Dakota Voice AIDS Poll Closed

The last week's Dakota Voice poll question is now closed. It was:

According to the CDC, what is the largest source of AIDS transmission?

Here's how the answers came out:

- Homosexual contact & injected drug use (48%)
- Injected drug use (16%)
- High-risk heterosexual contact (15%)
- Homosexual contact (13%)
- Other (6%)

Only 13% got the answer correct. The answer was simple to find, and I even mentioned the source in the question. Like many things concerning homosexuality, perhaps many respondents thought that wishful thinking could equate to reality. Sadly, it does not.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the estimated number of AIDS cases for 2006 are

Male-to-male sexual contact 49.64%
Injection drug use 13.44%
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 3.35%
High-risk heterosexual contact 32.93%
Other 0.63%

It is important to note that while homosexuals account for only 2.9% of the population, homosexual activity is connected with more than 50% of AIDS cases.

AIDS transmission rates are very low for female homosexuals due to the limited fluid transfer and lesser opportunity for tissue damage during sexual encounters.

When only male homosexual AIDS transmission numbers, the health risk becomes even more stark:

Male-to-male sexual contact 67%
Injection drug use 12%
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 5%
High-risk heterosexual contact 16%
Other 0%

Again, it should be noted that while all homosexuals account for only 2.9% of the population, male homosexual activity is connected with 72% of male AIDS cases.

If 72% of male lung cancer cases were connected to eating Twinkies, how quickly would we see health warnings plastered across every media outlet in the country?

If 72% of male heart attack cases were connected to green apples, how quickly would we see a major campaign from government health services warning people not to eat green apples?

Yet with a politically correct and politically favored sexual practice, we only hear the crickets chirping. In fact, we not only see an absence of health warnings about the dangers of homosexual behavior, we see an aggressive campaign by Hollywood, the news media, and many in government demanding the public accept this behavior as normal, natural and healthy.

In addition to drastically high AIDS transmission rates, the homosexual community has high rates of gonorrhea, herpes, Chlamydia, syphilis, HPV, hepatitis, anal cancer, depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence.

Our culture has gone insane. Meanwhile, people are getting sick and dying. People are hurting physically, mentally and emotionally.

We simply must stop this politically correct hate of homosexuals that allows them to place their bodies and souls in jeopardy because we such cowards that we can't bear the though of being criticized.

People (and cultures) caught up in destructive behavior must end the denial to get better. And our culture is engaged in one of the biggest cases of denial in human history.

Do we have the courage to quit fooling ourselves and change?

Mass. Govt Acknowledges Increased Homosexual Health Risks

My fellow Red County blogger Dr. Richard Swier brings our attention to fresh evidence of one of the best-kept secrets in health research: the increased health risks in the homosexual community.

I say "best kept secret" because if the same health risks associated with homosexual behavior were even hinted at for, say, drinking Diet Coke, or perhaps attending church more than once a week, the "mainstream" media would be shouting about it with megaphones from every available highest rooftop nonstop.

But since these health risks are linked to homosexual behavior--at protected, politically-correct behavior--there is, of course, a near-total media blackout concerning them.

Does the "mainstream" media really hate homosexuals, and just wants them to remain ignorant about the health risks associated with their behavior? One has to wonder...

Dr. Swier's post points to a report released last month by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health entitled "A Health Profile of Massachusetts Adults by Sexual Orientation Identity: Results from the 2001-2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Surveys."

Highlights of the report from the Department of Public Health include:

- The odds of being a current smoker were 2.5 times greater for gays and lesbians compared to heterosexuals.

- Bisexuals were 3.1 times more likely than heterosexuals to report feeling tense or worried.

- Lesbians were 2.2 times more likely than heterosexual women to be obese.

- Bisexuals were 4.4 times and gays/lesbians 1.5 times more likely than heterosexuals to report their health as "poor" or "fair."

Researchers found that in many cases the disparities were even greater for bisexuals than for gay/lesbians when compared with their heterosexual counterparts.

The report also says that bisexuals also face increased problems concerning "mental health and violence victimization."

For a state as liberal as Massachusetts to actually go to the trouble of investigating this health threat, and what's more, publishing a public report on it, surely indicates the extreme nature of the problem.

Another interesting aspect of the issue is that with Massachusetts' highly socialized health care system, these increased health risks caused by homosexual behavior are costing the taxpayers additional money. In other words, the taxpayers of Mass. are paying for the health consequences of homosexual behavior, whether they're engaging in the behavior or not.

