0 comment Wednesday, November 26, 2014 | admin
Travelers going ahead with plans despite vice president's gaffe, swine flu concerns
Pigs can�t fly yet, but the swine flu is still a reason to stay out of the sky.
At least, that is, if you ask Vice President Joe Biden. And most Southwest Floridians aren�t. Nor are their travel agents. Or their airlines. Or the rest of the federal government.
"I would tell members of my family � and I have � that I wouldn�t go anywhere in confined places now," Biden said on NBC�s "Today" show Thursday morning.
Only problem is, Biden�s advice is not in line with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention official message, which is for citizens to only avoid non-essential travel to Mexico. Pundits quickly tacked the comment up as another off-the-cuff remark, which Biden has a reputation for, but travel industry officials were decidedly more upset, with one saying the comment bordered on "fear mongering."
"To suggest that people not fly at this stage of things is a broad brush stroke," said Tim Smith, a spokesman for American Airlines.''
I suppose a spokesman for American Airlines just couldn't have a bias, could he? Or a conflict of interest?
Either way, though, a possible Biden gaffe wasn�t going to keep Shari Munger of Sarasota from visiting Chicago on Thursday out of Southwest Florida International Airport. Munger, who said she was in her early 40s, said she felt the whole swine flu thing was being blown out of proportion.
"Not at all worried," Munger said. "I think the media has a tendency to exaggerate things."
But there are people taking precautions, feeling, like Biden, that confined spaces result in pandemics.
"It�s not just going to Mexico, if you�re in a confined aircraft and one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft," Biden said, adding that other transportation options may be worth a look.''
Just for perspective, let's see what information is out there on air travel and contagious illness. There's this:
Airborne illness and air travel simply go hand in hand, and anyone that travels often will tell you so. The problem with air travel is that you are talking about thousands and over the course of a year, millions of people who travel in the same aircrafts. Simply put, there are germs everywhere in an aircraft and it doesn�t matter how well the crews clean them, these germs cannot be removed because they are not just on things, they are in the air.
Every year millions of people come down with the flu or common colds after traveling on an aircraft. Though a good number of these people may not correlate the two, the likelihood that they picked up their cold or flu bug on the aircraft is very high. The problem with airplanes is that many people get on and off them all the time. Some of these people may be sick, some may just be recovering, and some may be sick and not even realize it.
[...] Obviously, when you are talking about an aircraft you are talking about a small place where the air is just recycled over and over again, allowing the germs the perfect environment to meet up with bodies that are just waiting to get sick! Air travel is one of the easiest ways to get sick, and for many, there is no way around it!
An obvious way to avoid the airborne illnesses on board an aircraft is just to stay away from them! Though, for many this isn�t really an option, as they have to travel for business or personal reasons. So, the best thing you can do is avoid air travel when you are recovering from an illness or any time you feel as though your immune system may not be at its best. Any time your immune system has already been compromised, you are even more likely to contract an airborne illness.
[...]
In addition to fighting off the airborne illnesses, you might want to think about everything you touch on board the aircraft. If there are germs and bacteria in the air, you can bet all the surfaces are contaminated as well.
And this:
Airplane Air makes People Sick
Former flight attendant now health activist, Diana Fairechild, has formed a nonprofit foundation to educate people about airplane air. She mentions a number of added hazards that may be present, resulting from things like hydraulic fluid gases.
Here�s what she says:
"The problem is apparently complex. A number of environmental factors in the aircraft cabin are being blamed, including low oxygen in recycled air, low humidity that puts a strain on the respiratory tract, and pesticide residues from systematic sprayings. Now a new problem is at the forefront of potential causes. Toxic chemical vapors originate from hydraulic spills�and the resulting cabin fumes are now being directly linked to incidents of flight attendant illnesses."
And further:
Could a pleasant and enjoyable flight be the cause of a serious infection? Can airplanes be transporters of diseases? As you settle down in your seat, is a deadly infection already lurking amidst the carpeted and cushioned interior of the plane? Airplanes �Ticket to Infection?
[...]
Little did such thoughts enter our mind until the bird flu, SARS, hit our planet this millennium. In fact, air travel and communicable diseases have a hand in glove association; especially air borne infections.
A major cause attributed to the spread of infections within flights is the recycled cabin air. Till the 70�s, 100% fresh air was pumped into the cabin of airplanes every 3 minutes. But, anticipated increase in fuel costs during the late 70�s prompted research into methods of cutting down on fuel consumption and thereby, the cost. It was found that circulating fresh air within the cabin of an aircraft used up more fuel; so, since the 80�s, its percentage was cut in half. The reduced fresh air coupled with re-circulated stale air creates an environment conducive for many a health problem ranging from headaches, dizziness and nausea to various infections.
A study by Boeing and Pall Cabin Filters Brochure in 1999 showed that a cough produces 100,000 particles that can be dispersed over 20 rows in the cabin!
When infected passengers cough, sneeze or talk, droplets are released. It is in these droplets that the bacteria or viruses nestle until they gain entry into another victim. The unsuspecting, otherwise healthy passenger inhales the circulating recycled air that contains some of these droplets. Thus, the infection spreads among vulnerable passengers.
According to the Boeing Flight Manual, recycled air within an aircraft usually consists of 50% fresh and 50% stale air. Under such conditions, airborne germs are free to float around and the notorious ones include-
Common Cold Tuberculosis Influenza (flu) Measles Mumps Chicken pox
Risk of tuberculosis - Kenyon T.A. et al (1996) proved that tuberculosis could be transmitted to passengers through the air conditioning. A study on 'the transmission of infections diseases during commercial air travel� reported in March 2005 in 'The Lancet�, adds further proof to this finding. Researchers found that healthy passengers sitting within two rows of a contagious passenger for a flight, longer than eight hours, were at risk of contacting the disease.
SARS Infection - An outbreak of SARS on board a flight from Hong Kong to Beijing showed that passengers seated as far back as seven rows from the infected individual were affected.''
The article also mentions other conditions like skin infections, malaria, and even gastrointestinal illnesses being spread via air travel.
Interestingly, here is what the CDC has to say on air travel health hazards, from its own website:
In-Flight Transmission of Communicable Diseases
Concern has been increasing about the possible spread of communicable diseases during air travel. In certain circumstances when an infectious person or someone who is suspected of being infectious has traveled by air, public health authorities require passenger information for contact tracing and follow up. This information is collected from the passengers or the airlines and handled in a confidential manner. Information is available regarding in-flight transmission of a few diseases, including tuberculosis, Neisseria meningitidis, measles, influenza, SARS, and the common cold.
Tuberculosis
Only one investigation has documented transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB) from a symptomatic passenger to six other passengers who were seated in the same section of a commercial aircraft during a long flight (>8 hours) (4). These six passengers were identified by conversion to a positive tuberculin skin test (TST); none had evidence of active tuberculosis. Driver et al. (5) investigated the potential for TB transmission by a symptomatic airline crew member over a 6-month period (5). They found that evidence of infection (i.e., TST positivity) among other crew members increased markedly during the period when the index case was most infectious and was associated with having worked >12 hours with the index case. Evidence suggested the potential that TB had been transmitted to passengers who had flown when the index case was most infectious.
[...]
People known to have infectious TB should travel by private transportation, rather than a commercial carrier, if travel is required.
[...]
Influenza
Influenza is highly contagious, particularly among people in enclosed, poorly ventilated spaces. Transmission of influenza is thought to be primarily due to large droplets and has been documented aboard an aircraft, with most risk being associated with proximity to the source. (See Chapter 4 and http://www.cdc.gov/flu for more information.) The 1979 airplane-associated outbreak of influenza in Alaska, during which 72% of passengers became ill with influenza-like illness, does not reflect what generally happens on commercial flights. In this situation, the airplane experienced engine failure prior to takeoff and remained on the ground with the ventilation system turned off. The cabin doors remained closed, and many passengers remained on board for hours (10). In terms of understanding seasonal influenza transmission dynamics on a commercial airline, a potentially more useful influenza outbreak investigation associated with an aircraft is the 1999 outbreak reported in Australia, during which most of the infected passengers were seated within three rows of the index case, and all the people seated in the same row were infected (11).
Since 1997, a new strain of avian influenza virus (H5N1) has been shown to cause infection in humans, primarily associated with direct contact with birds and with no sustained human-to-human spread to date. Because influenza viruses are very adept at changing, there is concern that this strain could eventually to spread among humans and thus would impact air travel. See http://wwwn.cdc.gov/travel for more general information and up-to-date, specific guidelines for travelers and the airline industry.''
