The Loud Talker

“It was very wrong, very wrong. Very sad. His behavior was not at all Islam. He hurt all Muslims.” — Syed Ahmed Ali, an Imam at the mosque where killer Nidal Malik Hasan regularly prayed. (source)

“I don’t know his intentions. I don’t know what he was thinking. I won’t condemn another Muslim.” — Duane Reasoner, 18, someone that viewed Hasan as a religous mentor.

We need MORE muslims like the imam that actually publicly stated that Hasan’s actions were wrong. Conversley, we need to closely watch all muslims like this idiot that cannot find it in his heart to condemn a man that just killed 13 people and injured 20 more.

The title says it all. These quotes come from the 2009 US Senate Minority Report on the topic of Global Warming. Let me be clear to my friends: I recognize that the Earth’s temperature changes. But I assert that humans do not have a statistically significant effect on the temperature change, nor do I think we can alter it. Therefore, the Copenhagen Treaty is nothing more than a power grab and a global attempt to punish America and other capitalist countries both financially and politically. Now, read these quotes below and then ask yourself “why the hell won’t Al Gore let anyone debate him on this topic?”

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” -  Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” – Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken…Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” – Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

“Nature’s regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” – Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

“Whatever the weather, it’s not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society’s activities.” – Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” – Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO.

Our education system is failing us. Students and even some teachers have no understanding or appreciation for the genius of the founding fathers or for the documents that they created. In 1995 the THOMAS web site was created, making important historical documents as well as current legislation available to the public. Get educated: read these documents.

• The Federalist Papers
• The Declaration of Independence
• The United States Constitution
• Search the Congressional Record by member or topic

Topic today? Health Care For Busy People. This is my attempt to explain various aspects about the health care bill to those that are too busy and/or unable to sift through the loads of media crap to find out the details.

I was recently asked by a co-worker for my opinion on the health care plan. This person is probably like many Americans: working every day, dealing with the responsibilities of being a spouse and parent, etc. Our reality today is that most Americans are simply not interested in politics, nor do they have the time needed to become knowledgeable on the many issues of the day. Those of us that are interested often spend an inordinate amount of time staying informed, and a subset of this group spends additional time keeping their collective eyes on Congress. Being informed is hard work!

Therefore, when asked for my opinion on the topic of health care I decided to take some time and formulate what I hope is a rational explanation of the situation from both political sides, followed by my ideas on how to solve the health care problems we face.

By giving all Americans some form of health insurance, the thought is that no one will die for lack of medical access. This is a noble and good cause. There are millions of people in America that avoid going to the doctor because they don’t have insurance to pay for the visits, treatments, lab work, medication, etc. However, there are also millions that *choose* not to have insurance.

Until recently the Obama administration and liberals have referred to the number of 47 million uninsured Americans. This number has been proven wrong time and time again, but that doesn’t stop the press from continuing to use it, and television talk show guests are the most frequent offenders. So what is the real number? During his recent health care speech, Obama for the first time used the number 30 million instead of 47 million. But again, even this number is incorrect, or at the very least, misleading. Why the change? Approximately 15 million illegal aliens were removed from the total, plus some other groups.  If possible I will include the actual numbers in this article, but a more accurate count ranges from 9-15 million truly uninsured.

What is the Obama plan? There are several facets to the current legislation, the most popular are “universal coverage,” “single payer,” and a “public option.”

A public option is a plan that allows any citizen to sign up for affordable health insurance whether or not he or she is employed. I think this is a good thing, after all we provide public education for all citizens, why not a basic health plan? If this can be done at a reasonable cost, I think it is a good thing.

Universal coverage refers to giving every American access to health insurance coverage. Keep in mind that everyone in America currently has access to hospital emergency rooms for *emergencies* and cannot be denied treatment. This applies to foreign visitors as well as illegal aliens. However, for those without insurance, hospitals are only required to stabilize patients, they do not have to treat them until they are cured or 100% healthy.

