mark shares his aspirin with the Principal out on the smoking dock.

2009 – The police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations His car is then searched for drugs and weapons.

Scenario 6:

Pedro fails high school English.

1957 – Pedro goes to summer school, passes English and goes to college.

2009 - Pedro’s cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against the state school system and Pedro’s English teacher. English is then banned from core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.

Scenario 7:

Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the Fourth of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up a red ant bed.

1957 – Ants die.

2009 – ATF, Homeland Security and the FBI are all called. Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. The FBI investigates his parents — and all siblings are removed from their home and all computers are confiscated. Johnny’s dad is placed on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

Scenario 8:

Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.

1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.

2009 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison… Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.

Read more...

O'Reilly and Religion Don't Mix

I cringe every time Bill O'Reilly says he's going to have a guest on his show to discuss anything of a religious nature. Bill just gets lost when it comes to religion.

O'Reilly is Catholic. I have no problem with that. His guest last night didn't say what her beliefs were, but she was obviously not evangelical, nor did she approach religion with a conservative viewpoint. She is a "Religion Editor" for the Washington Post and recently wrote a column "attacking" Sarah Palin's faith.

Attacking may not be the right word. Mocking or ridiculing might be more accurate.

They discussed Sarah Palin's own expression of her faith and her trying to find and follow God's plan for her. This guest implied that if Palin were intellectually honest, she'd either have to say that running for office in '08 was not God's plan or that losing was God's plan. O'Reilly was clueless in searching for a response.

I won't presume to know what Sarah Palin's specific beliefs are with regard to God's plan in our lives or how much "control" He exercises over events. I can only express what my beliefs are.

In a broader sense, God does, indeed, have a plan for all of us. It is the same plan for everyone. He calls us all to repent from our sins and to accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. He calls us all to live a life directed by Him and the teachings in the Bible.

Does that mean that everyone follows this plan? Of course not. My belief is that each of us is free to choose and to do as we please. We can seek him and accept his gift of salvation for us. Or we can go our own way.

I also believe that God give a specific calling to some people with regard to their vocation or profession. I don't believe that He does this for everyone. Did God call Sarah Palin to be Vice President? I doubt it. I think he calls Sarah Palin to be faithful and to use the position that she has to do as much good in our nation as she can. But God doesn't push the buttons in the polling booths. So even if God wanted Sarah Palin to be V.P. (or the next President), that doesn't mean it's going to happen. We can still chose.

The guest last night also implied that if Sarah Palin were consistent in her beliefs, then she would say that it was in God's plan for her daughter to become pregnant out of wedlock, since that's what happened.

Again, that's complete B.S.

I don't think any Christian believes that everything that happens is a part of God's plan. We live in an imperfect and fallen world. Most of what happens in this world happens contrary to what God wants.

This is why I don't like the phrase some Christians use that "God is in Control." Strictly speaking, he isn't. We are. And the natural laws of the universe play a role. I do think that God intervenes in our lives at times. I also think he lets us live the consequences of our choices at times. We also sometimes have to deal with the consequences of the choices of others.

To say that God reigns is different than to say he's in control. I believe that God does, indeed, reign. He oversees all. And, in seeing all, his heart breaks at what's going on this world.

One day things will be different. Until that day comes, each of us must seek and try to follow God's plan.

And I think God's plan for Bill O'Reilly is to keep people off his show who want to talk about religion.

Read more...

Health Care Rationing Begins

Six months ago the Department of Health and Human Service’s “best practice” panel on prevention, the U.S Preventive Services Task Force, warned that women in their 40s could be risking their lives if they didn’t have annual mammograms.

However, now they say

Women in their 40s should stop routinely having annual mammograms and older women should cut back to one scheduled exam every other year, an influential federal task force has concluded, challenging the use of one of the most common medical tests.

What brought about this change of mind?

Ed Morrissey explains,

What changed in six months to change the USPSTF from a sky-is-falling hysteric on a 1% decline in testing to Emily Litella? If the administration gets its way, the government will be paying for a lot more of these exams when ObamaCare passes. That will put a serious strain on resources, especially since many of the providers will look to avoid dealing with government-managed care and its poor compensation rates.

The motivation for HHS will be to cut costs, not to save lives. The sudden reversal in six months of the USPSTF, especially after it made such a stink over a relatively minor decline in screening, certainly makes it appear that they have other priorities than life-saving in mind here.

One final thought. Barack Obama predicated his ObamaCare vision on the notion that increased prevention would save costs. Suddenly, his administration is for decreased screening and prevention. Could that have anything to do with the CBO scoring on screening? And what does that say about how government will make decisions once they control the compensation and care in the US?

The United States vastly outpaces the rest of the world in Breast Cancer survival for one simple reason….screening.

