Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Some have suggested President Obama does not understand Americans. Some have said he is overwhelmed by the job an election victory gave him. Some say he is in over his head. And others say being President is beyond Obama’s brief resume’ in the US Senate, state office or community organizing. They may say such things given what we know, what we’ve seen and the way things are developing in the nation’s capital. As expected, George F Will has a column describing the current White House resident as well as a look at the President’s strategy for an agenda.

Barack Obama in August became a Huey [Long] for today, a rabble rouser with a better tailor, an unrumpled and modulated tribune of downtrodden Americans, telling them that opponents of his reform plan—which actually does not yet exist—are fearmongers employing scare tactics

Not unlike the President’s retreat to Martha’s Vineyard this August to avoid reaction to his agenda, his efforts to provide life support for a dying healthcare reform proposal resembles a chapter from the community organizer playbook. Not something that most Americans would embrace nor would most Presidents try to force feed the public.

Another reason that reasonable people are wary of any government plan for a grandiose rearrangement of the health-care sector’s 17 percent of the economy is that, regarding grandiosity, the president, after less than eight months in office, is a recidivist.

The subtitle for Mr Will’s column linked to above is ‘Washington is seriously unserious’. For an entertaining and insightful read on the state of Obamanomics follow the links to read the rest.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Money and government are two topics that when combined guarantee problems. As the US hovers over the economic abyss its benefactor, China, is worried about the value of the dollar and how their investment in American debt will fare in the future. Among the growing number of financial missteps generated by the Obama Administration clinging to Ben Bernanke for another term may not rescue the community organizer-in-chief as he expects.

Below is an excerpt presented as a brief recap of the latest Obama problems which affect us all. While the remainder of the article offers some surprisingly positive prospects the underlying tricks being employed by the federal government we now have may provide a magical trick on any cheery news. It may all disappear.

$2,000,000,000,000. That’s the amount by which the Obama administration raised its ten-year estimate of the nation’s budget deficit from the one it made only a few months ago. Now, $2 trillion is a lot of money. But even more significant is the fact that this revision represents almost a 30 percent increase — no tiny percentage of the earlier $7 trillion figure. It seems that expenses are higher — up 24 percent this year, the largest increase since the height of the Korean War — than originally estimated, and revenues are lower. The resulting deficit, says Peter Orszag, Obama’s budget director, is “higher than desirable”. He might have added that the administration’s critics had it right when they claimed that the earlier estimate represented a turn around the dance floor with that old seductress, Rosy Scenario.

Politics not governance is guiding the Obama Administration. And though it is another common political maneuver to blame a previous administration for the country’s woes the argument, on further review, falls flat. Like any other candidate, Mr Obama knew what he would inherit, good or bad. If he was unsure of his own ability to lead the country bowing out of the race rather than continuing and bowing to Saudi princes would have been the right call. Since he continued he now owns the problems. Taking credit for any positive news and blaming others for bad news doesn’t play long with the public.

That may be the point of the resounding objections voiced during the August recess beyond the nation’s rejection of Obamacare. Do you suppose the President could tell that while hiding out in Martha’s Vineyard. The last Kennedy brother indeed. More useless political rhetoric from the left.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A few days ago German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated new sanctions against Iran would be considered if no agreement on negotiations was reached by September. Iran continues to claim their nuclear program is for energy purposes while many other countries suggest they are pursuing nuclear weapons. This is not a new story. After previous sanctions, UN resolutions and other lame attempts to persuade Iran to abandon the pursuit of nukes this ineffective strategy has been no more successful than similar tactics against North Korea on the same issue.

Are the world’s most powerful nations as ignorant and inept as their actions in this matter demonstrate? Or is it a simple matter of no one wanting to be the first to take effective action against Iran and North Korea? Will this situation escalate among ‘rogue’ nations of the world until one of them launches a strike against a perceived or stated foe? Or will Israel lose its patience with the so-called international community and its lack of suitable action and take matters into their own hands?