Single Payer is what President Obama and many leading Democrats want to see.  A single payer system is one in which the government handles all medical transactions. Patients pay the government, the government pays doctors and hospitals. It removes insurance companies from the process, the government becomes your insurance company.

“But what about those of us that like our current insurance plans?” “What happens to the insurance companies?” These are two obvious questions. LIberals openly express that they want insurance companies to fail. They want them to go away. Conservatives want the free market to be free, insurance companies exist for a reason. Liberals say that insurance companies “do nothing” to justify their “massive profits” and they have repeatedly denied coverage for patients in need. While this is true, there are many cases of coverage being limited or denied, but there is NO reason to believe that a government plan would operate any differently.

Coverages are limited for a reason: cost. Health care costs are out of control, and for insurance companies to remain profitable they have to set limits. This is true for all businesses, it’s about controlling costs. However, since insurance companies control costs that directly impact our health and well being, these decisions are far more personal. It should also be noted that the average health insurance profit margin is less between 3-5%. Software companies, beer distillers and credit card companies enjoy far bigger profit margins (from 10-20% or mre), yet we don’t hear any complaints about them do we?

One of the biggest mantras from the Obama administration is the desire to provide health care “choice” for Americans. They have often cited regions in America where a single insurance company is the only option for 70% of the local population. In my opinion this cannot be avoided. Not all of America is a large city with dozens of business options. Remote parts of America, the “country” parts, have limited choices for virtually every aspect of their lives (grocery stores, cable/satellite television providers, internet access, gas stations, etc.).

The truth about choice is that most Americans get health insurance through their employers. I think the number is 85% of those with insurance, the rest buy their own insurance for themselves or their own businesses. As an employee I can’t choose which insurance company I use, but I can choose between three or four different coverage plans with a wide range of options. However, my *employer* can choose from a wide variety of insurance companies and does so based on the needs of our employees each year. As we grow larger we have more options to choose from. In other words, Americans already HAVE choice.

So what is wrong with letting the government enter the insurance business and provide yet another option? Isn’t it fair to give consumers yet another choice? On the surface the answer is yes. But, and it’s a big but, for this to work you have to assume that the government will play under the same rules as insurance companies with regard to price, coverage, contract terms, etc. We have absolutely NO reason to think that this will be the case. What will happen is that the government will offer coverage at much lower rates, lowball rates that will make it extremely beneficial for employers to change over from their current private insurance coverage.

For example, if it costs $1200 a month to cover an employee and family ($400/mo. paid by the employee, $800 paid by the company), and the government offers a plan for half that price, doesn’t a company looking to control costs have to seriously consider switching over? My company has 2600 employees, therefore $600 per person equates to $1.5M a month in savings. That’s a lot. Once companies start switching, insurance companies will have to lower the costs, decrease their coverage, fire employees, or go out of business.

Remember, the president has stated that he WANTS a single payer system and thinks it is best for America. Not the free market, a government run plan. As an aside, consider the fact that the government has never run a profitable businesses. Amtrak has been in the red since the government took it over in the 1970s; the US Postal Service is drowning in debt, and our current Medicare/Medicaid unfunded liabilities — the amount we are currently obligated to pay out — is nearly $74 TRILLION. What confidence do you have that our government can control such a vital, personal business as health care?

When you read the bill (something that politicians have actually mocked) you will see the details and then realize that the president’s words about his plan are misleading at best, outright lies at worst. For example, he says that you will not have to change providers under the current plan. This is true if your employer or plan does not change. Why? The government is going to “certify” private insurance plans so that citizens have a choice. They will make sure that only plans that have certain provisions and coverages are government approved. For those not approved, they change or go out of business. Also, if your employer-provided plan changes in any way, it automatically needs to be re-certified or else it loses certification, meaning that you are no longer covered and need to switch to the government plan.