Type Ask.com into your web browser and it will show a photo of the White House lit by pink floodlights, to highlight the Susan G Komen For the Cure. Ironic. (The Komen organization recommends screenings remain as they were before the change, by the way.)

Check out this link to the Mayo Clinic health guidelines to mammograms:

What Mayo Clinic recommends

At Mayo Clinic, the current practice is to continue to recommend an annual screening mammogram beginning at the age of 40, which aligns with the ACS recommendation.

At Mayo Clinic, a three-tiered approach is used which includes:

• Breast self-exam to identify breast abnormalities and allow a woman to become familiar with her breasts so that she can tell her doctor about any changes
• Clinical breast exam performed by a health care provider and recommended annually beginning at age 40
• Screening mammography beginning at age 40

Screening mammograms have detected abnormalities in women in their 40s. These women have then had biopsies and learned they had invasive breast cancer. There are many stories about younger women who have found cancer early as a result of screening. And it’s important to remember that most women who get breast cancer have no family history or other risk factors for the disease.

And so the Obama admin starts its health care “cost cutting” measures.

Read more...

Marriage Is the Cure

The following article is from American Spectator:

By James M. Thunder on 11.18.09 @ 6:08AM

The American Medical Association has approved a resolution that has the thinnest veneer of science to cloak its pro-gay marriage agenda.

At its mid-year meeting last week, the good doctors considered a report from their Council on Science and Public Health ("Health Care Disparities in Same-Sex Households," Report I-09) and adopted a recommendation based on the report. We should first observe that the AMA states that, after the AMA formally accepted the report and voted a resolution on a recommendation made based on the report, the report is being submitted for publication by a peer-reviewed journal. One would think that the report should have been peer-reviewed before the AMA voted on it. Or, perhaps one would assume that the AMA itself constitutes a body of peers and has already given its review and imprimatur. Can a peer-reviewed journal now reject the report? Or change it in any way other than footnote citations?

Be that as it may, the AMA teaches us that (1) the health of adults and children may suffer if they do not have health insurance; (2) because gay couples are not allowed to marry, they and their children may not have health insurance; and (3) therefore, federal and state laws mustchange to allow gay couples to marry to improve their health and the health of their children. So, the AMA says marriage is the cure to lack of insurance.

The AMA report's Executive Summary (the only portion publicly accessible until publication) estimates that 1% of all households in the U.S. are same-sex households. This 1% includes both insured and uninsured households. Although the Executive Summary does not give a numerical split, we know that many same-sex households are insured by employers who cover domestic partners who are not married. The Human Rights Campaign webpage touts this. So, same-sex households can obtain insurance coverage from many employers without changing the laws of marriage. It is peculiar that, while we are consistently reminded that there are thirty million-plus American residents who lack health insurance, the AMA would focus on such a very, very small subset of the uninsured.

Nonetheless, we can agree with the Executive Summary that "[m]arriage is a strong predictor of health insurance…" Indeed, marriage and family life are strong predictors of health and well-being, of happiness, of longevity, of good education, of employment with health benefits, and of wealth creation (which in turn can pay for health insurance and/or health bills). Conversely, divorce and single parenthood are strong predictors of poverty, of lack of education, of shortened lifespan, of prison, of unemployment, of employment without health benefits, and of drug and alcohol abuse. Accordingly, if the AMA were less focused on its gay agenda, it might look at the various categories of people who are uninsured and recommend to them that they marry and remain married and recommend to all levels of government that they adopt strong pro-marriage policies.

The AMA might look at another category of uninsured people as well. If marriage is the cure to the lack of insurance for same-sex couples who are legally barred from getting married, then the AMA must surely regard marriage as the cure for other people in committed relationships who are legally barred from getting married. Thus, if an insured person is caring for an adult child or an aunt or an uncle or a cousin or a niece or a nephew who is uninsured, then the AMA should recommend that the law be changed to allow them to marry in order to obtain insurance coverage and improve their health.

If we are to allow gay couples to enter into domestic partnerships or marriage itself, then laws providing for civil unions and gay marriage, and employers providing benefits to their employees, should not discriminate against close kin. If gay couples can marry, then close kin must be given equal treatment -- under law and by employers.

A reason that may be used to justify such discrimination is the sexual taboo against the marriage of close kin. But marriage law does not require sexual relations or romantic love between partners to a marriage. Please see my piece on these pages two years ago. Furthermore, even the cultural tie between romantic love and marriage in Western civilization is a fairly recent one. Consider the tune "Do You Love Me?" in Fiddler on the Roof.

Yet we have lawyers and judges and governors and doctors and legislators who say love is -- now, in America in this decade -- a sufficient condition to marry. For example, in an op-ed piece in theWall Street Journal, lawyer David Boies argued, "The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it" (italics added). In deciding to sign same-sex marriage legislation, Maine Governor John Baldaccitold the press that listening to Maine residents was "very emotional, very much a sort of baring of the soul that you're listening to and going through yourself."

If you're not gay, but a committed, caring relative, there is no evidence that the AMA and David Boies and Governor Baldacci are sympathetic to the plight of your loved one who is without insurance coverage.

Read more...

A Fallen American Hero

I don't wish to diminish the heroics of the members of our armed services or the uniformed public servants (policemen and firemen) that serve our nation every day. They are, in most cases and in every sense of the word, true heros.

However, occasionally, others rise to that level as well. Sometimes, they are heros by simply living a simple life.

I received the following e-mail from my dad, earlier this morning.

"{salutation omitted}

I got the word that my Aunt Linda (your great aunt) died yesterday morning. In some ways, I suppose that is a blessing. She was old, frail and deteriorating from Alzheimer's. Were it me, I'd rather go when "it's time" rather than spend my last days in a confused fog.

I suppose everyone has a favorite aunt. Linda was mine. She and Uncle Bob lived on a farm a few hours west of [the town my father grew up in]. I used to spend a few weeks there every summer, visiting my cousins and watching the wheat harvest.

Aunt Linda and Uncle Bob were poor. I didn't really know that at the time. I do remember that there were times they didn't have money for "grocery store food." They grew most of what they ate. Uncle Bob raised cattle, hogs and chickens. He also grew wheat (mostly) and a smattering of corn, milo and a couple of other small crops.

Aunt Linda tended a garden in the spring and summer. When I say "garden," I know what you're thinking. It wasn't like that, though. Her garden was about the size of two football fields, side by side. She grew potatoes, tomatoes, radishes, cucumbers, sweet corn, peas, and probably a dozen other vegetables. She also grew fruits and berries: Strawberries, melons, pumpkins and such. Since they couldn't afford the "grocery store food" they usually had to suffer with "fresh" food.

I can remember times when Linda would go out, grab a rooster, wring it's neck and have fried chicken ready by noon. Or chicken and noodles. She would roll out the dough and cut the noodles by hand with a knife. Beef, pork, bacon and hams were all fresh, too. They took their own animals to the butcher.

Bad luck with storms, farm prices and Uncle Bob's tendency toward alcoholism forced them off the farm at a time when most people their age were enjoying their retirement. Bank foreclosure. They moved to town when he was about 67 and she was about 65. Uncle Bob's health left him unable to work. Aunt Linda took two jobs which she worked until the age of 75. She walked to work, every day. She never learned to drive.

They never took welfare. Didn't need it. She was also not eligible for her own Social Security, since she was "only" a housewife most of her life. She got a little from his social security when he died. About 10 years ago, she moved in with her children and grandchildren. She had three kids. They all live within an hour or so of each other, so she would live with one for a few months, then another for a few months. She loved this arrangement. It allowed her to see her grandchildren (and great-grandchildren) grow up and do things when a lot of grandmothers her age are sitting in a retirement home wishing someone would come and visit them.

Somehow, I think this is the way it should be.

While I hate to stand on a political soapbox at this time, If more people would rely on their families, their communities and their churches when they need help, I don't think we'd have the welfare state we currently live in. While not everyone has the capability or the luxury of having their parents move in with them when they can no longer care for themselves, I somehow feel that three-fourths of the people now in nursing homes wouldn't have to be there if children would recognize the sacrifices their parents made for them and return the favor.

We'll be going out to the funeral on Friday.

{some closing remarks omitted here]"

Proximity and age prevented me from getting to know my great-aunt Linda. From what my dad tells me, I've missed out on a blessing.

Read more...

Stimulus At Work, Jobs Created in Non-Existent Places

I must tip my hat and congratulate this administration. They've done what no conservative would have been able to do.

A few weeks ago, they created more jobs than even existed in a number of school districts. Districts reported that the Generational Theft Act of 2009 "saved" five-, six- or seven-hundred jobs in districts that only employed two or three hundred people. Miraculous!

Now, they've gone a step further. The Washington Times in this article is reporting that the stimulus has now created jobs in school districts that don't exist and has created school districts in Congressional districts that don't exist.

Who would have thought.

Of course, some of this is explained away by reporting errors, but given the thousands of reporting errors that would have to be made, and the tens of thousands of jobs (if not hundreds of thousands), a couple of questions have to be asked:

First, is the administration making some of these "errors" intentionally to inflate the numbers? (I don't think there's any question but what that is taking place.)

Second, is some of the Stimulus money (perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars) being diverted? While there is no evidence, given the false reporting going on, I strongly suspect that stimulus dollars are ending up in the pockets of Timothy "Turbo Tax" Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, and some of the other Administration officials that have a tendency to "hide" large chunks of income in order to not have to pay taxes on it. What better place to hide it?

Read more...

Obama's Favorite Union Targets Boy Scout

This one is from Michelle Malkin.

Hey, you know all that high-minded talk from President Obama about calling young people to serve their country?

Well, if it conflicts with Big Labor’s interests, children, there’s a new message: Knock it off!

The Purple Shirted-thugs of the Service Employees International Union — ACORN’s alter ego and Obama’s most frequent visitor — are going after an Eagle Scout who poses a threat to their workers because he’s volunteering too much.

From the Allentown Morning Call:

In pursuit of an Eagle Scout badge, Kevin Anderson, 17, has

toiled for more than 200 hours hours over several weeks to clear a walking path in an east Allentown park.

Little did the do-gooder know that his altruistic act would put him in the cross hairs of the city’s largest municipal union.

Nick Balzano, president of the local Service Employees International Union, told Allentown City Council Tuesday that the union is considering filing a grievance against the city for allowing Anderson to clear a 1,000-foot walking and biking path at Kimmets Lock Park.

”We’ll be looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails,” Balzano told the council.

Balzano said Saturday he isn’t targeting Boy Scouts. But given the city’s decision in July to lay off 39 SEIU members, Balzano said ”there’s to be no volunteers.” No one except union members may pick up a hoe or shovel, plant a flower or clear a walking path.

Care to comment, President Obama? Or do SEIU thug-in-chief Andy Stern and his “persuasion of power” trump your service message to kids?

Read more...

Unintended (or Intended) Consequences

You remember those Unintended Consequences that our politicians continue to refuse to believe in? Here’s one:

I’m a registered Democrat living in New York City, and I buy my own health insurance. But now, having seen the health-care reform bill that passed the House, I’m preparing for life without health insurance. And unless I’m the only person covered under the Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield “Tradition Plus” plan, a lot of other people will end up just like me, uninsured.

I will gain one thing, though—an annual fine for losing my insurance. The exact amount of that fine isn’t clear yet, but so far it looks like I’ll be paying about the same amount—$2,000 a year—for having no insurance as I do now for having it.

Here’s the story. The writer has a hospital-only policy. It’s the sort of thing the government should be encouraging, not outlawing. Because he is responsible for most of his medical expenses, he has incentives to not waste money on unnecessary tests or quackery. However, he’s still covered in case of disaster. This is the sort of “consumer driven” insurance that has proven stunningly successful in bringing down health care costs and is the focus of David Goldhill’soutstanding article at the Atlantic (which is, by far, the best thing written on healthcare in years).

But consumer empowerment is not the reason Heinze has a hospital-only policy. The reason he has it is that New York has been a laboratory for all the bad ideas currently showing up in Pelosicare.

Why do I choose the Empire “Tradition Plus” plan instead of a comprehensive HMO-type plan that covers physician fees, prescriptions, etc.? Because, unlike other states, New York already mandates two things that the current federal health-care reform will mandate. The first mandate prohibits insurers from denying coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition. The second mandate prohibits insurers from denying coverage, or determining prices, based on age. The result is that HMO plans in the state are now very expensive. The price of Empire’s basic, least expensive HMO plan is more than $13,000 a year for an individual, more than $26,000 a year for a married couple, and more than $39,000 a year for a family with children.

Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, however, know what’s good for us—certainly much better than some stupid taxpayer. Why if Heinze was in charge of the country, he probably wouldn’t even screw up the protocol when meeting the Emperor of Japan. And here he is, thinking that a cheap insurance policy is adequate. Sheesh.

It’s been said that our federalist system creates 50 laboratories in which to test out different policies before national policy is written. That’s a great idea but it only works if you decide to avoid those experiment that set the laboratory on fire. Romneycare is a catastrophe. New York is a catastrophe. Oregon has people dying because the State-Run Health Care system won't allow them to have the care they would have in most other states. Every state that has issued coverage mandates has found that it only makes insurance more expensive and drives medical costs up. But here we have the Democratic party watching their liberal laboratories go up in flames and insisting that we just need a bigger lab. And maybe some more kerosene.

Can there really be much doubt that their intention is to make the insurance market so bad that the American people demand socialized medicine? I mean, we’re practically getting that anyway, with all the anti-choice garbage included in the current healthcare bill iteration.

The really stupid parties in all this are the dim-bulb insurance companies. They love this bill because, as Heinze notes, it will force everyone to not only buy insurance, but buy expensive insurance. However, like the Democrats they so love, the insurance companies don’t understand that the money for these policies is not going to appear out of the ether. Millions of Americans are going to forgo buying insurance until they are sick, preferring the small fines to the big premiums. That will not only bankrupt the insurers, it will lead inevitable to their abolition.

Read more...