If the US, Russia, China and other nations continue to postpone what is necessary regarding Iran, North Korea and others pursuing nukes the question will not be who has them but when will they be used. If that is allowed to happen the scenario returns to that of the sixties. Before, during and after the Cuban Missile crisis in 1962 the idea of MAD, mutually assured destruction, was considered the concept which avoided WWIII and a nuclear winter or the planet ceasing to exist. It is reasonable to assume those seeking nukes these days are not dissuaded by this concept.

So why are the other nations of the world doing nothing about this?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has circulated his latest reports on nuclear safeguards in Iran and Syria to Member States. The report outlines developments since the Director General´s report of 5 June 2009.

Circulation of the reports is restricted; they cannot be released to the public unless the IAEA Board decides otherwise.

General Mohamed ElBaradei has circulated his latest report on nuclear safeguards in Iran to the Agency´s Board of Governors, the 35-member policymaking body. The Board next convenes in Vienna on 7 September.

So here’s a recent Arab response on Iran’s nuclear program.

Israeli nuclear weapons and Western hypocrisy
By Yusuf Fernandez (Source: thepeoplevoice.org)

Once again, Arab states have announced that this year they will submit a resolution at September’s general assembly of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in order to force Israel to sign the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and open up its secretive military nuclear program to international inspections.

The article also suggests ‘Israel’s rejection to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as the main obstacle to global nuclear disarmament.’ After stating that Israel has nukes with a 2000 km range and able to reach any Arab capital the article changes direction with ‘Israel is one of the few states in the world that have refused to sign the NPT and is reportedly the only state in the Middle East having nuclear weapons.’

Reportedly the only state in the Middle East having nukes, indeed. ‘Iran has repeatedly assured that its nuclear program is peaceful…’ Repeatedly ‘assured’ is the key here.

You may recall that Saddam Hussein commented after being apprehended from a hole in the ground that he did nothing to convince the world Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction for fear of looking weak to ‘his’ neighbors in the region. Had he not chosen that strategy he may have avoided another confrontation with the US military accompanied by the inevitable outcome. As if Desert Storm in 1991 was not proof enough he could not win a war against the US after invading Kuwait.

Like Iraq’s former ‘leader’ Saddam Hussein, Iran’s leadership behaves in a similar manner allowing statements calling for the destruction of Israel to stand refusing to recognize Israel’s right to exist and yet claim their nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful. They now promote the notion of ‘Western hypocrisy’ while they express the desire to destroy Israel and at the same time define their nuclear program as ‘peaceful’.

If you are curious to know who is Yusef Fernandez the following is from Frontpage magazine. ‘Yusuf Fernandez, the spokesman for the Spanish Federation of Islamic Religious Entities…‘

Some additional information may be found useful as well.

In 1967 the first law allowing the Muslims to organize themselves, after a parenthesis of centuries, was promulgated in Spain, leading to the establishment in 1968 of the first local Muslim Association in Spain in Melilla, and in 1971, the first national association, the Association of Muslims in Spain (AME), which has its headquarters in Madrid. Under the Spanish Constitution the Statutory Law of Religious Freedom is promulgated, now in force, and the Union of Islamic Communities in Spain was constituted (UCIDE), as well as the Spanish Federation of Islamic Religious Entities (FEERI), which together constitute the Islamic Commission of Spain (CIE), which is a member of the Muslim Council of Cooperation in Europe (MCCE)[1]in Brussels, which is a consultative body to the European Union.

So the IAEA reports to this point have solved nothing as indicated in numerous reports in the ‘media’.

Yossi Melman / The IAEA report on Iran lacks the bottom line

‘IAEA hiding incriminating evidence’

UN nuclear watchdog denies hiding Iran information

UN reports increase in Iranian uranium programme

IAEA to report Iran atom slowdown ahead of talks

Iran, Syria have not carried out sufficient cooperation in …

Iran is continuing nuclear activity, says United Nations watchdog

Iran Claims Report ‘Vindicated’ Nuclear Program

Iran dismisses nuclear assessment

Iran is stonewalling the UN nuclear watchdog agency about “possible military dimensions” to its suspect nuclear programme, officials have said.

