Rajjpuut like most thinking people in this country found himself greatly UNDERwhelmed by Barak Obama’s ridiculous speech to congress and the American people supporting his unneeded Obamacare bill. 

1.                       While much “newness” was feigned at, there was not one bona fide new approach to the “problem” that he sees (which he has severely misdiagnosed, more later) it was just more of the same with a few more lies thrown in to make it seem more palatable to Republicans and Independents and Conservative Democrats.

B.     Bi-partisanship agreement was repeatedly suggested as obvious and true. What is obvious and true is that no Republican initiatives originally involved (such as complying with the Haynes act to prevent federal funding of abortion; such as complying with the “freedom of conscience provisions” that would NOT require a doctor to perform an abortion his conscience opposed; such as provisions requiring proof of citizenship and insisting that illegal aliens could not receive services; and most importantly Republican suggestions that HSA options for self-insurance be allowed and honored) . . . no Republican initiatives, not one of them, has been retained: all these crucial amendments have been removed by the Democratic majority in the various committees. 

E.      The ludicrous proposition that “prior conditions” can be mandated for coverage and private insurers can still survive . . . since this is a definite losing proposition under any conceivable actuarial conditions . . . this would guarantee the destruction of private insurance and the supremacy of the public option that Obama insists is “no big deal.”

F.      The biggest lie of all about Obamacare itself: “this is not a government takeover.” 1200 pages of new law is about to descend upon the people and their doctors . . . how much control and interference is needed, before someone calls it a “government takeover”? 

G.     The biggest omissions of all about Obamacare: its multiple "evil" purposes . . . to give much more control over health care to the liberal supporters of all things government spending boondoggle-wise;  and to obscure the fact that all five of the worst government spending and government interference boondoggles (GSBs and GIBs) created by the liberal left wing of the Democratic Party  brought us to the current mess:

1)      Medicare now is obligated for $34 TRillion it can never hope to repay and it will officially go bankrupt in 2016.  Obviously if these two simple facts can be brought to permeate the public consciousness . . . the likelihood of future GSBs and GIBs such as Obamacare itself will be dramatically reduced and much more limited government would result.

2)     Medicaid is functionally bankrupt

3)     Even though the bankruptcy date for Social Security is officially 2037, it too is functionally bankrupt . . . Obamacare is trying to do for Medicare what recent legislation did for Social Security    . . . push its day of reckoning so far into the future that connection to the liberal congresses that created these bills is never made

4)     Jimmy Carter’s 1977 mortgage-guarantee legislation led the nation to 19% inflation in 1980 and ACORN lawyer Barak Obama sued and extorted banks in 1995 and 1996 into making loans in line with the bill which, while required by law were utterly senseless and fiscally irresponsible.

5)     Bill Clinton’s 1998 mortgage-guarantee law combined with the ’77 laws put the country’s financial collapse on steroids.  By the way when the Bush administration sought to eliminate the weakest portions of the two weak bills, in January 2005, the Democrats outvoted them to allow the fledgling crisis to grow beyond control.

H.    The faulty assumption that the problem with Americans’ health and the present health care system is caused by people NOT having health insurance.  

1)      American physicians uniformly state that the problem actually lies with not being able to get health care to patients. For example, in the past doctors could give free care to the poor; or accept payment in kind from farm patients (over time eggs, vegetables, meat, etc.) but not this is forbidden in most cases. If a person of Medicare age is to be treated, all the paperwork must be filled out regardless and the Medicare laws must be followed even if they don’t apply or even interfere with doctor charity.

2)     Ex health-educator Rajjpuut, in his 26 blog series “A Far Better Health Care Alternative” has listed 44 factors that are far more important than health insurance:

For example . . .

a)     his #1 factor is elimination of the FDA totally, a corrupt government agency which rains pain, suffering and death upon American patients as described in his 16 Anti-FDA blog series

b)     42 other factors Rajjpuut mentions are not considered by Obamacare at all

c)      The only factor Rajjpuut and Obamacare did agree upon is “infant mortality.” 

