So, Sunday morning, I opened the electronic version of the only local newspaper I subscribe to and trust, the Las Vegas Review Journal, and I see, buried on page A8, a story headlined “Poll shows Democrats more trusted with health care”
Which was true…sort of. Because I’m pretty sure the story reported the numbers of the poll accurately.
The “poll” was an “Associated Press-NORC Center” poll which, you had to read seven paragraphs to the bottom of the story—by the Associated Press—to find out that “The poll of 1,108 adults was conducted April 11-14 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.” Let me be the first to ask the question: If that factoid had been in the headline or in the first paragraph, would anyone take this seriously? What if the story read like this:
“A poll of 1,108 adults paid for by the company selling this story to news outlets says that Democrats are more trusted to handle healthcare in the United States. The pollsters say that the 1108 adults can predict the sentiments of the 128,824,246 voters who cast a ballot in 2016 with a margin of error of 4.1 percent.”
Would anybody actually believe—especially after the 2016 election—that a sample of .0000086 percent of the voting electorate has a margin of error of 4.5 percent? But, in my favorite local newspaper, it is presented as fact. If this kind of polling were accurate, why did virtually every pollster predict Hillary by 7 points on the day of the 2016 election.
Polling used to be easier because, for most purposes, you could at least get a sample which was demographically sound. We could tell roughly where you lived by your telephone number and who you were. Today, with the advent of cell phones and cheap VOIP services, we cannot even tell with certainty what state you are in. Further, there is the built-in bias of many news organizations which sponsor such polls. If you believe that the AP is some kind of neutral news behemoth, guess again. Ditto for CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC and, yes, even Fox. They all come at stories from a predominately liberal viewpoint (with the occasional exception of Fox) so why would you believe that their polling selections would be much different?
Then, there’s the “if you see it in the media it must be true” school of thought. It’s today’s version of Hitler’s propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels’ Big Lie theory which, simply stated, says if you tell a lie big enough, many people will have to believe it. Inevitably, these “polls” are presented by the same people who populate organizations like the White House Correspondents Association and are soooo offended by the term Fake News and the President’s assertion that those who willfully present Fake News are the enemies of the people.
But the truth is not only is President Trump correct, but the average voter knows bullcrap when he or she sees it. Journalists have a tendency to see themselves as more knowledgeable and more important than average voting citizens. Many times, in conversation, journalists use terms like “them” and “those people” to describe and differentiate average voters. As if journalists, somehow, fall into a different category. Like Hillary and the word deplorable.
Want some proof? Watch those panels on FNC and CNN. Watch the Sunday morning shows.
It’s that sort of hubris which allows them to write headlines and lead paragraphs like the one I referred to above—even in my favorite local newspaper. (And I’m not kidding about that.) I’ve been in this business since I was 12. But I live about 2,600 miles from Washington and my neighbors remind me daily that I’m pretty average. I would hate for it to be any other way.
Intensified by the early fight for money and backers among Democratic presidential hopefuls, Medicare for All and similar single-payer insurance programs have been promoted with increased volume. While there are differences among the “I’ll give you more for less” sales pitches, they share the common central premise that such plans have far lower administrative costs than private insurance, so their version of reform will produce a massive infusion of available resources.
However, the “proof” offered for those administrative cost savings claims mainly consists of constant repetition, with candidates then quickly moving on to the free lunches they would supposedly enable. But given that claim’s central place in their proposals, we must question that premise and with it, the glib answers claimed for it.
How Should We Measure Administrative Efficiency?
For health care plans, the standard measure of efficiency is administrative costs as a percentage of total costs. And in those comparisons, Medicare appears substantially more efficient. But that does not mean there would be savings if people were moved from private insurance to Medicare for All.
The primary reason is that Medicare beneficiaries are far older and less healthy than the population. That makes health care costs far higher per Medicare beneficiary. In fact, before Obamacare, medical expenditures per Medicare beneficiary were routinely more than double those for the privately insured. However, nonmedical administrative costs are only slightly related to total medical expenditures. They are primarily related to the number of persons covered. This causes the standard measure to grossly exaggerate Medicare’s relative administrative efficiency.
