On Birthers

I don't know if Obama was born a US Citizen or not, and while it seems to me that Birthers are far more credible than the Truthers to which they are often compared, the mere fact that a comparison can be made should be enough to dissuade smart Obama critics from going there; that is a tar-baby the haters should have all to themselves.

Frankly if I were Obama I wouldn't release my (original) birth certificate either, just so I could keep in good supply a (seemingly) unhinged coterie of hyperventilating antagonists at which to aim my supplicant media.

Not that I think Obama's that smart, but just sayin'.

The irony is that this president brings with him a cornucopia of genuine Chicago machine baggage, unsavory perhaps criminal connections, a past steeped in leftist radicalism, and a naked predilection to act on that agenda, all of which needs to be attacked.

A Birther hill is not the one I'd choose to die on.

Typical Just Typical

Came across this video yesterday on Breitbart wherein a foam flecked Lawrence O'Donnell is hectoring Republican US Rep. John Culberson of Texas over his bonifides as a 'Jeffersonian'. Whatever context the discussion was in is not apparent as almost the entire video consists of O'Donnell badgering Culberson on whether or not he would have voted for Medicare or Social Security, and Culberson trying (and failing) to squirm out from under the question. Too bad.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Normally there is nothing to be learned from these showbiz style interviews, but I find myself in this instance being more alienated by the Republicans equivocation than by O'Donnell's antics, and therein lies the lesson. Most of us conservative folk are fed up, nay disgusted with Republicans laying claim to a mantle of conservatism (or 'Jeffersonianism') yet embrace all manner of socialized foolishness if they glean some sort of political advantage from it. If Republicans haven't yet learned principle from these last elections (as apparently they haven't) their party is toast.

The correct answer Mr. Culberson should have been an unequivocal no, you would not have voted for Social Security or Medicare or any manner of Federal overreach. You would have gotten more respect and backing from your constituency in Texas than the handful of self-interested old codgers you may have alienated.

Take that from someone who's on the brink of codgerdom himself.

Horse d'œuvre's In Miami?

When I first heard this story of horses in Miami being slaughtered for their meat, I was a bit baffled. I'd heard reported that horse meat was going for north of $40 a pound. Why the sudden price jump for a commodity I'd always understood as being a cheap alternative to beef?


Having never sought out horse meat as a comestible I was in the dark regarding the legality of the consumption of horse flesh, but I had assumed it was entirely legal. That's why both Mrs. Gnarly and I simultaneously sat up in bed and proclaimed 'aha!' this morning when we heard it reported on Fox News that sales of horse meat had been illegal since '07. Everyone knows (or rather everyone should know) that once a desirable commodity is made illegal it instantly gains value and creates a criminal enterprise. Furthermore, if the commodity in question is already endangered or in short supply the skyrocketing price will exacerbate the problem inevitably leading towards exhaustion or extinction. John Stossel did a pretty good feature exploring the phenomenon a few months ago called 'How To Save Endangered Tigers: Kill Them?'

Upon doing a little net research of my own, it turns out that the Fox News report was wrong, and sale, trade, and consumption of horse meat is technically legal in Florida (laws differ state by state with horse meat indeed being illegal in many). I say technically legal because any horse flesh consumed by humans must be USDA inspected. The last three abattoirs in the country which slaughtered horses were closed in '07, ergo no USDA inspection, so it can be said that trade in horse meat for human consumption is de facto illegal in this country.

So why despite the unintended consequences of good intentions are we only seeing this black market in horse meat only now? Apparently our national obsession with importing people with exotic tastes and bizarre cultural prerogatives who refuse to assimilate, reinforcing their predilections not to do so, and then concentrating them in glorious cultural salad bowls like Miami creates certain markets which would otherwise never have materialized in our erstwhile homogeneous culture.

There are in this case but two solutions to the plight of horse owners in South Florida and perhaps soon the nation. Either free up markets, or clamp down on our borders and insist the 'wretched refuse' assimilates, preferably both.