As Dr. Swier points out, the report says the disparity between the health of homosexuals and heterosexuals needs to be reduced or eliminated. Yet there doesn't seem to be any sort of suggestion about reducing or eliminating the behavior which is causing the increased health problems.

Can you imagine such a response to smoking related illnesses? Just smoke a lower-tar cigarette! Use a better filter! That lung cancer and emphysema have nothing to do with the pack you smoked every day! It's only Right-wing Christian propaganda! Just practice safe smoking! Give them more access to health care! They have a right to smoke! God created them to be smokers! After all, they can't quit...and suggesting they can quit is just bigoted "hate speech," right?

The hypocrisy is amazing and the silence from media and government officials is deafening!

When I frequently try to point out the increased health risks associated with homosexual behavior (such as AIDS, several other STDs, hepatitis, anal cancer, depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence), homosexual activists almost invariably try to disregard them under the claim that such statistics come from some "right wing" or "Christian" source that is "biased." When I point out that much of the information I cite about homosexual behavior comes from sources such as the New England Journal of Medicine, The Gay Report, the Department of Justice, the Handbook of Family Development and Intervention, the American Sociological Review, the Archives of General Psychology, the Handbook of Family Diversity, the Washington Blade, the Journal of Sex Research and other non-religious and non-conservative sources, silence invariably follows...or a different angle of attack on the truth about an obviously immoral, unnatural and unhealthy sexual practice. Some would rather risk their health and life than alter their behavior.

What spin will homosexual activists and apologists contrive to avoid the unpleasant truth contained in this government report?

How long will the "mainstream" "objective" media ignore its duty to report fully and truthfully on such issues of public health and safety?

How long will homosexual activists pretend the emperor's clothes are just wonderful...as homosexuals caught up in this behavior continue to suffer and die premature deaths?

Tom Daschle: A 'Health' Secretary Who Promotes Unhealthy Practices

The news is out that President-elect Barack Obama has chosen former South Dakota senator Tom Daschle to be his Health Secretary, and one has to marvel that such a supporter of unhealthy practices should be chosen to shepherd the nation's health interest.

The South Dakota Left is predictably all aglow at the news. Daschle remains one of the few icons of liberal salvation here, and liberals have lamented Daschle's fall from grace in 2004. They have been in sackcloth and ashes on his behalf ever since.

However, traditional, God-fearing South Dakotans may be concerned that Daschle will yet again lead the nation to believe that people from the Rushmore State are far more liberal than we really are. In fact, many of us may just be embarrassed-in-advance for the dark path we suspect he will help take the nation down.

Tom Daschle had a nice ride from South Dakotans...until 2004 when an unprecedented campaign to inform voters about the real Tom Daschle swept the state.

You see, Daschle had for years operated as the typical federal Democrat does in South Dakota: legislate to the Left in Washington D.C., then come home for election and talk some reasonable "centrist" smack to the voters.

But in 2004 a coalition of bloggers, pro-family groups and individuals worked tirelessly to ensure the people of South Dakota knew they weren't getting the representation they expected. When South Dakotans found out about Daschle's D.C. residency (we thought he was a resident of our state, not the District of Columbia), his million dollar mansion in D.C. for which he was receiving a tax break, his Jaguar (that really went over well with the average Ford-or-Chevy driver in South Dakota), his criticism of the president on the eve of the Iraq invasion, and his liberal record, the voters gave him his walking papers and elected John Thune in his place. This was the first time a senate majority or minority leader had been put out to pasture by the voters in over 50 years.

One of the liberal positions South Dakotans got up to speed on that year was Daschle's strong support for abortion...

READ MORE...

Elli Schwiesow on Health Care in South Dakota

Dakota Voice wraps up our series on issues with District 32 Independent Senate candidate Elli Schwiesow.

Schwiesow, a life-long Republican, faces Republican Stan Adelstein and Democrat Tom Katus in tomorrow's election.

In this series, Schwiesow has discussed her stand on the issues of taxes, Second Amendment rights, universal preschool, energy, Native American issues, Initiated Measure 11, and education funding. In today's final installment she discusses health care.

Asked about the Zaniya Health Care Task Force which took place last year, Schwiesow said that while the task force compiled a great deal of useful statistics, it remains unclear just what will be done with them and where they may be used to take health care in South Dakota.