There is more at the website. Please note that the article I excerpted above was posted in June 2007, and not updated since then. Care to bet whether the CDC will have to update this page to make it conform to the current 'nothing to worry about' blather from the administration?
This travel forum contains some posts going back to April 22, warning of respiratory illness in South and Central Mexico.
I notice a number of posts appear to have been deleted since then. Why? For fear of hurting the travel industry? If the posts I linked to about the illness are no longer there when you click the link, they will have been removed by the website.
Has everybody forgotten this story from 2007 in which an American lawyer who had drug-resistant TB was quarantined after he defied doctor's orders and took a plane flight?
It is the first time since 1963, that the CDC has issued an order for a patient to be quarantined. Usually, such decisions are left to the states, but this case involved international and interstate travel, so the federal government stepped in.
The CDC is concerned about passengers seated in rows near the infected man on a May 13, Atlanta to Paris, Air France 385 flight and another Czech Air 0104 from Prague to Canada on May 23.
[...]
There have only been a few cases of people acquiring highly infectious diseases on long flights. Dr. Henry Masur, president of the Infectious Disease Society says exposure � even at close proximity � doesn't usually result in infection.
[...]
This man was advised not to travel and did. Why?
You're dealing with human behavior. We know that, dating back to the earliest of times, there are people who, for selfish reasons, for unclear purposes, will in fact do whatever they please. In this case, this is where public health has to battle the issue of individual rights and privacy with that of the greater health good. This was a collision that was bound to happen sometime and will happen more often in the future.
Shouldn't there be more stringent rules preventing them from doing whatever they please?
This individual had been compliant with public health action. It was only with the advent of his wedding in Europe that he decided that he wasn't going to be. There was actually an order issued before he left the United States, but [public health officials] were unable to serve it on him. This just points out that you have to have extreme measures for the very, very small number of people who just won't be compliant.''
Which brings me to another point: our derelict and irresponsible officials, so worried about the political and economic consequences of this flu outbreak, have repeated, despite what Biden said, they do not advise anyone to avoid air travel or public places --- except "those who are sick.''
But as the last paragraph in the quote above tells us, human behavior can be perverse; people can and do defy common sense and common courtesy and will go out in public, callously exposing others to whatever illness they have. The idea that all people who are infected, or who might be infected, will segregate themselves out of concern for the rest of us is foolish. The case of the TB-infected lawyer willfully exposing others to his drug-resistant malady on two long flights illustrate that fact. If we cannot trust a highly-educated and supposedly conscientious professional man to obey the rules and avoid exposing others, how can we expect that of people at large, perhaps people who are not capable of understanding the seriousness of the disease or the means of contagion?
And here's another story from a year ago, of a woman who caught TB from a fellow passenger on a New Delhi-Chicago flight.
So for anyone to chastise Biden, of whom I am no admirer, by the way, for a 'gaffe' about the risks of air travel or mass transit, is absurd, and it shows how people are so easily dissuaded from common-sense knowledge that was taken for granted not long ago.
Biden's statement, far from being a 'gaffe', was just politically incorrect, and now, in the effort to defend the administration's official story, officials are making him out to be a fool, and the FReepers are ridiculing Biden. But nevertheless, there are risks involved in taking mass transit, especially airplane flights, even though those in the travel industry or anyone with vested interests are now trying to downplay or deny that.
I find it creepy how easily people can be persuaded one way or the other, based on what their political authorities are saying.
And I find it sinister how people in high positions apparently have wanton disregard for the safety of the citizens of this country, choosing politics and economic interests above the life and well-being of their own countrymen.
I realize that some of the perpetual cynics on the right have an interest in denying that there is anything to this flu outbreak, but surely it's better to be safe than sorry. It is not a choice between denying that there is any danger at all and panicking. There is a sensible middle ground here; being vigilant and prepared is better than a knee-jerk denial of whatever the other side is saying.
Even if this outbreak proves to be nothing serious, and just another type of flu, the flu is no joke. I've been noticing for at least the last decade or so that there are much nastier and harder-to-shake kinds of respiratory viruses going around every year. To me, even if this thing is just 'ordinary' flu, it's well worth it to avoid it if at all possible, and it's irresponsible to laugh this thing off, especially this early in the game.
That being said, those in positions of authority seem to be contradicting themselves; I hear some people saying that the authorities are trying to cause panic, such as by raising the outbreak to pandemic level, while at the same time, these pathetic officials are telling us there is no need to close any borders or to quarantine anyone or even to avoid public gatherings and mass transit. The fact that they are now contradicting themselves, as the CDC is doing, based on their information from 2007, makes little sense. I don't see them creating panic; they seem just as equally committed to fostering a cavalier or passive attitude about this. What is going on? Are they trying to merely confuse people by repeating contradictory and conflicting messages?
All they are doing, as far as I am concerned, is discrediting themselves and showing themselves to have no real concern for us, the people they are supposedly sworn to serve.
By the way, see Tanstaafl's take on this here.
Pigs can�t fly yet, but the swine flu is still a reason to stay out of the sky.
At least, that is, if you ask Vice President Joe Biden. And most Southwest Floridians aren�t. Nor are their travel agents. Or their airlines. Or the rest of the federal government.
"I would tell members of my family � and I have � that I wouldn�t go anywhere in confined places now," Biden said on NBC�s "Today" show Thursday morning.
Only problem is, Biden�s advice is not in line with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention official message, which is for citizens to only avoid non-essential travel to Mexico. Pundits quickly tacked the comment up as another off-the-cuff remark, which Biden has a reputation for, but travel industry officials were decidedly more upset, with one saying the comment bordered on "fear mongering."
"To suggest that people not fly at this stage of things is a broad brush stroke," said Tim Smith, a spokesman for American Airlines.''
I suppose a spokesman for American Airlines just couldn't have a bias, could he? Or a conflict of interest?
Either way, though, a possible Biden gaffe wasn�t going to keep Shari Munger of Sarasota from visiting Chicago on Thursday out of Southwest Florida International Airport. Munger, who said she was in her early 40s, said she felt the whole swine flu thing was being blown out of proportion.
"Not at all worried," Munger said. "I think the media has a tendency to exaggerate things."
But there are people taking precautions, feeling, like Biden, that confined spaces result in pandemics.
"It�s not just going to Mexico, if you�re in a confined aircraft and one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft," Biden said, adding that other transportation options may be worth a look.''
Just for perspective, let's see what information is out there on air travel and contagious illness. There's this:
Airborne illness and air travel simply go hand in hand, and anyone that travels often will tell you so. The problem with air travel is that you are talking about thousands and over the course of a year, millions of people who travel in the same aircrafts. Simply put, there are germs everywhere in an aircraft and it doesn�t matter how well the crews clean them, these germs cannot be removed because they are not just on things, they are in the air.
Every year millions of people come down with the flu or common colds after traveling on an aircraft. Though a good number of these people may not correlate the two, the likelihood that they picked up their cold or flu bug on the aircraft is very high. The problem with airplanes is that many people get on and off them all the time. Some of these people may be sick, some may just be recovering, and some may be sick and not even realize it.
[...] Obviously, when you are talking about an aircraft you are talking about a small place where the air is just recycled over and over again, allowing the germs the perfect environment to meet up with bodies that are just waiting to get sick! Air travel is one of the easiest ways to get sick, and for many, there is no way around it!
An obvious way to avoid the airborne illnesses on board an aircraft is just to stay away from them! Though, for many this isn�t really an option, as they have to travel for business or personal reasons. So, the best thing you can do is avoid air travel when you are recovering from an illness or any time you feel as though your immune system may not be at its best. Any time your immune system has already been compromised, you are even more likely to contract an airborne illness.
[...]
In addition to fighting off the airborne illnesses, you might want to think about everything you touch on board the aircraft. If there are germs and bacteria in the air, you can bet all the surfaces are contaminated as well.
And this:
Airplane Air makes People Sick
Former flight attendant now health activist, Diana Fairechild, has formed a nonprofit foundation to educate people about airplane air. She mentions a number of added hazards that may be present, resulting from things like hydraulic fluid gases.