The Mother Of All Bad Analogies

Here's what happens when the chosen one strays from his teleprompter:

In the courts they would call this an admission against interest

Grandma, What Sharp Teeth You Have!

Fools Rush In

Last week When I first read of the bold folk who were turning themselves in as an act of defiance to the Obama regime's appeal for informants I was a little queasy.

Six months ago I would have discounted the solicitation as perhaps the bumbling of an overeager young staffer, or something like that.

Tonight on a whim I decided to check Whitehouse.govs website fully expecting amidst the storm of criticism (from the right) that the page would have been taken down in embarrassment.

Guess what:

It's still up!

Now I'm really queasy.

Yes Dan, The Worlds Best Healthcare.

Just as Congressional lefties have failed to hastily ram socialized medicine down the throats of an unwilling majority, Dan Boylan has foisted upon us his latest Midweek failure:

"The Worlds Best Healthcare?"

Prof. Boylan begins his 'lecture' with this pedantic flourish:

"Now, class, move your desks forward and listen up while I offer a short lecture on what you get for your healthcare dollar in the United States of America."

Good thinking Dan, everyone loves to be condescended to.

"First, you get “the finest healthcare system in the world.” For weeks, months, years and decades, you’ve heard our congressional ladies and gentlemen call it that - “the finest healthcare system in the world.”

They are demonstrating their gratitude. In the 2008 congressional elections, they collectively received $167 million in campaign contributions from healthcare industries.

Our congressional ladies and gentlemen also are demonstrating that they’re fast learners. In 2008, they listened to $484 million worth of lobbying by America’s healthcare industry - lobbying that invariably included the assertion that ours is the finest health-care system in the world.

Well professor, I've heard lots of people describe our healthcare system as the finest in the world, not just Congress folk. Are they all in cahoots with the healthcare industry as well? Funny, all I've heard from a majority of this Congress is how bad our healthcare system sucks. I don't take that as ungratefulness on their part, but rather delusion on yours.

Second, you get a health-care system that costs an enormous amount of money, much of which is spent on administration. According to Physicians for a National Health Program, “administration consumes at least 31 percent of healthcare spending” in the United States. How enormous are those costs? Administration of the the nation’s government-run Medicare system for old folks like me stands at 3 percent.

Put another way (in a 2007 Commonwealth Fund report), “U.S. health insurance costs as a share of total health spending are 30-70 percent higher than countries with mixed private/public insurance systems, and three times higher than in countries with the lowest rates.”

So when you pay your monthly healthcare premium - or the co-payment - remember all those lovely people you are helping to support who are neither doctors nor nurses nor anyone else who can fashion a splint for your broken leg or diagnose your ills."

From Cato.org

Advocates of socialized medicine, such as Physicians for a National Health Program, love to argue that America’s health care sector is less efficient than socialized systems because private insurers appear to have higher administrative costs. In yesterday’s New York Times, Tyler Cowen reveals the flaw in that logic:

The monitoring, marketing and overhead costs of private insurance are what allow more expensive medical treatments through the door. It is precisely because competing insurance companies spend money evaluating the appropriateness of claims that they are willing to pay for so many heart bypasses, extra tests, private hospital rooms and CT scans.

If European health care systems appear to have lower administrative costs, it is because, rather than scrutinizing claims, they limit the overall amount they will spend on medical services. Of course, that just means they shift costs to patients who either must pay for medical services themselves, or deal with the costs of waiting.

If the U.S. Medicare program appears to have lower administrative costs, it is because, rather than scrutinizing claims, Medicare just shovels money out the door. That merely shifts those costs onto taxpayers by driving up Medicare spending and taxes.

In Medicare Meets Mephistopheles, Cato adjunct David Hyman delights in the irony that medicine-socializers praise one of Medicare’s greatest failings (inadequate oversight of claims payment) as if it were a virtue.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Really, I couldn't.