"I am concerned about who is setting the agenda," said Schwiesow. "Do they have consumers in mind or do they have those involved in the health care industry in mind?"

Schwiesow thinks the best role the government can and should play is simply to keep the playing field level.

"It's difficult to do even that when dealing with the monopolies often involved in health care," said Schwiesow. "Things like insurance companies, hospitals, physicians...each entity presents huge barriers to entry that prevent competition."

"I do not favor government involvement," she continued. "I would like someone at the state or federal level to remove artificial barriers so that a South Dakota consumer could shop around and purchase health insurance in any state to receive the best plan his money could buy. Consumers in states adjoining South Dakota pay less for similar health plans than we do. That is not right and it would seem a simple matter to require that any insurer that does business in South Dakota should extend the same premiums to our citizens that they receive in bordering states.

"I've always though that health care should be competitive, and insurance should be competitive. Surrounding states have much cheaper insurance than South Dakota, and if we opened our markets to insurance from other states that would help greatly."

Schwiesow also said we should try to expand insurance pools to reduce risk so that older citizens are not priced out of the market while others are denied access due to pre-existing conditions.

She also believes consumer involvement is key in improving our system and bringing down costs. This includes the customer being more involved in health care decisions and cost options, but also in simple things like taking better care of ourselves with better diet and exercise.

"America has the best health care system in the world," said Schwiesow. "People from around the world including Canada come for the quality care we have here.

"Is health care the responsibility of government, and what do you do about all the uninsured people? I believe it is something for private individuals to work out, it certainly isn't the government's role to do that."

The Sorry State of Free Health Care

Socialism just doesn't work, folks. The longer it's tried, the more it costs and the less it works.

The National Center for Policy Analysis looks at the pathetic wait times in countries like Canada and Britain where they have socialized medicine and finds that while our medical system in the United States leaves a lot to be desired, we're doing pretty well compared to the socialists:

- The Fraser Institute found that Canada's median waiting times from a patient's referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist, depending on the procedure, averages from 5 to 40 weeks; the wait for diagnostics, such as MRI or CT, ranges between 4 and 28 weeks.

- In England, 750,000 are awaiting hospital admission, and the National Health Services hopes to achieve an 18-week maximum wait from general practitioner to treatment, including all diagnostic tests, by the end of 2008.

- In both countries, many patients with diseases that are curable at the time of diagnosis become incurable by the time of treatment or patients become too weak for the surgical procedure.

The article also states that 1 out of 3 Canadian doctors sends patients to the States for treatment each year. Why? Their patients might be dead before they got treated in the worker's paradise of Canada.

I lived under the British National Health Service for three years. This "free" health care creates a crippling tax burden for British citizens, and they get lousy service for all their sacrifice.

Once when I had food poisoning, I sat in the waiting room of a British hospital for about 2 hours vomiting in a garbage can (after having spent the two hours before that also throwing up) until a doctor finally saw me. By then my stomach was empty (and I think I'd evacuated several pounds of stomach tissue as well).

The medical care I received? The doctor said, "Yeah, mate, looks like you had some kind of food poisoning, but since you've got it all out of your system now, just go home and take it easy."

Wow. Isn't government health care great?

Please, Lord; don't allow liberals to impose "free" health care on the American people!

BREAKING: Sanford Health Changes Position, Says Initiated Measure 11 Consistent With Current Standards

SIOUX FALLS, SD – The VoteYesForLife.com campaign is holding a press conference Wednesday, October 22nd at 12:15 p.m. at the campaign headquarters (3500 South Louise Ave.). Sanford doctor, Glenn Ridder, will read portions of a letter sent to the VoteYesForLife.com campaign, highlighting the fact that the values of Sanford hospital are consistent with those of Initiated Measure 11, now that it’s better understood.

The campaign’s legal team met with Sanford Hospital’s administration Tuesday. “We handled this the South Dakota way,” said Rory King, VoteYesForLife.com attorney. “We sat down at the table and had an honest discussion about Measure 11 and how its passage will allow Sanford to practice medicine the same way they always have. We did not make this political and we’re grateful that Sanford has seen that Measure 11 in fact does allow them to practice medicine the way they do at the present time.”

The letter, issued last night to the VoteYesForLife.com campaign, states:

1. Sanford announced that they will circulate VoteYesForLife.com's letter to their doctors. Sanford’s letter to VoteYesForLife.com stated: “You provided your analysis of our internal white paper and offered the nature of it as being potentially misleading… We intend to use your analysis as a complimentary alternative perspective to our internal white paper (memo) and will make it available to our physicians.” (Emphasis added.)