Here�s what she says:
"The problem is apparently complex. A number of environmental factors in the aircraft cabin are being blamed, including low oxygen in recycled air, low humidity that puts a strain on the respiratory tract, and pesticide residues from systematic sprayings. Now a new problem is at the forefront of potential causes. Toxic chemical vapors originate from hydraulic spills�and the resulting cabin fumes are now being directly linked to incidents of flight attendant illnesses."
And further:
Could a pleasant and enjoyable flight be the cause of a serious infection? Can airplanes be transporters of diseases? As you settle down in your seat, is a deadly infection already lurking amidst the carpeted and cushioned interior of the plane? Airplanes �Ticket to Infection?
[...]
Little did such thoughts enter our mind until the bird flu, SARS, hit our planet this millennium. In fact, air travel and communicable diseases have a hand in glove association; especially air borne infections.
A major cause attributed to the spread of infections within flights is the recycled cabin air. Till the 70�s, 100% fresh air was pumped into the cabin of airplanes every 3 minutes. But, anticipated increase in fuel costs during the late 70�s prompted research into methods of cutting down on fuel consumption and thereby, the cost. It was found that circulating fresh air within the cabin of an aircraft used up more fuel; so, since the 80�s, its percentage was cut in half. The reduced fresh air coupled with re-circulated stale air creates an environment conducive for many a health problem ranging from headaches, dizziness and nausea to various infections.
A study by Boeing and Pall Cabin Filters Brochure in 1999 showed that a cough produces 100,000 particles that can be dispersed over 20 rows in the cabin!
When infected passengers cough, sneeze or talk, droplets are released. It is in these droplets that the bacteria or viruses nestle until they gain entry into another victim. The unsuspecting, otherwise healthy passenger inhales the circulating recycled air that contains some of these droplets. Thus, the infection spreads among vulnerable passengers.
According to the Boeing Flight Manual, recycled air within an aircraft usually consists of 50% fresh and 50% stale air. Under such conditions, airborne germs are free to float around and the notorious ones include-
Risk of tuberculosis - Kenyon T.A. et al (1996) proved that tuberculosis could be transmitted to passengers through the air conditioning. A study on 'the transmission of infections diseases during commercial air travel� reported in March 2005 in 'The Lancet�, adds further proof to this finding. Researchers found that healthy passengers sitting within two rows of a contagious passenger for a flight, longer than eight hours, were at risk of contacting the disease.
SARS Infection - An outbreak of SARS on board a flight from Hong Kong to Beijing showed that passengers seated as far back as seven rows from the infected individual were affected.''
The article also mentions other conditions like skin infections, malaria, and even gastrointestinal illnesses being spread via air travel.
Interestingly, here is what the CDC has to say on air travel health hazards, from its own website:
In-Flight Transmission of Communicable Diseases
Concern has been increasing about the possible spread of communicable diseases during air travel. In certain circumstances when an infectious person or someone who is suspected of being infectious has traveled by air, public health authorities require passenger information for contact tracing and follow up. This information is collected from the passengers or the airlines and handled in a confidential manner. Information is available regarding in-flight transmission of a few diseases, including tuberculosis, Neisseria meningitidis, measles, influenza, SARS, and the common cold.
Tuberculosis
Only one investigation has documented transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB) from a symptomatic passenger to six other passengers who were seated in the same section of a commercial aircraft during a long flight (>8 hours) (4). These six passengers were identified by conversion to a positive tuberculin skin test (TST); none had evidence of active tuberculosis. Driver et al. (5) investigated the potential for TB transmission by a symptomatic airline crew member over a 6-month period (5). They found that evidence of infection (i.e., TST positivity) among other crew members increased markedly during the period when the index case was most infectious and was associated with having worked >12 hours with the index case. Evidence suggested the potential that TB had been transmitted to passengers who had flown when the index case was most infectious.
[...]
People known to have infectious TB should travel by private transportation, rather than a commercial carrier, if travel is required.
[...]
Influenza
Influenza is highly contagious, particularly among people in enclosed, poorly ventilated spaces. Transmission of influenza is thought to be primarily due to large droplets and has been documented aboard an aircraft, with most risk being associated with proximity to the source. (See Chapter 4 and http://www.cdc.gov/flu for more information.) The 1979 airplane-associated outbreak of influenza in Alaska, during which 72% of passengers became ill with influenza-like illness, does not reflect what generally happens on commercial flights. In this situation, the airplane experienced engine failure prior to takeoff and remained on the ground with the ventilation system turned off. The cabin doors remained closed, and many passengers remained on board for hours (10). In terms of understanding seasonal influenza transmission dynamics on a commercial airline, a potentially more useful influenza outbreak investigation associated with an aircraft is the 1999 outbreak reported in Australia, during which most of the infected passengers were seated within three rows of the index case, and all the people seated in the same row were infected (11).
Since 1997, a new strain of avian influenza virus (H5N1) has been shown to cause infection in humans, primarily associated with direct contact with birds and with no sustained human-to-human spread to date. Because influenza viruses are very adept at changing, there is concern that this strain could eventually to spread among humans and thus would impact air travel. See http://wwwn.cdc.gov/travel for more general information and up-to-date, specific guidelines for travelers and the airline industry.''
There is more at the website. Please note that the article I excerpted above was posted in June 2007, and not updated since then. Care to bet whether the CDC will have to update this page to make it conform to the current 'nothing to worry about' blather from the administration?
This travel forum contains some posts going back to April 22, warning of respiratory illness in South and Central Mexico.
I notice a number of posts appear to have been deleted since then. Why? For fear of hurting the travel industry? If the posts I linked to about the illness are no longer there when you click the link, they will have been removed by the website.
Has everybody forgotten this story from 2007 in which an American lawyer who had drug-resistant TB was quarantined after he defied doctor's orders and took a plane flight?
It is the first time since 1963, that the CDC has issued an order for a patient to be quarantined. Usually, such decisions are left to the states, but this case involved international and interstate travel, so the federal government stepped in.
The CDC is concerned about passengers seated in rows near the infected man on a May 13, Atlanta to Paris, Air France 385 flight and another Czech Air 0104 from Prague to Canada on May 23.
[...]
There have only been a few cases of people acquiring highly infectious diseases on long flights. Dr. Henry Masur, president of the Infectious Disease Society says exposure � even at close proximity � doesn't usually result in infection.
[...]
This man was advised not to travel and did. Why?
You're dealing with human behavior. We know that, dating back to the earliest of times, there are people who, for selfish reasons, for unclear purposes, will in fact do whatever they please. In this case, this is where public health has to battle the issue of individual rights and privacy with that of the greater health good. This was a collision that was bound to happen sometime and will happen more often in the future.
Shouldn't there be more stringent rules preventing them from doing whatever they please?
This individual had been compliant with public health action. It was only with the advent of his wedding in Europe that he decided that he wasn't going to be. There was actually an order issued before he left the United States, but [public health officials] were unable to serve it on him. This just points out that you have to have extreme measures for the very, very small number of people who just won't be compliant.''
Which brings me to another point: our derelict and irresponsible officials, so worried about the political and economic consequences of this flu outbreak, have repeated, despite what Biden said, they do not advise anyone to avoid air travel or public places --- except "those who are sick.''
But as the last paragraph in the quote above tells us, human behavior can be perverse; people can and do defy common sense and common courtesy and will go out in public, callously exposing others to whatever illness they have. The idea that all people who are infected, or who might be infected, will segregate themselves out of concern for the rest of us is foolish. The case of the TB-infected lawyer willfully exposing others to his drug-resistant malady on two long flights illustrate that fact. If we cannot trust a highly-educated and supposedly conscientious professional man to obey the rules and avoid exposing others, how can we expect that of people at large, perhaps people who are not capable of understanding the seriousness of the disease or the means of contagion?
And here's another story from a year ago, of a woman who caught TB from a fellow passenger on a New Delhi-Chicago flight.
So for anyone to chastise Biden, of whom I am no admirer, by the way, for a 'gaffe' about the risks of air travel or mass transit, is absurd, and it shows how people are so easily dissuaded from common-sense knowledge that was taken for granted not long ago.
Biden's statement, far from being a 'gaffe', was just politically incorrect, and now, in the effort to defend the administration's official story, officials are making him out to be a fool, and the FReepers are ridiculing Biden. But nevertheless, there are risks involved in taking mass transit, especially airplane flights, even though those in the travel industry or anyone with vested interests are now trying to downplay or deny that.
I find it creepy how easily people can be persuaded one way or the other, based on what their political authorities are saying.
