Everything dynamic and very positively!
a href=”http://www.victoriaclassic.com”>Links of London Jewellery

I think I will try to recommend this post to my friends and family, cuz it’s really helpful.
a href=”http://www.victoriaclassic.com”>Links of London Jewellery

Just wanted to say great job with the blog, today is my first visit here and I’ve enjoyed reading your posts so far
a href=”http://www.victoriaclassic.com”>Links of London Jewellery

Thanks for article. Everytime like to read you.
a href=”http://www.victoriaclassic.com”>Links of London Jewellery

Hell, the Enemy Ace (he qualified by virtue of personally removing five tail numbers from the BuAer inventory during his career as a naval aviator) was considering doing an Arlen Specter back in 2000, when Dubbya aced him out of the Red Party presidential nomination. The guy was one of the most completely National Socialist clowns in the whole RINO caucus.

And the economy was going down the tubes. Still is. You think I wanted any person in the White House during this catastrophe but some human bullet magnet with a big “(D}” painted between his shoulder blades? Great opportunity to drown the National Socialist Party in its own excrement.

As for the Obamacare “getting signed,” just you hang on a bit, putzie. I think all those “blue dog” National Socialists are getting fidgety because none of their usual-and-customary “bipartisan” RINO colleagues are extending friendly hands across the aisle to give 'em cover, and they're “blue dog” types precisely because they know full well that their districts (and states) could go to the Red Party in a heartbeat if their constituents see them handing over 20% of the American GDP to the equivalent of the Postal Service.

Big fun yet to come. Or as Anthony Gregory wrote yesterday in “Obama, Bush and the Limits of Power,”

“Obama's health care plan, his most ambitious domestic policy program, is in peril. Although he has a solid Democratic majority in both Congressional houses, politicians are vulnerable to public opinion, and opinion is split. Some polls show a slight majority supportive of his plan. But in the last few weeks, polls have also shown a larger percentage opposed than in favor. Senior citizens, one of the demographics that was supposed to benefit the most from Obamacare, are the most skeptical group.

“In order to get his plan through, Obama has to court two groups of Democrats – those who are relatively fiscally conservative and are skeptical of socialized medicine, and those on the far left who do not want too many compromises with the insurance industry and desire a full-blown single-payer system. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office has undermined one of the administration's central claims, that the health care proposal will cut costs.

“The CBO has detracted in other ways from Obama's economic agenda, warning that Obama's deficit may be four times as high as the already ridiculously large deficit from Bush's last year in office. In February, the CBO determined that Obama's stimulus program could be harmful to economic recovery in the long run.

“And the people are feeling the failure, so far, of Obama's economic program. Much of the public remembers the warnings that without the bailouts the sky would fall and they recall the promises that the stimulus would give an immediate boost to the economy. As Goldman Sachs reports record earnings and yet unemployment continues to rise, many Americans are detecting a bait and switch and are altogether unimpressed with Obama's handling of the economy.

Read the full article for embedded links to supporting information.

I love watching “Liberals” crash and burn. Conservatives, too, but “Liberals” scream more.

–
Study done in 2004 by the CDC. The way that good science works is that the scientist looks at something and says “What if?” He then develops a statement from that (a hypothesis) then tries to disprove his hypothesis. “The sky is yellow.” He first defines yellow. He then tests to see if the sky is yellow. If it turns out that the sky is actually blue, his hypothesis gets disproved. But he still publishes the paper and comes up with another hypothesis. Say that the world is really round. If he cannot disprove his hypothesis, it then and only then becomes a theory. This is Science 101. Man-induced global warming was an hypothesis that had been repeatedly disproven. Anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming proponents weren't scientists, they were religious zealots.

Anyway, the CDC liked “universal healthcare.” It was a government health program and government health programs were good. They were a government health program so any government health program had to be good.

Hypothesis: “Universal health care will increase the lifespan and general health of a population over free-market health care.”

