Friday December 2, 2016
Jump to content
Hospital beds per 1,000 population
Czech Republic 6.5
United Kingdom 2.7
Does that say a lot, or doesn't it?
I have always believe that there are a few things that just naturally fall into the list of things that the government can do better than business can. For example, land transportation matters such as roads and ground transport — buses, subways, and the like — fit that category. I even thought that British Rail did a good job over in the UK while I was there.
But health care? NO! It should be a matter of private choice. What government should do is monitor what goes on, regulating matters so that the profit motive doesn't get in the way of good, efficient, and reasonably priced health care. That doesn't mean that we can't have free health care for the genuinely poor; if we want to do that, that's a fine thing.
I did not like the UK National Health Service while I was there and was very glad that I did not have to rely on it. And I've read a lot of criticisms of it since. I have always worried, though, that maybe I was a bit prejudiced about NHS because of my personal experiences with it.
However, today at last i can see that my general feelings are correct. Why? Numbers (if they are not taken from polls!) do not lie. When you read these numbers I think you will see what I mean.
An interesting headline in Australia asks whether a rise of the ordinary people against over-controlling politicians is taking place. It says,"Recent 'political earthquakes' and the rise of populism could have serious ramifications in Europe."
Just in case you have forgotten, a "populist" is defined as "A person who is concerned with the views of ordinary people."
That's you and me, of course.
The article says that, "Whether they are appalled or delighted by the prospect, most observers agree the same forces that were behind Brexit and Donald Trump are at work in Europe."
They identify those forces as a "populist" movement. European parliament president Martin Schulz says the EU is under threat "like never before … from both inside and from outside."
Fabian Zuleeg, an EU think tank chief who predicted Brexit more than a year before it happened, is worried. He says that the people of European nations are turning to populist solutions.
After Brexit, Dutch anti-EU control Wilders tweeted: "Hurray for the British! Now it's our turn." After Trump's win, his message was: "The people are taking their country back. So will we."
He calls Donald Trump's win "the Patriotic Spring sweeping the Western world," and an attack against the "out-of touch media pundits and elites" who have lost touch with the "worries and fears of ordinary people."
Coming up in December are a referendum in Italy which would "reform" the Italian constitution to bring Italy more in line with the EU, a presidential rerun in Austria, and the general election in the Netherlands. Two month later comes the presidential election in France. And after that comes die-hard EU fan Angela Merkel's try for a third term in Europe.
What shocked me about all this is a comment made by Angela Merkel. Unbelievably, she just made this comment: "Politics is about the future but populism is about the past."
Now think about that. Do you agree that being a populist, or being (by the dictionary) "a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people" is a thing of the past?
Or do you think that what we need in this world is more politicians who seek to represent the interests of ordinary people instead of the interests of those who want to promote their own globalist views or those of super-rich corporations?
It's your choice.
My question is why Obama did why he did.
Pat, you hit he nail right on the head!
No one chooses to have cancer. Druggies choose to do drugs and earn the stigma they created with their own choice.
So why do we have a government trying to convince us of something else?
Like you, no doubt, I have often read the criticisms made of President Obama concerning his "removal of a bust of Winston Churchill from the oval office."
However, I placed it in the same category as the claims that he is not a native born American — the political BS category.
Why? Because the truth is simple and provable. Here are all the verifiable facts):
a. The White House has had a bust of Winston Churchill since the 1960’s.
b. It was kept in the residence.
c. At the start of the Bush administration Prime Minister Blair lent President Bush a bust that matched the one in the White House. Why? Because our copy was being worked on at the time.
d. The one lent to G. W. Bush was place in the oval office and remained there while he was in office.
e. The other one and was returned to the residence after the work on it was completed.
f. On January 20, 2009, Inauguration Day, all of the art lent specifically for President Bush’s Oval Office was removed by the curator’s office, as is common practice at the end of every presidency. It was returned to the British Embassy.
g. The original copy is still in the residence.
h. That is what the White House staff has been saying all along.
Good old Barack Obama, never happy with the truth, decided while he was in England that he would tell this new story about why he returned the Churchill bust to the British:
(Please notice the quote marks.)
“There are only so many tables where you can put busts. Otherwise, it starts looking a little cluttered”
“And I thought it was appropriate, and I suspect most people here in the United Kingdom might agree, that as the first African-American president, it might be appropriate to have a bust of Dr. Martin Luther King in my office.”
He added that the choice of Dr. King was “to remind me of all the hard work of a lot of people who would somehow allow me to have the privilege of holding this office.”
“I think people should know my thinking there,” Mr. Obama also told the reporters in London.
And now .... ?
As the UK Telegraph (and I assume other UK news sources) is say that the new story contradicts "the longstanding denials by White House officials, including Mr. Pfeiffer, that neither Mr. Obama nor anyone else in his administration had chosen to dispatch Churchill’s likeness in favor of someone else’s."
Okay. It is now your turn to comment.
More of the mind control minuet from DC.
Here it is:
"US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy calls for end of addiction stigma."
That's right, the US Surgeon General says that we should no longer think of drug addicts as people who continually make the wrong choice. We should now think of them as "people with a chromic illness."
He points out that 21 million in America people abuse substances; and he says that's more people than have cancer.
First, if you want a look at the genius that Obama chose as our Surgeon General, click on this link:
Did you go there? Brilliant looking guy, isn't he?
Oh, and did you read what he was doing before Obama selected him for that office? Just in case you didn't, here's what the article in the link says: "Before becoming surgeon general in 2014, he co-founded a group pushing for affordable health care."
I never would have guessed, would you?
Now please do not get me wrong. I am all for trying to help anyone who wants to get off some drug.
And now, the envelope please ......
Today's question is:
"He points out that 21 million in America people abuse substances, and he says that's more people than have cancer."
What's the primary difference between the people in those two groups?
Thanks, Chuck. As to what is found in writings from the distant past, they often reflect the morals of the times. That is very true of the Old Testament. I suppose that's the reason that we were gifted with the words of the New Testament.
Ron, I'd not noticed that before in my readings, or else never gave it much thought when I read it. That says it all!
My way of thinking is simple. I do not interfere with the religious beliefs of other people. As far as Christianity is concerned I am Catholic but I have attended other churches so many time that you'd never know it. I see more things in common than I see things to argue about.
What all this shows is clear: There are people whose goals are not the goals of the rest of us and they are trying to force them upon us, using the law and public opinion as per the MSM.
"The issue I have with the current situation is that people want to forbid me the right to find some of that "sexual behavior" repugnant and immoral." "These progs desire to control and dictate what people THINK regards any number of social issues." "I would challenge ANY of these progressives to provide evidence in ANY of our founding documents that state that it is a person's "right" to NOT be offended in some way."
I can't add anything to that except to say that you have it exactly right.
"I have friends of different color, sex, religion and gay friends and relatives. Love them all. We all live our lives the way we see fit and don't judge each other or try to change anything about each other."
Right! Simple. Just what the Constitution says: Hands off!
But as Ron pointed out the mainstream media keeps pounding away. Trying to force people to think CORRECTLY.
Last login: today