And I find it sinister how people in high positions apparently have wanton disregard for the safety of the citizens of this country, choosing politics and economic interests above the life and well-being of their own countrymen.
I realize that some of the perpetual cynics on the right have an interest in denying that there is anything to this flu outbreak, but surely it's better to be safe than sorry. It is not a choice between denying that there is any danger at all and panicking. There is a sensible middle ground here; being vigilant and prepared is better than a knee-jerk denial of whatever the other side is saying.
Even if this outbreak proves to be nothing serious, and just another type of flu, the flu is no joke. I've been noticing for at least the last decade or so that there are much nastier and harder-to-shake kinds of respiratory viruses going around every year. To me, even if this thing is just 'ordinary' flu, it's well worth it to avoid it if at all possible, and it's irresponsible to laugh this thing off, especially this early in the game.
That being said, those in positions of authority seem to be contradicting themselves; I hear some people saying that the authorities are trying to cause panic, such as by raising the outbreak to pandemic level, while at the same time, these pathetic officials are telling us there is no need to close any borders or to quarantine anyone or even to avoid public gatherings and mass transit. The fact that they are now contradicting themselves, as the CDC is doing, based on their information from 2007, makes little sense. I don't see them creating panic; they seem just as equally committed to fostering a cavalier or passive attitude about this. What is going on? Are they trying to merely confuse people by repeating contradictory and conflicting messages?
All they are doing, as far as I am concerned, is discrediting themselves and showing themselves to have no real concern for us, the people they are supposedly sworn to serve.
By the way, see Tanstaafl's take on this here.
Labels: Corporate Media, Government, Health Care, Political Correctness, Propaganda, Public Health
0 comment Tuesday, August 12, 2014 | admin
It might have been worth watching this fake townhall event if only to see this foot-in-mouth moment -- or was it a Freudian slip? See the video.
However, I missed it -- well, OK, I avoided watching it. I figured it would be staged and scripted and the attendees would all be plants and cult followers.
Yet Obama encountered a friendly, cheering crowd, as if at a campaign stop. While there were crowds of protesters outside, few seemed to make it inside.
He spoke for almost 20 minutes before questions. After several friendly questions, he urged people with tougher ones to step up.
"I don't want people thinking I just have a bunch of plants" in the audience, Obama said. After two more mildly skeptical questions, Obama ended the town hall. He took nine questions in total.
A little girl who asked him a rather precocious-sounding question, may have been a plant, reportedly.
According to the IBD article, the Resident implicitly reiterated the new talking point: that those with concerns about euthanasia or 'death panels' are crazy.
Obama ridiculed the notion that this plan would create "death panels" to decide end-of-life care.
He said the bill provides for panels of experts "who can provide guidelines to doctors and patients about what procedures work best in what situations. . . . These aren't going to be forced on people but they will help guide how the delivery system works so you get better quality care."
My opinion of New Hampshire went down a little after seeing some clips of the audience there; is this the 'Live Free or Die' State?
And is this president the one with the off-the-chart IQ? Why is it that Democrat presidents are always said to be geniuses? Bill Clinton was another mediocrity who was touted as a high-IQ prodigy. Where's the evidence?
I notice that with the president's faux pas or whatever you would call it, the IBD op-ed reports it with a straight face, either missing the irony or intentionally spinning his statement as an 'I meant to say that' moment.
I was talking to a nurse friend yesterday and she is very much opposed to this proposal (which the Democrats say does not exist: ''There is no health bill!" they insist), though the Democrat talking points say that the AMA and the American Nurses' Association are on board with this. My nurse friend says that many of the people she is hearing from are very upset about the prospect of government-run health care. I don't hear much favorable comment about it myself -- in fact, I've heard none, in real life. Only the shills on TV speak in favor of it.
I've read some internet comment from right-wing bloggers criticizing the townhall protesters, on the grounds that it makes us look bad, or that it amounts to using the left's rabble-rousing tactics and crudeness. I don't think there is any kind of 'astroturfing' on a wide scale going on. I don't know any sheeplike Republicans who would attend a protest and shout at their representatives just because the RNC or anyone else told them to. I believe the anger is genuine and spontaneous; it certainly is on my part.
And by the way, the RNC periodically begs me for donations, but they have not contacted me in any way to try to get me to protest or to demonstrate.
Somebody on a blog discussion said that it was ridiculous for people on the far-right to get worked up about health care when we have our dispossession to worry about. I don't see how that person could fail to notice that this thing is a not-so-veiled attack on us, a way to reduce our numbers even further and more quickly. This is a survival issue, and as such it's not trivial or irrelevant, not in the least.
However, I missed it -- well, OK, I avoided watching it. I figured it would be staged and scripted and the attendees would all be plants and cult followers.
Yet Obama encountered a friendly, cheering crowd, as if at a campaign stop. While there were crowds of protesters outside, few seemed to make it inside.
He spoke for almost 20 minutes before questions. After several friendly questions, he urged people with tougher ones to step up.
"I don't want people thinking I just have a bunch of plants" in the audience, Obama said. After two more mildly skeptical questions, Obama ended the town hall. He took nine questions in total.
A little girl who asked him a rather precocious-sounding question, may have been a plant, reportedly.
According to the IBD article, the Resident implicitly reiterated the new talking point: that those with concerns about euthanasia or 'death panels' are crazy.
Obama ridiculed the notion that this plan would create "death panels" to decide end-of-life care.
He said the bill provides for panels of experts "who can provide guidelines to doctors and patients about what procedures work best in what situations. . . . These aren't going to be forced on people but they will help guide how the delivery system works so you get better quality care."
My opinion of New Hampshire went down a little after seeing some clips of the audience there; is this the 'Live Free or Die' State?
And is this president the one with the off-the-chart IQ? Why is it that Democrat presidents are always said to be geniuses? Bill Clinton was another mediocrity who was touted as a high-IQ prodigy. Where's the evidence?
I notice that with the president's faux pas or whatever you would call it, the IBD op-ed reports it with a straight face, either missing the irony or intentionally spinning his statement as an 'I meant to say that' moment.
I was talking to a nurse friend yesterday and she is very much opposed to this proposal (which the Democrats say does not exist: ''There is no health bill!" they insist), though the Democrat talking points say that the AMA and the American Nurses' Association are on board with this. My nurse friend says that many of the people she is hearing from are very upset about the prospect of government-run health care. I don't hear much favorable comment about it myself -- in fact, I've heard none, in real life. Only the shills on TV speak in favor of it.
I've read some internet comment from right-wing bloggers criticizing the townhall protesters, on the grounds that it makes us look bad, or that it amounts to using the left's rabble-rousing tactics and crudeness. I don't think there is any kind of 'astroturfing' on a wide scale going on. I don't know any sheeplike Republicans who would attend a protest and shout at their representatives just because the RNC or anyone else told them to. I believe the anger is genuine and spontaneous; it certainly is on my part.
And by the way, the RNC periodically begs me for donations, but they have not contacted me in any way to try to get me to protest or to demonstrate.
Somebody on a blog discussion said that it was ridiculous for people on the far-right to get worked up about health care when we have our dispossession to worry about. I don't see how that person could fail to notice that this thing is a not-so-veiled attack on us, a way to reduce our numbers even further and more quickly. This is a survival issue, and as such it's not trivial or irrelevant, not in the least.
Labels: Health Care, Media Manipulation, Public Health, Socialism, Socialized Medicine
0 comment Friday, August 1, 2014 | admin
This story is enough to raise your blood pressure.
A group that preaches racial superiority and divisiveness wants to enact a stealth illegal immigration bill -- not dissimilar to chain migration. The bill will reward illegal immigration to the direct detriment of all American taxpayers and especially the elderly.
Kind of puts Judge Sotomayor's membership in La Raza in a new light, doesn't it?
Groups like La Raza encourage the Balkanization of America. They promote mutually hostile political groups that do not form a "melting pot", that do not utilize a common language, and that do not share the principles of America's founding.
Read the rest at the link. At the bottom of the post, there is a quote from a press release which supports the above story as being plausible.
I haven't spent much time blogging about immigration, legal or illegal, lately, or about amnesty. I think I said in the past that amnesty is more or less irrelevant at this point, as illegal immigration continues unabated as far as I can witness, and that since illegals enjoy a kind of de facto amnesty, why should they worry about whether or not an actual amnesty passes? And the linked blog piece indicates that such is the prevailing attitude among the illegals and their apologists. They enjoy just about every privilege that is supposedly reserved to citizens, without having the same responsibilities. Amnesty seems inconsequential to them. They are our equals and more, as far as our 'government' is concerned, so why would they want to change anything?