However, Obamacare treats this factor as totally a problem with lack of health care or insufficient health care . . . Rajjpuut names 14 factors (health care is NOT mentioned but the fact that modern American women lead the world in smoking, drinking, using drugs, obesity, etc.  definitely are crucial) that contribute and then describes a cluster of social factors that trace the history of the problem to the breakdown in the American family (predominance of unwed mothers; predominance of single-parent families; predominance of families with no husband ever in attendance to help the mother; predominance of families without a second parent living below the poverty line; etc. which all arose as the altogether laudable women’s movement  was taken over and radicalized by the feminist movement.   In making his analysis, of the historical deterioration of the American family as the root cause of high infant mortality. Problems that didn’t exist in 1960 when America had one of the highest ranked health care systems in the world and infant mortality and life expectancy were the envy of most of the world suddenly became real and huge problems as America’s women changed their perspectives egged on by unenlightened radical feminism.

 Rajjpuut also debunked one of Obama’s crucial factors (America’s comparatively low life expectancy) and showed that the two factors (infant mortality and low life expectancy) because of the way the statistics are misused are really the same factor looked at twice . . . the implication is that when America solves its infant mortality crisis, life expectancy will jump markedly.

                He called reports of death panels, abortion funding, coverage of illegal aliens, and federal government takeover of the health care insurance system and some of the delivery system “phony claims.”

                Are they now, are they really phony claims? Like Bill Clinton before him, Barak Obama has nurtured the art of lying with a straight face and telling half-truths with a wrinkled grin. There are no death panels mentioned nor euthanasia nor mercy killings. But since health care rationing for the elderly (half of all their costs typically occur during their final six months of life) is the only way to meet Obama’s resolve to cut health care costs by curtailing of drugs, operations and other procedures . . . and since this decision is to be made by government bureaucrats and is sure to advance the date of death in at least 95% of cases: death panels is a good operative description. Mr. Obama whose Science Czar has written a book on euthanasia, mercy-killings, forced abortions, and mass (secretly done via drinking water) sterilizations knows full well what he’s proposing and so do his detractors who caught him in this lie.  By the way, the elderly are far more likely to be conservative voters . . . Lie #1.

                Similarly, government funded abortions are not in the Obamacare bill. More significantly, however, an anti-abortion funding amendment was struck from the bill. Obama supports the “Freedom of Choice Act” and would like nothing better than to sidestep the Hyde Act prohibiting funding for abortion by the government. Obama is 100% pro-abortion on demand with NO restrictions. His word on the matter is somehow less comforting than having an anti-abortion amendment in the legislation. Lie #2.

                Illegal aliens are also NOT specifically covered, but the Democrats have defied all manner of attempts to make sure that all illegal aliens would be barred from receiving any benefits. Without an eligibility screening method sought by the Republicans there is NO path to barring illegal aliens with any effectiveness. Obama also has publically stated his desire to put every illegal alien in the country “on the path of citizenship.” That makes them eligible. Rather than securing the borders, Obama is asking for excuses to allow anybody who can get across to become a citizen and get taxpayer funded health care in America. Lie #3.

                Obamacare is, of course, a huge step on the path to single-payer government monopolized health care insurance running the private sector out of the business.  How can they (private insurance companies) compete with a competitor that can lose money hand over fist forever and still come back fighting for the business? Universal health care via the government option with no competing private companies is the only logical result of Obamacare, and furthermore it is also the desired result by Obama and Barney Frank, who both have said as much in virtually every non-guarded moment. Lie #4.

                So much for open and honest debate, Mr. Liar, ‘er President.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

                 As any scientists can tell you, “proper framing of the question often suggests the correct answer, but more importantly ALWAYS leads you on the right road to testing for that answer.” Rajjpuut’s perspective is not popular amongst the liberal enclave pushing the Obamacare initiative, let’s first eliminate the most important factors that DO NOT belong in any effective health care bill:

President’s Obama’s wrong about virtually every single aspect of the health care initiative he’s trying to push down the throats of American voters, but he is right about “infant mortality.” It’s a huge problem. However, even here his (mis)understanding of the “problem” dwarfs his almost  totally INsignificant grasp of the facts.   To review and re-emphasize . . . three statistics, at first glance would make almost any intelligent person conclude that some sort of reform is necessary in the American health care system: 

A.     America ranks #1 in per capita health care cost almost twice as high as the next costliest two countries, France and Canada. 

