FROM THE RADIO

Clinical trials? We don’t need no stinking clinical trials: “It's possible the government will begin a public [swine flu] vaccination campaign before all of the work of the trials is complete, Dr. Anne Schuchat has said. She oversees the flu vaccination programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

On one hand, the government doesn’t need to complete clinical trials to inject you with an unproven H1N1 (swine) flu vaccine. On the other hand, the government can prevent you from an alternative (i.e., unapproved) treatment even in the face of debilitating pain or certain death.

Makes all kinds of sense, doesn’t it?

MORE CASH FOR CLUNKERS

The first round spent a billion dollars in a week - at $4,000/car, that’s equivalent to 250,000 cars, or roughly a sales rate of 13 million cars/year.

Since US sales have averaged 16.8 million cars/year over the last decade, it follows that 77% of all car sales (roughly 324,000 sales/week) in the first round were clunkers.

Ask yourself: “How many of those so-called clunkers would have been traded in without “Cash for Clunkers?”

Correct answer: most of them.

So now as Round Two (billion) gets underway, take Brian Douglas’s advice: “Benefit from our government's largesse. It's your tax money, might as well try to recoup some of it .... Then you can buy that foreclosed house with an $8,000 new buyers credit [to] park your new government-subsidized car.”

MORE: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Via Don Surber.

ABORTION RIGHTS – A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION

Now that Sarah Palin is back in the news with her Facebook statement on ObamaCare, a new round of Palin hatred from the Left seems to be inevitable. Much of this hatred seems to be directly coupled to her obvious love for her newborn son Trig, born with Down syndrome.

Some examples from the past-

At Talking Points Memo, an article sarcastically suggested that Palin resigned because “she wants to spread Down syndrome ... because Down syndrome is just too cute to be reserved for one in 800 births.”

A Paliban Daily article titled “Sarah Palin’s Retarded Platform: More Trigs!” interpreted Palin’s outspokenness on disability rights as a political ploy to win votes. Other articles contained subtle but unmistakable eugenic overtones. More here.

Nicholas Provenzo of the Libertarian Center for the Advancement of Capitalism discussed being “troubled” by Trig’s existence because “it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome.” More here.

Here’s a question I have for the left.

If, as Provenzo claims, “it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome,” and if homosexuality is genetically determined as some on the Left believe, and if that “gay gene” is easily detectable in utero by some procedure similar to amniocentesis for detection of Down syndrome, will the Left continue to support abortion on demand?

THE GANGS OF DC

According to Alec MacGillis, a “reporter” on the national staff of the Washington Post, it’s all the Senate’s fault:

Wonder why President Obama is having a hard time enacting his agenda after sweeping to victory and with large congressional majorities on his side?

Look to the Senate, the chamber designed to thwart popular will.

Looks like Alec missed out on high-school civics. The United States is a republic, not a democracy. James Madison (Remember him? Founding Father? Fourth President?) defined a republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy.

There is much grousing on the left about the filibuster, the threat of which has taken such hold that routine bills now need 60 votes. Getting less attention is the undemocratic character of the Senate itself.

What really frosts MacGillis is the Senate’s resistance to health–care reform. Never mind that voters in all states are expressing concern; the “little people” don’t know what’s in their best interest.

Why, for example, have even Democratic senators been resistant on health-care reform? It might be because so many of the key players represent so few of the voters who carried Obama to victory -- and so few of the nation's uninsured.

Six states that are among the least populous in the country; Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Maine, New Mexico and Iowa hold 8.4 million people -- less than New Jersey -- and represent 3 percent of the U.S. population. North Dakota and Wyoming each have fewer than 80,000 uninsured people, in a country where about 47 million lack insurance

In the House, those six states have 13 seats out of 435, 3 percent of the whole. In the Senate, those six members are crafting what may well be the blueprint for reform..

Let’s see. North Dakota has a 2008 population of 641,481, of whom MacGillis claims 80 thousand lack health insurance. That’s roughly 13%. Wyoming: population 532,668, also with 80 thousand uninsured (MacGillis again). Roughly 15%. In 2008, the U.S. population as a whole was 304,059,724, with about 47 million uninsured - about 15%.

Um, Alec, from the uninsured numbers you yourself have given, it looks like those “anti-democratic” Senators are doing a pretty good job of representing the minority interests of all States.

Go back and reread what you yourself wrote:

Look to the Senate, the chamber designed to thwart popular will.