Another component of the health plan is the taxing individuals that choose not to have coverage. I went for several years in my 20s without insurance. Was it a risk? Yes, but I was very healthy, never got sick, and like many young folks out of college I couldn’t afford a plan yet. I was self-employed and sometimes worked temp jobs. There are millions of people in America in this very same situation. But under the proposed plan, they will be taxed around $4000 to help fund the government plan. In other words, not only is the government trying to provide coverage for everyone, it is trying to get everyone to pay for it whether they use it or not. Businesses also face steep fines if they do not meet government-defined coverages.

Also, once a national health care plan is defined there will be a massive lobbying effort to get various procedures and benefits added to the national mandatory plan. These may include elective surgeries such as lap bands or cosmetic surgery (bottom, breast augmentation, et al), vision line items, hearing aids, smoking cessation and more. The merits of these various procedures are debatable and every situation is unique, but the fact that tons of cafeteria plan line items will be added to the national plan will certainly increase the cost. Today, I choose my coverage based on my family needs: We have vision, dental, etc., but we don’t need smoking cessation, psychiatric services or other benefits. This in turn lowers my plan cost. If we have a national plan we will be paying for services for others that we might not pay for given the choice. When you bloat a product with extra features it costs the end-user more. For insurance this means higher prices thanks to a one-size-fits-all methodology.

In addition to the idea that the government will hamper, not help competition, the most obvious point of contention is the cost of the plan and who will actually pay for it. There have been many estimates, the most reputable has come from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). There are others as well, but all have stated that the plan will cost trillions and will increase the national defect. Trillions. Not until this administration have we used that term so often. Premiums will go up for many of the currently insured, the government will subsidize (pay for) parts of the plan for lower income earners and will pay the entire cost of the plan for the poor. Again, this is a noble thing to try to do, but the best of intentions need to have a strong foundation. Ultimately a government plan will reduce, if not totally eliminate competition. You can change health insurance companies, but you can’t change governments.

A very important point to consider is that 95% of Americans are currently insured. Americans are not guaranteed a right to health care, remember, the Declaration of Independence provides for the right to Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of Happiness. Not happiness. Some argue that to “promote the general welfare” includes health insurance. This could be debated, but I think if medical care was a right it would have been included in the Constitution. So, all of this legislation, effort, press and cost is to cover 5% of our population. Interestingly enough, recent studies have shown that millions of Americans will actually be forced off of their coverage due to plan changes and cost increases to employers.

America was recovering from the debt situation created by 9/11 and the war. The bank and housing bailouts demanded by Henry Paulson and approved by President Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress reversed that positive trend. When you factor in the massive spending proposals of the new administration you see that the budget deficits will get far worse over time, not better. THIS is one of the reasons that conservatives are so angry about the deaf ear Congress has turned to the public, plus the mocking of smaller-government supporters like myself and the many tea party attendees around America. At some point this bill needs to be paid.

Some argue that a certain amount of national debt is acceptable, if not ideal. I tend to agree and use our mortgage as an example of this. Most people are paying off their house, a car or two and perhaps their student loans. This is normal. But when your earnings no longer meet your debt obligations, you have a problem and need to make adjustments. What has happened to America is that not only are we paying off our mortgage, cars and loans, but we have loaded up with credit cards and maxed out the limits. We can’t afford our current bills, and the interest alone is ruining our global credit rating.

What’s worse is that Congress doesn’t care. Instead of paying off credit cards and then cutting them up, Congress is applying for as many credit cards it can get with the highest limits possible. Then, another shopping spree takes place, the new cards are maxed out, and Congress repeats this pattern over and over again. However, Congress — a group made up mainly of very affluent lawyers — will not pay this bill. The American tax payer pays this bill. And since our debt is increasing at such an astonishing pace, there is not enough revenue in America to pay off these debts. Taxes will go up for everyone, and the way Congress writes its bills, it defers larger expenses until election years or after election years to keep the bad news out of the public eye. Given our current national debt, workers of today will pay just a part of this bill and our children and THEIR children will bear the responsibility of paying the taxes needed to reduce our debts.

