Skip navigation

Category Archives: YID WITH LID

Sara Palin in WSJ on Obamacare, Your Money AND Your Life Posted: 08 Sep 2009 07:25 PM PDT There is a Classic Jack Benny routine that reminds me of Obamacare. In the routine Benny is accosted on the street by a robber with a gun, “your money or your life,” threatens the thief. The master comedian takes his classic pose with his open palmed fingers on the side of his face and remains silent. “Well ?” says the gunman. “I’m thinking” says Benny, “I’m thinking” If Obamacare gets passed in its present form that choice will not be open to many Americans, the government will definitely take out money and,in some cases, as heath care gets rationed they will take your life also. That is the message that former Alaska Governor gives in an Op-ed in tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal; Obamacare is too expensive, will lead to health care rationing, and will build a massive and inefficient federal bureaucracy. Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care The president’s proposals would give unelected officials life-and-death rationing powers. By SARAH PALIN Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans “talk with one another, and not over one another” as our health-care debate moves forward. I couldn’t agree more. Let’s engage the other side’s arguments, and let’s allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats’ health-care proposals should become governing law. Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that “no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds.” Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us. We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit. How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree. Common sense tells us that the government’s attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats’ proposals “will provide more stability and security to every American.” With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it’s a promise Washington can’t keep. Let’s talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats’ proposals “will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control” by “cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . .” First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such “waste and inefficiency” and “unwarranted subsidies” in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn’t think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that “in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.” Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He’s asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .” Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats’ proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through “normal political channels,” they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats’ proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we’ve come to expect from this administration. Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats’ proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won’t reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure. The economic effects won’t be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they’ll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats’ proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise “the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers.” Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times. Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats’ proposals “will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable.” Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it’s true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats’ proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats. Instead of poll-driven “solutions,” let’s talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let’s give Americans control over their own health care. Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don’t need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats’ proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not “provide more stability and security to every American.” We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we’re not buying it. Today Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) circulated a draft outline for healthcare reform legislation. The outline does not include a public option, however, it creates Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans (CO-OP)s- which are nonprofit, member-run health insurance companies. The framework also suggests a few revenue provisions for healthcare reform, including a 35 percent tax on insurance companies and insurance administrators for any health insurance plan that is above $8,000 for singles and $21,000 for family plans. It would also impose an annual fee of $2.3 billion on the pharmaceutical manufacturing sector and an annual fee of $6 billion on the health insurance sector, both beginning in 2010. Higher rates would be paid by larger families, older people and smokers. That’s just what people need more taxes. Baucus gave the Republicans on the committee 24 hours to agree with his proposal. I’m not sure what he meant by this maybe after 24 hours he will begin to kill one Senior per hour until they agree. Wednesday Night the President will be making his “revised sales pitch” to Americans, it is almost certain that the President will not substantially address the issues that Palin addresses above. Until then it will be difficult for the POTUS to change very many minds.