This idea of 'health care for all' seems designed to benefit the illegals and others who are outside the legitimate system. It will benefit very few, if any, of us.
A group that preaches racial superiority and divisiveness wants to enact a stealth illegal immigration bill -- not dissimilar to chain migration. The bill will reward illegal immigration to the direct detriment of all American taxpayers and especially the elderly.
Kind of puts Judge Sotomayor's membership in La Raza in a new light, doesn't it?
Groups like La Raza encourage the Balkanization of America. They promote mutually hostile political groups that do not form a "melting pot", that do not utilize a common language, and that do not share the principles of America's founding.
Read the rest at the link. At the bottom of the post, there is a quote from a press release which supports the above story as being plausible.
I haven't spent much time blogging about immigration, legal or illegal, lately, or about amnesty. I think I said in the past that amnesty is more or less irrelevant at this point, as illegal immigration continues unabated as far as I can witness, and that since illegals enjoy a kind of de facto amnesty, why should they worry about whether or not an actual amnesty passes? And the linked blog piece indicates that such is the prevailing attitude among the illegals and their apologists. They enjoy just about every privilege that is supposedly reserved to citizens, without having the same responsibilities. Amnesty seems inconsequential to them. They are our equals and more, as far as our 'government' is concerned, so why would they want to change anything?
This idea of 'health care for all' seems designed to benefit the illegals and others who are outside the legitimate system. It will benefit very few, if any, of us.
Labels: Amnesty, Ethnic Advocacy Groups, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Lliberalism, Socialized Medicine
0 comment Wednesday, July 16, 2014 | admin
Little did I know that the health care plan is being pushed through in response to public demand. That's one thing I learned from tonight's press conference.
First, though, for some balance, one doctor's take on this health-care plan, which is being pushed on us in the media nonstop:
Why I resigned from the AMA
Did any of you see the press conference (yet another one) earlier this evening? The idea is to hard-sell this health ''reform'' plan yet again. I could not bring myself to watch it, but I waited for the transcript to appear online.
It appears as though a lot of time was devoted to blaming the previous administration for the financial troubles, and to establish the ''fact'' that the present regime accepts no blame for any economic disaster, present, past, or future. A lot of self-justification was contained in a rather short speech.
A reporter asks:
Q You've been pushing Congress to pass health-care reform by August. Why the rush? Are you worried that if you don't -- if there's a delay until the fall, the whole effort will collapse?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Couple of points. Number one, I'm rushed because I get letters every day from families that are being clobbered by health-care costs.
So folks are skeptical, and that is entirely legitimate, because they haven't seen a lot of laws coming out of Washington lately that help them.
But my hope is, and I'm confident that, when people look at the cost of doing nothing, they're going to say, you know, we can make this happen. We've -- we've made big changes before that end up resulting in a better life for the American people.''
First of all, I find it absurd to imagine the president, any president, sitting there by the hour opening letters from every citizen out there with a complaint or a plea for help. Do people really write the president saying 'save us, Mr. President; we can't afford our health care.' And assuming that yes, indeed, there are such pathetic souls who imagine that the president or Uncle Sugar is there to answer their every need and request, does this president expect us to believe that he thinks his role is to give his fans what they want, and say ''your wish is my command''?
I don't imagine that any president even lays eyes on most of the mail that is sent to the White House. But apparently this president thinks we all just fell off the turnip truck, and that he has no choice but to reform health care drastically because John and Jane Doe in Anytown, USA demand it. As if the ''little people'' call the shots in America.
If public demand and the wishes of citizens meant anything at all, we'd have closed borders, lower taxes, and a lot of things that we stand no chance of getting until Hades freezes over.
Another question:
Q But experts say that in addition to the benefits that you're pushing, there is going to have to be some sacrifice in order for there to be true cost-cutting measures, such as Americans giving up tests, referrals, choice, end-of-life care.
When you describe health-care reform, you don't -- understandably, you don't talk about the sacrifices that Americans might have to make. Do you think -- do you accept the premise that other than some tax increases, on the wealthiest Americans, the American people are going to have to give anything up in order for this to happen?''
Watch for the double-talk and the obfuscation here.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier. And I -- speaking as an American, I think that's the kind of change you want.
Look, if right now hospitals and -- and doctors aren't coordinating enough to have you just take one test when you come in because of an illness but instead have you take one test; then you go to another specialist, you take a second test, then you go to another specialist, you take a third test; and nobody's bothering to send the first test that you took -- same test -- to the next doctors, you're wasting money. You may not see it, because if you have health insurance right now, it's just being sent to the insurance company, but that's raising your premiums, it's raising everybody's premiums. And that money, one way or another, is coming out of your pocket, although we are also subsidizing some of that, because there are tax breaks for health care. So not only is it costing you money in terms of higher premiums, it's also costing you as a taxpayer.
Now, I want to change that. Every American should want to change that. Why would we want to pay for things that don't work, that aren't making us healthier?
And here's what I'm confident about. If doctors and patients have the best information about what works and what doesn't, then they're going to want to pay for what works.
If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?''
All this talk of blue pills and red pills seems to bring The Matrix to mind. I never saw it, but I know enough about it to know about the blue pills and red pills.
And as to not paying for things that 'don't work, that aren't making us healthier', would that not include any number of treatments or medications that don't truly 'make people healthier' but merely keep their symptoms under control, or perhaps keep chronic conditions somewhat manageable? It looks very much as if the intention is that many treatments for, say, cancer or diabetes or kidney disease patients would be looked on as 'things that don't work' because they don't reverse or cure underlying disease.
To the recent comments the president made in answer to a question at one of the town halls, he said that a woman with cardiac arrhythmias might just 'take a pain pill' instead of having surgery. Surely it does not take a medical professional to know that cardiac arrhythmias are not helped by 'painkillers', and that resorting to such non-treatments with such a potentially serious condition is downright dangerous.
But again, I am getting hints that those with chronic diseases, and especially older people, will be written off as too costly. Passive euthanasia.
I didn't watch the press conference but from reading the transcript I found it all very unimpressive and unpersuasive. I don't think the case was very well made at all; I found only vague and rambling statements, and little substance. And not having seen or heard this speech, seeing it only in text, I was not likely to be taken in by any alleged 'charisma' or the 'sonorous voice' that so many seem to be captivated by.
But on another topic altogether, a very telling exchange in response to 'hometown' reporter Lynn Sweet's question
(which seems rather like a set-up, a scripted question, so the prez could address the Gates furor):
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Recently, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I -- I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here.
I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house; there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place.
So far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now, so -- (laughter) -- it probably wouldn't happen.
(Chuckling.) But let's say my old house in Chicago -- (laughter) -- here I'd get shot. (Laughter.) But so far, so good. They're -- they're -- they're reporting. The police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate. What happens?
My understanding is, at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words. But my understanding is -- is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house, and at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.
Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.''
And not having seen all the facts, why answer at all? It would behoove him to learn the facts before offering his two cents, and calling the Cambridge police or their actions ''stupid.'' But fools rush in:
And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately. That's just a fact.
As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in the society.
That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us.''
Yes, the race card was played by the man elected to lead us. That's you and I who are being accused and convicted.
Not only White Americans and policemen have been accused in this press conference, but doctors and the medical profession also. Is the idea to alienate as many people as possible? I thought the idea was to 'unite'.
I would like some of those people who were so sure that electing this man would 'end the complaints of racism' to step forward and admit, publicly, that they were wrong. Big time.
Race relations are worse because minorities never let up on the grievance-mongering and the power displays. This present regime has exacerbated racial conflicts.
And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and oftentime for no cause, casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody's going to be.''
If blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, it's for the reason that they commit a disproportionate share of crimes, from traffic violations on up. I won't link to the Color of Crime yet again; anybody who is not familiar may google it.
And ending profiling will make nobody safer except lawbreakers -- if they are of the correct race and ethnicity. For the rest of us, it will mean a less safe America.
Which brings us full circle; the health care ''reform'' plan will also make us less safe and less secure, knowing that arbitrary and capricious decisions made for political reasons will actually be harmful to us and our loved ones over the long term.