B.     Americans’ life expectancy is far down the list of all the world’s nations and one of the worst for a developed nation.

C.      America’s infant mortality is significantly down the list of all the world’s nations and one of the worst for a developed nation.

Of course, most Americans don’t understand statistics much better than they understand nuclear physics (Yes, Ol’ Rajjpuut was a nuclear reactor operator while in the navy) so let’s clear some things up here . . . first of all: statistic B and statistic C above are virtually the same statistic. Because so many American die in infancy, our American life expectancy is mediocre at best. If you average zero years old with one-hundred years old, you only get an average of fifty years life expectancy.   If a stillborn baby instead is born alive and then lives to age 60, Viola, 100 + 60 gives us an average of 80 years of life expectancy. You get the picture . . .

Occasionally, a much better statistic is generated (where life expectancy among only those who live to be one year old and beyond is studied): this is a far more accurate reflection of life expectancy and America does far, far better with this statistic, ranking among the top eight or nine in life expectancy the last time Rajjpuut looked. For that reason Rajjpuut concludes that life expectancy is NOT a bona fide problem just a red herring. The real problems are A and C above: exorbitant cost and poor infant mortality results because infant mortality is already INCLUDED as part of the life expectancy statistic.   If you, waving a wand, reduced infant mortality in the United States by 90%, PRESTO! you've dramatically increased the nation's life expectancy . . . in fact, you would presumably give America the highest life expectancy in the world!    So clearly life expectancy, per se, is NOT the problem: infant mortality, by itself is the problem.

Nevertheless, looking at statistic C:  it is the ONLY factor Obama and Rajjpuut agree upon.   Factor #41 Infant Mortality is a problem. However, Mr. Obama doesn’t understand the problem and Rajjpuut does. Therefore, as usual, the reader can expect a more accurate treatment of factor #41 from Rajjpuut than from Mr. Obama’s “sound bite” propagandists . . . . The obvious question as any scientist or statistician reading this far, and most Americans doing so also, want to know is this: “WHY?”   “Why is infant mortality so poor in this country?”  

There are thirteen primary factors driving America’s poor showing in this statistic and whole volumes could be written intelligently on each of them, we will discuss twelve of them quickly together (listed in green) and the 13th one by itself (in red) later: 

              Twelve of the key thirteen factors driving high infant mortality in America are: 1. Tobacco use 2. Alcohol use 3. Illegal drug use 4. Prescription drug use (our Anti-FDA Rants are germane) 5. Obesity and morbid obesity of mothers as well as diabetes and pre-diabetes in mothers 6. Poverty of mothers 7. Youth of mothers 8. Race of the mother 9. Violence and accidents 10. Mothers raising children alone without a husband/father there to help 11. Poor nutrition of the mother 12. Poor lifestyle of the mother, particularly lack of exercise . . . .

Oh, and because someone’s already thinking it, lets’ clear that question up . . . NO, surgical abortion statistics are NOT considered in infant mortality; Yes spontaneous natural abortion (miscarriage) becomes a statistic IF and WHEN the mother makes contact with her doctor or with a hospital or emergency room. Indigent (poor) mothers who don’t make such contact after miscarriage, are NOT part of the statistical base, of course.  That "unreported" statistic would tend to drive infant mortality statistics up higher in most of the rest of the world than they tend to show and make America's infant mortality statistic much better in comparison, because an awful lot of health care statistics are well-kept in this country.

                What’s going on here? Look at those thirteen factors impacting infant mortality. Is there some underlying connection?    “In a phrase, you’ve come a long way, Baby!” American women, particularly young American woman are, per capita: the heaviest smokers in the world; the heaviest drinkers in the world; heaviest users of illegal drugs; and prescription drugs; the fattest in the world and the most likely to suffer from pre-diabetic symptoms as well as diabetes; among the most likely to become unwed mothers; among the most likely to become pregnant at an early age among women in industrialized nations; and they live in a very violent country. 

