Mark Constantian writes in the Wall Street Journal Where U.S. Health Care Ranks Number One (1/7/09)

excerpts

The WHO believes that we could have done better because we do not have universal coverage. What apparently does not matter is that our population has universal access because most physicians treat indigent patients without charge and accept Medicare and Medicaid payments, which do not even cover overhead expenses. The WHO does rank the U.S. No. 1 of 191 countries for “responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient.” Isn’t responsiveness what health care is all about?

The Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology have been awarded to more Americans than to researchers in all other countries combined. Eight of the 10 top-selling drugs in the world were developed by U.S. companies. The U.S. has some of the highest breast, colon and prostate cancer survival rates in the world. And our country ranks first or second in the world in kidney transplants, liver transplants, heart transplants, total knee replacements, coronary artery bypass, and percutaneous coronary interventions.

We have the shortest waiting time for nonemergency surgery in the world; England has one of the longest. In Canada, a country of 35 million citizens, 1 million patients now wait for surgery and another million wait to see specialists.

So what does this money buy? Certainly some goes to inefficiencies, corporate profits, and costs that should be lowered by professional liability reform and national, free-market insurance access by allowing for competition across state lines. But the majority goes to a long list of advantages that American citizens now expect: the easiest access, the shortest waiting times the widest choice of physicians and hospitals, and constant availability of health care to elderly Americans. What we need now is insurance and liability reform—not health-care reform.

HKO comment- If I have learned anything over the years it is to get the whole story. Unfortunately  unwarranted criticisms, incomplete and slanted data, and inappropriate statistics are repeated by a compliant media and morons like Michale Moore so much that an unsuspecting public becomes overwhelmed with half truths and misinformation. If our heath care is so bad then why do so many people oppose the reform that is passing through our Congress?

It is hard not to gloat and feel some sense of relief at the release of the climate-gate e-mails.

The most bothersome aspect of the global warming mongers was the certainty.  I have no scientific back ground, but the idea that any group of scientists can pretend to know with any degree of certainty the cause and future of global temperatures just always seemed ridiculous.

Just as Wall Street caused a financial fiasco by refusing to recognize the unknown unknowns in the global financial market, climate scientists have refused to recognize their limits and have arrogantly claimed to know the unknowable.

Yet there were many scientists out there who for years have raised questions about the claims of global warming. Their professionalism was brought into question because they were not the politically recognized source. Using the word ‘denier’ to describe the skeptics made them seem like wingnuts akin to a holocaust ‘denier’.

The use of religious language to characterize the debate diminished any scientific credibility. It became clear that the science became secondary, the promoters of the theory wanted to believe it. It gave them a sense of comfort, a way to expunge their guilt.  Even the demonization of the skeptics seemed religious.

We spoke of using this problem to unite mankind in a common goal. This is not the language of science. Like a religion belief may be very resistant to any facts. The release of these e-mails is a critical tipping point in the debate and now the believers of global warming theory will be on the defensive.

We refused to believe that scientists could be corrupted by money. When money is thrown at one side of the debate we should expect information to lean toward that side, but we should question its credibility.

And yet again we see a compliant media more willing to confirm their own beliefs than to ask intelligent questions.

It is our nature to accept lies that give us comfort and certainty.  That is why the truth is so difficult for many to accept, much less work to uncover.  We owe a debt of gratitude to those who leaked the e-mails.

I would even nominate them for a Nobel Prize.

Carrie O’Connell writes in American Thinker “I am not supposed to exist” read the entire article here.

A 26 year pro life Catholic woman, Carrie writes how her profile is totally absent from the collection of media stereotypes either in the news or in the entertainment sector, which  has become more difficult to distinguish.  She basically described herself as intelligent, educated, thoughtful and conservative- yet young and female.

The reason her article struck me is that it explained why one side is so surprised at the election outcomes.  When a voter profile that did not exist, or is deemed to be an extreme minority, sweeps an election, the other side is stunned.  They then dream up conspiracy theories and elitist stereotypes to explain the totally illogical outcome. They write involved analysis such “What’s the Matter with Kansas” to explain why Americans vote conservative even when it is against their best interests to do so (in the writer’s judgment).

This becomes even more true as the left and right isolates themselves further in their own media bubble, shutting out reasonable voices from the other side.   Without some cross pollination from the different camps there is no middle.

Whether you agree with Ms. O’Connell’s opinion is less relevant than the fact that many do not realize that her opinion exists, at least not in her demographic sector.

Some excerpts from her article:

“If I based my identity on how I see women my age represented on television and in the movies, my only conclusion is that I am not supposed to exist.”

“I don’t have cable television or an iPhone and I do not feel entitled to either. I do not feel that the government should have to provide me with necessities while I refuse to give up luxuries.”

“If I was voting on popularity and glamour, I would phone American Idol, not visit the ballot box.”

“Educated, well-read women who are pro-life are never written into character plots. I am told time and time again that art imitates life. When will they stop thinning the paint?”