During the long election cycle of last year, I spent some time arguing against those who said that 'worse is better'. Now we are about to see which school of thought was right. I can only hope the 'worse is better' proponents were correct, because we've begun to experience the 'worse', and we're about to see if ''better'' ensues.
First, though, for some balance, one doctor's take on this health-care plan, which is being pushed on us in the media nonstop:
Why I resigned from the AMA
Did any of you see the press conference (yet another one) earlier this evening? The idea is to hard-sell this health ''reform'' plan yet again. I could not bring myself to watch it, but I waited for the transcript to appear online.
It appears as though a lot of time was devoted to blaming the previous administration for the financial troubles, and to establish the ''fact'' that the present regime accepts no blame for any economic disaster, present, past, or future. A lot of self-justification was contained in a rather short speech.
A reporter asks:
Q You've been pushing Congress to pass health-care reform by August. Why the rush? Are you worried that if you don't -- if there's a delay until the fall, the whole effort will collapse?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Couple of points. Number one, I'm rushed because I get letters every day from families that are being clobbered by health-care costs.
So folks are skeptical, and that is entirely legitimate, because they haven't seen a lot of laws coming out of Washington lately that help them.
But my hope is, and I'm confident that, when people look at the cost of doing nothing, they're going to say, you know, we can make this happen. We've -- we've made big changes before that end up resulting in a better life for the American people.''
First of all, I find it absurd to imagine the president, any president, sitting there by the hour opening letters from every citizen out there with a complaint or a plea for help. Do people really write the president saying 'save us, Mr. President; we can't afford our health care.' And assuming that yes, indeed, there are such pathetic souls who imagine that the president or Uncle Sugar is there to answer their every need and request, does this president expect us to believe that he thinks his role is to give his fans what they want, and say ''your wish is my command''?
I don't imagine that any president even lays eyes on most of the mail that is sent to the White House. But apparently this president thinks we all just fell off the turnip truck, and that he has no choice but to reform health care drastically because John and Jane Doe in Anytown, USA demand it. As if the ''little people'' call the shots in America.
If public demand and the wishes of citizens meant anything at all, we'd have closed borders, lower taxes, and a lot of things that we stand no chance of getting until Hades freezes over.
Another question:
Q But experts say that in addition to the benefits that you're pushing, there is going to have to be some sacrifice in order for there to be true cost-cutting measures, such as Americans giving up tests, referrals, choice, end-of-life care.
When you describe health-care reform, you don't -- understandably, you don't talk about the sacrifices that Americans might have to make. Do you think -- do you accept the premise that other than some tax increases, on the wealthiest Americans, the American people are going to have to give anything up in order for this to happen?''
Watch for the double-talk and the obfuscation here.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier. And I -- speaking as an American, I think that's the kind of change you want.
Look, if right now hospitals and -- and doctors aren't coordinating enough to have you just take one test when you come in because of an illness but instead have you take one test; then you go to another specialist, you take a second test, then you go to another specialist, you take a third test; and nobody's bothering to send the first test that you took -- same test -- to the next doctors, you're wasting money. You may not see it, because if you have health insurance right now, it's just being sent to the insurance company, but that's raising your premiums, it's raising everybody's premiums. And that money, one way or another, is coming out of your pocket, although we are also subsidizing some of that, because there are tax breaks for health care. So not only is it costing you money in terms of higher premiums, it's also costing you as a taxpayer.
Now, I want to change that. Every American should want to change that. Why would we want to pay for things that don't work, that aren't making us healthier?
And here's what I'm confident about. If doctors and patients have the best information about what works and what doesn't, then they're going to want to pay for what works.
If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?''
All this talk of blue pills and red pills seems to bring The Matrix to mind. I never saw it, but I know enough about it to know about the blue pills and red pills.
And as to not paying for things that 'don't work, that aren't making us healthier', would that not include any number of treatments or medications that don't truly 'make people healthier' but merely keep their symptoms under control, or perhaps keep chronic conditions somewhat manageable? It looks very much as if the intention is that many treatments for, say, cancer or diabetes or kidney disease patients would be looked on as 'things that don't work' because they don't reverse or cure underlying disease.
To the recent comments the president made in answer to a question at one of the town halls, he said that a woman with cardiac arrhythmias might just 'take a pain pill' instead of having surgery. Surely it does not take a medical professional to know that cardiac arrhythmias are not helped by 'painkillers', and that resorting to such non-treatments with such a potentially serious condition is downright dangerous.
But again, I am getting hints that those with chronic diseases, and especially older people, will be written off as too costly. Passive euthanasia.
I didn't watch the press conference but from reading the transcript I found it all very unimpressive and unpersuasive. I don't think the case was very well made at all; I found only vague and rambling statements, and little substance. And not having seen or heard this speech, seeing it only in text, I was not likely to be taken in by any alleged 'charisma' or the 'sonorous voice' that so many seem to be captivated by.
But on another topic altogether, a very telling exchange in response to 'hometown' reporter Lynn Sweet's question
(which seems rather like a set-up, a scripted question, so the prez could address the Gates furor):
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Recently, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I -- I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here.
I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house; there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place.
So far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now, so -- (laughter) -- it probably wouldn't happen.
(Chuckling.) But let's say my old house in Chicago -- (laughter) -- here I'd get shot. (Laughter.) But so far, so good. They're -- they're -- they're reporting. The police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate. What happens?
My understanding is, at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words. But my understanding is -- is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house, and at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.
Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.''
And not having seen all the facts, why answer at all? It would behoove him to learn the facts before offering his two cents, and calling the Cambridge police or their actions ''stupid.'' But fools rush in:
And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately. That's just a fact.
As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in the society.
That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us.''
Yes, the race card was played by the man elected to lead us. That's you and I who are being accused and convicted.
Not only White Americans and policemen have been accused in this press conference, but doctors and the medical profession also. Is the idea to alienate as many people as possible? I thought the idea was to 'unite'.
I would like some of those people who were so sure that electing this man would 'end the complaints of racism' to step forward and admit, publicly, that they were wrong. Big time.
Race relations are worse because minorities never let up on the grievance-mongering and the power displays. This present regime has exacerbated racial conflicts.
And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and oftentime for no cause, casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody's going to be.''
If blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, it's for the reason that they commit a disproportionate share of crimes, from traffic violations on up. I won't link to the Color of Crime yet again; anybody who is not familiar may google it.
And ending profiling will make nobody safer except lawbreakers -- if they are of the correct race and ethnicity. For the rest of us, it will mean a less safe America.
Which brings us full circle; the health care ''reform'' plan will also make us less safe and less secure, knowing that arbitrary and capricious decisions made for political reasons will actually be harmful to us and our loved ones over the long term.
During the long election cycle of last year, I spent some time arguing against those who said that 'worse is better'. Now we are about to see which school of thought was right. I can only hope the 'worse is better' proponents were correct, because we've begun to experience the 'worse', and we're about to see if ''better'' ensues.
Labels: Big Government, Health Care, Media Bias, Medical Care, Medical Ethics, Race Card, Racial Division, Socialized Medicine, Victimhood
0 comment Wednesday, June 25, 2014 | admin
The promoting of euthanasia is, as of now, a little more open in the UK than here in America, where the powers-that-be are soft-pedaling the passive euthanasia aspect of the health 'reform' bill. Laban Tall at UK Commentators links to a Guardian piece by Polly Toynbee, who thinks that 'assisted' suicide is a right which should be granted to all British citizens.
Read the rest at the link.
Elsinore at Cordelia For Lear has been writing about this issue, which is truly being ignored and downplayed by the useless media. Old Atlantic Lighthouse, too, has been doing a good job of covering this.
Even the 'right-wing' media figures are not covering this aspect of the health care bill. Why? Is it too potentially inflammatory? Are they being warned away from it? Or are they afraid they will be ridiculed as 'fearmongers' or 'extremists' if they mention it at all?
It's true that a few mainstream media sources have covered it, such as the articles I linked recently, but for the most part the commentary has been centered on the ''it's too costly'' argument, or the tried-and-true ''government-run anything is a disaster'' argument. Those things are important, but should there not be more notice taken when our government is beginning to declare quite openly, though in a quiet way, that some lives are not worth saving?
Read the rest at the link.
Elsinore at Cordelia For Lear has been writing about this issue, which is truly being ignored and downplayed by the useless media. Old Atlantic Lighthouse, too, has been doing a good job of covering this.