The UN is urging the regime to clarify the mysterious role of a foreign explosives expert and shed light on other issues.

A senior Iranian envoy angrily denounced the assessment as “fabrication,” insisting his country has gone out of its way to be transparent and co-operative.

In its latest report, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it has pressed the Islamic Republic to clarify its uranium enrichment activities and reassure the world that it is not trying to build an atomic weapon.

Iran insists its nuclear programme is peaceful and geared solely toward generating electricity. The United States and key allies contend the country is covertly trying to build an atomic weapon.

These stories support comments suggesting the ‘international community’ response to the nuclear ambitions of Iran, North Korea and others is impotent. They do nothing about the problem outside of promoting resolutions at the equally impotent United Nations. This criticism includes the IAEA.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Adam Michael Goldstein (March 30, 1973 – August 28, 2009) was an American club disc jockey better known as DJ AM. Goldstein was a former member of the rock band Crazy Town, and scratched on albums for Papa Roach, Madonna, and Will Smith, among others. He collaborated with Travis Barker of Blink-182 at the 2008 MTV Video Music Awards, and has appeared in several television series. Goldstein’s former fiancée was Nicole Richie.

Former blink-182 drummer Travis Barker and DJ AM have come together for a new mixtape called Fix Your Face, which you can download for free here. …

Celebrity disc jockey Adam Goldstein, known as DJ AM, was found dead Friday evening in his New York City apartment, and media reports say drug paraphernalia was found nearby.

In September of 2008, Goldstein and Barker were seriously burned escaping the plane crash. The pair had planned to perform together for the first time since the crash at an event in Los Angeles on New Year’s Eve.

Reports indicate that Mr Goldstein had a history with drugs and it appeared he won the battle. Current news also indicates the battle may have been won but the war continued. To survive an aircraft accident and perhaps conquer other major obstacles to become successful in his chosen arena serves as a stunning reminder. Being on the edge and vulnerable poses a risk for which luck is certainly inadequate protection.

RIP DJ AM

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

There is another feeble attempt at the White House ‘fact check’ site and linked to on the White House ‘blog’ claiming we cannot afford to abandon healthcare reform. It is presented by VPOTUS Joe Biden’s economic adviser. The so-called economist who works for Joe Biden tries to pass this off as valid.

Even though President Obama has no healthcare reform proposal his ‘economist’ issues these paraphrased statements which you can listen to in the video.

Obama’s healthcare reform plans pay for reform ‘fully’, are ‘deficit neutral’ as they will be ’squeezing inefficiencies out of the system’. An example given claims ‘$180 billion’ will be saved by denying ‘excess payments to private insurance from Medicare’. This ‘economist’ also claims that Medicare ‘can provide them more effectively and efficiently’. Sure, that is why Medicare has cost 10 or 15 times more than estimated over the life of the program. Why would this government program labeled ‘reform’ be any different?

Here’s the video.

If you have forgotten or never checked the CBO’s estimate on HR 3200 you can find it here…… Preliminary Analysis of the House Democrats’ Health Reform Proposal. While things change and this estimate is from July 2009 there is more evidence even from the White House that their agenda is too expensive to be considered.

WASHINGTON: A ballooning US government budget deficit that could reach US$9 trillion over a decade threatens to dent President Barack Obama’s reform plans and thwart long term economic growth.

Of course the typical blame is laid on the previous administration for economic woes as is the trend in American politics no matter who gets elected. Blame your problems on the one who was in office before you. That strategy only takes you so far. After a while, you own it all if you are POTUS.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the financial watchdog of Congress, meanwhile, offered a more optimistic projection – US$7.13 trillion – assuming all Bush administration-imposed tax cuts expired in two years.

That would confirm the only way government can find money for their agenda is by raising taxes. Eliminating tax cuts is effectively the same thing. How about the idea that Obamacare will not improve healthcare, cost us more and give the government another reason to raise taxes?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Exactly the kind of talk that supports the notion Arab countries and Muslims worldwide have an agenda for the destruction of Israel.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who is in the United States for talks, says Arab nations would recognize Israel only after a just and comprehensive Mideast peace deal is reached.