American women are also far, far more likely to drive and thus are more at risk for automobile accidents than most of the world’s women. In addition, black American mothers are the least likely to have fathers/husbands living with them or at all; and all unwed mothers, especially young ones are most likely to live below the poverty line.  

Despite living in a land of plenty, most Americans practice lifestyles that are horribly unhealthy. This is especially true when it comes to nutrition. Howard Hughes died of malnutrition. Many morbidly fat people are severely malnourished. Pregnant women and about to be pregnant women need to pay particular attention to their nutritional intake and American mothers do a miserably poor job of taking care of their own nutritional needs, not to mention those of the child they carry. The potato chip, the donut, fried foods and sodas and diet foods and all manner of junk foods are all no-nos. Skipping breakfast is a no-no.   Poor lifestyle overall is nearly always a factor in infant mortality. American women (as well as men) have about the poorest lifestyle in the world and in particular lack of exercise is virtually a given for American mothers. Reread and understand these three paragraphs, these are key understandings. 

                  As an aside, since, the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party and particularly organizations like NOW, National Organization of Women, have been driving forces in pushing the agendas that have helped bring about this series of family and female shifts, Rajjpuut is suggesting is they each contribute 7% of their yearly budgets to health education dealing with infant mortality and those funds be budgeted to the CDC. Or would that be far more "responsibility" then those two fine organizations wish to claim? 

While the women’s movement, NOT FEMINISM -- the women's movement, has done some wonderful things, the quantum change in American “morality” and the “prerogatives of women” since 1960 has had a disastrous effect on infant mortality.   American sex education and particularly contraceptive education HAS SIMPLY NOT KEPT UP. And before someone mentions “JUST SAY, “NO!” Nancy Reagan was a wonderful woman, but she was in over her head on this one . . . just say, “NO!” doesn’t work. 

                 "Just say, NO!" doesn't work. Why not? In all societies, at all times, at all places, regardless of religious beliefs: the average age for the onset of sexual intercourse for women has been approximately the same: two years after menarche (the first menstrual period). It doesn't matter what else is done, sexual intercourse WILL take place on average two years after this age. That appears to be an unalterable fact of human nature. This is not a problem in countries where girls first menstruate at age 15 and get married at 15 or 16, not at all.   But in industrial societies where schooling commonly goes on past age 18 and early marriage is undesirable . . . this becomes a huge problem: the problem of unwed motherhood and most particularly, very YOUNG unwed motherhood . . . .

               The average age of menarche has declined around the world over the last century but the magnitude of the decline and the factors responsible remain subjects of contention. Better nutrition seems to be one likely factor. Fat is the factor, Rajjpuut believes most influences menarche age. Somewhere around 18% body fat seems to be the magic number, all other factors being equal, that inspires early puberty. There seems but little contention over this fact: American and Canadian girls have seen the most dramatic reduction in menarche ages and American and Canadian girls are among the fattest in the world. Less than 15% of U.S. girls start to menstruate before 11 years of age, and 90% of all U.S. girls are menstruating by 13.16 years of age, with a median age of 12.08 years. This median age at menarche is significantly different (0.73 years earlier) than that reported for U.S. girls in 1960. Age at menarche for non-Hispanic black girls was significantly earlier than that of white girls when 10%, 25%, and 50% of either group had attained menarche, whereas Mexican-American girls were only significantly earlier than the white girls at 25%.

Rajjpuut has deliberately, up to now, refrained from revealing the thirteenth item that could have been shown with the twelve items above (drug use, tobacco use, alcohol use, fatness, etc.) since it deserves its own separate treatment.   That 13th item is this: American girls, black and white, have the earliest menstrual periods in the world for three reasons: higher body weight, higher body fat%, and apparently (still controversial) because of additives in food such as steroids and antibiotics in meat. Add to that the frequency with which some American mothers dress their little girls up like harlots to go to 4th grade classrooms and the prevailing levels of sexually- revealing entertainment on TV and you have the making of a social upheaval almost demanding sexual intercourse at a far earlier age than in most of the world . . .   infant mortality statistics go along for the ride, because on average very young American mothers are the poorest, least likely to have a husband to help, and least mature and effective of all mothers in nurturing their infants.