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

Advertisements

Obama Uses Soviet-Style Tactics To Discredit Health Care Dissent Posted: 04 Aug 2009 06:20 PM PDT In the Soviet Union, psychiatry was used for punitive purposes. If you disagreed with the government you had to be crazy Therefore Psychiatric hospitals were often used by the authorities as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally. The Obama administration uses a similar tactic against those who dissent against his health care plan. Anybody who disagrees with the President is either a racist or crazy, so any protest against Obamacare must be set up by the Republicans or special interests. The Hubris of the Democratic party is that it is inconceivable to them that anyone could disagree with them. The Tea Party protests were ignored, underestimated, or chalked up as a Fox News production. They are ignoring the anger of the electorate and letting it grow. Now that much of the anger has attached itself to Obamacare, the Democrats are using their Soviet-style tactics on the protesters. Witness this exchange between ABC Reporter Jake Tapper and Press Secretary Gibbs: TAPPER: A couple questions. One, is it your contention — is it the White House contention that the anger that some members of Congress are experiencing at town hall meetings, especially over health care reform, is manufactured? GIBBS: I think some of it is, yes. In fact, I think you’ve had groups today, Conservatives for Patients Rights, that have bragged about organizing and manufacturing that anger. TAPPER: How is their organizing and getting people to come to town hall meetings and express their feelings any different from a liberal group doing the same thing? GIBBS: Well, I think what you’ve seen is they have — they have bragged about — about manufacturing, to some degree, that anger. I think you’ve got somebody who’s very involved, a leader of that group that’s very involved in — in the status quo, a CEO that used to run a health care company that was fined by the federal government $1.7 billion for fraud. I think that’s a lot of what you need to know about the motives of that group. That’s right Mr. Gibbs because anyone with legitimate anger about the president’s programs has to be crazy right? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) called out what he called the “loud, shrill voices” that have been interrupting town hall meetings across the country held by Democratic members of Congress and members of the administration on health care reform. “In spite of the loud, shrill voices trying to interrupt town hall meetings and just throwing a monkey wrench into everything, we’re going to continue to be positive and work hard.’ The Liberal press is participating in the attacks. For Example, on the Chris Matthews show Jeanne Cummings of Politico played the party line: Well they’re conservatives who are being organized by several different Republican organizations. One of them is an organization committed to defeat health care. They’re running, on their site, every list of townhall meetings they can find and encouraging people to show up. The Republican House committee is also urging and organizing people to go out to these townhall meetings and basically create a fuss that can then be, go viral on the Web and make it appear as if though there is a great deal of opposition to the President’s plan. The problem is at some of these townhall meetings they’ve been outnumbered by citizens who would actually like to discuss the issue in a more civilized way and they shouted those folks down. Later in the show, Senator Barbara Boxer of California added: So this, this is just all organized. Just go up on the Web site Chris. You, you in the media have to take a look at what’s going on here. This is all planned. It’s to hurt our president and it’s to change the Congress. It’s, and you know what? We went to the White House today, we heard President Obama. It was wonderful to hear him. He’s so calm and cool about this. He says we gotta be tougher, we gotta be stronger, we have the truth on our side on these issues. We’ll just get out there and present those facts to the American people and let them choose between people who are screaming and those of us who are trying to explain how we can really help our families afford medical care in this great nation of ours. The Democratic Party is using the best of the Soviet Union Tactics against the American People, in the coming weeks look for the attacks to accelerate. After all we are an angry lot because we care about our country and our families, and if you ask the Democratic party, putting family and country first is a very crazy thing. Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

Saudi Judge–>Its OK To Slap Your Wife

Posted: 10 May 2009 12:40 PM PDT

Islam has a very low opinion of women. Take for example these quotes from the holy Hadith text:

  • Bukhari (48:826) Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The Prophet said, “Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women said, “Yes.” He said, “This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.”
  • Tabari I:280 “’I must also make Eve (bad word), although I created her intelligent.’ Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are (bad word).”)…happy, content…utterly incapable from intellectual weakness…never to give us trouble…

One may think that being an ancient text, Islam would have changed its view about women in the intervening years. NO WAY !

A Saudi Arabian Judge was teaching  a seminar on domestic violence an he says that it is OK to smack your wife if she spends too much money. Hey, Happy Mother’s Day from the religion of peace:

Slapping a wife ‘is okay’

Riyadh – A Saudi judge has told a seminar on domestic violence that it is okay for a man to slap his wife for lavish spending, a local newspaper reported on Sunday.

Jeddah judge Hamad al-Razine gave the example of overspending to buy a high-end abaya, the head-to toe black shroud Saudi women have to wear in public, as justifying a smack for one’s wife, Arab News said.

“If a person gives 1 200 riyals ($320) to his wife and she spends 900 riyals ($240) to purchase an abaya from a brand shop, and if her husband slaps her on the face as a reaction to her action, she deserves that punishment,” he said.