Consider an example. Say both Medicare and private insurance beneficiaries had identical administrative costs of $500 each, but the Medicare patient received $5,000 in benefits, while the private patient received $2,500 in benefits. Medicare would show a 10 percent share of administrative costs, and private insurance would show a 20 percent share. In other words, despite the same administrative cost per beneficiary—that is, the same actual efficiency—the standard measure makes private insurance administrative costs look twice as expensive as Medicare.
Simply ask what would happen to administrative expenses if one private insurance beneficiary was moved into Medicare in the example above. Despite Medicare supposedly being half as costly in that regard, administrative costs would not change. No resources would be freed up. And given that the administrative cost per Medicare beneficiary is actually higher than for private insurance, the shift of someone into Medicare would increase administrative costs—leaving fewer resources, rather than more—available for medical care.
What Should Be Included in Medicare’s Administrative Costs?
The public-private comparison also typically compares the administrative costs of private insurance to those that show up in Medicare’s budget. But many of the administrative costs do not show up there. They appear in other agencies’ budgets. The costs of collecting taxes appear in the IRS budget. The costs of collecting premiums appear in Social Security’s budget. Many of the accounting, building, and marketing expenses appear in the Health and Human Services budget. Including those costs would roughly double Medicare’s reported administrative costs.
How Should We Count Taxes on Private Insurance?
Private insurance administrative costs are generally defined as premiums paid in minus claims paid out. However, that means everything except claims payments are counted as administrative costs whether or not they have anything to do with administration. For example, many states impose a premium tax (averaging about 2 percent) on health insurers, and those tax payments are incorrectly categorized as administrative costs. This also makes Medicare, which is exempt from such taxes, look relatively more efficient than it really is.
How Should We Count Disease Management and On-Call Consultation Services?
As with taxes, counting private insurance administrative costs as total premiums minus claims paid introduces other measurement distortions, as well. Insurance companies offer disease-management and on-call nurse consultation services. However, those services do not generate insurance claims. Consequently, those costs are also counted as administrative rather than medical.
How Should We Count Fraud and Fraud Prevention Efforts?
Waste, fraud, and efforts at their prevention also complicate administrative efficiency comparisons. Consider what happens if Medicare (estimates of whose excess spending exceed $50 billion yearly) spent less on prevention efforts. It would look more efficient because its administrative costs would be lower and because undetected excess spending would be counted as medical expenses, not waste. In contrast, insurance companies, whose bottom lines are at stake, are much more diligent about eliminating such excess spending. But those efforts, even though they can generate very large overall savings ($1 of fraud prevention has been estimated to reduce those costs by as much as $15), raise their measured administrative cost percentage, making them look less efficient.
How Should We Treat the “Excess Burden” Caused by Switching to Single Payer Systems?
In addition to all these biases exaggerating private insurance administrative costs and understating Medicare’s administrative costs, another large difference should be noted. When people pay more to get better private insurance coverage, they don’t treat it as a tax, but as part of their employee compensation. Under Medicare for All, however, higher payments into the system will not provide greater benefits. That means that Americans will rationally start treating those payments as taxes in exchange for nothing.
It will, therefore, act as a large income tax increase with correspondingly large economic distortions. Those distortions, created by the wedges taxes impose between what buyers pay and what sellers keep, reflect the wealth destroyed by the reduction in mutually beneficial market arrangements that result, which economists call excess burdens. While not incorporated in official comparisons, they are very large added costs of single-payer systems compared to private medical insurance.
One study found that even the “lowest plausible assumption about the excess burden engendered by the tax system raises the true costs of delivering Medicare benefits to about 20-25 percent of Medicare outlays,” imposing costs far higher than any supposed private insurance administrative cost deficiency.
It is striking how much single-payer promoters rush past their repetitions of administrative cost savings claims before quickly turning to their vote-buying promises in large part funded by them. It almost seems that they don’t want voters to think carefully about those claims. And that might reflect an accurate judgment. If people questioned the basis of those promised solutions, it would reveal supposed administrative cost savings to be the opposite once the compounded mismeasurements are deciphered, and it would not be anyone’s ticket into the White House.
Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University and a guest columnist to the Penny Press. His recent books include Faulty Premises, Faulty Policies (2014) and Apostle of Peace (2013). This piece was originally published on fee.orgm then pennypresslv, reprinted here in full, with permission.
Governor Jimmy Davis must be rolling over in his grave right now. Louisiana’s internationally acclaimed official state song is under attack by the Louisiana Legislature. There is an effort by some south Louisiana legislators to designate the Cajun classic Jambalaya as an official public ballad. And them’s fightin’ words for those who have embraced You are my Sunshine as the sanctioned formal melody.
The Sunshine defenders point out that it could be the most recognized American ballad worldwide. Go to a small Asian community where little or no English is spoken. Start humming, You Are My Sunshine. More likely than not, the locals will join in singing the song in English. Everybody knows the words to a down-home tune written by a Louisiana country singer and movie star. And he was sworn in as Louisiana Governor seventy-five years ago this month.
A few years back, I was in Cambodia at the Golden Triangle, where Burma and Thailand converge. I was having breakfast in a rural village at an outdoor café, and the young waitress who knew a few words in English said, “You American. I love America. I sing about America.” Then, with a big grin on her face, she broke out in song and danced around the dirt floor singing You Are My Sunshine.
That’s in no way meant to belittle the Cajun tune played in dance halls and musical venues all over Louisiana and much of the south. But there is a vast difference between the two songs. Sunshine was written and sung by a Louisiana native who happened to end up as governor. Jambalaya was written by Hank Williams, who was born, raised and is buried in Alabama. Haven’t we here in the Bayou State been humiliated enough by Alabama football to have to have our state song written by another Roll Tide advocate?
Actually, Jambalaya’s melody is basically the same tune taken from the song Grand Texas, about a lost love; a woman who left the country singer to go with someone else to “Big Texas,” where ever that’s supposed to be. So we have an Alabama song written off a Texas tune that may end up as the Bayou Nation’s new state song.
And what about some of the Jambalaya lyrics? A line in the song is “For tonight, I’m-a gonna see my ma cher a mi-o.” OK. I get ma cher. Even us uneducated rednecks know that ma cher means “my dear.” But what about this a mi-o. The word doesn’t exist. I’ve checked slang dictionaries in French and Spanish. No such word.
Now I’ll admit it’s a bit hard to defend some of the lyrics in Sunshine. Take the stanzas:
You told me once, dear, you really loved me
And no one else could come between
But now you’ve left me and love another
You have shattered all my dreams
I’ll concede such verbiage doesn’t set the best example for our young folks to aspire to greater heights. But hey, it’s only a song. Just like the partying words of Jambalaya, I guess it really doesn’t make much of a difference. Outside of a bar or dancehall, when was the last time you heard either song being sung? So maybe it’s just as well to have two state songs.
Being a redneck and having gotten to know Gov. Jimmie Davis back in the 1970’s, I’m just partial to You are my Sunshine. And just who was Sunshine? A past lover? A devoted family member? No. Sunshine was Jimmie Davis’s horse. The palomino mare is buried up on the Davis family farm above my old home of Ferriday. I pass that way occasionally and remember back on my conversations with the Governor. And yes. I do hum a few bars of what will always be my favorite Louisiana song, You Are My Sunshine.
Here is a message to Democrat dim bulbs everywhere who, after the Mueller report’s release, cannot, as one of their favorite organizations is so aptly named - move on.
On November 8, 2016, Donald John Trump whupped your collective ass.
On April 18, 2019, your collective ass got whupped again—this time by your own designated agent, Robert Mueller.
You still don’t understand that the average American voter thinks you are full of crap. That the reason Hillary lost was not the Russians but that she called half of America, “deplorable.”
No, you want to get rid of the President by any means possible - or impossible.
