Hillary’s Latest Two Whoppers

Let’s see – how about the one where a poor pregnant woman was denied care and both she and her baby died?

Sen. Hillary Clinton will stop telling an emotional story about a uninsured pregnant woman who died after being denied medical care, Clinton’s campaign said.

In the story, Clinton describes a woman from rural Ohio who was making minimum wage at a local pizza shop. The woman, who was uninsured, became pregnant.

Clinton said the woman ran into trouble and went to a hospital in a nearby county but was denied treatment because she couldn’t afford a $100 payment.

In her speeches, Clinton said the woman later was taken to the hospital by ambulance and lost the baby. The young woman was then taken by helicopter to a Columbus hospital where she died of complications.

Just one little problem with all that of course:

Hospital Chief Executive Officer Rick Castrop in a statement said, “we reviewed the medical and patient accounts of the patient” after she was named in a newspaper story about Clinton’s stump speech.

“There is no indication that she was ever denied medical care at any time, for any reason. We clearly reject any perception that we ever denied any care to this woman.”

A hospital spokesperson confirmed to CNN the woman had insurance. She said the hospital decided to come forward after people in the community began to question if they had denied her care.

Its always so horrible when people start checking up on these things. I really think the issue is that the Clintons could always get away with this before because the media would hide it for them. Now a) the media is for Obama and b) independent fact checkers can get their stories out via the web.

But the excuse given is “we got told this and didn’t have any reason to disbelieve it”.
Isn’t this what they accuse President Bush of doing with the Iraq War intelligence?

However, the real whopper of the weekend is this one:

Clinton told a convention of Democrats in North Dakota when her tax forms were made public: “Don’t get me wrong, I have absolutely nothing against rich people. As a matter of fact my husband, much to my surprise and his, has made a lot of money since he left the White House by doing what he loves most – talking to people.”

Surprise? You and ex-President Pantsdown have been grubbing for every penny for years. I don’t care if you earned the money – I wish you had earned twice as much. It depresses me that there are enough idiots who will willingly pay you two to lie to them, but that’s another story. Just don’t tell us you are “surprised”.

Discarded Birth Control Pills Harming Environment?

Why has this science not been reported too much?

For some years now, reports have been growing from around the world that the massive amounts of synthetic birth control hormones being pumped into the water systems through sewage outflow is changing the sex of fish stocks. Recently, scientists have also begun to warn of the possible carcinogenic effects of the build-up of estrogenic chemicals in drinking water. 

As early as 2002, the UK Environment Agency warned that fish stocks in British rivers were showing signs of gender ambiguity as a result of high levels of estrogen in the water. A survey of 1,500 fish at 50 river sites found more than a third of males also displayed female characteristics.

Dr. Conrad Daniel Volz from the University of Pittsburgh Center for Environmental Oncology, warned that the rise in steroid hormones in the drinking water in the Pittsburgh area is a threat to health. Numerous studies have shown a link between contraceptive estrogen and hormone problems and some cancers, including testicular cancer.

There are ecoNazis screaming about snowmobiles in Yellowstone, but possible cancer risks in the water and there’s no noise from the environmental activists at all.  Wonder why? 

But scientists and environmental groups are careful to avoid recommending restrictions on artificial contraceptives.

The National Catholic Register, reporting on the issue, quotes George Harden, a board member of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists, saying “If you’re killing mosquitoes to save people from the West Nile virus, you can count on secular environmentalists to lay down in front of the vapour truck, claiming some potential side effect that might result from the spray,” Harden said. “But if birth control deforms fish – backed by the proof of an EPA study – and threatens the drinking supply, mum will be the word.”

Curt Cunningham, water quality issues chairman for the Rocky Mountain Chapter of Sierra Club International, told the Register that people “would not take kindly” to the suggestion of banning or restricting hormonal contraceptives.

“For many people it’s an economic necessity. It’s also a personal freedom issue,” Cunningham said. 

So birth control pills are a personal freedom issue.  But having the government put restrictions on your land to keep some slimy snail in breeding territory isn’t a personal freedom issue?

Your hypocrisy is showing.

Sterilize Teenage Girls

Here’s an interesting proposition mooted from the UK:

Last week, an intriguing proposition was mooted by Government minister Dawn Primarolo.

Teenage girls, she said, could be steered towards what is described as “long-term contraception”.

This is now possible thanks to the development of contraceptive jabs and implants which can last up to five years.

In other words, there is a way of effectively sterilising girls for a lengthy period of time.

At what age? Well, doesn’t 12 until 17 sound rather sensible?

Its the underlying assumption that I find most despicable. Do you own your body? Or does the government? After all, the UK government “gives” you absolutely 100% free health care. (Just don’t look too closely at what you actually get). So if the government is responsible for your health care, does that mean it should be able to control your actions and bodily functions?

