laws

  1. Double or nothing for ObamaCare

    Freedom Friday: The high cost of socialism

    ObamaCare isn't just any old socialist lie -- it's an EXPENSIVE socialist lie, and new numbers show just how much is about to be stolen from your pocket to pay for it: $1.76 trillion.

    That's TRILLION with a T, for the next 10 years of ObamaCare costs.

    That's almost double what the president himself claimed in 2009, when he said it would cost "just" $900 billion over 10 years (his remarks on the costs of ObamaCare haven't been erased from the White House website yet).

    Want to know the worst part of this? I'll bet you anything that this new estimate is still on the low side.

    Here's the cold, hard truth about Obama's plot to socialize medicine: they can pass all the laws they want, raise taxes on everyone, force us all to buy insurance, print more dollars, and even borrow billions more from China -- but there's still no way in heck they'll be able to pay for it.

    And when the money runs out, your care won't just be rationed. It'll be cut off when you need it most.

    If you want to see how all this works in real life, just head on over to Jolly Olde England, which ObamaCare backers believe is some kind of medical utopia of controlled costs.

    Sure, they manage to keep a lid on costs over there -- because the powers-that-be refuse expensive treatments for the people who need them most, especially seniors.

    One new look at the numbers there finds that 14,000 seniors with cancer DIE every year because they're refused life-saving treatments that patients routinely get in other nations.

    Those 14,000 deaths add up to 10 percent of all UK cancer deaths and 3 percent of all deaths in the nation from all causes at any age -- and you can blame them all on cost control, not cancer.

    Take a good look at this, America -- because that's what's in your future, too, if ObamaCare is allowed to stand.

  2. Giving "equal" time to the natural truth

    Giving "equal" time to the natural truth

    ERA = Early Return (to) Ashes?

    I was catching up on my topical reading recently when a Washington Post article from March 27th grabbed my attention. Its headline screamed:

    "New Drive Afoot to Pass Equal Rights Amendment"

    For those of you who have forgotten (or are too young to remember it), the Equal Rights Amendment was the cause celebre` of young American idealists in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s. For women, it represented the ultimate validation and fulfillment of their sex. For men, it was a way to get validation of their own - through sex they connived by giving lip service to the woeful plight of those unfulfilled, yet emancipated women.

    Relax - I'm just kidding. Sort of. But let's not forget I was THERE, you know. I'm digressing, though

    The Post article recaps the final days of the push for ERA, which fell just 3 states shy of enactment in 1982 (it needed the ratification of 38 out of 50 states, a 3/4ths majority). But in the wake of the dramatic left turn both the House and Senate took in the November 2006 mid-term elections, the Democrats have re-introduced the measure - now called the Women's Equality Amendment - and are promising a vote during this current session of Congress.

    Now, regardless of what the ratification of this long-awaited Amendment may or may not mean politically here in America (activists against the measure say it opens the door to women in combat roles, same-sex public restrooms, the toughening of sexual harassment standards, and the denial of Social Security benefits to widowed housewives), here's my question:

    Would American women really WANT true equality if it meant giving up their nearly 6-year edge in life span over men?

    Don't laugh - it's a serious question. I ask it because some new research indicates that this may indeed be exactly what happens were men and women to find themselves equal in every way possible without surgery or genetic alteration. According to some recent research from Sweden - considered by many feminists to be one of the most egalitarian nations on Earth, mind you (80% of Swede women have jobs, women comprise half of the Swedish Parliament) - true gender equality carries some deadly downsides

    Using nine indicators of equality (including job title, income, and others considered important to ERA advocates), the scientists from the Swedish Institute of Public Health examined both public and private sector employees in all 290 of their home nation's municipal zones. Their conclusions, after comparing local data for life expectancy, disabilities, work absences, and other factors:

    • Where women earn the same as men for performing the same jobs at the same level, workers of BOTH sexes suffer poorer health and greater disability than where unequal
    • Where other, non-vocational measures of equality are most closely matched, men and women BOTH get sicker and suffer disability more often - and presumably die younger
    • Both men and women in management positions died younger than those with lower pressure lifestyles

    In other words, as equality increases between the sexes, it increases in both its benefits AND its liabilities. The Swedish researchers theorize that one reason men's life spans and resiliency actually decrease as women around them achieve greater equality is that their health may be adversely affected by the loss of traditional male sexual identifiers - things like hard labor or the pride of being the provider for a family

    Conversely, they suggest that women's health deterioration with greater equality may be due to the greater opportunities for risky or damaging behavior that goes hand-in-hand with greater income and more power

    Whatever the reasons are, one seems (remains) clear to me:

    No matter how you dress it up or socially engineer it, men are men and women are women. And both of them are a lot healthier when everyone realizes it - and acts accordingly

    P.S. In case you now think I'm a chauvinist pig, know this: I've always thought that women lived longer than men because they're emotionally stronger than us. Generally, a woman can survive the loss of her man - but a man falls to pieces at the loss of a woman. Seen it time and again. I know I would

  3. High-tech highway high jinks

    According to a recent Associated Press article, the freshly crowned number 2 automaker in the world, Toyota, is voluntarily gearing up to soon equip its cars with high-tech automatic blood-alcohol detection devices.

3 Item(s)