Go ahead and impeach the President. Please. Let cocky little jerks like Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiftless rule the day with their pseudo-intellectual bullcrap. Paraphrasing the immortal words of the late George Wallace, I’ll bet they couldn’t even park a bicycle straight. Both of these clowns are like the freshman in college who got beat up every day by the seniors and now, they’re going to show us.
Meanwhile, we DO have a crisis at the border.
And the economy IS doing quite well.
A classic episode of a TV show, WKRP in Cincinnati, ends with the station manager saying, “As God is my witness, I swear I thought turkeys could fly.”
Who would have thought that the writers in 1978 could have imagined today’s Democrats 41 years later.
We know a few things.
One is that turkeys CANNOT fly.
Two is that Democrats in the House of Representatives are auditioning to be turkeys.
In 448 pages, (available on pennypressnv.com) you see a President who has little or no patience for fools and has never been afraid to say so to anyone who paid attention.
The fact is that Donald Trump is the President of the United States. If the President wishes to fire anyone in the executive branch at any time for any reason, it may be a political firestorm, but not a legal one. Richard Nixon fired Archibald Cox. The firing stuck because Nixon was the President and in charge of the executive branch.
Had Trump fired Mueller or Jeff Sessions, it might have caused him political agita, but I’d put money on this Supreme Court ruling out obstruction of justice if it ever got that far.
And, as far as these clowns - yes, clowns - who chair various committees in the House go, if I were the Attorney General I would not answer their demands with nice letters. I would call a press conference and tell them to blow it out their…anal orifices. Or something like that. But that’s just me.
Although, I would observe that many of my fellow average American voters tend to feel the same way and use the same or similar language in their unguarded moments.
And as far as impeachment goes, the aforementioned clowns are playing with the possibility of going years before Democrats ever win an election in many places again. If they’re that stupid.
First, we know for a fact that impeachment would just be a symbolic gesture. There is NO WAY they get 67 votes in the Senate to remove the President. And if Indian imposter Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren thinks her call for impeachment will help her run for the Democratic nomination, we sure hope the Democrats ARE that stupid.
Having spent 20 years of my life in Las Vegas, I wouldn’t put any money on either side of that proposition.
By now you all know that the full (but redacted) Mueller report has been made available to the public. I am slogging through it now. It’s long. Four hundred and eighty eight pages long. And I’m only one guy. It’s gonna take me awhile to get through it all.
But I have read a decent amount of it. It’s broke down into two volumes.
Volume I details Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and "if the Trump Team conspired with the Russians."
Volume II deals with the president's “actions towards the FBI investigation” and if any of said actions are "obstruction of justice."
So far - I have some thoughts.
So, what does the Mueller report actually say about Russian interference and collusion?
A lot. Like, way more than I ever expected it to. From Mueller’s introduction to Volume I of the report:
“The Russian Government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the DNC and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Release of hacked materials -hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month …. Trump foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos … (said) that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The information prompted the FBI on July 31st, 2016, to open an investigation into weather individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities.
That fall, two federal agencies jointly announced that the Russian government “directed recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions, including US political organizations,” and, “these thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.”
So, this all makes it very, very clear that Russia, a hostile foreign power, endlessly interfered in the US presidential election. That’s not even in debate.
The next part of the introduction talks about how Mueller was assigned, came on board in May of 2017 as Special Counsel and was authorized to investigate “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election,” including any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign.
Okay. We all know this. And then the report clearly says this:
“As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel’s investigation established that Russia interfered …. principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Hrmmm. The words “numerous links,” and “did not establish” don’t seem to fit together. Let me unpackage it all:
Mueller felt that the while the Russians instigated cyber terrorism and the Trump team accepted the stolen material there was technically “no collusion,” because both groups acted independently towards the same mutually beneficial goal.
Okay. I understand. That’s fair. The Trump team never called up the Russians and said, “Can you steal a bunch of stuff in order to help us win the election?” In which case, for it to be collusion, then the Russians would have to respond with, “Of course! We’ll break into the US Government and steal a bunch of information that will help you win!” Because that specific agreement - tacit or express - did not seem to happen - then there was “no collusion.”