Conclusion: “Fuck, we were not only wrong we were really wrong!”

How could that possibly be? Seriously. Universal healthcare is, well, universal healthcare! Everybody gets the same quality of treatment, young and old, rich and poor! Nobody is turned away! It's perfect communism! With doctors!

Yeah, everybody gets the same quality of treatment: Bad.

Look, if you're between the ages of 7 and 50, in reasonably good overall condition, don't have fucked up genetics and don't really lose the lottery, you generally don't really need a doctor. People between the ages of 7 and 50 rarely realize how bad socialist medicine is. Because they don't have to depend on doctors.

Try getting a hip replacement in a country with socialized medicine. Or a gall bladder operation. Hell, try getting drugs that improve a heart condition without surgery. And even though you can't, you also can't get surgery. Not in any sort of real time. Go rushing into a socialized medicine hospital with a clogged artery. You're going to get a stent if you're lucky. And get put on a waiting list for a bypass. For various political reasons, drugs that in free-market economies are the first line of defense just aren't available.

In the U.S. the standard time to wait for a gall bladder operation was two weeks. In the UK it was nine months. In the U.S., if you needed a bypass you'd be out of the surgery less than fourteen hours after emergency admission. In the UK it was emergency admission, minimal support therapy, months wait. Some 35% of persons waiting for a bypass operation died before they got one.

They found an interesting statistical anomaly as well. Death rates amongst the elderly climbed sharply as the end of the fiscal year approached.

Doctors in socialized medicine programs worked for the same pay whether they fixed people or not. But they had quotas for operations. As the end of the fiscal year approached, most of them had filled their quotas and went on actual or virtual vacation.

And people died.

Average population age in most of the socialized medicine countries were only starting to climb to the levels where death rates due to poor medical care were going to be noticeable. But the truncation of ages was clear. As were quality of life indicators.

Persons in free-market medical environments lived longer, healthier, less pain-filled lives. Despite the evil doctors and HMOs and pharmaceutical companies? No, because of the evil doctors and HMOs and pharmaceutical companies. All three groups had a vested interest in keeping patients alive as long as possible. The longer they lived, the more money the “evil” guys made.

The U.S. had been repeatedly castigated for the cost of healthcare and especially pharmaceuticals. Also for over-prescription of the newest and most costly.

But.

In Europe there was no pressure to use pharmaceuticals. With costs capped by the government, there was no incentive for the pharmaceutical companies. Modern pharmaceuticals are enormously expensive to field. The first problem is the cost of development. Many of them are derived from natural substances, but it takes relentless searching to find a new natural substance. Cancer drugs were derived from rare South African pansies, new antibiotics were derived from fungus found on a stone in a Japanese temple. Then they had to be tested to find out if any benefits could be derived.

Here's the numbers:

Animal (screening) in rats — about 1–2 years, cost about $500k/year, in monkeys — about 2–5 years, cost $2 million a year. Phase I in humans is strictly toxicology: 2 years, $10–20 million a year. If it doesn't kill anybody, then move to Phase II testing for effectiveness: up to 10 years, cost $100+ million/year. If statistics suggest a beneficial effect, then on to Phase III to determine effective dosage, side effects, other benefits and “off-label” uses: 5–10 years at another. $100+ million a year. A (large) Pharma company will start with 10,000 compounds in screening, take about 200 into animal testing, then possibly get ten into Phase I to maybe get one into Phase II. In the last 10–20 years, about 95% of Alzheimer's disease drugs that got to Phase II on the basis of rodent testing were sent back because they had no effect in humans — hence the necessity for the added expense of monkey testing . . .

It was a hideously expensive process. Again, Do. The. Math. Easily a billion dollars invested in one drug. The reason that a new pharmaceutical was so expensive was not just the cost of developing that pharmaceutical but the brutal necessity of so many thousands and millions of failures that that one new shining hope bore upon its back. Billions of dollars lost when “miracle” drugs failed at one step or another. And all that money only being recouped by those limited shining hopes that made it through the process.