Two of Rajjpuut’s earlier suggested solutions (The Seven Golden Rules of Health; and the requirement for physical activity in schools, particularly elementary and middle schools) would address these problems obliquely. Health education that teaches girls about taking care of their bodies and avoidance of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, etc. and motivates fitness NOT fatness could dramatically effect the unwed mother statistics. Girls who take part in sports are also far more likely to see two results in their life:   delaying of the onset of sexual intercourse and higher self-esteem . . . that’s an awful lot of benefit from kicking a soccer ball or dribbling a basketball around. Statistics are kind to girl athletes and girls with high self-esteem. But an awful lot of the infant mortality problem is a social problem, period. If physical activity keeps girls weighing less and with far less body fat and develops a self-esteem and body appreciation that discourages anorexia: both infant mortality and overall female health statistics will improve dramatically. 

Obviously, the plethora of problems tied in with America’s terrible infant mortality statistic are a highly complicated web of intertwining health and social factors . . . but merely understanding the problems as they are laid out here is far superior to the Obama camp's desire to exploit the result (infant mortality and incorrectly life expectancy) insensitively as propaganda. And Rajjpuut would not be Rajjpuut if he didn't mention

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

A.     America ranks #1 in per capita health care cost almost twice as high as the next costliest two countries, France and Canada. 

B.     Americans’ life expectancy is far down the list of all the world’s nations and one of the worst for a developed nation.

C.      America’s infant mortality is significantly down the list of all the world’s nations and one of the worst for a developed nation.

Of course, most Americans don’t understand statistics much better than they understand nuclear physics (Yes, Ol’ Rajjpuut was a nuclear reactor operator while in the navy) so let’s clear some things up here . . .

Statistic B and statistic C above are virtually the same statistic.  Because so many American die in infancy, our American life expectancy is mediocre at best.  If you average zero years old with one-hundred years old, you only get an average of fifty years life expectancy.   If a stillborn baby instead is born alive and  lives to age 60, Viola, 100 + 60 gives us an average of 80 years of life expectancy.  You get the picture . . .

Occasionally, a much better statistic is generated (where life expectancy among only those who live to be one year old and beyond is studied):  this is a far more accurate reflection of life expectancy and America does far, far better with this statistic, ranking among the top eight or nine in life expectancy the last time Rajjpuut looked.  For that reason Rajjpuut concludes that life expectancy is NOT a bona fide problem just a red herring.  The real problems are A and C above:  exorbitant cost and poor infant mortality results because infant mortality is already INCLUDED as part of the life expectancy statistic.   If you, waving a wand,  reduced  infant mortality in the United States by 90%, PRESTO! you've dramatically increased the nation's life expectancy . . . in fact, you would presumably give America the highest life expectancy in the world!   So life expectancy, per se, is NOT the problem:  infant mortality, by itself is.  So let's deal with that one statistic, infant mortality, and briefly in the next paragraph:  also look at Mr. Obama's propagandists "lying with statistics" to "sell" their point.

The question as any scientist or statistician reading this far, and most Americans doing so also, want to know is this:  “WHY?”   “Why is infant mortality so poor in this country?” 

There are eleven primary factors driving America’s poor showing in this statistic and whole volumes could be written intelligently on each of them, we will discuss ten of them quickly together (listed in green) and the 11th one by itself (in red) later: 

              Twelve of the key thirteen factors driving high infant mortality in America are:  1. Tobacco use 2. Alcohol use 3. Illegal drug use 4.  Prescription drug use (our Anti-FDA Rants are germane) 5. Obesity and morbid obesity of mothers as well as diabetes and pre-diabetes in mothers 6. Poverty of mothers 7. Youth of mothers 8. Race of the mother 9. Violence and accidents  10. Mothers raising children alone without a husband/father there to help 11. Poor nutrition of the mother 12. Poor lifestyle of the mother, particularly lack of exercise . . . .