2. Sanford stated their counsel agrees with VoteYesForLife.com that “intent” is required by Measure 11 and that “standard we employ today.”

3. In the letter, Sanford stated that it was impressed with the drafting of Measure 11 as one that protected the independence of physicians that allows Sanford doctors to deliver proper medical care. “In the end, (Sanford) was impressed at (the drafters’) thoughtful and genuine approach to manage this difficult issue with the sensitivity of our physicians and the protection of our independence in caring for all who come to us.”

4. Finally, Sanford thought, in the end, with this clearer understanding of the measure, that the law is consistent with their current practices and values that result in only 6 abortions – less than 1 percent (0.75%) of abortions in South Dakota per year.

Copies of all correspondence between VoteYesForLife.com and Sanford will be distributed at the press conference. For more information, call 605.271.7581.

Great Solution to Fix Health Care Accessibility

This video report, while light-hearted at times, holds some very important truth about our "health care crisis."

It also contains a very important truth about socialism itself. Take note of both the visible and underlying attitudes of some of the people interviewed here. If you think they're rare and isolated incidents, you're either out of touch or simply in denial. It's more common that you might think--at least, more common than some of our socialist politicians would have us believe.



reason.tv’s Nick Gillespie isn’t making a run for the White House, but he knows how to get coverage to at least half of the 45 million Americans who need it. And while Barack Obama and John McCain argue about who’s got the best health care plan, each ignores the simplest solution. Call it the Gillespie Plan: If you want health insurance, get some.

“Of people currently classified as uninsured, a conservative estimate says about 45 percent of them would be able to get health insurance right now if they wanted it,” says economist Glen Whitman. That estimate comes from a study headed by a Johns Hopkins University researcher, which separates those who could get insurance into one of two categories: Those who earn enough money to buy it, and those who qualify for existing government programs.

So how about some real straight talk for a change? If we separate those who can’t get coverage from those who can, we can focus more on helping the needy. “So if you can get coverage,” says Gillespie, “don’t wait for Washington. Go on out and get some.”

"Get Some" is written and produced by Ted Balaker. The director of photography is Alex Manning.

Who Wins the Self-Centered Vote?

We have the blue-collar vote, we have the social conservative vote, we have the feminist vote, and a host of other "votes."

Most of these voting blocks are pretty predictable as to whether they'll vote for John McCain or Barack Obama.

Presidential debates like the one tonight seldom sway these voting blocks; after all, debates these days seldom reach any depth or substance, and most of the voters in these blocks are informed enough to already know who they're voting for, and a shallow debate isn't going to affect that greatly.

But did you know there is apparently a "self-centered-and-brain-dead" voting block?

Rich Lowry has a post at the National Review which questions what issue will make a difference with voters this year.

Lowry doesn't seem to think Barack Obama's association with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers will do it, and he doesn't think corruption and fraud at ACORN will do it.

But he points to a post from Ben Smith at The Politico which should shock the socks off any reasonable person.

Smith tells of an email he received from a Republican consultant who conducted a focus group viewing of an ad to an independent group of "Reagan Dems and Independents. Call them blue-collar plus." He showed them a no-holds-barred ad which attacked Barack Obama.

The good news: they believed it.

The bad news: it didn't matter.

Smith mentions two unreal moments during that session when he received feedback from this "independent" group. I'll point you to his post to read one of them, but I'll copy here the one that slapped me in the face the hardest:

The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack."

How do you respond to this level of self-centeredness? In the woman's own words, she actually believes Obama (not to merely be associated with a terrorist, but) to have actually been in a terrorist group...but by golly, she'll vote for him if it means getting somebody else to pay for her health insurance!

No wonder liberals insist on continuing to prop up the exercise in academic ineptitude we know as "public education" and fight any attempt to allow children to escape it with vouchers and homeschooling: it's producing Democrat voters for them!

I may be proven wrong on November 4, but for now, I refuse to believe that 50.1% or more of Americans are that stupid, self-centered and morally bankrupt.

Poll: Most People Find Problems After an Abortion

Last week the Family Research Council held a forum to examine women's health as it relates to abortion.

One of the things discussed at that forum was a new poll sponsored by the Elliot Institute which found a very large majority say there are problems which follow an abortion.