But the results were worth every penny. New drugs that cut the need for bypasses; one of the most lucrative surgeries of the 1980s had been almost eliminated in the U.S. by the time of the [CDC study]. Stroke reducing medicines, anti-cancer medicines, cancer prophyllactics and, of course, Viagra, every old man's fantasy made real.

In Europe, in contrast, it was considered cheaper to just operate. Much more unpleasant for the patient but the doctors filled their quotas and the government wasn't forced to pay for the development of pharmaceuticals. Which was why most of the modern wonder drugs were coming out of America or from European businesses that were making most of their nut selling them in America.

Doctors in socialized medicine countries, and their bosses and the heads of departments, had no vested interest in keeping old people or the chronically sick alive. The doctors might have a personal desire to help people, otherwise they wouldn't have become doctors. But they had no actual benefit and if you've ever dealt with a bunch of crotchety old people you can see some of the actual detraction.

For doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies in the U.S., those crotchety old people spelled money, money, money! So they researched and they worked and they studied ways to extend the time they could continue to suck the money out of them.

In the case of governments of socialized medicine countries, the primary users of the services, see: “crotchety old people,” were their worst nightmares. The patients worked their whole lives, contributed to the economies of the countries and now expected to be paid back. Heavily. Socialized medicine wasn't the only benefit they expected. They retired early with pensions that nearly equalled their salaries when working. And they paid little or no taxes. And as any health insurance actuary will tell you, they consumed 90+% of the health budget. Mostly in their last six months of life. And what was the point of that?

It would be unfair to say that the politicians just wanted to see them all go away and that cutting off access to vital health services thus killed two birds with one stone. Save money and quietly kill off the primary users.

Or would it? Health care spending as adjusted for inflation had dropped steadily in socialized medicine countries in Europe even as the need had increased. All access to medicine was rationed. And in the Netherlands people who were “beyond help” were denied access to healthcare on a regular basis and even “medically terminated,” put to death, against the wishes of their care-givers. Not only old people but children with chronic health care problems. “Terminal” cancer? Which sometimes was treatable or even erasable in the U.S.? In the Netherlands, they just turned up the morphine drip until you quietly passed into the Long Dark.

A corollary effect was on the members of the health profession. A doctor in Britain who worked ninety hours a week got paid exactly the same as a doctor who worked forty hours per week. (Often they worked less.) And it was rare that there were any changes for quality. World-renowned surgeons in Germany and France made only a fraction more than less competent doctors.

In the U.S., on the other hand, they could write their ticket.

The brain drain was not severe at the time of the [CDC study] but it was telling. More and more top-flight doctors had left to find greener pastures. For that matter, doctors in less developed countries had flooded into the U.S., where they might not make a fortune but they got paid in more than chickens and hummus. They filled the corner “Minor Emergency Centers” as well as being the front line general practicioners, a field most American born doctors disdained as the most plebian of medical fields.

This was what the good doctors at the CDC learned when they set out to prove that American healthcare, with its dependence on the free-market, doctor/patient choice, HMOs and pharmaceutical companies was far inferior to the enlightened healthcare of “socialized medicine” countries.

They discovered the irrefutable truth that when you put the same sort of people that run the Post Office in charge of your healthcare you get Postal Workers for health care providers. And more people die in less necessary ways.

–
(( All emphases in the original. Source: http://www.webscription.net/chapters/1416555536… ))

Okay, apart from the fact that RC has a head full of dung and doesn't know dick about the subjects of “Insurance companies and Pharmaceutical companies,” and that the only reason he's making “a six figure salary” –

(( and “On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog” ))

- what more needs to be said?

Hey, I'm open to questions. But by all means, go and read John Ringo's sample chapters. Good book. Worth buying.

Hint, hint.