Democrats also claim that Republicans are “blocking” progress and that they want the “status quo” (in other words, no change). This is an odd claim since the Democrats have a 60:40 majority in the Senate and a 71-vote majority in the House, plus a Democratic president. They should be able to pass any legislation that they want. However, Republicans are usually known for fiscal control (despite the fact that George Bush ignored this concept, creating one of the reasons that Democrats are now in control). Republicans are aware of the costs of the bill and feel that the financial stability of America trumps universal health care as currently defined.

Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, are writing the health care bill without including Republicans. Despite her repeated public statements about the need for bi-partisan support of the bill, Republicans are being literally locked out of discussions, When debate on the various components is requested, Democrats deny it.  And, even with the 60:40 majority, some Democrats have actually listened to their constituents back home and are against the current bill. But, the bill may still pass the Senate thanks to something called the “nuclear option.” This process allows a bill to be passed by a 51:49 vote and then get amended “in committee” and ultimately passed. The committee will not be bipartisan, and what happens behind closed doors will not necessarily be made public. No debate, no transparency, just total control from one side of Congress. Obviously, this option is another of the reasons conservatives are so upset.

If a plan is passed:

• our national debt will increase
• taxes will increase, breaking Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on a certain population of Americans
• millions may actually lose their coverage
• millions of businesses will have to deal with higher expenses.
• And once a government plan or program is created it is very hard to reverse it or eliminate it.

It is also important to understand why Democrats want to push this plan through, In my opinion there are two reasons. The first is the overall desire of liberals to provide for the less fortunate and the poor. Interestingly enough Conservatives actually provide far more for the poor than liberals through charitable donations and religious institutions, but that is besides the point. Liberals want to take care of the needy. Fine. Conversely, conservatives want to empower the needy.

The second reason I think Democrats want to push this plan through is purely for votes. By giving more to the poor, they virtually guarantee that they will be reelected. When people get something from the government, they tend to vote for those that gave it to them. All politics is local, and when it comes time for the next election you can bet your bottom dollar that local politicians will be reminding their constituents who gave them that “free” health care. Sadly there is a popular mindset among the poor that they are victims and that their welfare check is a privilege and that they’ve earned” it. Until this mindset changes those that receive government handouts will largely vote Democratic. Health care is just another way to keep the populace in control.

The bottom line:

1. Heath care for all is a noble goal.
2. Health care for all is extremely expensive.
3. The current plan is full of potential problems that will help some and hurt others.
4. The financial impact of the plan and its effect on businesses will hurt all Americans.
5. There are alternatives, but both parties need to work together to make them work.

“So Mr. Smartypants, what is your solution?” I’ve got three suggestions.

• Let Americans shop for health insurance across state borders. WE can buy car insurance, electricity and virtually everything else from anywhere at any time. But not health insurance. This is why some remote regions have fewer choices for their health care provider (among other things). By opening up state lines Americans can shop for the best plan and best prices to meet their needs. Instant competition, and as any econ101 student knows, competition is good for consumers.
• Tort reform: Doctors today are forced to practice defensive medicine. This means doing whatever it takes to not get sued by your patient. Malpractice insurance can cost doctors tens of thousands of dollars a month. If the laws were changed to cap medical malpractice suits, doctors could focus on patient care instead of defensive protectionist medicine. Lawsuits are one of the reasons doctors fees are higher and why medicine and supplies are so expensive.
• Motivate health insurance companies to offer coverage to the poor by offering tax breaks to the companies. If a certain number or percentage of plan members fall under a certain income level, give the company a tax break. This could help or even eliminate the need for a public option.