Which … is not exactly how Barr’s four page summary spun it. But, whatever.
Also, I’m only about fifty pages into the report so far.
More to come.
Jack hates Trump. Jill hated Obama. And thus, Jack and Jill now cannot stand each other. This is today’s America, where lines are drawn and the population is bifurcated. We are somehow losing our love for each other, sharing common bonds of freedom as a nation. Is it because of the polarizing nature of Trump? Or Obama? No. Our collective angst has been misdirected towards the wrong culprit—the ire belongs with the unfettered growth of the power of government over our lives.
Would Jack hate Trump as much if the government was vastly less impactful on his life? Of course not. The emotional highs and lows of 2016 were extreme. We hear ad nauseum that every election is the most important of our lifetime. This last one, though, should have been no more extraordinary than any other. Sadly for our mental, emotional, and financial well-being, each election becomes progressively more polarizing, and more anger-inspiring—at least on one side. The reason is simple: the government becomes incrementally more gargantuan.
American Elections Have Become the Prisoner's Dilemma
Contemplate the prisoner’s dilemma that has become our elections. In a traditional prisoner’s dilemma problem, two people that together perpetrated a crime are given a choice to either stay silent or betray the other. If they both stay silent, they will both go to prison for a short period of time. If one stays silent, and the other betrays, the betrayer stays out of prison, and the silent one goes to prison for a long time. If they both betray the other, they both go to prison for a medium length of time. If they both act rationally, yes—an oxymoron for a criminal, then they will each betray the other.
Our elections are analogous because we are trapped in a scenario in which it seems impossible to behave rationally and have a positive outcome for all, or even most. Presume we live in a roughly 50-50 country, where people are split down the middle. After an election, half of the people are ecstatic, half the people are devastated, and all of the people can barely stand each other. There is, however, a way to solve the dilemma problem. It is a solution in which both sides are at least better off: limited government.
Our federal government is a behemoth. The fiscal year 2019 budget stands at $4.5 trillion, which is 21.3 percent of GDP. The current federal debt, on paper, exceeds $22 trillion and has grown on average nearly a trillion dollars a year over the last decade. Off the balance sheet, the unfunded liabilities could add at least another $50 trillion, depending on how it is estimated. The federal government employs approximately 2 million people.
There are 15 executive departments, and the number of agencies depends on who is counting, and how. As citizens, we experience an ever-growing expanse of government, impacting virtually every aspect of our lives. Thus, elections become commensurately impactful. Those who win elections direct this bloated mass of resources and power in a manner which the losing party inevitably finds antithetical.
Of course, emotions are not some mathematical game theory problem. The results are real and impactful. They have become rather binary, and we have become vastly forked along political lines. But there is a correlation in our prisoner’s dilemma puzzle between the severity of outcome and the power of the government. The less impactful government is on our lives, the less a binary election matters. The more impactful government is in one’s life, the more extreme the results of an election will be. Is everyone willing to simply flip a coin to be extremely happy or extremely bitter? That is where we currently stand.
Perhaps, instead, we can limit government. By reducing the magnitude of government, we can move our country to the point where elections are vastly less impactful on our well-being. We can reduce the animosity we currently have for each other, and instead bask in the glow of the freedoms we have been bestowed. Government has a natural tendency to metastasize. It is our duty as citizens to curtail that.
Abraham Lincoln declared our government to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. Sadly, our reality is a government that no longer derives its power from our consent. The simple fact is that Obama was your President, and Trump is your President. Instead of #notmypresident, how about #limitedgovernment?
Dave Sukoff is an advisor to the investment management community and previously co-founded and ran a $500m fixed income relative value fund. He is also the co-founder of a software company and inventor on multiple patents. Dave graduated from MIT, where he majored in finance and economics. This piece appeared on pennypressnv, reprinted in full with permission.
The media continuously attempts to divert your attention to the southern border through the circus of politics. You know, where the left blames the right, and then the right blames the left, and in the end, the American people are stripped of their God-given rights.
People need to awake to the fact that this administration has eradicated NAFTA by implementing something far worse called the USMCA in helping set up a global government (Luke 22:48).