The judge’s remarks sparked an outcry at the seminar on the role of judicial and security officials in preventing domestic violence, the paper reported.

The seminar was attended by officials as well as activists on domestic violence, including representatives of the National Family Safety Programme.

Razine acknowledged the depth of the problem of domestic violence, until recently not acknowledged as a serious issue in the ultra-conservative Muslim country, where family problems traditionally remained behind closed doors.

Saudi women have in the past few years become more vocal about the problem of husbands beating wives and fathers mistreating children.

But Razine said some of the blame must be shouldered by wives for their behaviour. “Nobody puts even a fraction of the blame on them,” he said, according to the report.

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

An Empathetic Judge is Unconstitutional

Posted: 10 May 2009 05:16 PM PDT


Justice is not supposed to be “empathetic” as President Obama has said, Just ice is supposed to be blind. The law should be viewed objectively. That is the idea behind the United States Supreme Court motto “Equal Justice Under Law.”These words,written above the main entrance to the Supreme  Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is also symbolized by the blindfolded statue of Lady Justice which is the symbol of the US judiciary.

Each federal justice or judge takes the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office:

“I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

President Obama’s search for an empathetic judge runs counter to 233 years of American Tradition and the US Constitution:

Lady Justice’s blindfold

By Jeff Jacoby,

JUDICIAL dispassion – the ability to decide cases without being influenced by personal feelings or political preferences – is indispensable to the rule of law. So indispensable, in fact, that the one-sentence judicial oath required of every federal judge and justice contains no fewer than three expressions of it: “I . . . do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me . . . under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help me God.”

There are biblical echoes in the wording of that oath – a reminder that the judge’s obligation to decide cases on the basis of fact and law, without regard to the litigants’ wealth or fame or social status, is a venerable moral principle.

“You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike,” says Moses in Deuteronomy, instructing the Israelite judges. “You shall not distort justice; you shall not respect persons, and you shall not take a bribe.”

Elsewhere they are reminded that it is not only the rich they are forbidden to favor. “Neither shall you be partial to a poor man in his dispute,” Exodus firmly warns. Judges may not bend the law, not even to help the underprivileged.

Without judicial restraint there is no rule of law. We live under “a government of laws and not of men” only so long as judges stick to neutrally resolving the disputes before them, applying the law, and upholding the Constitution even when doing so leads to results they personally dislike. That is why the judicial oath is so adamant about impartiality. That is why Lady Justice is so frequently depicted – as on the sculpted lampposts outside the US Supreme Court – wearing a blindfold and carrying balanced scales.

And that is why President Obama’s “empathy” standard is so disturbing, and has generated so much comment.

Time and again, Obama has called for judges who do not put their private political views aside when deciding cases. In choosing a replacement for Justice David Souter, the president says, he will seek not just “excellence and integrity,” but a justice whose “quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles,” would be “an essential ingredient” in his jurisprudence. In an interview last year, he said he would look for judges “sympathetic” to those “on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless.”

When he voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005, Obama declared that the “truly difficult” cases that come before the Supreme Court can be decided only with reference to “the depth and breadth of one’s empathy,” and that “the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.”

But such cardiac justice is precisely what judges “do solemnly swear” to renounce. Sympathy for others is an admirable virtue. But a judge’s private commiserations are not relevant to the law he is expected to apply.

If Obama means what he says, he wants judges who will violate their oath of office.

“We need somebody who’s got the heart – the empathy – to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom,” he told a Planned Parenthood conference in 2007. “The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

With such criteria, what would remain of the rule of law? What would happen to “Equal Justice Under Law,” which is carved above the Supreme Court’s entrance? What would be left of the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” to every citizen?

Lady Justice wears a blindfold not because she has no empathy for certain litigants or groups of people, but because there is no role for such empathy in a courtroom.

“Our constitution is color-blind,” wrote Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan, in his great dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, “and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Harlan had supported slavery; he believed whites were superior to nonwhites. He had his empathies, but he confined his judging to the law.

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com