Was this really what the founders had in mind? One popular story tells of Thomas Jefferson asking George Washington what the Senate's purpose is. "Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?" Washington asked in return. "To cool it," Jefferson replied. To which Washington said, "Even so, we pour legislation in the senatorial saucer to cool it."

Why yes, yes it was they had in mind. Think about it – and go back and reread a civics textbook.

THOROUGHLY ANNOYED

No, make that thoroughly mad.

In the last few days, we’ve had President Obama telling us, essentially, to sit down and shut up; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accusing conservative talk show hosts of astroturfing; Senator Barbara Boxer calling the healthcare, er, health insurance protestors “too well-dressed to be sincere;” and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi calling townhall protestors swastika-carrying astroturf mobs.

Bull (add the last four letters yourself. – Ed). Here are two items of interest to refute the “astroturf” charge.

From Talking Points Memo, a HCAN document accusing “radical right-wing” groups of funding an astroturf campaign: “The people who show up are far right-wing ideologues recruited by paid organizers. Much of this recruitment and organizing is funded by industry lobbyists and public relations firms to engage radical right-wing groups.”

Okaaay ....

Let’s see who Health Care for America Now (HCAN) is: [o]ur Steering Committee includes: ACORN, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, AFT, Americans United for Change, Campaign for America’s Future, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Campaign for Community Change, Children’s Defense Fund Action Council, Communications Workers of America, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), MoveOn.org, NAACP, National Council of La Raza, National Education Association, National Women’s Law Center, SEIU, UFCW, USAction, Women's Voices, Women's Vote and Working America.

Now from the other side, a quick Google search for “tea party organizations” – gives three names that seem to constitute the bulk of the hits: Tea Party Patriots, Tax Day Tea Party, and Tea Party Warriors.

A quick cruise through theTea Party Patriots website shows it to be aggregation of smaller state and local groups. (LibertyChick.com doesn’t strike me as a well-funded K Street lobbying group.) Partners (not sponsors) include Lagniapper, Sign the Petition, American Liberty Alliance, American Solutions, Freedom Works, Smart Girl Politics, Tea Party Express, Michelle Malkin, Red State, and Red Country.

Check them out – is there any one (or combination) bigger than, say, ACORN? Is any one of them feeding at the public trough like, say, ACORN?

And these Obamacrat clowns (with apologies to actual circus/rodeo clowns) have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of being astroturf? The Obamacrats are so plastic they won’t recognize actual grass until their allergy medicines are withdrawn by our votes.

[Added]
The Tea Party Movement: Who's In Charge?

[Update] Looks like I'm not the only one mad about the Obamacrats' astroturfing remarks: "And they dare to accuse me of astroturfing, in my own district, on my own dime, with a sign I made all by myself with a magic marker? If they are really that stupid, this is sure to end badly for them." Thanks to Instapundit for the link.

OBAMACARE TEST

Find a path through the bureaucracy to your doctor.



A larger version of the organizational chart is here.

DEMOCRACY IN ACTION

Lawmakers rethinking town hall strategy:

[A]fter a series of contentious town-hall meetings, some Democratic lawmakers are thinking twice about holding large public gatherings. Instead, they are opting for smaller sessions, holding meetings by phone or inviting constituents for one-on-one office hours.

And who do you think they are going to invite?

OBAMA APPROVAL INDEX

Rasmussen is now showing President Obama's approval index at -8 (favorables minus unfavorables).



Extrapolating the trends (dashed lines), it appears that the slide is continuing, and that attitudes are hardening. The "strong approval" base appears to be leveling somewhat, and the middle (no strong feelings) appears to be breaking in favor of disapproval.

If the trends continue, Obama should hit a minus-25 index by the end of his first year in office.

DO AS I SAY

President Obama: "I don't want the folks who created the mess [to] do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking."

Hmm ....

Protest is, ... er, was ,,, patriotic.

THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME

So you like single-payer healthcare?

HEALTH CARE LOTTERY

Why our congresscritters won't commit to the public plan.

Play often; you could be dead before you win!

Originally found here; believed to have been created by Jerry Ballard USNRet.

PLEASE REPORT ME

The White House is disturbed that disinformation about its "ObamaCare" reform is being bandied about the internet.

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Since it's almost certain that the White House will believe that I have posted, or linked to, disinformation about Obama's healthcare - oops, excuse me, health insurance - program, it follows that I should be reported. In order to make things easier, here are some of my posts that should be reported to the White House:

WRONG,
BUT FOR ALL THE RIGHT REASONSl

THE
POTEMKIN PRESIDENCY

HEALTH
CARE AGAIN

AGAINST
OBAMACARE? IN AUSTIN?