Nothing like putting the cart in front of the horse. Does Mubarak say anything with this other than they want a deal that places Israel in more jeopardy from the foes that surround them? A tiny country, Israel, surrounded by a massive geography populated by Muslims has been a target of these neighbors since 1948 when the current chapter in the saga began.

As early as 2010 or 11 things may change in Egypt removing them from the occasional moderate position they express. That is not how all of this sounds.

The talks in Washington are centered on the Middle East peace process and the Arab world’s relationship with Iran under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, all issues Mr. Mubarak has taken an active interest in.

But underneath lies the question of what comes next for Egypt, or more specifically, who. In power since 1981, Mr. Mubarak has given little indication of what the transition might look like. He has no vice president. He has not said if he will run for re-election in 2011, and many wonder if that would even be advisable, as he would be nearly 90 at the end of that term.

It is an issue that concerns not just Egyptians. Professor Said Sadek is a political scientist at the American University in Cairo, who worries any instability or political vacuum could be exploited by hardline groups and politicians across the region that oppose U.S. influence in the region.

“How do you guarantee the transition of power in Egypt, so that we don’t have an unpredictable situation in Egypt that would get you the Muslim Brotherhood here in alliance with Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Beirut and [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad in Tehran - voila, the American strategic policy in the area would collapse,” said Sadek.

As with any conflict all sides have made mistakes. But that certainly does not justify calling for the destruction of Israel. While calling for the death of infidels, the destruction of Israel and at the same time claiming they are mistreated, Muslims need a reality check.

Stop the terrorism and calls for more of it and someone might begin to take you seriously. Constant violence, calling for it and promoting it does not suggest a religion of peace.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

While this blog and its author have never agreed with Ted Kennedy’s politics, it is time to give respect to another human being who has succumbed to the inevitable.

Rest in peace Ted Kennedy. Everyone should respect the fact that Mr Kennedy was successful in pursuing those things he believed in. Not without controversy but that always seems to come with those who are famous and/or powerful in their chosen endeavors.

An excerpt below seems to characterize Ted Kennedy’s legacy with some accuracy.

In nearly five decades in the Senate, Mr. Kennedy fathered legislation that affected millions, tackling, among other things, education in the 1960s, poverty in the 1970s, disability in the 1980s and education in the 1990s. His longevity helped him build what many consider the most substantial record of achievement of anyone in his famous family, and made him a hero to many Democrats. A frequent nemesis of conservatives, he nonetheless forged friendships and legislative partnerships with many Republicans over the years.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

Is it simply a growing trend in conspiracy theories or is there valid evidence that election fraud is omnipresent in those countries of the world which allow citizens to choose their leaders? Reports on the latest challenges in an election deemed noteworthy by the various media is highlighted below.

There is mounting concern about the aftermath of Afghanistan’s presidential election. No results or even an estimated voter turnout have been announced by the country’s election officials. Partial results from some provinces are expected Tuesday, however. But the election overseers say official results may have to be delayed while they investigate a rising number of serious charges of voting fraud.

According to another report both sides make a claim of election fraud.

Both the campaigns of incumbent President Hamid Karzai and his top challenger, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, accuse the other of illegal campaign activities and tampering with the voting process.

Earlier this year an election in Iran accompanied by subsequent charges of election fraud caused a ’stir’ that has not been satisfactorily resolved. It has been reported that the event is responsible for disruptions of alliances in the ruling elite.

Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi repeated her call for a fresh election in Iran, held under the supervision of the United Nations.

Speaking during a visit to South Korea, Ebadi said a new presidential election with U.N. oversight could help end the unrest that erupted after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s disputed June 12 re-election.

Ebadi made similar comments during a protest speech in Amsterdam last month.

She also asked U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to visit Iran to receive a first-hand account of human rights abuses.

The secretary-general Monday sent what his office called a “customary letter” on his inauguration congratulating him, though the text would not be made public.

