British health care explained

How does it stack up against ours? You decide.

Trickey with Balls - More amazing videos are a click away

Holder Stepping to the Plate

Holder to Appoint Prosecutor to Investigate CIA Terror Interrogations - - By Carrie Johnson of the Washington Post

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has decided to appoint a prosecutor to examine nearly a dozen cases in which CIA interrogators and contractors may have violated anti-torture laws and other statutes when they allegedly threatened terrorism suspects, according to two sources familiar with the move.

Holder is poised to name John Durham, a career Justice Department prosecutor from Connecticut, to lead the inquiry, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the process is not complete.

Durham's mandate, the sources added, will be relatively narrow: to look at whether there is enough evidence to launch a full-scale criminal investigation of current and former CIA personnel who may have broken the law in their dealings with detainees. Many of the harshest CIA interrogation techniques have not been employed against terrorism suspects for four years or more.

The attorney general selected Durham in part because the longtime prosecutor is familiar with the CIA and its past interrogation regime. For nearly two years, Durham has been probing whether laws against obstruction or false statements were violated in connection with the 2005 destruction of CIA videotapes. The tapes allegedly depicted brutal scenes including waterboarding of some of the agency's high value detainees. That inquiry is proceeding before a grand jury in Alexandria, although lawyers following the investigation have cast doubt on whether it will result in any criminal charges.

Word of Holder's decision comes on the same day that the Obama administration will issue a 2004 report by the then-CIA Inspector General. Among other things, the IG questioned the effectiveness of harsh interrogation tactics that included simulated drowning and wall slamming. A federal judge in New York forced the administration to release the secret report after a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union.
Follow the link for the complete article.
xxx
Back in April I wrote a post that suggested that Obama might have pushed Holder toward this move. Maybe it's happening? Wouldn't that be lovely?

"If Stephen Hawking Lived in England" and Other Great Points the Left Doesn't Want You to Know.

by Jennifer Epps
Published on Friday, August 21, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

Fellow Patriots,
Here are some important things to keep in mind when those blood-suckers from the left try to spread their lies about health care!! Print this out so you can bring it to a town hall.

1.) If Stephen Hawking lived in England, he'd be left to die. Thank God he's safe at the University of Cambridge in Massachusetts.

2.) If the government was capable of ensuring health care for seniors, they would have done it decades ago.

3.) If we didn't have a free enterprise health care system in America, then we would not be able to achieve all those advances in medicine funded by the National Institutes of Health.

4.) When the people of oppressed countries like Canada, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Israel, Australia and New Zealand finally get democracy, they can vote out their socialized health care systems.

5.) England's capital is the ultimate proof that national health care kills free enterprise. That's why London has no stock exchange, no banking district, no tabloid newspapers, no big musicals, and no expensive real estate.

6.) Even the World Health Organization agrees that "America has the best health care system in the world"; the WHO ranks the American health care system at the very top part of its list, right after the first part where 36 other countries rank higher.

7.) Free enterprise is the greatest system ever invented and government can't even come close. What else but private industry could have split the atom, or gotten a man on the moon?

8.) If you drove 100 miles on the interstate freeway you still couldn't come up with one good thing that government has done.

9.) I'm writing an urgent letter to my Senator about the health-care issue. I'm explaining how the government never does anything right. I'm sure the Post Office will deliver it in a day or so.

10.) The last thing anyone needs is a government official getting involved with health. I look after my own health. For example, I always make sure I eat at restaurants rated "A" in the window.

11.) I really resent the government thinking I need any assistance from them. I buy my FDA-approved medication on my own.

12.) If health care were available to all at government expense, people would over-consume, using it when they don't really need it. As in the common phrase: "It's Saturday night, honey. Would you rather go to a movie, or shall we have our gallstones removed?"