From LifeNews:

The survey asked several different questions about whether women face negative problems after an abortion and it found even 60 percent of those who say they are "pro-choice" also believe post-abortion emotional problems are common or very common.

Only 15 percent of those polled believed that abortion generally makes women's lives better while almost 55 percent believe it generally makes women’s lives worse.

Respondents also ranked problems experienced after an abortion on a 1-9 scale
The poll relied on a scale of 1 to 9 to ask respondents how many women suffer problems after an abortion. Only 19 percent marked 4 or less to show that they thought fewer women had problems while 34 percent marked 9 to show they thought all women had emotional problems after an abortion. Some 65 percent marked 6 or higher.

Using the same 1 to 9 scale to mark how severe the problems are that women have after an abortion, almost 85 percent ranked the mental health problems following an abortion a 5 or higher.

Abortion isn't the quick-fix the abortion advocates paint it to be. There are often problems with infertility, and there are strong links between abortion and breast cancer.

So many women also experience mental and emotional problems which can end up fostering depression, substance abuse and even suicide.

Geri Riggs of Sturgis found that even having an abortion after a rape brought terrible grief and anguish.

Access to abortion is often defended on a compassionate basis. However, with the tremendous health risks associated with abortion (not to mention the human life it ends in the womb), promoting abortion doesn't seem at all compassionate.

The Uninsured and Government Health Care Scam

This is an enlightening video about some of the people who "can't" afford health insurance.

This is also an important lesson in why socialism is not only the lamest idea ever to strike humanity, it's bad for everyone it touches: bad for the drive and dignity it enables to be slackers, and bad for the people from whom it robs productivity to give to the slackers.

Better to go back to the private system of charity we had in this country until about 50 years ago. Private individuals and charities are in a much better position to discern genuine need, help those in genuine need to get out of need, and encourage those without genuine needs to take care of themselves.

Don't let Obama and his Merry Band of Liberals fool you; run as far as you can from "government solutions" to pretty much anything.

Senate Candidate Dykstra on Health Care Reform

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Joel Dykstra talks about health care and what is needed for reform in this video.

Dykstra has lived overseas in England and Italy under government health care systems, so he has experienced first-hand what these systems are like--and realizes they are the last thing we want here in the United States.

"Free" health care doesn't work very well, and involves a heavy tax burden--no matter how much or how little the use the service.

"Free" government health care also involves rationing and long, long waiting periods (how long can you wait when you're hurting...or perhaps even dying?)

Dykstra also points out that many of the socialist systems in Europe have behind-the-scenes private health care systems that can be accessed by those wealthy enough to go outside the pitiful nationalized system the common people are subjected to.


South Dakota doesn't need to re-elect a representative in the U.S. Senate from a party which is hurtling down the path to a nationalized health care debacle; we need a representative who is dedicated to fixing our system and returning it to the free-market model that made America great.

And maintaining consumer involvement and personal choice--things that would go out the window under a government health care system.

I know; I, too, lived in England for three years and have experienced government health care for myself. It is NOT something we want here in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Health Care Cannot Be a Right

Why Health Care Cannot be a Right
As Bob Ellis has argued in a post today, health care for all would require imposing on some citizens the burden of bearing the cost of the “right” for others. No right given by God and recognized in our Constitution contains similar requirements. A true “right” cannot demand the labor of others. A “right” is self-sufficient, requiring nothing of others except their respect.

If, however, the argument is that health care should be a right for all Americans because it is something we all need and it is fundamental to living a healthy, productive life, then let’s get even more fundamental. How about universal housing for all Americans? Yes, I know that is basically what was tried that led to the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but seriously, shelter is one of our most basic needs. Why shouldn’t government provide it for everyone?

And if housing is a fundamental right, how about clothing? Millions of Americans are inadequately clothed and would be healthier and happier if only this basic need was provided by government.

Alright then, what about food? We all need daily sustenance and who can deny that millions of Americans do not get an adequate diet and are deficient in many important nutrients. How can a wealthy country like the United States stand by and let this happen? Shouldn’t we be advocating "universal groceries" for all Americans?

Of course, these proposals are absurd. America was built by self-reliant men and women who were willing to work hard and sacrifice much to achieve their dreams. Even the suggestion of government hand-outs would have been thought un-American to these hardy souls. They could never have imagined that one day their progeny would be greedily pawing their way to the teats of the great government sow.