And then a contrast in claims of election fraud and media coverage on conspiracy theories.

Massive street protests by millions of peaceful demonstrators waving homemade signs and wearing bracelets displaying the color of their movement? At least 20 protesters gunned down by authorities and paramilitaries? Worldwide moral indignation stirred up by the international media?

Iran 2009? Yes!

Mexico 2006? Yes and no.

All aspects of the above scenario describe the Great Mexican Electoral Flimflam three years ago this July 2nd - save for the conundrum of worldwide moral indignation. Virtually ignored by the international media, the stealing of the Mexican presidential election by the right-wing oligarchy stirred little indignation anywhere outside of Mexico.

Imagine that. Something claimed as stolen in Mexico. With all the rants following elections in the US that disappointed the liberal masses comes a stunning development within the conservative ranks in America.

The primary question conservatives are afraid to ask is “What if the election is very close and Obama wins, then what?”

Will the McCain campaign protest? Is there a cadre of thousands of lawyers ready to jump on the ACORN voter registration fraud issue, or the Obama campaign pre-paid credit card donation debacle, or the many suspected votes cast for Obama by non-citizens?

Obama and his “thousands of attorneys” have answers to all these “trumped-up” complaints by the GOP. The DNC has convinced the Kool-aid crowd that Bush stole the last two elections, and they aren’t about the let that pass. So, hang on to you hats, and further down in this article you will find the Obama/DNC election fraud playbook.

WHAT???? Conservatives would consider leveling charges of election fraud???? Yes, it has come nearly full circle. Beyond the long standing American political rivalry between left and right there are other left and right battles making claim on election fraud.

Not to be outdone by anyone else Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez successfully cheated term limits for his electoral ambitions. As for the Russian Bear….

It has been 10 years since an ailing Boris Yeltsin promoted Putin from security chief to prime minister on Aug. 9, 1999. He was elected president the following year and in 2008 he handed the post — but not all the power — to a hand-picked successor, Dmitry Medvedev.

Putin became prime minister again, allowed almost all the men he surrounded himself with as president to remain in power, and is still understood to call the major shots.

For what once appeared as an aberration in American politics, if not world public affairs, political corruption in the form of ‘vote early, vote often’ has risen to a level that reduces the discussion to one simple inquiry. If all elections are suspect does anything else in public debate matter? Or is this a new strategy to distract?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trade deals have been reported as the ’stimulus’ behind the release of a man convicted in the bombing of Pan Am’s Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Jubilation was the reaction in Libya. Not so for those who mourn the tragedy and deaths of passengers, crew and residents on the ground. But believe it or not Scotland’s Justice Secretary claims it was all in the name of mercy for the convicted bomber.

Lockerbie Bomber Released From Prison

The man convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, has been granted release from prison on compassionate grounds. The former Libyan intelligence agent is dying of prostate cancer, but news of his release has sparked very mixed reactions.

Scotland’s Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill carefully outlined the legal options and the process involved in coming to a final decision. He condemned the 1988 bombing as an heinous crime, and said he supported Abdelbaset Ali Mohmeit al-Megrahi’s conviction. He said, while it is important that justice be served, mercy must also be shown.

“For these reasons and these reasons alone, it is my decision that Mr. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmeit al-Megrahi, convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die,” said MacAskill.

The question from this blog added to all those being raised now is this. Does al-Megrahi really have prostate cancer? So you say we will know that in a matter of months. Do you suppose a fake funeral could be arranged in Libya? Since the government there popped for the luxurious accommodations where al-Magrahi’s family resides, according to reports in the news, how tough would it be for them to fake a funeral and provide a luxurious secret lifestyle for the released convict?

Links to reports about reaction in Libya, trade deal claims and pressure on Britain are provided below

Britain under pressure amid Lockerbie release

Release of Lockerbie terrorist linked to trade deal

Gaddafi embraces Lockerbie bomber

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

AARP is just one more special interest organized to promote itself as the defender of senior citizens in America. Based on various stories in the media lately it would seem many have decided age 65 qualifies one as ‘elderly’. Even when AARP’s junk mail aimed specifically at the author of this blog stated age 50 as the minimum age for their members the promotions were arriving well in advance of reaching that age. So it may be fair to simply state that sometime after one is beyond typical college age you are a $$ target for AARP.

If you did not believe AARP was more interested in making money hawking their membership to promotions from the highest bidder before now, recent news stories could give you the idea the organization’s membership is reaching the breaking point. It’s about time. They may or may not support HR3200 but one thing for sure is they do not hold their members’ interests above their own. And not that the author of this blog knows anything about a competing ‘org’ for seniors, etc., it is worth giving them a look.

from Naples News (.com)
Some organizations for senior citizens have long languished in the shadow of the goliath AARP. Now, however, these groups are feeling renewed vigor because of AARP’s support of overhauling America’s health care system.

The groups gleefully note that about 60,000 members have quit AARP since July 1 specifically to protest AARP’s stance on health care policy.

“President Obama must think the American people are idiots if he thinks the health care rationing, restrictions and regulations being debated in Congress will save money and result in better preventative medicine. The president told an AARP meeting that opponents are ‘making people scared.’ Well, they ought to be scared at current proposals.

“The Congressional Budget Office estimates the plan’s cost over 10 years would be $1.2 to $1.8 trillion. That’s absurd in a recession, let alone good times,” the statement continues. “Our system needs an overhaul, but we do not need expensive Obamacare or anything resembling it.”

The article title below may say it best. If you didn’t already know this to be the case, ’senior’s have a choice’. And there may be more choices out there. There may be a catch with any such membership but the possible upside is a gathering of like-minded individuals with a voice that may actually be heard by those in government. As questionable as AARP is they are an example of organized citizens getting attention. But don’t forget that individual action on a regular basis is effective also. You just don’t get the press except when your calls and those of others shutdown communication in the nation’s capital.

American Seniors Association vs. AARP: Seniors have a choice

August 17, 10:00 PM Miami City Buzz Examiner Robbin Swad
Amidst recent controversy over what is perceived as support by AARP for Obama’s health care reform– a new player has emerged on the scene and they are ready to serve disgruntled seniors. According to the American Seniors Association website, ASA is “looking out for seniors by fighting a health care reform bill that will cost upward of $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years and cuts in Medicare of $500 billion.”

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Brits are getting a bit testy about US criticism of the NHS. But do they really believe their system is better?

National Health vs. USA

Cal Thomas
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
PORTADOWN, Northern Ireland

For the past month, I have watched British media report and comment on the American health care uproar. American cable networks also are available here. The back-and-forth reporting and commentary resemble a replay of the War of 1812, this time with verbal salvos.

Conservative American politicians and commentators fire at the British National Health Service system, and the British fire back, sometimes on the same program, repeating the Democrats’ mantra of how 47 million Americans are “uninsured” and how medical treatment in the United States depends on how much patients, or their insurance companies, will pay. Here, they say, health care is “free,” thanks to taxpayers, a minority of whom (i.e. the successful) bear ever-greater amounts of the burden.

In the last line above it is funny but sad that someone would characterize a taxpayer funded program as ‘free’. Obviously if taxpayers are funding a program it is not free. Oh, wait a minute, those who don’t pay taxes would see it as free. The idea that if everyone pays into a program they have a stake in keeping costs down is certainly on point in any discussion of government expenditures. And the healthcare issue is no exception.

The British media are conflicted. They patriotically defend the NHS while simultaneously acknowledging its serious shortcomings. One example: A recent Daily Mail editorial praised the NHS for its free care and universal availability but then added, “Our survival rates for breast, prostate, ovarian and lung cancers are among the worst in Europe, despite huge additional expenditure.” Free is nice, but best is better.

And yet those defending the NHS are quick to charge the US system is substandard. As the talk show hosts love to say, then how come so many come to the US for healthcare?