13.) For some reason, the lunatic left can't understand that the most important thing in health care is consumer choice. When you're in a car accident and you've lost pints and pints of blood, what you really want to do is to sit down, think over how much you want to spend and where, and comparison-shop. And if you happen to choose an incompetent surgeon, well, he damn well won't get your business next time, will he?
~~~
Jennifer Epps is an L.A.-area political activist, writer, producer, and director who studied theatre and has written several hundred film reviews. She is currently developing an anti-war film.
xxx
I wish I could add something to this but I can't—I just can't do it—that's all.

The Catcerto

enjoy------

The Truth Is Out: Obama Hates Gays

Emma Ruby wrote for the Huffington Post:
"Yesterday, the Obama administration filed a follow-up brief in the Smelt case -- the couple in California challenging DOMA who were the recipients of an imprudently written reply brief back in June. This time, it looks like some liberals in the Justice Department got their hands on a copy of the brief before filing. There are some nice words in there aimed at smoothing hurt feelings.

"But the brief also argues for a new and dangerous interpretation of the rational basis test.

"The rational basis test is applied by the court to laws that violate the equal protection clause, but do not implicate certain protected groups. In other words, if the law does not discriminate on the basis of race or gender, it will likely be upheld if the government can find any rational reason why the law exists. These reasons can be invented on the spot and are usually not tested very vigorously."
See here for the complete article.
xxx
So, after his disastrous comparison of gay marriage to incest and the marrying off of children, he turns around and says, "Oh—well—gay marriage is just too hard to do anything about! Forget it, then. So what if people are denied their rights? That's just too bad for them, then, isn't it?" And he scoops up his marbles and goes home.

To which my response:
"Voting for Obama is just too hard! Forget it then. I'll find someone else—surely someone doesn't see finally allowing people their rights as too difficult a task for the president to do."

My Crusade

Well folks—
I restarted Scattershot so I wouldn't feel obligated to post all politics all the time—then promptly posted 5 political articles. Go figure.

BUT, today I'm departing from that and posting something that has been consuming my waking hours for several weeks. I think I can safely post about it now without jinxing it.

First allow me to say that there's absolutely NO wake-up call like a diagnosis of diabetes. None whatsoever. Nada. Nothing.
The prospect of blindness. Liver damage. Amputated feet. Kidney failure. Heart failure.

For years, I'd try to diet—but would keep eating the same old junk food—just less of it. So, I was hungry all the time and I wasn't losing weight. I’d feel deprived and, sooner or later, would stop dieting. Then I would pig-out and end up GAINING weight. Eventually, I just quit trying. And I kept on eating all the wrong things.

Well, shortly before that fateful diagnosis hit me upside the head with a 2 by 4, a friend’s doc told him to eat 5 times per day to lose weight. I decided to try it. I began eating vegetables and fruits and whole grains and such for the first time in my adult life. And I didn’t lose weight. Rrrrrrrrrrggggghhhhhh!
Still, for some reason, I kept at it—who knows why? Maybe one reason was—I wasn’t hungry and I WAS eating right, at least and at last.

So, then I got the diagnosis and I panicked. Lucky for me, my doc sent me to a nutritionist who congratulated me on my move toward healthy eating and explained what I was doing wrong. All I had to do was tweak my diet a bit and the pounds began to fall off. Hey! I was onto something here!

So far, I’ve quit taking the blood pressure medications I’d been on for years AND I’ve quit taking the diabetes med my doc put me on about 5 weeks ago.
I’m eating right, swimming at least once per day and walking most days, as well [another first in more years than I can count.]
One thing that helped in the swimming department was the move, a couple of years ago, to a retirement community. I hadn’t worn a swimsuit in decades—because I would be faced with all those 20-somethings worshiping the sun whenever I headed to the pool. Here, though, almost everyone looks just like me! So no more avoiding the pool out of self-consciousness. The fact that the pool is about 3 blocks away helps too.
And, today, I received another major surprise. During today’s walks [first to the pool and later to my park’s maintenance office] I found myself walking fast! THAT’S a first in years and years.
I wasn’t pressing myself to walk faster—I just did it! It felt completely natural!
Right now I’m restraining myself mightily. If I’m not careful I may just break my arm patting myself on the back.

And—here’s the proof of the pudding:
1] I’ve lost 24 pounds [from 236 down to 212] in—what?—about 5 weeks. My goal is 135 pounds—maybe even a few less than that—we’ll see.
2] Though I’ve quit the blood pressure meds, my bp hovers around the 130’s/80’s range—a marked improvement even from the levels when I was taking 3 meds to keep it under control.
3] My fluid retention has dropped dramatically—though I’ve stopped taking the diuretic. OK, OK, yes, I’m taking dandelion root now but, hey!—it’s not nearly as strong as HCTZ AND it is high in potassium, which the HCTZ was leeching from my system. So, that’s a Good Thing.
And [4] **drum roll** my blood sugar level hit 78 yesterday! SEVENTY EIGHT!
For those who may not know—70-90 is normal. And my starting level was 154!

So—today I’m claiming my bragging rights—in case you hadn’t figured that out already. =)

Urine Luck! Pee May Be the Fuel of the Future

Scientists at Ohio University have stumbled on a major break-through that could be the key to bringing hydrogen fuel cells into wide-spread use. Scientists discovered that placing a nickel-based electrode in a pool of urine and applying a small electrical current produces hydrogen gas.

"One cow can provide enough energy to supply hot water for 19 houses," Ohio University professor Gerardine Botte said of the discovery.
The scientists are hoping to make commercial version of the technology available by next year.
xxx
hmmmmmmm---
Maybe they've found a practical way to run those hydrogen fueled cars? Pull up to the pump and out comes -- PEE!
No more depending on middle eastern countries for our fuel and we could clean up those huge pig farms in N. Carolina.

The Truth about Canada

Heard on National Public Radio
These days, we can hardly turn on our TV's without seeing political ads telling us how horrible Canadian health care is.

Now, just so you know, no one in Congress or the White House is suggesting that the US adopt the Canadian design. [Though why they aren't, I don't know--it's a great system. Oh--that's right--the insurance companies don't want it. I forgot.]

Sarah Varney, reporter for NPR member station, KQED, decided to check out health care north of the border. See what you think.
xxx
Varney opened her piece with a visit to a doctor's office. She interviewed John Riley who was being treated for colon cancer in a small doctor's office in a gritty, working class neighborhood. He and his wife have been seeing the same doctor for over twenty years. They are allowed to choose their own physician.

Varney asked John if he had been required to wait for treatment. "Nothing but good. Everything has been going bang, bang, bang."
Did he have out-of-pocket expenses? "Other than gettin' there. No. Everything is good. I'm covered. I'm covered."
xxx
So, how does the Canadian health care system work? It's paid for by income tax and sales tax. All Canadians are covered and can see any doctor they want, anywhere in Canada with no co-pays or deductibles.

Some things aren't paid for: optometry, dental care or prescription drugs. Some people carry additional insurance to pay for those--others pay out-of-pocket for them.

American opponents to a new health plan like to call Canadian health care "Socialized Medicine [HORRORS!]." That's not an accurate description. Actually, it's socialized insurance--meaning that the risk is pulled together and paid for by the government.

While individual provinces and territories set their own overall health budgets and administer the health plans, the delivery of the actual care is private. Doctors run their own practices and bill the government rather than the patient or a 3rd party provider.

A physician Varney interviewed [Dr. Barsalai] told her that doctors earn a good living in Canada and don't have to handle the hassles involved with dealing with hundreds of different insurance policies--each with its own rules.
The article didn't say so, but I would imagine the issues of pre-approval or preexisting conditions don't come up.

Barsalai said that medical costs in Canada are half of what they are in the US. Infant mortality is lower. Life expectancy is longer. Obesity is lower and accessibility is higher.
Canada must be doing something right.

The Commonwealth Fund, a respected and non-partisan health research organization surveyed the 19 top industrialized countries in regards to deaths that could have been prevented had appropriate care been available. Canada rated 6th in positive outcomes while the US rated last.

Steve Morgan, a health economist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, said, "I think a lot of it has to do with access. Canadians who need to manage a chronic condition or are faced with an urgent situation don't think about their pocketbooks. They seek the care and, more times than not, they get the care they need."

Varney met with Morgan and his colleagues at the UVC Center for Health Policy Research to find out what the data they've collected over the years reveal about the Canadian health system. Varney advised them of what the American public is told about the Canadian process: that health care is rationed, there are long waiting lists and a government bureaucrat gets between the patient and his/her doctor.