The promise of universal health care is not what it is claimed to be. It is an axiom of economics that when something is free (or perceived to be free) then supply can never meet demand. Consider the example of free food for all Americans. If it were announced today that the government would begin providing free food for everyone the supermarket shelves would be bare by evening. It would take a massive government bureaucracy to control and ration food distribution and still many people would be dissatisfied claiming that they got only frozen chicken when their neighbors got fresh T-bone steak. With increased demand the government would have to reduce payments to the food producers (in order to control costs) and their production would reasonably decline further exacerbating the shortage of supply relative to demand. This is precisely what happened in the former Soviet Union. Most of us remember seeing newsreels of Muscovites standing in long lines to get into a market and once inside finding that most everything was gone and the shelves were bare. That, friends, is what healthcare will become if given over to government bureaucrats.

Video: Obama Says Health Care is a RIGHT

Unlike our normal rights (like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from self incrimination, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, etc.), Barack Obama believes in a new "right" which requires that government take property (money) from one person and give it to another.

Does my right to free speech require that the taxpayers buy me a newspaper? Does my right to keep and bear arms require a taxpayer-funded gun?

Obama's "right" to health care would require taxpayer funding and Marxist redistribution of wealth.

MCCAIN: I think it's a responsibility in this respect, in that we should have available and affordable health care to every American citizen, to every family member. And with the plan that -- that I have, that will do that. But government mandates I'm always a little nervous about. But it is certainly my responsibility. It is certainly small- business people and others. And they understand that responsibility. American citizens understand that. Employers understand that. But they certainly are a little nervous when Senator Obama says if you don't get the health care policy that I think you should have that you're going to get fined. And by the way, Senator Obama has never mentioned how much that fine might be. Perhaps we might find that our tonight.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, why don't -- why don't -- let's talk about this, Tom, because there -- there was just a lot of stuff out there that --

MR. BROKAW: Privilege, right or responsibility? Let's start with that.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think it should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills -- for or my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in a hospital room arguing with insurance companies, because they're saying that this may be a preexisting condition and they don't have to pay her treatment, there's something fundamentally wrong about that.

Sanford Health: Blocking Healthy Choices and Allowing Unhealthy Ones

Boy, if that isn't a blatant--and pathetic--double standard from Sanford Health.

Voices Carry points out that if you take your laptop to the hospital and try to go online through their web portal, you're blocked from at least one pro-life website under the auspices that it is an "abortion/advocacy group."

Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood's website--the billion-dollar earning, getting $337 million of your tax money, leading abortion provider--gets through without a problem.

Want to read about people who want to save lives? No way; not at Sanford Health. Want to read about people who eagerly desire to kill unborn children and put women's health at risk? Go for it; our health facility applauds your unhealthy choice.

With a health facility with this kind of poor judgment, would I really want to trust them with other aspects of my health?

Universal Healthcare? Is This What Americans Want?

From the London Telegraph we have news of a proposed solution to the soaring costs of "free" healthcare. I suppose that it is true that dead people cause little financial strain on the medical system. Huge savings can certainly be realized by adopting such a plan, but think what additional savings are possible if it can be expanded to include the mentally ill, the lazy, the drug addicts, people with AIDS and other chronic and incurable diseases and other non-productive or otherwise worthless individuals. The mind boggles! Why, the Brits may actually begin to treat some acute life-threatening diseases before the patients die of natural causes!

Baroness Warnock: Dementia sufferers may have a 'duty to die'

Elderly people suffering from dementia should consider ending their lives because they are a burden on the NHS and their families, according to the influential medical ethics expert Baroness Warnock.

By Martin Beckford Social Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 10:42PM BST 18 Sep 2008
The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are "wasting people's lives" because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.
She insisted there was "nothing wrong" with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.
The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be "licensed to put others down" if they are unable to look after themselves.

Universal healthcare could become a reality in America if the Democrats are successful in November. I was hoping to cut down my work from two full-time jobs to maybe one and a half, but I'm going to have to re-think that. I don't want to risk being thought of as lazy or non-productive.

State Investment Officer Bonus Illustrates Myth of Government Competency

Like many people, I am disappointed and disgusted that state investment officer Matt Clark received a $147,178 bonus, even though South Dakota's investment fund lost $692 million.

The Rapid City Journal editorial board talks about that in today's editorial.