Oh, and because someone’s already thinking it, lets’ clear that question up . . . NO, surgical abortion statistics are NOT considered in infant mortality; Yes spontaneous natural abortion (miscarriage) becomes a statistic WHEN the mother makes contact with her doctor or with a hospital or emergency room.  Indigent (poor) mothers who don’t make such contact after miscarriage, are NOT part of the statistical base, of course.

Rajjpuut has deliberately, up to now, refrained from revealing  the thriteenth item that could have been shown with the twelve items above (drug use, tobacco use, alcohol use, fatness, etc.) since it deserves its own separate treatment.   That 13th item is this:  American girls, black and white, have the earliest menstrual periods in the world for three reasons:  higher body weight, higher body fat%, and apparently (still controversial) because of additives in food such as steroids and antibiotics in meat.  Add to that the frequency with which some American mothers dress their little girls up like harlots to go to 4^th grade classrooms and the prevailing levels of sexually- revealing entertainment on TV and you have the making of a social upheaval almost demanding sexual intercourse at a far earlier age than in most of the world  . . .   infant mortality statistics go along for the ride, because  on average very young American mothers are the poorest, least likely to have a husband to help, and least mature and effective of all mothers in nurturing their infants.

Two of Rajjpuut’s earlier suggested solutions  (The Seven Golden Rules of Health; and the requirement for physical activity in schools, particularly elementary and middle schools) would address these problems obliquely.  Health education that teaches girls about taking care of their bodies and avoidance of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, etc. and motivates fitness NOT fatness could dramatically effect the unwed mother statistics.  Girls who take part in sports are also far more likely to see two results in their life:   delaying of the onset of sexual intercourse and higher self-esteem . . . that’s an awful lot of benefit from kicking a soccer ball or dribbling a basketball around.  Statistics are kind to girl athletes and girls with high self-esteem.  But an awful lot of the infant mortality problem is a social problem, period.  If physical activity keeps girls weighing less and with far less body fat and develops a self-esteem and body appreciation that discourages anorexia:  both infant mortality and overall female health statistics will improve dramatically. 

Obviously, the plethora of problems tied in with America’s terrible infant mortality statistic are a highly complicated web of intertwining  health and social factors . . . but merely understanding the problems as they are laid out here is far superior to the Obama camp's desire to exploit the result (infant mortality and incorrectly life expectancy) insensitively as propaganda.  And Rajjpuut would not be Rajjpuut if he didn't mention

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

Poor Medicine is Expensive Medicine

Subsidized Medicine is Terrible Threat to Nation’s Health

                How come Obama subsidized GM and Chrysler and the banking industry?   No one with IQs over 60 allowed to answer . . . Because that way they can lose money and still survive, they are now part of government and paid for by the taxpayer and largely owned by one of the unions that supported Obama’s presidential campaign.

                What must happen to Ford Motor Company facing the unfair competition from GM and Chrysler now funded by taxpayer dollars? No one with IQs over 60 allowed to answer . . . Because they are competing with companies that can lose money and still survive, that are now part of government and paid for by the taxpayer, Ford most likely will go bankrupt soon also . . . then they too can be subsidized.   It's not a pretty picture.

                Where do taxes ultimately come from? No one with IQs over 60 allowed to answer . . .  Taxes ultimately comes from someone making “a profit,” either an individual or a company.  

                If taxes come from profit, why is “profit” such an obscene word for liberals since they base their programs on huge amounts of taxing to support government spending ? No one with IQs over 60 allowed to answer . . .  Liberals have a vested interest in taking care of the non-productive parts of the economy: 1) funding ever bigger government which they set up so they can monopolize  2) giving ignorant voters the sensation that they are “getting something for nothing” and therefore “dependent” upon government and further government growth” which makes voters more likely to support liberal programs they now believe are "necessary" for their survival.