Even the 'right-wing' media figures are not covering this aspect of the health care bill. Why? Is it too potentially inflammatory? Are they being warned away from it? Or are they afraid they will be ridiculed as 'fearmongers' or 'extremists' if they mention it at all?
It's true that a few mainstream media sources have covered it, such as the articles I linked recently, but for the most part the commentary has been centered on the ''it's too costly'' argument, or the tried-and-true ''government-run anything is a disaster'' argument. Those things are important, but should there not be more notice taken when our government is beginning to declare quite openly, though in a quiet way, that some lives are not worth saving?
Labels: Euthanasia, Health Care, Leftism, Media Bias, Medical Care, Medical Ethics, Pro-Life Issues, Socialized Medicine
0 comment Saturday, May 17, 2014 | admin
It's becoming more and more open and brazen.
THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare. Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power. Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free.
[...]
Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008). Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else. Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time. Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).''
This bill is not getting the attention it deserves. Many of the op-eds that are appearing are more focused on the costs of this monstrosity, not the alarming ideas about the (non)-value of human life that are becoming more and more explicit as we find out more about this thing.This should concern all of us; it does not matter if you are young, or relatively young. Even the young and fit might at any time be in a disabling accident or be diagnosed with a serious illness which these leftist social engineers deem too 'costly', especially if treatment will only sustain the life of someone who would no longer be 'productive' or of any use to the State.
So this is not just something that will affect older people, who are unfortunately regarded as useless by many people in this callous age. It might affect people of any age, and even if it does not affect you personally now, it will at some point.
It's ironic in the extreme that the very people (leftists and pseudo-compassionate liberals) who pose as ''caring'' people, and who constantly call those to the right of them ''Nazis'', are willing to support a plan like this, with its totalitarian priorities.
Back during Ronald Reagan's terms of office, the news media constantly featured stories about Republican cold-heartedness. Those of you who remember that era will remember the stories about how the evil Republican budget cuts meant that children were given ketchup in their school lunches in place of a vegetable. Then there were the cries that poor elderly people were going to be out on the street under the budget cuts, and that many old folks were forced to eat cat food because they could not afford real food under the harsh Republican administration.
Obviously that was all hyperbole, but now these same tender-hearted people are nonchalantly proposing that we write off many old and disabled people because it is too costly and 'unfair' to keep them alive.
I plan to send this article to some of the liberals I know; I would bet that many of them, being rather ill-informed except for what they hear on NPR, are not aware of the provisions in this health care bill. This needs to be discussed.
THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare. Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power. Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free.
[...]
Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008). Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else. Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time. Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).''
This bill is not getting the attention it deserves. Many of the op-eds that are appearing are more focused on the costs of this monstrosity, not the alarming ideas about the (non)-value of human life that are becoming more and more explicit as we find out more about this thing.This should concern all of us; it does not matter if you are young, or relatively young. Even the young and fit might at any time be in a disabling accident or be diagnosed with a serious illness which these leftist social engineers deem too 'costly', especially if treatment will only sustain the life of someone who would no longer be 'productive' or of any use to the State.
So this is not just something that will affect older people, who are unfortunately regarded as useless by many people in this callous age. It might affect people of any age, and even if it does not affect you personally now, it will at some point.
It's ironic in the extreme that the very people (leftists and pseudo-compassionate liberals) who pose as ''caring'' people, and who constantly call those to the right of them ''Nazis'', are willing to support a plan like this, with its totalitarian priorities.
Back during Ronald Reagan's terms of office, the news media constantly featured stories about Republican cold-heartedness. Those of you who remember that era will remember the stories about how the evil Republican budget cuts meant that children were given ketchup in their school lunches in place of a vegetable. Then there were the cries that poor elderly people were going to be out on the street under the budget cuts, and that many old folks were forced to eat cat food because they could not afford real food under the harsh Republican administration.
Obviously that was all hyperbole, but now these same tender-hearted people are nonchalantly proposing that we write off many old and disabled people because it is too costly and 'unfair' to keep them alive.
I plan to send this article to some of the liberals I know; I would bet that many of them, being rather ill-informed except for what they hear on NPR, are not aware of the provisions in this health care bill. This needs to be discussed.
Labels: Big Government, Democrats, Euthanasia, Health Care, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberalism, Medical Care, Medical Ethics, Nanny State, Public Health, Totalitarianism
0 comment Thursday, May 8, 2014 | admin
Over at Iron Ink, there are several good entries on the health care proposal, in particular this one, Nietzsche's Little Shop of Horrors.
Here is the problem folks.
America is broke and it needs to find ways to cut budgetary corners.
The answer, in part to that, is to allow Senior Citizens, the infirm, and the handicapped to die as opposed to giving them treatment. The solution is right out of Nietzsche�s playbook. The Christian values of gentleness, forgiveness, and mercy are going to be thrown out in order that a Nietzschean ubermensch (Supermen) can survive. Obama is invoking the "will to power," in his plan to make Senior Citizens, the infirm, and the handicapped be the ones who help America out of its bankrupt condition.''
I agree with that assessment of the problem.
But the paradox is that the Left, the ones who are hell-bent on having this plan become law, position themselves as the champions of the weak, the downtrodden, and the politically 'disenfranchised.' But here they are taking a blatantly Nietzschean perspective. Can they continue to do this and still maintain any credibility as the party of 'caring and compassion'?
And how can the same people who arrogantly pronounce that we have to throw the 'non-contributing' individuals overboard in order to achieve health-care justice at the same time continue flooding our country with costly newcomers, many of them with exotic Third-world diseases and generally neglected health? The fact of many bankrupt hospitals in border states is but one illustration of how devastating to our health care system is the influx of illegal (and legal) immigrants.
Yet the powers that be, and their media flunkeys, (including the Wall Street Journal) continue to studiously ignore and deny the costs of mass immigration and the health problems which the newcomers bring with them.
But here, even the open-borders WSJ acknowledges the problem:
VALLEJO, Calif. -- A health clinic in this blue-collar city north of Oakland, partly funded by the county, is saving local hospitals thousands of dollars in emergency-room visits by treating uninsured patients who suffer only non-urgent ailments.
A watchdog group is now calling on county officials to cut funding for clinic patients who can't prove they are in the U.S. legally, a debate certain to surface in the national health-care overhaul.
With congressional proposals already stirring raw emotions, few supporters are eager to add the incendiary issue of illegal immigration. A provision in the House's health-care-overhaul bill rules out federal funding for illegal immigrants.
But in many ways, illegal immigration is at the nexus of two key health issues: the uninsured and ballooning costs.
Roughly half of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. don't have health insurance, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group. Like others who can't afford medical care, illegal immigrants tend to flock to hospital emergency rooms, which, under a 1986 law, can't turn people away, even if they can't pay. Emergency-room visits, where treatment costs are much higher than in clinics, jumped 32% nationally between 1996 and 2006, the latest data available.
The role illegal immigrants play in U.S. health-care costs is "one hot button that no one wants to touch," says Stephen Zuckerman, an economist at the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington.''
Well, Mr. Zuckerman, why do you suppose it is a 'hot button that no one wants to touch'? Obviously, it's because as I said yesterday, race is involved. If we had tens of millions of White Canadians thronging across our Northern border to 'seek a better life', nobody would be afraid to complain about it. Of course our Canadian cousins are generally too well-behaved and self-sufficient to violate our borders en masse, and they have created themselves a livable country, so the notion of their becoming border-jumpers should strike us as laughable. But alas, our borders are being violated by people of a protected race, so we must not notice the crisis their trespassing is causing, lest we be 'racists.' So no, Mr. Zuckerman, nobody wants to touch that hot button, which has been made a hot button on purpose, to keep us quiet about what is happening. But back to the article:
Residents have since complained to a 19-member county-appointed watchdog group about taxpayer money La Clínica going to health care for people living in the U.S. illegally. Neither the clinic nor the Sutter emergency room ask people their immigration status.
"All we can ask them is their name, date of birth and chief complaint," says Ms. Hammons, the Sutter emergency-department manager. "Heavens, we don't deny anybody treatment. You are required to see anyone who shows up at the emergency department.''
Yes; I think this is official policy in many places. They can't be asked for proof of citizenship, so a blind eye is turned, in 'don't ask, don't tell' fashion. I often tell people this is happening, and they are incredulous, because many people naively assume that ''it's against the law for illegals to get services'', not only medical care, but welfare and other social programs. But then I have to remind the doubters that ''it's against the law to cross the borders without proper permission, too" -- but that hasn't stopped millions from doing so, has it?