This is just an extension of the thought process that treatment for smokers and fat people and sick old people costs too much and should be curtailed. Why not keep these young sluts from having babies? Just look at the positive outcomes:

  • fewer abortions – theoretically
  • no welfare payments for those illegitimate rug rats
  • lots of time for these teenagers to practice sex without getting pregnant so they will be experienced, available, and willing
  • less maternity health costs paid for by the all-knowing and kind government

While this might be considered some sort of hypothetical trial balloon to demonstrate absurdity – do you really think that there aren’t some government planners who are actually planning for this action? Of course, no one would actually try and implement mass sterilization, would they?

But remember that doctors organizations and government bureaucrats now consider it safe to say that some people should not be treated because of the choices they have made in their life.  20 years ago, would the average citizen believe that this would be considered mainstream thought?  Its funny that all the liberal hysteria about loss of freedoms completely misses the fact that the biggest loss will be coming as the “gift” of government.

Remember that this free Obambi-care or Hillarycare will change the basic standing between government and citizens. Once you give responsibility for your health care to government, government will own you and your actions.

Tax Me More – Not Really

And those who believe in “government investments” show just how much they actually put their money where their mouth is:

State lawmakers can rule out Virginian’s offering up more of their hard-earned money to fix the $1.4 billion budget shortfall Gov. Tim Kaine announced this week.

At least that is what a peek at the so-called “Tax Me More Fund” suggests.

Since its inception in 2002, the fund has collected a total of $10,217.04. 

In his book, “From Hope to Higher Ground,” Mr. Huckabee said that from 2001 to 2005, a total of 56 persons made contributions to the Arkansas fund, totaling $2,077. 

Don’t tax me or thee, but tax him over there behind that tree.

“The people of Virginia have voluntarily taxed themselves in the amount of 0.00000005 percent of Virginia’s budget since 2002, which is a good measure of their support for tax increases,” said Sen. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Fairfax County Republican. 

So why do we let Presidential candidates run around talking about how  wonderful it will be when everybody is taxed to death for “universal health care”?  Because everybody believes that it will be somebody else paying for it – not them!

Healthy People Cost More

So should governments encourage people to eat twinkies and smoke?

Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn’t save money, researchers reported Monday.

It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

”It was a small surprise,” said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the Netherlands’ National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, who led the study. ”But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more.”

And this really brings into sharp relief an interesting point about turning the responsibility over health care to a government.  While the initial jabber about universal healthcare is how wonderful it will be that no one has to worry about getting sick because the all-knowing Big Brother will take care of everyone – once you screw up the system and get government running  it, the focus becomes COST!  As in – holy crap this free health care costs tons of money.  And if we only have 25% of the population carrying everybody else, the productive ones will finally balk.

So it becomes a cost-benefit analysis – as in just how much cost can we shave off these silly people who are going to die anyway in order to keep the productive ones happy.  And government bureaucrats are really good at a) screwing over people who aren’t government bureaucrats and b) responding to political pressure.  So whoever screams the loudest gets the health care and the peasants are sent off to watch TV and die quietly in the corner.

Which this interesting little snippet in the story illustrates:

”This throws a bucket of cold water onto the idea that obesity is going to cost trillions of dollars,” said Patrick Basham, a professor of health politics at Johns Hopkins University who was unconnected to the study. He said that government projections about obesity costs are frequently based on guesswork, political agendas, and changing science.

Adult Stem Cells Advance Again

More good news from some researchers at UCLA:

UCLA stem cell scientists have reprogrammed human skin cells into cells with the same unlimited properties as embryonic stem cells without using embryos or eggs.

Led by scientists Kathrin Plath and William Lowry, UCLA researchers used genetic alteration to turn back the clock on human skin cells and create cells that are nearly identical to human embryonic stem cells, which have the ability to become every cell type found in the human body.

The implications for disease treatment could be significant. Reprogramming adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells could generate a potentially limitless source of immune-compatible cells for tissue engineering and transplantation medicine.

At least this would give the scientists who are trying to get those embryonic stem cells to actually work a way to get them without destroying embroyos.  Interesting that the release does say:

These new techniques to develop stem cells could potentially replace a controversial method used to reprogram cells, somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), sometimes referred to as therapeutic cloning. To date, therapeutic cloning has not been successful in humans. However, top stem cell scientists worldwide stress that further research comparing these reprogrammed cells with stem cells derived from embryos, considered the gold standard, is necessary.

At least they have a way to research without destroying living things.  Not that they actually want to stop destroying embryos:

“It is important to remember that our research does not eliminate the need for embryo-based human embryonic stem cell research, but rather provides another avenue of worthwhile investigation.”

No – you create stem cells which you report as being genetically identical to the originals and still you propose destroying life.