Obviously, it was gross incompetence at one or more steps of government that provided a whopping bonus to someone who lost a whopping amount. After all, their job is to make money for the state, not lose it.

I'm not saying the guy should be fired; investments can be tricky, and can go south even on the most prudent manager. But to give a bonus for losing $692 million?

What I don't get is, with such an obvious illustration that government does few things well and most things poorly, some of the same people who rightfully condemn this inefficiency and waste of taxpayer money still insist that government should run most aspects of our lives--including health care.

Not only are there few things our federal government are actually authorized to do according to the Constitution, almost everything the government does costs way too much, wastes way too much money, involves way too much inefficient bureaucracy, and provides too little benefit for the money.

As problematic as our current health care system is (largely due to the amount involvement the government already has), do we really think that somehow government is going to magically get health care right, when it has gotten so much wrong?

Man, don't pull my other leg. It's been pulled too much lately.

A Liberal's Idea of Compassionate Health Care

Liberals promote socialized medicine as the answer to all our health care problems, and presidential candidate Barack Obama is certainly no exception.

According to these worshippers of the government-god, we should entrust our health care system (and our lives and health with it) to the same people who have done such a great, efficient, compassionate job with the IRS, the Transportation Safety Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, Medicare, Social Security, and so on.

The Chicago Sun-Times brings us a glimpse of what we might expect from our health care system if we give Barack and Michelle Obama a chance to get their hands on it.

Barack's wife Michelle, who is on unpaid leave from her $317,000-a-year job as a vice president of the University of Chicago Medical Center, came up with a patient-shuffling system that steers poor folk away from this wonderful medical center to other, more "poor friendly" facilities in the area. They even provided a shuttle bus to shuffle these undesirables off to other facilities.

What, these poor folk aren't good enough for a prestigious medical facility? The fact that these poor folk aren't backed by the big bucks of medical insurance providers renders them ineligible for UC medical care?

I thought liberals were supposed to be the "compassionate" ones. I thought liberals were the ones demanding we reach out and help the poor, regardless of whether they have insurance, regardless of whether they can pay or not.

Or is that just smack talk to shame people into coughing up more taxpayer dollars for big government bureaucracy?

As someone who lived under the yoke of socialized medicine for three years in England, I've seen first hand how grossly inefficient it is. Bloated and weighed down with bureaucracy, the system reacts to change like an aircraft carrier turns on a dime. Hypochondriac citizens overburden the system with complaints that could be better handled on their own, "but it's 'free.'" There is no incentive for doctors to work harder or be better doctors because they're all locked in the same communist-style system where there are no rewards for hard work...and little punishment for incompetence. And who hasn't heard of the deadly waiting lists that are months long?

Yet somehow, the wealthy and the powerful, even in highly socialized nations like Great Britain, always manage to get the really good health care. They can fly to other countries, they can take advantage of the small private sector medicine that still exists, or they can mysteriously go to the head of the line.

In reality, the egalitarian dream is just that: a dream. As it is today in every Marxist regime around the world, and as it was in the old Soviet Union, there are always the "haves" and the "have nots." As George Orwell put it, "All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others."

Is this what Barack and Michelle Obama, and other liberals, have in mind for the United States health care system? I have no doubt that it is.

Our system has serious problems, and is no one's idea of perfect. But rather than push our system closer to the decadent, inefficient socialist model, we need to be moving it back toward a free market model where the consumer is more involved in his own health care decisions.

No system will ever be perfect in our perfect world, but we've had plenty of examples to show us the liberal plan is a dead end street paved with broken promises.

Mental Patient Stuck in Chair Dies On Tape

"Mental Patient Stuck in Chair Dies On Tape
Man Left Untended For 22 Hours, Report Says
Posted: 10:43 am EDT August 20, 2008

RALEIGH, N.C. -- A mental patient died after workers at a North Carolina hospital left him in a chair for 22 hours without feeding him or helping him use the bathroom, said federal officials who have threatened to cut off the facility's funding.

The state sent a team Tuesday to help Cherry Hospital in Goldsboro draft new procedures to ensure patients receive proper care.

An investigator's report released Monday found that 50-year-old Steven Sabock died in April after he choked on medication and was left sitting in a chair for close to a day at the facility about 50 miles southeast of Raleigh. Surveillance video showed hospital staff watching television and playing cards just a few feet away.

Federal officials have threatened to cut off funding because of Sabock's death and a report that a physician punched a patient after the teen bit the doctor."

