Where Obama Would Take Us...

My readers know well how I detest the thought of a government-run healthcare system. So, in the interest of balance, I bring you an article from a news organization with the opposite view (the New York Times):

Although the government is reluctant to discuss the issue, hopscotching back and forth between private and public care has long been standard here for those who can afford it. But a few recent cases have exposed fundamental contradictions between policy and practice in the system, and tested its founding philosophy to its very limits.

One such case was Debbie Hirst’s. Her breast cancer had metastasized, and the health service would not provide her with Avastin, a drug that is widely used in the United States and Europe to keep such cancers at bay. So, with her oncologist’s support, she decided last year to try to pay the $120,000 cost herself, while continuing with the rest of her publicly financed treatment.

By December, she had raised $20,000 and was preparing to sell her house to raise more. But then the government, which had tacitly allowed such arrangements before, put its foot down. Mrs. Hirst heard the news from her doctor.

“He looked at me and said: ‘I’m so sorry, Debbie. I’ve had my wrists slapped from the people upstairs, and I can no longer offer you that service,’ ” Mrs. Hirst said in an interview.

This describes one of the many inevitable problems with a non-competitive healthcare system. In short, in England you have a choice: you can either have free government-supplied healthcare (but you have to live – or die – with their restrictions and limitations), or you can pay for all of your healthcare yourself. You can't participate in the national healthcare system, but pay for your own extras. Oh, no. That would be so unfair – to have better healthcare simply because you can afford it!

The commonly-held notion that healthcare would be better if the government ran it is so risible on its face that I stumble trying to rebut it. Can you think of anything that the government runs better than private industry? Let's see...

Post Office? I don't think so!

Education? Gimmee a break!

Street repair? Surely you jest...

(add your own 35 examples – it isn't hard to do!)

So why does anyone believe that government-run healthcare would be better? I just don't get it...

The End Days...

I never thought of this as a consquence of Hillary losing the Democratic nomination:

How does Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton sound?

It sounds superb to us. Freed of the constraints of "triangulating" political considerations that have hobbled and severely compromised her progressive values, a seat on the Supreme Court would be an ideal way for Clinton to help steer our Constitution back to its original moorings. Without having to worry about voting based on future campaign strategy, she would be liberated to impact America in a profoundly positive way.

Via BuzzFlash (a prominent liberal news/opinion site).

This is profoundly disturbing on way too many levels. The worst part is that as a Supreme Court Justice, she would actually have real power to influence this nation's future. I can't believe I'm saying this, but...if I had to choose between President Hillary and Justice Hillary, the former sounds ever so much safer.

Sheesh. I need a drink!

Shootdown!

Via the WSJ:

A Navy missile soaring 130 miles above the Pacific Ocean smashed a dying U.S. spy satellite late Wednesday night and appears to have destroyed a tank carrying 1,000 pounds of potentially lethal rocket fuel, bringing a dramatic end to a weeks-long controversy over the military's unusual decision to shoot down one of its own satellites.

Pentagon officials said they were optimistic that the missile had struck the satellite, which had stopped working almost immediately after entering earth orbit in December 2006. But they said that U.S. officials needed time to assess whether the strike had also destroyed the satellite's supply of hydrazine, a toxic fuel that causes lung damage and can be lethal if inhaled in large enough quantities.

"A network of land-, air-, sea- and spaced-based sensors confirms that the U.S. military intercepted a non-functioning National Reconnaissance Office satellite which was in its final orbits before entering the earth's atmosphere," the Pentagon said in a written statement. "Confirmation that the fuel tank has been fragmented should be available within 24 hours."

The technology involved in this shootdown is really quite amazing. The “warhead” on this missile was a “kinetic interceptor” – a fancy term that just means that a small, heavy object rammed into the target at a very high relative speed. All the energy needed to destroy the target came from the impact of the kinetic interceptor – no explosives or shrapnel was invovled. To pull this off, the intercepting missile had to steer its warhead with astonishing accuracy directly into the refrigerator-sized target at a closing speed of many thousands of feet per second.

The Russians have accused the U.S. of using this event as a way to conduct a veiled test of the missile system. It would be absurd to think that we wasted a satellite worth hundreds of millions of dollars simply to provide a test target. But if the Russians are accusing us of taking advantage of an opportunity that presented itself, well, they're probably right. But so what? Do they expect us to believe that they would refrain from taking advantage of a similar opportunity? Hah!

The only thing going on here is that Putin's beligerent Russia is taking advantage of a propaganda opportunity, with the willing assistance of the despicable Western lamestream media...