A popular constitutional attorney from Washington DC shared with me this last week that this president has the power to put a stop to all of this illegal immigration across the country if only he would enforce the immigration laws, which he has not done. He went on and said that if you are waiting for this administration to enforce immigration laws, forget it, this president is sitting on his hands.
Many are not aware of the fact that several states have passed unconstitutional legislation, policies which counter and undermine the US Constitution, in order to hand your country over to illegals within the borders of the United States of America (Deuteronomy 28:43).
Just this last week, we’ve seen the manifestation and exhibition of this in my state of Minnesota, where they want to hand driver's licenses to illegals. Yes, you read that right.
New, Governor Tim Walz wishes to implement something called a “Sanctuary City.” He is joined by Attorney General Keith Ellison, whose objective is to bring in 300% more Somalis into Minnesota to illegally enforce, through totalitarian means, that which is clearly contradictory to the US Constitution (Article 6, Section 2, US Constitution).
Of course, let’s not forget the 74 said representatives acting outside of their scope of authority that just passed through the House a bill that would literally hand out licenses for illegals that are at this very moment being allured into this state (Deuteronomy 28:43).
Let me ask you, where did these said representatives receive delegated authority from “We the People” to implement such a bill? They didn’t!
No one has delegated authority to these said representatives to tear down the United States Constitution and recreate it in the image of the United Nations charters in making way for illegals.
The Minneapolis Star and Tribune reported, "Minnesota House votes to allow driver's licenses for immigrants in the country illegally."
The Democratic-led Minnesota House voted Friday to give immigrants the ability to get driver’s licenses even if they are in the country illegally, setting the stage for a potential clash with Senate Republicans who argue that the change rewards those who break the law.
“Immigrants, whether they are documented or undocumented, are Minnesotans. They are part of the fabric of our communities,” said House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler, D-Golden Valley. “It is time that we helped take away this shadow of not having a driver’s license.”
The 74-52 vote was a victory for the DFL House majority and Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, who have made it a top priority for this session. But it faces strong opposition in the Republican-controlled Senate, where some conservatives see it as an invitation to illegal immigration and possibly even fraudulent voting.
Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen, R-Alexandria, said the proposal would set a “dangerous precedent” and “undermine our current laws.” “Minnesota shouldn’t be in the business of incentivizing illegal behavior, and by allowing illegal and undocumented immigrants access to driver’s licenses, that’s exactly what our state would be doing,” he said.
Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka, R-Nisswa, has called the chances that the bill would pass his chamber “small.”
If the measure were to clear the Minnesota Legislature, still a distant prospect, the state would become the 13th in the nation to provide licenses to residents who cannot prove legal status, fueling the national debate over immigration and access to social benefits.
Ron Branstner reported:
Most of you are aware of the house file that passed the floor this past week in Minnesota. H.F. 1500 passed the House overwhelmingly in support of giving illegals driver’s license on Minnesota roads.
Now, after finding out about this information, I immediately called my state senator and began asking what was going on down at the state capital. I inserted constitutional and federal law references throughout the conversation. I ended by stating that this is treason (Luke 22:48).
He replied, "We need help from a third party" and added that these said representatives that signed their names to implement such a treasonous bill need to be escorted out and into jail, I of course answered in the affirmative with, you’re exactly right (Isaiah 26:9; 51:4)!
Americans, how long are you going to play the fool with those who are trampling under foot your blood-bought freedoms, as well as those who are now handing off your country to those who mean to destroy it?
After everything we’ve seen, politically, since Donald Trump announced his campaign for President in 2015, is it unreasonable to believe, today, everything he has said about the Washington swamp?
In a word, no.
In fact, believing Trump and disbelieving pencil neck Adam Schiftless and his ilk is as reasonable as believing that baseball season started last week and the Stanley Cup playoffs start this week.
We have created a class of people in Washington, New York and other large Democrat controlled urban areas who simply do not care about what we, the people who actually own America, want. We didn’t intend to create this class of people—call them the Swamp class.
