The illusion of reform

Is this another example of Obama's plan to govern according to science? Ignore the new mammogram recommendations because they're politically undesireable.

By the way, I think one of the reasons the new mammogram recommendations have been received so negatively is that it's hard to imagine that more isn't necessarily better. Has anyone come across an example of a patient who was significantly harmed because of testing? For instance, maybe someone was incorrectly dianosed with breast cancer after a falsely positive mammogram, and actually started some kind of painful treatment or surgury before the misdiagnoses was discovered. Please point me to any such example.

Politics as usual. Great example of good intentions producing bad results. As if the umpteen thousands of examples of politics and government in action before this never even happened.

EPA AND DUE DILIGENCE
When someone is to invest in a new enterprise, or brokers start up an Initial Public Offering, a thorough due diligence is done. That means a good, deep investigation of who the enterprise is to serve, how they produce the service, financials, where, and what impact it has on the environment and the legal system, as well as rational estimates of profitability. In most cases, if the start-up is something new, the market for the service is as speculative as a new TV series entertainment executives think will do well. Each of the segments of the due diligence is important to the investor, and the speculative may be of interest to the gambler. But, when probable government actions are input, such as new EPA regulations, energy use, cost, allocation and emissions of carbon dioxide, the risk becomes too great for the investor. If the government acts in such ways to increase the risks to an investor in any new business, the economy is confronted with a major crippling virus. Keep in mind, new and small business accounts for close to three out of four jobs in our economy. New, small, innovative, privately owned small business is the reason America has been so prosperous, and lack of them is the reason other nations in the world are not prosperous. It sounds like our government is rushing to shut America down in order to keep the world’s playing field level. Claybarham.com

Clay,

I thought you were going to say that the rule in public affairs was the opposite of that in private, not any Diligence at all, but blindly following the leader.

That is obvious in this climate change thing, in that so many follow junk science. I watched Larry Kudlow's show on CNBC today and he showed a lot of video on smoke stacks with white stuff spewing forth, and in every case, it was steam, moisture, which is a better heat trapping blanket than heavier-than-air "plant food," i.e., carbon dioxide. This entire global warming thing is just a way for people to panic and allow Obama to rule without a constitutional restraint. The Pied Piper still works.

But, oh how so few know that that stuff coming out of the chimney is steam and not nasty dastardly smoke/CO2/chemicals and all those evil nasty things.

Most of them are ignorant and they buy right into that crap.

And, just what, in a nutshell, is "everything we need to know about the current state of American politics and how it affects health care?"

"The Senate measure is not about the right to obtain preventive care. It's about the right to make someone else pick up the tab."

Its about redistribution.

But that isn't everything we need to know.

We also need to know that it doesn't pay, doesn't make the poor richer but poorer, doesn't reduce but increases income inequality.

That's everything we need to know, and shout from the housetops.

When the roof caves in government will still be trying to bribe people not to look up or run out.

http://www.bornagainamerican.org/index.html

I watch and listen to this, very inspiring BTW, but I am compelled to wonder as each takes their turn, what America is it that they are yearning for? The one of freedom of choice, equal opportunity, and natural rights; or the one of freedom from choice, equal outcomes, and privileges for all. Either way they are equally passionate, and therein lies the conflict that is bound to come.

I've asked myself roughly the same question. Are they the "Americans" or am I? And I've conclude that I am willing to cede the title to them. They run the country, I don't. They are nationalists, I'm not. I'm just me. Fortunately, there are still plenty of good people here who are willing to trade with me, value for value. So I'm good, and I'd rather be "Free" than "American" anyway.

I understand what you're saying and in that context I think the same.

But my point goes back to things I have said in the past many times, most people never do any introspection of their own ideas, beliefs, and concepts much less how those came to be. Therefore they have no idea just how socialism has infiltrated their enculturation courtesy of the public fool system. The song starts with a man lamenting the loss of "his job", but wait isn't it the socialist scripture that says he has a right to a job? What America is he wanting back? He seems to be steadfast conservative yet his words condemn his desires to be socialist.

It is the job that creates the employee, not the employee that creates the job. The business owner created the job and he owns it and now that globalization has been realized there is no reason for that business owner to continue to pay excessive labor union dictated wages to a man when they can get the job done somewhere else cheaper and just as good, with never a wrinkle in production, sales, and delivery. (I think I am preaching to the choir).

In either case they all feel passionate about their concept of America and what it should be to them and each I would bet has a different view. However, again in more clear terms, this passionate difference is something I believe we will have to fight about some day.

Think muirduck et. al. and it brings what I am saying into focus more clearly.

>freedom from choice, equal outcomes, and privileges for all
Fairness. Though you cannot have fairness while also having freedom of choice.
Unfairness arises when someone has an emotional reaction to a choice that someone else made, usually involving the use of the word "no".
Creating fairness requires punishing choices that someone might find offensive.
This is an initiation of force, and unjust.
>freedom of choice, equal opportunity, and natural rights
That is justice. Justice is not fair. But it is free.
You can have justice or fairness, but not both.

Sori Amigo, I don't understand the point and how it relates to my comment.

I plead no contest to operating a keyboard under the influence.

Never mind "American" politics. Just think politics in general. Politics is exploitation. The purpose of politics is to lock an exploited population into a set of behaviors approved by the political class. So just ask yourself, why would politicians want to have the ability to control any aspect of behavior that has anything to do with health? Do you really want them to be able to do that? I mean, just look at what they did once they had gained the ability to control any aspect of behavior having anything to do with commerce.

And now they've published a statement that CO2 emissions are harmful to humans (shouldn't they also publish a statement that CO2 emissions are helpful to humans?). But along the lines of the point I was making above, what does it mean for the government to have the ability to regulate all CO2 emitting devices?

It's clearly a move to bypass Senate resistance to climate change legislation like cap-n-trade. Quite simply it means that the government, in particular, the Executive branch, gains total control over everything we do. We are witnessing the single greatest power grab in U.S. history.

I don't care what politicians think. I only care how they act. There's generally precious little thinking going on amongst the monkeys on the hill anyway.

Thanks for posting that piece.

"Our leaders know they can't do this forever."

Do they?