Anyone wishing to revise America’s medical system and model it after the systems in Britain and Canada ought to thoroughly examine how those health care systems function before plunging into the same pool. A reasonable conclusion is that these systems require long waits and treatments (if you can get them) that are inferior to what’s available in the United States, based on government “guidelines” that frequently approve care only if the patient is deemed “worthy of the investment.”

This again leaves us with the reasonable alternative to current proposals for so-called healthcare reform. If this is not in fact a liberal powerplay for more control over citizens then there is no reason to quickly pass legislation and enact laws to control healthcare. The current public debate is a good thing. Continuing with it until a consensus of citizens not leaders points the way to solutions is worthwhile.

Britain defends its health system from criticism in US

By Alice Ritchie (AFP) – Aug 14, 2009

LONDON — British leaders united Friday to defend the country’s state-funded National Health Service, as it comes under fire in an increasingly heated debate in the United States over healthcare reform.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown and opposition Conservative leader David Cameron both supported a campaign on the micro-blogging website Twitter in support of the NHS.

Set up in 1948, the tax-funded NHS has grown up to become the largest publicly funded health service in the world.

It is also one of the world’s biggest employers, along with the Chinese army and the Indian railways.

While Britons love to grumble about its flaws, most are fiercely defensive of free-to-access healthcare.

But for many critics in the United States, it represents a bureaucratic, costly nightmare under which patients have no real choice and receive a poor quality of care.

The article above points to some of the reasons Obamacare would be a disaster. A large bureaucracy that would continue to grow and cost more and more requiring less and less in services provided. In both reports (above and below this line) Brits are reported as staunchly defending the NHS. But then isn’t that just like the couple who continuously criticize each other and their marriage? If anyone else adds a critique the couple quickly defends their relationship.

Britons Outraged Over US Conservatives Criticism of British Health Care

By Sonja Pace
London
14 August 2009

Britons are outraged and speaking out in response to comments among Conservatives in the United States attacking Britain’s national health care system as socialist, evil and Orwellian.

Average Britons are usually quite vocal about what they see as the shortcomings of their national health care system, the NHS. But the vehement critique by some conservatives in the United States of the NHS has sparked an outpouring of support here in Britain.

It would be fair to say that those who have experienced no outcome due to lack of a need for healthcare or a good outcome would respond favorably to questions about healthcare. Those with the opposite outcome would be quick to criticize. And it is also fair to say those who favor Obamacare see it as a benefit for their own situation. Most likely meaning they make money on the deal or expect to continue having their healthcare for free. None of which is a good thing in the first place. At least not a good reason to pursue the current healthcare proposals.

Finding free market solutions to healthcare and individuals taking more responsibility for health outcomes is a much better choice than government run anything.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from Newsmax….

Zogby: Obama Hits Record Low in Poll

A new Zogby poll to be released Friday reveals that President Obama’s approval rating has hit a record low, with 45 percent of Americans giving him a positive job rating. Apparently soured on his costly economic schemes and a multi-trillion dollar plan that would nationalize healthcare, Americans are rejecting the new president. This sea change in public opinion comes as Democrats plan to push healthcare through Congress without any GOP support.

So much for all the liberal comments that the political opposition, i.e., GOP, is behind town hall public outcry against Obamacare. Those of you not in the 45% giving the President a positive job rating would do well to continue to contact your elected reps reminding them why you have a negative job rating for President Obama.

The obvious talking points would be the deficit, national debt, nationalizing the private sector as well as national defense and border security. Stay on it folks! It’s working!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Reconciliation is the political tactic that has been in the news often since the beginning of the healthcare reform debate this year. The Democratic party currently has possession of the White House and a majority in both houses of Congress. There is a concern that the majority party can pass any legislation it wants and the minority party is powerless to stop them.

Reconciliation is an option that was created in the 1974 Congressional Budget Act to allow Congress a way out of intractable budget battles.

Wesleyan University government professor Elvin Lim said it was invented as a way to achieve a balanced budget–not to force through highly controversial legislation.

“It wasn’t passed to allow Congress to go ahead and do anything it wants, but as it turns out, that’s the way it’s been used, quite frankly, by both sides of the aisle,” Lim told CNSNews.com.

