Click here to order "You're Fired!"

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Justice is blind?

So, President Obama has nominated his first Supreme Court justice, oh whoopee! She is according to the White House the most qualified person to be on the Supreme Court in over a 100 years (that’s a slap in the face to the current sitting Justices). Just like her boss, Justice Sonia Sotomayor will violate the oath of office the minute she lays her hand on the Bible. The oath states “I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Once again, the administration doesn’t care about the oath the swear to uphold. Obama believes that the “quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles is the key qualification for a Supreme Court justice.”

Let me just say, I don’t care where she is from, I don’t care that she grew up in the Bronx, I don’t care that she was raised by a single mother, I don’t care that she went to Harvard,Yale, Princeton, wherever. What I do care about is that she holds no regard for the law and the she believes the Court of Appeals is the place where policy is made. The White House will have you believe that her background prepares her for a seat on the high court because “it shows she understands that upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts."

President Obama believes that empathy should be precedent in 5% of the cases before the court. Justices should no longer by the court of law but by their heart. Mr. Obama’s nominee should face the same scrutiny that Bush’s nominees faced. In fact, Mr. Obama was in the Senate when Chief Justice Roberts was nominated. He voted against Mr. Roberts all because and I quote “we need somebody who's got the heart -- the empathy -- to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -- and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges."

Based on statements that have been made so far we can conclude that Sotomayor is downright discriminatory. Back in 2001, she said that a “wise Latina woman…would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male” raises some eyebrows. Her record going in front of the Supreme Court is not great. While she has only had 6 cases come before the court, 60% of them have ended in reversals.

Senate Republicans to take issue with her stance on the issues. The media have already tried to begin the story that Republicans are against a Hispanic, woman sitting on the court, this is WRONG! We are against anyone who does not uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, whether they are White, Black, Hispanic, male or female.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Memorial Day

This weekend is Memorial Day, symbolizing the start of summer!!! But it is also a time to remember those that served this still great country. Through their service, we are free. My little cousin (well he's not so little anymore) will be making his third tour of Iraq in the coming months and God Bless him.

So this weekend, go have fun in the sun and with the family but remember the servicemen and women who are right now working on capturing the bad guys in places far away and are unable to be with their families. If you see a man or woman in uniform, stop and thank them for their service.

Happy Memorial Day and God Bless America!

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Health Care Reform

With all the talk the H1N1 virus, the issue of health care reform has popped up again. I agree we do need to reform the health care costs but a single-payer, government run health care plan is not the answer.

Let’s review what a nationalized, government run health care system will look like. Let’s say you have back problems. Currently you arrange an appointment with your doctor and after discussion, your doctor says you need surgery so you schedule it within a 4-6 week period. With nationalized health care, you may have to wait up to 2 years before you can get that same surgery. Let’s say your 90 year-old grandma needs her pacemaker replaced. Under the current system, she would have no problem going to the hospital and getting the pacemaker replaced. Under a nationalized health care system, the government would tell her “I’m sorry but you’re too old and this procedure is a waste of time and money so enjoy the time you have left” (Nice uh). Let’s say you were recently diagnosed with breast cancer. In our current system, the doctor would throw everything including the kitchen sink to treat your cancer. In Britain (where they have nationalized health care), they recently refused medication to some women, why? Because the cancer was to far gone and they had little chance of surviving. Is this what we want?

In researching this topic, I went to one of my favorite websites and came across an article about health care policies. We always seem to bring up Canada and Britain as examples of nationalized health care systems that don’t work. This article discusses a health care system that works and is not nationalized. The country where this system is enacted is Singapore. While we spend a robust 15.4% of our GDP goes to healthcare (the highest in the world), Singapore spends a tiny 3.7% of their GDP. The article written by Robert Herbold, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, states that it is stupid for the liberals to throw $634 billion plus for health care when we don’t know whether it will work or not. He argues that we should get spending under control before borrowing more money from the Chinese or taxing the rich. Here’s how it works: “Singapore has a very unique system that requires the individual to be responsible for his or her own health; even more importantly, it makes people responsible for managing the spending associated with their medical care. Singaporeans participate in a mandatory savings program that sets up a "Medisave" account for each individual. The individual is required to pay a small percentage of his or her income each month into that account, and employers also make a contribution. For individuals who are unemployed, there is a government subsidy. Singaporeans also engage in a "Medishield" program, which is a national catastrophic illness insurance plan. Premiums for the Medishield program are small, because it is government subsidized; as a result, the premiums are paid for out of an individual's Medisave account…When individuals in Singapore feel the need to go to a physician, they select the doctor based on the quality of the care they believe they will get and the cost associated with going to that physician…Individuals select carefully since it's their Medisave account money that's used to pay for the chosen physician…These accounts grow steadily over time because the government invests these funds for the individual in a safe and modestly performing investment fund…the money is not the government's. It's the individual's money and, at retirement age, people actually have access to these funds. That's why individuals use the funds wisely. As Congress takes up healthcare reform…it's essential that members of the House and Senate go slow and hold back on writing another big check for a bloated and ineffective government program that probably won't improve the quality of life for our citizens.”

In contrast, the Obama administration is doing everything possible to not only save money but control your doctor’s decisions. The doctor’s Hippocratic Oath states that they are “to use their power to help the patient to the best of their ability and judgment as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost of effects on others.” This is of course what we want doctors to do but if the Obama administration has its way, forget it. Ezekile Emanuel, policy advisor in the Office of Management and Budget (and brother of Rahm Emanuel) thanks that the use of the hippocratic oath is a factor driving “overuse” of medical care. Included in the stimulus bill which no one read, was a goal that “every individual’s treatments will be recorded by computer, and your doctor will be guided by electronically delivered protocols on appropriate and cost-effective care.” Yikes! The national coordinator of health information technology, Dr. David Blumenthal, actually favors limits on how much health care we can receive. He states that “government controls are a proven strategy for controlling health care expenditures.” The disadvantage he contends is “longer waits for elective procedures and reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices.” You think! Blumenthal does admit that there are problems ahead. “If electronic health records are to save money, doctors will have to take advantage of embedded clinical decision support (a euphemism for computers instructions doctors what to do). If requirements are set too high, many physicians and hospitals will rebel – petitioning Congress to change the law or just resigning themselves to accept penalties.”

While the use of electronic records might be save time and money, many people did not foresee that it would also be putting bureaucrats in charge of their health care.

Let's hope that those supporters of a “single-payer, government run health care system” who try and get medical care for themselves or family members will change their minds.