PAJAMAS
MEDIA HEALTH CARE FORUM – THE VIDEOS

FIX
MEDICARE FIRST

OBAMACARE?

MANASSAS
INDEPENDENCE DAY TEA PARTY

AN
INTRODUCTION TO OBAMACARE

Please report me; I need the traffic.

OBAMA IN TROUBLE?

Some anecdotal evidence. Driving down the freeway into work this morning, I was passed by another car. Nothing interesting about that; I drive slowly enough for that to be common.

But as the car passed me, the driver waved, stuck his hand out the window, and gave an enthusiastic "thumbs-up" signal. I have a TEA (Taxed Enough Already) party and a "I miss W" (as in George W. Bush) sticker on the back bumper.

In Washington D.C.

WRONG, BUT FOR ALL THE RIGHT REASONS

From an editorial in our local newspaper:

Denise Oppenhagen, the editorialist, “supports universal health care,” believes that such will lead to “healthier communities,” argues there needs to be “a buy in of all parties,” and that it should be “fair.” Sounds reasonable enough. Then there’s this:

Right now, insurance companies charge a set price for everyone that gets insured. That means it costs the same for a company to insure the young, healthy, health-conscious worker as it does the older, sedentary, smoking worker .... [T]he insurance company is doing is having the healthy person pay for the unhealthy one [which isn’t fair].

Umm ... does Ms. Oppenhagen realize that that is exactly the purpose of insurance – to spread the risk? Otherwise it isn’t insurance; it’s prepaid medical care. Prepaid medical care was the rationale for health maintenance organizations (HMO’s); which have mostly crashed and burned.

[And then there’s] Canada [which] does have universal health care. Do I want to go the Canadian route? Not a chance. While it’s great that everyone gets coverage, there is a long wait to get seen for the most routine of matters. [T]alk of universal health care goes hand in hand with talk of rationing .... I cringe at the idea of rationing health care. [I]s it fair that someone with the financial resources to pay for medical services on their own gets treated for a disease that someone without the resources would have to do without?

“Long waits” are a form of rationing. Is it fair to deny medical care solely because someone can afford to pay? And is it fair to force Ms. Oppenhagen to pay for someone else’s care (e.g., via taxation) and thus deny herself care that she could otherwise have afforded?

All the talk of expanded coverage for health care ignores one critical aspect: personal responsibility.

Well, something I can almost agree with – but doesn’t personal responsibility include the responsibility for paying for one’s own health care?

There is no reward system in place for being healthy. Insurance companies are starting to acknowledge personal responsibility in that some are paying for gym memberships or weight loss services for the overweight.

So the solution for personal responsibility is coercion (by the government) or bribery (by the insurance companies)?

So what does Ms. Oppenhagen recommend?

First, reward general practice physicians. That would create a greater supply of doctors providing basic care.

But if we’re all personally responsible and healthy, doesn’t that obviate the need for general practice physicians?

Then, insure everyone at a basic rate. Include in that rate the cost of an annual physical and routine screenings for blood pressure, cancer and diabetes — the things that a perfectly healthy person would need to stay healthy.

But the cost of an annual physical and routine screenings is peanuts in the grand scheme of health care. And mostly unnecessary.

Reimburse the doctor at a rate that allows them to spend time with their patient. That should make premiums low enough for everyone.

Huh? Paying doctors more lowers premiums? Not in any economic system I’m familiar with.

Then add a surcharge, if you will, for unhealthy habits — smoking, alcohol abuse, obesity, etc. This way the people who will statistically use more services are paying their fair share.

And I’m going to go to my doctor and say I’m a fat, smoking, drunk; I want to pay more? Again, Ms. Oppenhagen misses the difference between insurance and prepaid medical care.

And if someone is overweight, for example, the insurance company can offer incentives if the person agrees to engage in healthier activities, such as paying for a dietician to follow an eating plan.

See above; coercion and bribery.

This column has nowhere near enough space to discuss all the little nuances that would be involved. It is also one that the government needs to spend time on doing right, not just doing for the sake of doing.

At least the last sentence is right.

Look, it’s health insurance, for chrissake. Insurance. You pay a fee in order to reduce the risk of something catastrophic happening and pray the money paid is wasted. Routine stuff you pay out of pocket.

That’s the responsible approach - and it doesn't involve the government.

THE POTEMKIN PRESIDENCY

With respect to healthcare, Roger Kimball calls it the Potemkin Presidency – “It has an impressive façade, propped up by some high-gloss rhetoric and a formidable public relations machine. But at bottom, President Obama and his ideological confrères are totally out of their depth.”