Bonus: So many of the problems in our government are caused by power hungry politicians. They campaign with good intentions and once in Washington get drunk on the massive benefits, perks and fame that comes with the job. How do we fix this? TERM LIMITS. The founding fathers intended for public officials to serve for short terms and then return to their constituency. This is NOT the case today. Elections are not the same as term limits because of so many external influences and a significant disinterest in learning the truth about politicians or the issues they vote on. To make the problem even worse, today’s media outlets are concerned more about ratings than the truth. It was obvious during the last election that all but one television network supported Obama. Journalism used to be about finding out the truth. But today it is about finding the dirt, promoting the sensational and selling as many ads as possible. It is up to us to get educated and then educate our peers. If we don’t we have no one to blame but ourselves for the misery we receive.

See. I’m not an anti-American Democrat hater. I love America and want it to succeed. Here’s an example where I completely agree with Joe Biden, and I’m not being sarcastic.

Joe Biden had a question. During a long Sunday meeting with President Obama and top national-security advisers on Sept. 13, the VP interjected,

“Can I just clarify a factual point? How much will we spend this year on Afghanistan?” Someone provided the figure: $65 billion.

“And how much will we spend on Pakistan?” Another figure was supplied: $2.25 billion.

“Well, by my calculations that’s a 30-to-1 ratio in favor of Afghanistan. So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we’re spending in Pakistan, we’re spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?”

The White House Situation Room fell silent. But the questions had their desired effect: those gathered began putting more thought into Pakistan as the key theater in the region.

If this Joe Biden was present during the election I think more Americans would have confidence in him. After all, wasn’t he selected to add international experience to the Obama ticket, to shore up a gap in Obama’s resume? Violence is increasing, troop fatalities are increasing, and the enemy is much more confident than it was while George W. Bush was in charge. Could it be because our president is clueless and hesitant when it comes to military affairs? I hope he listens to Joe on this one.

I’m not upset with President Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, I bet when he first heard about it he probably said “What? What for?” followed by “Oh crap, I don’t need other people creating more problems for me.”

He deserves credit for his modest acceptance speech. He did not ask for the award or campaign for it. He correctley said that he was not worthy. Five Norwegian old farts felt that his campaign rhetoric was worthy of what used to be a true honor. Personally, I think the Nobel jumped the shark when Al Gore won for his farcical scientific rants. Here’s a list of some of the 204 other candidates that were passed over this year.

It should be noted that nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize were due by January 20. This was only twelve days after Barack Obama took office. So, what did he do to earn this prestige? The following list comes from Tommy De Seno at www.JustifiedRight.com:

Nominations for potential winners of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ended on February 1. The president took office only 12 days earlier on January 20. Let’s take a look at the president’s first 12 days in the White House according to his public schedule to see what he did to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize:

January 20: Sworn in as president. Went to a parade. Partied.

January 21: Asked bureaucrats to re-write guidelines for information requests. Held an “open house” party at the White House.

January 22: Signed Executive Orders: Executive Branch workers to take ethics pledge; re-affirmed Army Field Manual techniques for interrogations; expressed desire to close Gitmo (how’s that working out?)

January 23: Ordered the release of federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries. Lunch with Joe Biden; met with Tim Geithner.

January 24: Budget meeting with economic team.

January 25: Skipped church.

January 26: Gave speech about jobs and energy. Met with Hillary Clinton. Attended Geithner’s  swearing in ceremony.

January 27: Met with Republicans. Spoke at a clock tower in Ohio.

January 28: Economic meetings in the morning, met with Defense secretary in the afternoon.

January 29: Signed Ledbetter Bill overturning Supreme Court decision on lawsuits over wages. Party in the State Room. Met with Biden.

January 30: Met economic advisers. Gave speech on Middle Class Working Families Task Force. Met with senior enlisted military officials.

January 31: Took the day off.

February 1: Skipped church. Threw a Super Bowl party.

Again, let me reiterate that I’m not upset with Obama for this craziness. This is truly a premature awarding of a prized based on the hope that he gets something done. I think it actually puts some pressure on the man, which isn’t a bad thing. But the committee dropped the ball big time. I consider it the same as giving someone their high school diploma for simply starting their senior year. After all, isn’t the Nobel committee telling is that it’s the message and intention that matters? That being said, I’ll be looking in the mail for notification of my first Grammy Award for the album I’m thinking about releasing.