Read the entire report at WNEM.

The cruelty of some is ever amazing. I simply can't get use to the mentality that deems life so worthless and compassion too burdensome to keep on hand.

HHS Moves Forward With Right of Conscience Protections

Despite the howling of liberals for more than a month, the Bush Administration has gone ahead with plans from the Health and Human Services Department to provide greater protection for health care workers in facilities receiving federal dollars to exercise their right of conscience not to provide goods or services that could result in the loss of life of an unborn child.

From Fox News, Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt says

"Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree," said Leavitt. "This nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience."

The proposed rule, which applies to institutions receiving government money, would require as many as 584,000 employers ranging from major hospitals to doctors' offices and nursing homes to certify in writing that they are complying with several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of health care workers. Violations could lead to a loss of government funding and legal action to recoup federal money already paid.

Abortion rights supporters served notice that they intend to challenge the new rule.

The Christian Medical Association, the nation's largest faith-based association of healthcare professionals, applauded this step today.

CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens said, "These regulations are desperately needed to protect First Amendment rights and implement federal law in what is becoming a jungle of coercion in healthcare. Two of five of our members indicate they have been subjected to pressure and discrimination in the healthcare profession simply because they adhere to life-affirming, patient-protecting standards of medical ethics such as the Hippocratic Oath.

"Clearly, unless we act now to protect the right of healthcare professionals to make standards-based ethical decisions, patients will be penalized with less access to healthcare. If current trends of coercion are allowed to continue, patients will not be able to find physicians who share their life-affirming values."

CMA Senior Vice President Dr. Gene Rudd, an Obstetrician-Gynecologist, said, "Vital issues including abortion, assisted suicide, end of life decisions and other important ethical matters must not be matters of coercion but of conscience."

Those intent on receiving abortions and abortifacients could still seek those goods and services elsewhere, even within that facility if other health care workers were present who didn't have those same moral reservations.

Nothing in the new regulation in any way changes a patient's right to any legal procedure," he said, noting that a patient could go to another provider.

"This regulation is not about contraception," Leavitt added. "It's about abortion and conscience. It is very closely focused on abortion and physician's conscience."

But that will not be good enough for the advocates of complete sexual license. They showed that when a pharmacist in Montana exercised his conscience, they showed it again in Wisconsin, and showed it vehemently in South Dakota during the 2008 legislative session when liberals came up with such a twisted bill to quash pharmacists right of conscience that it actually made the pharmacist sound like an agent of the government.

It isn't about rights for the Left. It isn't about access for the Left. It's about using the brute force of government to force the backwards, superstitious, religious, moralist Christians to capitulate their moral convictions. It's about wiping away all vestiges of moral condemnation for their immoral acts so they can (they hope) soothe their hurting consciences.

Some thought when we began throwing off the objective moral values of our Judeo-Christian foundations that we would inherit more freedom. But when you abandon objective values, then the debate over whose concerns receive the highest regard quickly degenerates into "might makes right."

At this point in the devolution of our civilization, "might makes right" involves whoever can convince the majority to see it their way--or more often, whoever can convince a group of black-robed oligarchs to see it their way.

Eventually, though, even that won't satisfy, and we will likely slip away from the enlightened way of handling differences we've known in this nation for over 200 years, and degenerate into the "corruption, intimidation and violence makes right" that still rules so many nations of the earth.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Just like in the Garden of Eden, we will have traded some simple restrictions and a life of peace, in exchange for a broken promise yielding the yoke of bondage and turmoil.

We never seem to learn.

CNN Reports on 9,749 Adverse Gardasil Reactions

Okay, liberals, it's "real" now. CNN, the Clinton News Network, is reporting on the problems with the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil.

Some 9,749 adverse reactions and 21 deaths have been reported in connection with the Gardasil vaccination.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) still says Gardasil is safe, though nearly 10,000 adverse reactions is getting pretty high to call "anecdotal."

Last year, Dr. Diane Harper, one of the researchers who developed Gardasil, criticized the aggressive marketing campaign Merc and state governments initiated for Gardasil vaccinations.

While South Dakota only made the vaccine available at taxpayer expense, some states tried to make vaccination mandatory.

Since Gardasil doesn't stop other STDs, and doesn't even stop all forms of HPV, and women can still get cervical cancer even without HPV, and pap smears are still recommended despite the vaccination, I think we'll forgo the Gardasil risk for my daughter.