In fact, he said, President George W. Bush was the last to utilize the tactic–getting Congress to pass tax cuts three times in ‘01, ‘03 and ’05–because he wanted to bypass a Senate filibuster by Democrats.

Gary Bauer, a former politician, Presidential candidate and founder of a political group called American Values is another voice warning that liberals in Congress will employ reconciliation to force their healthcare agenda through Congress.

If liberal Democrats do force through the legislation over the significant objections of conservatives, the former Republican presidential candidate says the minority party should be prepared to shut down the Senate.

While Bauer suggests using parliamentary procedures to achieve a Senate shutdown no specifics were given. If the minority party can effectively shutdown the Senate in the event that the majority party invokes reconciliation on the healthcare issue it may be the only method to stop a government takeover of the way we manage our health decisions.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A common situation has occurred at numerous town hall meetings this summer as politicians face their constituents on the topic of healthcare reform. Voters are mad and most object to more government control or a takeover of their healthcare choices.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley, a key Republican negotiator in the quest for bipartisan health-care reform, said Wednesday that the outpouring of anger at town hall meetings this month has fundamentally altered the nature of the debate and convinced him that lawmakers should consider drastically scaling back the scope of the effort.

After being besieged by protesters at meetings across his home state of Iowa, Grassley said he has concluded that the public has rejected the far-reaching proposals Democrats have put on the table, viewing them as overly expensive precursors to “a government takeover of health care.”

It is refreshing that the public has finally engaged their political representatives on not only a government takeover of healthcare but the fact that spending is out of control, debt is crushing the economy and destroying the future for generations of Americans.

What is not refreshing is that Senator Grassley and others still don’t get it, exactly. No scale back, no little healthcare takeover, no little spending programs, we do not need any of it. Drop the idea. Continue the discussion on solving issues but drop the ‘reform’ idea as it stands now. Government needs to be scaled back and not increased by any legislative measure now before Congress. Government is out of control and spends too much. Not every problem can or should be solved with more government. The solution is less government. We cannot afford more of it.

PIEDMONT, S.C. — U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis is a Republican who says he doesn’t support the president’s approach to health care. But Mr. Inglis’s efforts to suggest other ways the government could change the system have stirred up his upstate South Carolina district.

Congressman Inglis could have stopped with opposing Obamacare. Instead, like Grassley, he somehow feels compelled to distance himself from the liberal complaint that the GOP is the party of ‘no’. He could have simply explained dropping the healthcare reform idea would satisfy most of his constituents. But instead, he suggests other ideas.

Mr. Inglis favors requiring everyone to carry health insurance, which he said the government “is uniquely suited” to enforce. He also supports making insurers guarantee coverage to anyone willing to pay for it, subsidizing premiums for people on low incomes and a series of policy changes intended to reduce premiums for everyone.

He is finding it risky as he searches for a middle ground acceptable to those who support providing more people with coverage, and those who don’t want any expansion of the government’s role.

There is little public support for healthcare reform and even most POLS are not happy with it. Yet some POLS keep trying to find reform rather than drop the idea. And there are other healthcare ideas that should not see the light of day.

Vice President Joe Biden plans to announce Thursday nearly $1.2 billion in grants to help hospitals transition to electronic medical records.

Biden and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius were set to detail in Chicago how that piece of the $787 billion economic stimulus plan would help Americans when they go to the hospital or their doctors. It also is a what’s-in-it-for-me way for the White House to illustrate how it is spending parts of the massive amount of taxpayer dollars.

There’s another government idea ripe with problems. Like most government ideas they make it sound like a good thing. But the problem is in the details. With your medical records available to anyone who can gain access to the ‘electronic’ system the chance for abusing the system and exposing your personal data increases.

Those who support the liberal agenda will continue to push it. And those POLS opposed to it will continue to find an alternative even if no one wants it. The White House and Congress would find life much simpler as well as getting things done that people favor if they would just stop spending and increasing the size of government. Correcting the problems they have already caused would be a good place to start.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com