VDare has more on health care for immigrants:
A Colorado Ph.D says Mexicans with AIDS drain California of millions every year
and this piece by Brenda Walker about organ transplants for illegals.
There is no question that foreigners illegally enter the country to get million-dollar transplants not available at home, e.g. Ana Puente and Jessica Santillan, who received at least seven organs between them. The Chicago Tribune recently reported, "Liliana Cruz, 16, and her family came to the U.S. illegally in 2005, trying to get a kidney transplant for her." She hasn�t gotten a transplant and complains about receiving free-to-her dialysis provided by taxpayers. So inconvenient.''
Many of these immigrants come here to get extremely costly treatment which they could not get in their home countries. Some Americans are reluctant to object to this, thinking it un-Christian or uncharitable -- but we have to remember there are many of our own people on waiting lists for transplants or dialysis. Should we not put our own first, as most countries do? None of us, not even "rich" old Uncle Sam (who is actually a pauper now) can care for everybody. We have to prioritize.
But as I asked on the Iron Ink piece, will these HIV-positive immigrants and others with costly medical conditions be turned away or denied care under the proposed system? I can hardly imagine that happening, because these people are the protected victims, the 'special' ones who are prioritized under the left's system. They will not be denied treatment.
The idea inherent in this plan is that health care should be guided by the left's notion of 'social justice', and doled out to those deemed ''underserved'' or underprivileged, while those who have ''had their day'' will be expected to step aside in favor of the younger people, most particularly those of the protected 'victim' groups.
[Emanuel] explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).''
If costs are indeed the deciding factor, and old or chronically ill people are just a burden on the rest, how can the government still open our borders and our treasury to millions more immigrants, who have proven to be very costly to the system?
The leftists, of course, are not troubled by glaring contradictions and inconsistencies. Everything is ultimately ideological and political to them, including human life.
And young people, who think this is strictly about those old folks for whom you have little sympathy, remember that you, too, could become disabled via accident or chronic illness. And your life, too, will be considered too costly to sustain -- unless, of course, you are a member of a politically favored group.
This is an issue that should concern everyone, regardless of age.
Here is the problem folks.
America is broke and it needs to find ways to cut budgetary corners.
The answer, in part to that, is to allow Senior Citizens, the infirm, and the handicapped to die as opposed to giving them treatment. The solution is right out of Nietzsche�s playbook. The Christian values of gentleness, forgiveness, and mercy are going to be thrown out in order that a Nietzschean ubermensch (Supermen) can survive. Obama is invoking the "will to power," in his plan to make Senior Citizens, the infirm, and the handicapped be the ones who help America out of its bankrupt condition.''
I agree with that assessment of the problem.
But the paradox is that the Left, the ones who are hell-bent on having this plan become law, position themselves as the champions of the weak, the downtrodden, and the politically 'disenfranchised.' But here they are taking a blatantly Nietzschean perspective. Can they continue to do this and still maintain any credibility as the party of 'caring and compassion'?
And how can the same people who arrogantly pronounce that we have to throw the 'non-contributing' individuals overboard in order to achieve health-care justice at the same time continue flooding our country with costly newcomers, many of them with exotic Third-world diseases and generally neglected health? The fact of many bankrupt hospitals in border states is but one illustration of how devastating to our health care system is the influx of illegal (and legal) immigrants.
Yet the powers that be, and their media flunkeys, (including the Wall Street Journal) continue to studiously ignore and deny the costs of mass immigration and the health problems which the newcomers bring with them.
But here, even the open-borders WSJ acknowledges the problem:
VALLEJO, Calif. -- A health clinic in this blue-collar city north of Oakland, partly funded by the county, is saving local hospitals thousands of dollars in emergency-room visits by treating uninsured patients who suffer only non-urgent ailments.
A watchdog group is now calling on county officials to cut funding for clinic patients who can't prove they are in the U.S. legally, a debate certain to surface in the national health-care overhaul.
With congressional proposals already stirring raw emotions, few supporters are eager to add the incendiary issue of illegal immigration. A provision in the House's health-care-overhaul bill rules out federal funding for illegal immigrants.
But in many ways, illegal immigration is at the nexus of two key health issues: the uninsured and ballooning costs.
Roughly half of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. don't have health insurance, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group. Like others who can't afford medical care, illegal immigrants tend to flock to hospital emergency rooms, which, under a 1986 law, can't turn people away, even if they can't pay. Emergency-room visits, where treatment costs are much higher than in clinics, jumped 32% nationally between 1996 and 2006, the latest data available.
The role illegal immigrants play in U.S. health-care costs is "one hot button that no one wants to touch," says Stephen Zuckerman, an economist at the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington.''
Well, Mr. Zuckerman, why do you suppose it is a 'hot button that no one wants to touch'? Obviously, it's because as I said yesterday, race is involved. If we had tens of millions of White Canadians thronging across our Northern border to 'seek a better life', nobody would be afraid to complain about it. Of course our Canadian cousins are generally too well-behaved and self-sufficient to violate our borders en masse, and they have created themselves a livable country, so the notion of their becoming border-jumpers should strike us as laughable. But alas, our borders are being violated by people of a protected race, so we must not notice the crisis their trespassing is causing, lest we be 'racists.' So no, Mr. Zuckerman, nobody wants to touch that hot button, which has been made a hot button on purpose, to keep us quiet about what is happening. But back to the article:
Residents have since complained to a 19-member county-appointed watchdog group about taxpayer money La Clínica going to health care for people living in the U.S. illegally. Neither the clinic nor the Sutter emergency room ask people their immigration status.
"All we can ask them is their name, date of birth and chief complaint," says Ms. Hammons, the Sutter emergency-department manager. "Heavens, we don't deny anybody treatment. You are required to see anyone who shows up at the emergency department.''
Yes; I think this is official policy in many places. They can't be asked for proof of citizenship, so a blind eye is turned, in 'don't ask, don't tell' fashion. I often tell people this is happening, and they are incredulous, because many people naively assume that ''it's against the law for illegals to get services'', not only medical care, but welfare and other social programs. But then I have to remind the doubters that ''it's against the law to cross the borders without proper permission, too" -- but that hasn't stopped millions from doing so, has it?
VDare has more on health care for immigrants:
A Colorado Ph.D says Mexicans with AIDS drain California of millions every year
and this piece by Brenda Walker about organ transplants for illegals.
There is no question that foreigners illegally enter the country to get million-dollar transplants not available at home, e.g. Ana Puente and Jessica Santillan, who received at least seven organs between them. The Chicago Tribune recently reported, "Liliana Cruz, 16, and her family came to the U.S. illegally in 2005, trying to get a kidney transplant for her." She hasn�t gotten a transplant and complains about receiving free-to-her dialysis provided by taxpayers. So inconvenient.''
Many of these immigrants come here to get extremely costly treatment which they could not get in their home countries. Some Americans are reluctant to object to this, thinking it un-Christian or uncharitable -- but we have to remember there are many of our own people on waiting lists for transplants or dialysis. Should we not put our own first, as most countries do? None of us, not even "rich" old Uncle Sam (who is actually a pauper now) can care for everybody. We have to prioritize.
But as I asked on the Iron Ink piece, will these HIV-positive immigrants and others with costly medical conditions be turned away or denied care under the proposed system? I can hardly imagine that happening, because these people are the protected victims, the 'special' ones who are prioritized under the left's system. They will not be denied treatment.
The idea inherent in this plan is that health care should be guided by the left's notion of 'social justice', and doled out to those deemed ''underserved'' or underprivileged, while those who have ''had their day'' will be expected to step aside in favor of the younger people, most particularly those of the protected 'victim' groups.
[Emanuel] explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).''
If costs are indeed the deciding factor, and old or chronically ill people are just a burden on the rest, how can the government still open our borders and our treasury to millions more immigrants, who have proven to be very costly to the system?
The leftists, of course, are not troubled by glaring contradictions and inconsistencies. Everything is ultimately ideological and political to them, including human life.
And young people, who think this is strictly about those old folks for whom you have little sympathy, remember that you, too, could become disabled via accident or chronic illness. And your life, too, will be considered too costly to sustain -- unless, of course, you are a member of a politically favored group.
This is an issue that should concern everyone, regardless of age.
Labels: Health Care, Liberal Hypocrisy, Medical Ethics, Public Health, Socialism, Socialized Medicine