It happened because Americans are so in awe of our experiment in self-government, we have, over the last 200 years, forgotten that when you give people access to a vast treasury, many of them seem to want some of it for themselves. In short, we trusted them but we didn’t verify their intentions. It’s kind of like trusting that nice man who owns a casino in Las Vegas to play you with even odds. Not going to happen. Seriously. How is it that people who have served in the House or Senate almost their entire professional lives, emerge from public service as multi millionaires? How indeed, Harry Reid?
Ironically, it took a billionaire—who actually made his money in business—from, of all places New York City, to tell the public the truth.
“We have a lot of great support, far more than you think,” said President Trump. “But where we really have the support are the voters that pull that handle, or whatever the hell they are pulling, they are pulling it for us. So, the Russia hoax proves more than ever that we need to finish exactly what we came here to do. Drain the swamp! The Democrats have to now decide whether they will continue defrauding the public with ridiculous bullshit — partisan investigations, or whether they will apologize to the American people, and join us to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, bring down the cost of health care.”
So, when these clowns get caught trying to manipulate the system to their advantage with their panties down around their ankles, why are they amazed that our pitchforks are out for them?
Donald Trump may be a little crude, but he’s certainly been effective.
Ask any member of the Washington Swamp class. After they get done sputtering.
Their newest scam is to insinuate the Mueller Report is, somehow, flawed. CBS is trumpeting a report that certain unknown members of Mueller’s team are “unhappy” with Attorney General Bill Barr’s summary of the report.
It’s not enough for them to have spent more than $25-million of our money to try and unelect a duly elected President they hate. Now, they need to trash their own work. Or, the Democrats do. (Maybe that’s one and the same.) Think about it. This Attorney General has spent an entire career building a sterling reputation. He didn’t need this job. Mueller is exactly the same.
Do you seriously think they would endeavor to ruin their reputations by involving themselves in a bizarre conspiracy to protect Donald Trump?
Do you seriously think that either of these two would allow their names to be used in some illicit scheme to tilt the results of this investigation? If you do, we have bigger problems than Adam Schiff.
People used to know who their doctor was. His name and phone number were on the wall or the refrigerator next to the telephone. He was there for you and could manage most of your problems.
When I was about 13, my mom took me to our pediatrician for belly pain. He was on his way out the door, but he stopped to take care of me. He diagnosed appendicitis based on history and physical examination. He called his favorite surgeon (“Billy,” a Tucson legend), who came from the golf course to meet me in the emergency room. Within hours, my red-hot appendix was in a jar. My parents paid the hospital bill ($150—10 days’ pay for a construction laborer) as I was discharged a few days later.
Today, the patient with abdominal pain could wait for hours to see the ER provider—possibly a nurse practitioner or physician assistant who had never seen a case of acute appendicitis. She’ll probably get a CT scan, after another wait. Eventually, Dr. On-call may take her to the operating room, hopefully before the appendix ruptures. And the bill will be beyond the means of ordinary people.
I used to be able to direct-admit patients from my office and send them with a set of orders to the hospital admitting office. For years, this has been impossible. The hospital is decidedly unfriendly to independent doctors. There’s now a gatekeeper in the emergency room, and most patients are under the control of a hospitalist.
This hospital, still Catholic at least in name, is now owned by a huge national conglomerate. Recently, it thwarted all efforts to keep it from dehydrating a patient to death despite lack of an advance directive or permission from next of kin. The patient’s mother disputed the diagnosis of brain death. The gastroenterologist of her choice was willing and able to place a feeding tube, needed in order to transfer the patient to a skilled nursing facility, but the hospital would not permit it. An outside physician whom the mother had called on was removed from the patient’s room by security, when she was merely praying with the mother. The mother could not get a phone call returned from an attending physician. Who was the doctor? Apparently, the hospital system.
Recently, a physician called me about her mother, who was seemingly a captive in a world-renowned hospital. She was concerned about her mother’s nutritional status and falling oxygen level. She could not speak to the attending physician. “They play musical doctors.”