Topic today includes Che Guevera, David Letterman and HR 1444 (mandatory civic duty).

Today’s show is about the recent study claiming that 45,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have health insurance. I’ve also got part of an amazing call to the Rush Limbaugh show from Susan in Glendale. Could she be the next “Joe The Plumber?”

CNN recently published an article stating that 45,000 people die every year because they don’t have health insurance. So did Reuters. Neither article linked to the actual study (it can be found here). Liberals have been quick to spread this statistic, but not so quick to spread some of the other statistics found in the same report:

• Less educated people (those with less than a 12th grade education) without insurance are 50% more likely to die than educated yet uninsured people.
• Uninsured current and former smokers are 3-4 times more likely to die than uninsured non-smokers.

Instead, the CNN article starts the article with one of three sad stories (you can almost hear the strings in the background):

• A freelance photographer died from a ruptured appendix.
• A woman died from undiagnosed heart disease.
• Another woman died from an undiagnosed problem that is still unknown.

All tragic and sad. And all probably unnecessary. But, two of these deaths happened due to choices each of them made. The photographer was a healthy male that thought he knew his body better than he really did. The mid-life woman died from a disease that a healthier lifestyle may have prevented. The third death may have never been diagnosed, and insurance may not have made a bit of difference. But these sad stories all serve a purpose, they all are used to justify legislation that liberals want.

I think that there needs to be some sort of public plan. But I don’t have a single reason to trust that a government option would compete fairly with existing insurance companies and health providers. By low-balling its prices and by legislating ridiculous requirements to be considered a “qualified” private plan, the government can complete its stated mission of driving insurance companies out of business and become the single payer provider that Obama wants.

Why not extend Medicare/Medicaid to all adults? Well, part of the problem is that the current version of Medicare is short of its liabilities by a mere $38 trillion.

Did you know that people who fly are more likely to die in a plane crash than people that don’t fly? And women that don’t perform regular breast exams are more likely to die than those that do perform regular exams. I think that you are stating the obvious by saying that “people without health insurance are more likely to die than those with health insurance.” Ya’ think?

Let’s look at this in a different way. If 45,000 people die every year because they don’t have health insurance, and we supposedly have 47 million people uninsured… oh wait, the president recently adjusted this number to 30 million. If we have 45,000 dying out of 30 million uninsured, 99.85% of the uninsured are not dying due to their lack of insurance. Does this merit a multi-trillion dollar plan that us, our kids and their kids will be paying for?

• Nearly 43,000 people died in car accidents in 2005 (source)
• Almost 2,500 people die every day from heart disease. (source)
• More than 9,000 people were killed in 2006 by illegal aliens. (source)
• Nearly a million sex offenses were committed that same year by illegal aliens. (source)
• Almost 1,500 people die every day from cancer. (source)
• About 17,000 people die in every year from aids. (source)

Many of the deaths above were preventable. But where is the liberal angst and cries for government intervention to mandate heart disease funding or, god forbid, more secure borders?

My point is that death is a part of human existence. It is tragic, painful, yet often preventable. But stifling the most advanced health care industry on the planet with legislation and bankrupting our country instead of letting the free markets be free is simply not the answer. Neither is fining people that choose not to have health care.

I think we can make insurance more affordable and better for all Americans by doing three things:

1. Allow citizens to shop for insurance across state borders. This will instantly increase competition between insurance companies, which will cause the bad companies to fail or reorganize, and will increase patient choice while lowering costs.
2. Cap medical lawsuits (tort reform) so that doctors can focus on properly treating patients instead of practice defensive medicine.
3. Motivate insurance companies to extend coverage to the poor by providing tax breaks to insurance companies that cover a certain percentage of its customer base that are below a certain income level.