If only, they reason, they can turn over enough of the productive capacity of the country to the government, then (so they think) they will be in a position to eradicate the age-old irrationalities and inequities that have beset our capitalist society from the beginning.

In his assessment of President Obama’s “public option” for health insurance, Kimball quotes Greg Mankiw, an economist and former Bush adviser:

An important question about any public provider of health insurance is whether it would have access to taxpayer funds. If not, the public plan would have to stand on its own financially, as private plans do, covering all expenses with premiums from those who signed up for it.

But if such a plan were desirable and feasible, nothing would stop someone from setting it up right now. In essence, a public plan without taxpayer support would be yet another nonprofit company offering health insurance. The fundamental viability of the enterprise does not depend on whether the employees are called “nonprofit administrators” or “civil servants.”

What leads anyone to believe that the U.S. government (in Kimball’s words,”the granddaddy of all insurance companies”) would be more honest, or efficient, than the 1300 or so companies that now compete for your business?

Like so many “community organizers” before him, Obama is a friend of humanity. He wants to make the world a “better place” — better, that is, according to his lights. The problem is, he knows almost nothing about the way the world actually works.

Continuing to quote Kimball, “It may sound noble to say, ‘Damn economics, let us build up a decent world’ — but it is, in fact, merely irresponsible.”

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

They never really mended it, so they may be forced to end it. California has proposed the previously and supposedly unthinkable: ending welfare.

Under welfare reform [in 1996], the country’s bloated caseload dropped very quickly. In its first four years, about 2.5 million families came off the dole ... This unprecedented mass transformation is an important but underappreciated element of the prosperity of the late 1990s.

The state’s political establishment and social services bureaucracy have resisted the reforms of 12 years ago at nearly every possible turn, as shown here.



And yet in a recent speech on energy policy, President Obama chose an especially odd example:

In the late 1970s, the state of California enacted tougher energy-efficiency policies. Over the next three decades, those policies helped create almost 1.5 million jobs. And today, Californians consume 40 percent less energy per person than the national average--which, over time, has prevented the need to build at least 24 new power plants. Think about that. California--producing jobs, their economy keeping pace with the rest of the country, and yet they have been able to maintain their energy usage at a much lower level than the rest of the country.

I recall California’s "rolling blackouts" in 2000-2003. Today, with unemployment approaching 12%, California's economy is hardly "keeping pace" with the rest of the country.

The fact is that California should serve as a warning to Washington political elites, as well as to the rest of us, about the efficacy of big government.

THE BERSERK EDITORIALIST

Eugene Robinson, a columnist with the Washington Post really should lay off the Kool Aid.

Writing about "birthers" - those people who have convinced themselves that Barack Obama is ineligible by reason of birth to be President of the United States, Robinson opines: "If there's been a more clinically insane political phenomenon in my lifetime than the "birthers," I've missed it."

Uh, Eugene, how did you miss Dan Rather (remember him?} on former President Bush's National Guard service? It was in your own newspaper. Or Andrew Sullivan writing about Trig Palin? Or the Post's own treatment (also see comments) of Palin mockery?

And this: "Is this what our national discourse has come to? Sheer paranoid fantasy?"

Only if it's from the right; liberals can't be paranoid.

[Update and bumped] Jonah Goldberg comments. I had completely forgotten the 9/11 "truthers."

WHAT HAPPENED TO GLOBAL WARMING?

Er, climate change? It’s as if it was last year’s – or last decade’s – fad.

And be sure to read the comments.

“SAFE” GUNS? OR GUN CONTROL?

In an earlier post I noted (with some surprise) that a majority of Americans support concealed carry. That reminded me of a Pajamas Media post on the bureaucratic method of gun control: “safety” certification.

California created its own test, both to drive up the cost and because a manufacturer has to pay for the test. If the manufacturer is out of business (not implausible for some older handguns), there’s no way for that gun to be certified — and therefore, no way to sell it in California. Some of the standards were also designed rather obviously to prohibit inexpensive handguns ... [an] effort to disarm a certain class of persons who are a bit too dark for ... liberals to trust with firearms.

Guns for me, but not for thee ....

IF YOU LIKE "CASH FOR CLUNKERS"

You'll love ObamaCare.

[Update] The video below is from GatewayPundit at a Cash for Clunkers rally in St. Louis.

Congressman Russ Carnahan was clobbered by tea party protesters who disagreed with Carnahan. a co-sponsor of the original piece of legislation to get the cash for clunkers program started.

Protestors were forced outside of the dealership where the rally took place.