                But, but, but . . . taxing the productive part of the economy to support the non-productive parts can’t go on forever, can it?  No one with IQs over 60 allowed to answer . . .   Forever, no. However, so long as government can indiscriminately tax away and inflate currency (inflation is perhaps the cruelest “undeclared tax” of all) willy-nilly things can continue for a long time. In the  three-minute speech found at the link below (copy it into your internet address bar) Daniel Hannan severely attacks UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
 

Now realize this: Hannan was attacking Brown for deficits amounting to 10%  of gross domestic product (the combined output of the whole free market in the UK). Meanwhile under Obama the United States now stands at deficits amounting to  81% of GDP! And Obama wants to install an inefficient health care system now at horrific costs on top of his other mistakes . . .

Why is a government option desired by liberals in drafting Obamacare?  No one with IQs over 60 allowed to answer . . . Because that way they can lose money and still survive, they are now part of government and paid for by the taxpayer.  Since, just like in the Ford vs. GM and Chrysler example, it is impossible to compete with such entities for long when needing a profit to survive: the private health care industry will be run out of business. 

The AMA says “the prime reason for the high cost of health care in the country is trial lawyers and malpractice suits” is this true? No one with IQs over 60 allowed to answer . . . No, it’s a half-truth. Yes, it’s more costly to pay for medical treatment when doctor’s must pay for super large malpractice judgments . . . but the real expense is bad medicine itself in two ways: 1) malpractice suits and 2) most importantly practicing medicine at stage three (finding disease and then responding . . . usually with drugs that do NOT cure the disease but only wind up in lifetime “subscriptions” to dangerous and expensive medicines) rather than at stage one (health education; patient responsibility for his own health; prevention) when medical care is dramatically cheaper and dramatically more effective. Poor medicine is always more expensive ultimately. 

Is there a logical end to incessant government involvement in the free markets? No one with IQs over 60 allowed to answer . . . Yes,  there is an “illogical –logical end” when everyone is a part of government, because government owns everything then the government must eventually fall of its own bloated weight (which is what happened when the former Soviet Union collapsed) because profit is necessary to survive. Profit is merely abundance and societies that cannot create abundance canNOT survive!

Rajjpuut

                Breaking his bi-partisan pledge for the umpteenth time, Barak Obama is now talking about passing some sort of health care “reform” legislation without benefit of a single Republican vote in the house or senate. This latest Obama flip-flop-flop-flip comes less than two days after concerned Americans first heard that Obama was considering dropping the public option from his proposed health care bill in favor of an option for local health care co-operatives to replace the government option as “competition” for the health insurance companies.   Of course, within 24 hours that little notice was repudiated by various spokesmen for the great man constituting yet another vacillation . . . .

                IF, and it’s a huge IF . . . IF, Obama decides that he’s going to construct a health care bill that will pass without Republican votes: then the votes of the Blue Dog Democrats and the Blue Dog “look-alikes” among Democrats in the Senate are the key to his success: he must have virtually every one of them in the senate and at least a fourth of them in the house. And how, exactly is that to be done? There’s only one way . . . he must compromise deeply with the Blue Dogs and he must convince the most liberal of his liberal base that the symbolic value of achieving a victory, any victory, goes beyond the importance of not getting the exact bill they originally wanted. That will be a hard sell, but certainly NOT an impossible one. The hard part will presumably be, coming up with a program that the Blue Dogs, especially the “BD look-alikes” in the senate can feel comfortable with.

                Anyone who’s read Rajjpuut’s twenty-three-blog series on health care (A Far Better Health Care Alternative I-XXIII) knows that the Ol’ Health Care Educator is absolutely convinced that virtually nothing in the Obamacare program is worthwhile and that the 40 different issues brought up by Rajjpuut’s blogs hold the key to getting Americans healthy and decimating health care costs. Of course, not one of the issues mentioned has been made a priority in the Obamacare bills, in fact virtually none of them have been mentioned. In a word, if you didn’t know it before: Obamacare is a monstruous boondoggle. And compromised Obamacare . . .  will presumably be a semi-monstruous boondoggle.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut