August 13, 2009
Apparently Medicare only reimburses around $1000 for an amputation, not $30,000.
I want to take something Krauthammer said tonight on Special Report and run with it a little. He said:
Krauthammer then goes on to discuss a CBO letter quoting studies that said that preventative medicine actually costs more in the long run, since you're screening far more people who won't end up with whatever disease you're looking for. The CBO says that all those pittances added up for everyone to get screened for diabetes end up costing more than the couple of feet you have to amputate.
But I want to run in a different direction. Krauthammer got me going. The president keeps saying that we're going to save money through preventative medicine. But he thinks he's comparing "a pittance" to $30,000. So yeah, that makes it sound like we'll save a ton of money if we can get doctors to prevent having to amputate feet. Think of how many people we could get in for a simple preventative appointment with their doctor for $30,000! But if it really costs between $500 and $1000 for an amputation, then that's far fewer preventative appointments for the cost of one amputation.
My question is, Does Pres Obama even know that? I mean, where did he get this $30,000 figure, which he presents so authoritatively? And does he know how much smaller the figure really is?
Is he being deceptive or just ignorant?
If he's deceptive, that's despicable. But I think he's just ignorant. I think he really believes that, at a reimbursement cost of "a pittance," he can help many more Americans by preventing amputations or tonsilectomies or whatever else he thinks greedy doctors are doing just to make extra money.
But that means he actually thinks that doctors see someone with diabetes and think, "Man, if I just bide my time and fatty here loses his foot, then I can buy a new jet ski!"
I just find it worrisome that Pres Obama thinks we're going to save all this money with his new health care plan because he's overestimating how much we currently spend by a factor of thirty!
August 07, 2009
That’s where the arithmetic gets especially interesting. Funding the new health-care plan on the backs of households making $200,000 or more per year would require permanently increasing their annual total tax payments by about 50 percent. So, for example, a household that currently pays $50,000 in federal income taxes would need to pay another $25,000. Remember, however, that Social Security and Medicare already face enormous shortfalls. Shoring up these programs — another Obama campaign promise — would require collecting 328 percent more tax revenue from the rich. No, we didn’t forget a decimal point: That is three hundred and twenty-eight percent.
Most households making between $200,000 and $500,000 per year would not have enough money to pay their federal, state, and local tax bills, much less eat. Rich households in California or New York would not be able to pay their tax bills regardless of their incomes. And a family of four living in a low-tax state (South Dakota) would need to gross almost $900,000 per year to have enough income left over to reach the poverty line. In fact, there is no mathematical configuration of taxes on the current rich alone — including additional levies on the “super-rich” making more than $1 million per year — that is compatible with putting the nation’s entitlement programs and the new health-care plan on a sustainable course.
July 21, 2009
July 14, 2009
Liz Cheney lets him have it.
This guy does not live on the same plane of existence as I do...
Yuval Levin remarks at The Corner:
June 29, 2009
A president decides he wants to be president longer than the law allows. His country does everything possible to get him to follow the law, but the president keeps abusing his power and acting like a lunatic. The country respects its constitution and decides to legally and justifiably oust him.
And Obama is siding with him?
I must be missing something, because this is insane.
Remember when all the loony lefties swore that George Bush was going to stage a coup and stay in office a third term? They went berserk predicting this. If it had actually happened, you can bet your sweet bippy that they would've used every channel possible to toss him out. And rightly so: the leader has to respect the law of the land or the citizens get rid of him.
But now a president in another country has actually just done what the nuts swore Bush was going to do, and Pres Obama is backing the would-be dictator.
Oh, and also Castro, Chavez, and Ortega side with Obama too.
Have I gone completely mad? This is sick.
June 23, 2009
Media Cheer Obama's Golf Outings; Criticized Republicans' Trips to Course contrasts the press' fawning over Obama's golf hobby to Bush's.
The original article quoted, "Just the sport for a leader most driven," is sickeningly praiseworthy. Bush is a golfer too, but I don't remember him ever being praised with these compliments:
Yet nothing is without deeper meaning where the presidency is concerned. The golfer in chief's approach to the game is subject to analysis in psychological and political contexts.
To some, Obama's frequent outings reflect a cool self-confidence. "Given all the things that are going on in the world and with the economy," says sports psychologist Bob Rotella, "you'd think he wouldn't be caught anywhere near the golf course. ... To some degree it says: 'I'm not going to worry about what people say about me. I'm going to do my job, and I'm going to play, too.' "
Patience, persistence and the ability to self-critique -- qualities that also serve presidents well -- are crucial in golf.
Presidential recreation plays a role in overall image management. As a basketball guy and golfer, Obama is able to demonstrate versatility and broaden his constituency. It shows he's attracted to both fast-paced team play and a painstakingly slow individual endeavor. It also reflects his crossover appeal in terms of race and class.
June 19, 2009
Now don't get me wrong, I am happy that Democrats are pointing out Obama's flaws. I did the same with Bush. (Oh, and that link is hilarious: Andrew Sullivan was a different man five years ago.) I encourage Democrats to speak out when their guy is not representing them. I want them to see Pres Obama for who he really is, not some blank slate they project onto.
But I find the "this isn't the change we could believe in" remorse to be amusing.
June 17, 2009
You know what I really hope is happening? I really hope over breakfast, George Bush points out stories in the paper to Laura and smugly snickers, "Dude, I told you this would happen. I told you once he got in office, he'd start to grok the enormity of the job."
The Obama administration is declining to release documents that would identify visitors to the White House, embracing a legal position taken by the Bush administration, according to a watchdog group that filed a federal lawsuit over access to the records.
The group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, filed its lawsuit after being denied access to Secret Service records, including White House entry and exit logs, that would identify coal and energy industry visitors.
The government's refusal to release the records contrasts with President Barack Obama's pledge of transparency.
I mean, selling the personal part to stay popular, I'm all for it, but you got us already. We like you, we really like you! You're skinny and in a hurry and in love with a nice lady. But so's Lindsay Lohan. And like Lohan, we see your name in the paper a lot, but we're kind of wondering when you're actually going to do something.
Obama needs to start putting it on the line in fights against the banks, the energy companies and the healthcare industry. I never thought I'd say this, but he needs to be more like George W. Bush. Bush was all about, "You're with us or against us."
Obama's more like, "You're either with us, or you obviously need to see another picture of this adorable puppy!"
I hope George Bush is enjoying his toldyaso. And listening to the song "Won't Get Fooled Again" often.
June 12, 2009
I used to get so annoyed when people would blame anything bad that happened on Pres Bush. Didn't find the WMDs after giving Saddam months of advance notice that we were invading? Bush's fault. Economic troubles that started under the Clinton administration? Bush's fault. Hurricane hits New Orleans? Bush's fault.
Similarly, I will be quite annoyed if a trend starts where everything good that happens is attributed to Pres Obama, even if he opposes it and has nothing to do with it.
So far so good in paragraph one. Let's see what Obama has been doing in the realm of weed, because I simply haven't been following it. So then I get to paragraph three:
So, pray tell, why does "the Obama era" get the credit for any of this? Obama doesn't seem to have done squat; the rest of the article gives most of the credit to Schwarzenegger and Webb.
Huh? Center-right Republicans are becoming more open to the idea of legalization, and somehow Obama gets all the credit in the opening paragraph?
And then there's this: 366-day sentence for pot dispensary owner
I have followed that story, and that man should not be in jail, period. Get your federal laws off him; this should be a states issue. But let's see what credit Obama gets here:
Oh wait, the Obama administration pushed for a longer sentence. All hail the Obama era!
Obama hasn't done anything to help legalize marijuana or let people off who were clearly in the right under state laws. Rolling Stone needs to stop attributing anything to "the Obama era." And to think that McCain was called McSame during the campaign...
Wouldn't it be awesome if the intrastate commerce clause folks who are working on gun rights in Montana teamed up with the intrastate medicinal marijuana folks in California and turned the 10th Amendment inside out? Guns and weed, teaming up together for Change We Can Believe In!
For the record, I don't smoke pot, have never smoked pot, and am about the biggest anti-pot person you can meet, for the reasons South Park lays out:
But just because I think it's lame doesn't mean I think it should be illegal.
June 02, 2009
I'd love to dismiss this as the passing fancy of a politically unserious person, but I just can't seem to stop thinking about it. Every time I am confronted with the badness of Pres Obama, I have this urge to point it out to my friend as one more reason why things are far worse than I can stomach. Such as this graph from Cass' post:
I can't seem to let it go that this friend doesn't see the badness of Obama. CaliValleyGirl pointed out to me that now she understands how people felt about Pres Bush. How it feels to think your president is a buffoon who has no idea what he's gotten himself into.
In contrast to the Bush haters though, I don't think Pres Obama is evil. I just think he wants to live in a USA that looks nothing like the USA I want to live in. But he has the power now to get his way and I don't. I feel impotent as so many enormous changes are altering my country forever. I am aghast, and I am even more aghast that there are people who are not aghast.
And as much as I feel like bombarding my friend with email after email of all the horrifying things Pres Obama is doing, I don't. As Lawrence Auster said, "the badness of what Obama is doing, and the amount of it, and the complexity of it, is overwhelming and I frankly find it hard to take it in and form a view of it."
All I can do is politely tell my friend that, no, there is zero chance of me voting for Obama in 2012.
May 23, 2009
I wish I had made that caption up, but it actually came with the article Sobbing Kindergarteners Snubbed for Steelers?. I got a screenshot because I thought it was too funny to be true.
Keep it up, Obama. Keep making the people who voted for you mad.
May 19, 2009
May 16, 2009
April 16, 2009
And when I wrote my graduation speech and made the joke about Deadheads, our principal read it and said, "Whaaat? The Grateful Dead is popular?" I remember immediately thinking that she was far too out of touch to be a good principal. One walk through our hallways or parking lot would've knocked her over with tie-dye and patchouli, but she was oblivious to a huge trend among her students.
I was reminded of this today when I heard ABC's statement that "The White House says the president is unaware of the tea parties and will hold his own event today."
Wow, seriously? He didn't even know that thousands of citizens were protesting yesterday? Not he didn't care or he didn't think it was significant (guh, neither OK in my book), but he didn't know?
Out of touch, dude. Out of touch.
March 23, 2009
President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela called President Obama ignorant on Sunday, saying he has a lot to learn about Latin America.
Mr. Chávez said: If Obama respects us, well respect him. If Obama tries to keep disrespecting Venezuela, we will confront the North American empire.
Bwahaha. But I thought the whole world would love us and sing kumbaya once Obama was elected? I thought Obama was a "citizen of the world" who chided us all for not speaking French (even though he can't) and never met a dictator he couldn't sit down and negotiate with?
You mean to tell me that actually Obama doesn't even know that there are different formats for movies throughout the world (something I learned in French class in high school; maybe if he'd taken French, he would've learned it too) and that he can't magically make dictators love us just by kissing their butts?
And his mere fact of existence doesn't change the world into a Garden of Eden?
Say it isn't so.
(Link via David B.)
March 21, 2009
Wheelchair basketball is really hard.
You try dribbling a ball while pushing a wheelchair with both hands. And while other wheelchairs are crashing into you trying to steal the ball. And then shoot a basket from a seated position, with just your arm strength.
I thought about that when I heard Obama belittled the Special Olympics. Sporting events for people with disabilities is no joke. They are not "sports for people who are bad at sports." Guard Wife is right that disabled bowlers would score way higher than Obama did.
The best quote on this issue came from The Anchoress: "And now, I guess I understand what all the folks on the left used to feel when they claimed the president 'embarrassed' them."
March 17, 2009
March 12, 2009
[W]hen he was at the HLR you did get a very distinct sense that he was the kind of guy who much more interested in being the president of the Review, than he was in doing anything as president of the Review.
A lot of the time he quote/unquote "worked from home", which was sort of a shorthand - and people would say it sort of wryly - shorthand for not really doing much. He just wasn't around. Most of the day to day work was carried out by the managing editor of the Review, my predecessor, a great guy called Tom Pirelli whose actually going to be one of the assistant attorney generals now.
He's the one who did most of the day to day work. Barack Obama was nowhere to be seen. Occasionally he would drop in he would talk to people, and then he'd leave again as though his very arrival had been a benediction in and of itself, but not very much got done.
We're boned. We are so boned.
March 11, 2009
The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."
That arrogant, cowboy, unilateralist administration! Don't they care about our allies? Don't they care about diplomacy?
Oh wait, it wasn't Bush?
Bah, forget it then.
60 queries taking 0.104 seconds, 222 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.