Professor Bob Evans, one of the grandfathers of the health economics field, said, "An illusion has been created that there are long lines of people who are near death waiting for care. That's absolute nonsense!"
Evans has been studying the two systems [Canadian and American] since they were founded about the same time during the 1960's.
He went on to say, "Are there people lined up not getting the appropriate care they need in appropriate times? Of course there are. It's a huge system and a very complicated one. And things do go wrong. But, as a general rule, what happens here is: when you need the care--you get it. We're not a third world country! [He sounded downright incensed.]

When federal funding for health care declined when a recession occurred during the 1990's, lines for nonessential services [and even some urgent ones] grew. The Canadian Supreme Court did find that, in some serious cases, patients had, in fact, died as a result of waiting for medical services. Stories of the deaths and of people traveling to the US for medical care dominated Canadian news. As a result, the Canadian government poured billions of dollars into reducing waiting times in the areas that were the most critical including cardiac care, cancer and joint replacement surgery.
As a result, the amount of wait time has been dropping. Most provinces now report waiting times on publically available websites. No such data or accountability is available in the US.

That's not to say there aren't frustrations regarding waiting for health care in Canada. At BC Children's Hospital, Jocelyn Tomkins, a young woman born with a condition similar to spina bifida, stated, "I haven't been able to walk since I was eight. I've had lots of surgeries and interventions but, beyond that, I hold a job and I live a pretty much normal life."
Jocelyn credits an army of doctors and physical therapists for that normal life but she admits there have, on occasion, been roadblocks.
"Of course there were some times when I had to wait for care and those were always the most frustrating moments."
A few years ago, when she was on a wait list for a pain clinic, she traveled first to Seattle and then to Texas. The care she required cost $1,800.00. Very few Canadians do go south for health care. It's a bit like getting struck by lightning--it's rare but, when it happens, everyone talks about it.

On some occasions, provinces pay for people to receive specialty care in the US. One such instance is the fact that a shortage of neonatal beds in Canada leads some women with high risk pregnancies to travel to the US [at Canadian expense] to deliver. It doesn't happen often and polls show that the vast majority of people are happy with their health care.

A few people would like to purchase private health insurance. Currently that is not allowed.

Canadians share some anxieties with their counterparts south of the border: a concern regarding their aging baby boomer population; overuse of emergency departments and a shortage of primary care doctors. But what Canadians don't worry about are losing their health insurance or going bankrupt because of a health crisis.

Republicans Just Never Learn, Do They?

Rusty Depass, a GOP activist, stated that Michelle Obama's ancestor was a gorilla and posted it on Facebook.
Later he made a non-apology apology, saying ""I am as sorry as I can be if I offended anyone. The comment was clearly in jest."

"IF I OFFENDED ANYONE?" Did he really say that?
Later he attempted to blame Michelle Obama for his words.
[Click on the title for the complete article.]

His comment was similar to the early days of the Nazi party when men in brown shirts and swastika armbands stood on street corners handing out handbills that compared Jews to apes. Comedians made similar "jokes" in nightclubs.
Do we want to return to those times?

Speech is free in this country and must remain so unless we want to drift into a totalitarian state. Therefore, we cannot outlaw such remarks. However, what we can do is try such statements in the court of public opinion.

So, what do you think?
***
Apparently, I can't stay away from politics after all.
My excuse, this time, though, is that this had been in my hopper for months and I just stumbled across it today.

Una and Laura are home! YAYAYAYAYAY!
Thank goodness we now have a president who doesn't posture, yell "Bring it on!" and label other countries as evil but, instead, pursues diplomatic avenues.

Una and Laura owe Obama and Clinton their freedom, maybe their lives.
The rest of us owe them the potential of reopening relations with North Korea and, possibly, a safer world.

Hnh! I went and closed my political blog because I was so discouraged — and here comes some good news. Go figure.

Tell Me Why

written and sung by a 13-year-old boy. the grown-ups don't have an answer.