"Third, you get a healthcare system that is, indeed, No.1 - numero uno, ichiban, no ka oi - in three important categories: total healthcare expenditures per capita, total health expenditures as a share of gross domestic product, and rate of growth in total healthcare expenditures as a share of GDP over the past quarter century.

Aren’t you proud? We’re No. 1. Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom all trail us.

Let’s hear a loud, collegiate cheer: USA! USA! USA!

Half of the countries listed above spend less than half per capita on healthcare than the United States does. The rest spend about roughly 55 percent to 65 percent as much."

Not sure if comparative GDP expenditures elicits a fair comparison of who has the best healthcare system, (for instance, whoever spends the most money on a car usually has the best vehicle) but I find it fascinating that Mr. Boylan is obsessed almost exclusively on cost in this debate, as indeed most lefties are. I mean after all, don't lefties pride themselves on being the least materialist of the competing ideologies?
Be that as it may, there are many desirable factors to be considered which drive up US healthcare costs as compared to other countries, as per Wiki:

"revenues generated from these high healthcare costs have encouraged substantial investment: the United States is the leader in biotechnology, spending three times more per-capita in research and development than its nearest competitor, Europe.[7][8][9] In addition, the U.S. produces more new pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and affiliated biotechnology than any other country, or the Western European nations combined.[7][8][9][10]"

Nationalize healthcare and most of that goes away, socialism smothers innovation. Face it, you get what you pay for, in common parlance the chumps on the left are being penny wise and pound foolish.

"But our healthcare system leads in other categories as well. For example, we lead in the number of people who do not have healthcare coverage: 46 million and growing. By the reckoning of the Commonwealth Fund, we should be using the number 75 million - which represents the uninsured and the underinsured. Either way, we lead.

Those other countries don’t even compete. They provide healthcare coverage, usually “single-payer” (also called by many of our congressional ladies and gentlemen “socialized medicine") to all of their citizens."

Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act everyone who is sick in America (whether they belong here or not) gets treated, not that I think they should be.

"And the list goes on. But I’ll mention just one more accomplishment we’ve achieved with our healthcare dollars. The United States can claim a higher infant mortality rate than all the countries I mentioned earlier: 6.26 deaths per 1,000 live births. Canada, with its system of socialized medicine, only has 5.04 per 1,000; France, yet another one of those countries that practices socialized medicine, just 3.33."

Wow, a double fallacy! A classic cum hoc ergo propter hoc and an appeal to emotion! Again, from Wiki:

While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless.[5] And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."[6]

Professor Boylan concludes by asking:

"Aren’t you proud?"

Yes Dan, very!

"Class dismissed."

Now wait a minute professor! Amidst all your hand wringing about cost you never mentioned the uniquely American burden of litigiousness which also drives up healthcare, could that be because all your lefty pals are in the hind pocket of the ABA? Furthermore your suggestion that socialized healthcare will reduce administration is laughable. If anything it will bloat administration with an army of new bureaucrats, take Britain's NHS for example:

"The 1.4 million employees of the British National Health Service make the NHS the world's third-largest single employer, behind only the Chinese army and the Indian Railways. Yet the majority of those 1.4 million, Mr. Hannan said, are "managers," not medical personnel."

What about the Constitution? According to my understanding it was written to limit Federal power. Once you surrender your health care to the state you have given them carte blanche to dictate and delve into every aspect of your life (in the name of savings), and that after all is what this is all about, a cynical exercise in the aggregation of power and control by the left. If you truly think that healthcare should be a right, then do it the proper way and write a Constitutional Amendment, or if you want to do government-run health care that's perfectly Constitutional as it's written, do it at the state or local level; foolish but Constitutional. Multi-trillion dollar 'free' medicine simply cannot be a function of the Federal Govt. under our Constitution;
as if anybody pays any attention to that old rag anymore.

Oh yeah and one more thing, save the pedagoguery for the classroom Dan.