Largely driven by government policy, the System is increasingly in control. A new level of intrusion is being proposed in California in a bill (SB 276) that would outlaw all medical exemptions for vaccines, unless a public health officer approves each one, based on the very narrow list of contraindications accepted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Doctors traditionally swore an oath not to harm patients, and are liable if they do. But government officials are immune from liability, even if they overrule a physician’s judgment that a particular patient faces an unacceptable risk of harm from a vaccine.
If you disagree with your private doctor, you can fire him or simply decline to follow his advice. But what if the government is your doctor?
In Arizona, law enforcement officers in tactical gear broke down the door to a home where children were sleeping, entered with guns drawn, and took three little children away from their parents. The stated reason: the mother had decided not to follow a doctor’s advice to take her two-year-old to the emergency room for a fever, because the fever broke and the child got much better soon after leaving the office. The main concern seemed to be that the child was not vaccinated.
Americans need to defend their right to have an independent physician, to choose their physician and type of care, and to give or withhold informed consent to medical treatments. Otherwise, their “doctor” will be a protocol in a system staffed by interchangeable automatons. Treatments will be inaccessible or required, tailored to meet the needs and beliefs of the system.
If the government is the ultimate authority on your “health care,” remember that its tools for checking whether a child has a life-threatening disease such as meningitis include battering rams and assault rifles.
Jane M. Orient, M.D. obtained her undergraduate degrees in chemistry and mathematics from the University of Arizona in Tucson, and her M.D. from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1974. Her views and opinions, if expressed, are her own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of GCN. Her column can often be found here at www.pennypressnv.com. Her column has been reprinted in full, with permission.
After a weekend full of Lucy Flores, the time has come to ask why the former gang banger, Nevada Assemblywoman and two time Nevada political loser found it necessary to wait four and a half years and then come after Joe Biden for alleged hair sniffing. Or alleged back of head kissing. Or alleged shoulder holding.
All while Biden, then the Vice President of the United States of America, was lending his support to what would soon become her massive loss in 2014 for Light Gov.
And, did I mention that it was four and a half years before she trotted out Biden’s “crime?”
“I had never experienced anything so blatantly inappropriate and unnerving before,” she (or someone) wrote in New York Magazine.
You mean the abortion you had when you were gang banging at age 16 was perfectly appropriate? The fact that your solution to becoming pregnant was to kill the baby? That was appropriate?
Or does it mean you have a very short memory?
Let me refresh it from your own website:
“By 15 I was on juvenile parole and by 17 I had dropped out of high school.”
Now, Lucy. I’m NOT kicking you when you are down. In fact, the exit you made from that life is impressive. It shows that President Trump is on the right path with his criminal justice reform efforts—which, thankfully, your Democrat buddies seem to be supporting.
Also, I’m not here to make Joe an example of who I would like to see as President, since we already have a perfectly good President in Donald Trump.
But, he is, at least, the sanest of the Democratic candidates so far and is a decent man who doesn’t deserve the negative publicity you and the lamestream media have whipped up, presumably at the request of one of the other crazed Democrat candidates. Further, you seem just a tad too concerned with your political relevance which is actually somewhere between that of Jussie Smollett and Hillary Clinton.
And as far as this #MeToo crap goes, count me out.
As I have said in this space before, my Father took me aside when I was about 13 and told me that I had a Mother and two Sisters and I had better treat women the way I expected others to treat my Mother and two Sisters. Left unsaid was what would happen if I violated those strictures but it wouldn’t have been pleasant.
Somehow, given your gang banging background, if you had been all that offended at the time, Biden might have suffered a groin injury (although the Secret Service might have been upset). Something tells me you didn’t say a word at the time because you are full of crap.
You appreciated his trip to attempt to bail you out of a horrible campaign back then and you feel like there’s nothing he can do for you today.
In short, madam, cut the crap.
You don’t deserve any of the time the lamestream media has wasted on you and, if you want to be an example to troubled youth, maybe you should endorse the President’s First Step Act and get on with it.
Or you can continue to act like Jussie Smollett and become even more irrelevant than you are now.