Health Care Madness

"I am a caring person and we have people dying in the streets because they can't afford health care," says my liberal co-worker. It is amazing how liberals actually think that because they are motivated by emotion (and not facts), then any way contrary to theirs must be cold and heartless.
All motivation aside, what matters are results, not motive or intent. While our medical system is still (thankfully), for the most part, driven by the almighty dollar, it is by far more caring. Why? Because while socialist systems such as Canada's are good at ensuring that everyone, even the motivationally challenged, receive basic care, these countries' pale in comparison to the U.S. in cutting edge medical innovation that saves lives on the brink of death. No other country has the same rates of diagnostic use or survival of serious illness such as cancer or heart disease.
So, which do you think is more caring? 1. A system that levels out the quality of care so that even the worst members of society can have basic needs met; or number 2. A system where your grandfather, who was a school teacher and middle class worker all his life, receives a heart bypass the very same day as detection of said problem. While those that refuse to work and provide for themselves must uncomfortably wait in an emergency room where they still receive the most modern care for free.
That was my grandfather, by the way. If we lived in Canada; according to the statistics his wait for surgery would have been weeks at least, which may have been too long considering the shape he was in.
So which is it, Mediocrity for All, in the name of fairness? Or Top-notch for those that work, with certain "safety net" measures for those who refuse to contribute to society. Those are the only choices.
Tell me, if you were diagnosed with cancer, which country do you hope to be living in?????

Jack Reed is a Jaaack-ass

Just watched the Dems reply to President Bush's speech. Reed is a moron. He states we are less secure. I wonder just what he is basing his assessment on? The many attacks on U.S. soil since 9-11-01? Oh, that's right, there have been no new attacks.

I guess he's back to the old, "just being there makes them hate us more" spill. Even a child could understand that if someone is willing to sacrifice themselves and their families just to steer a 1985 Toyota pickup loaded down with explosives and rusty nails-turned-shrapnel towards an army checkpoint; they probably didn't possess much capacity for love and cultural understanding to begin with.

He also made the point that by surrender... uh, I mean, withdrawing our troops we could then concentrate on fighting against al Qaeda. So, I guess the hundreds of al Qaeda we are killing in Iraq every month doesn't count since we aren't "concentrating" on them.

The dems are so indebted to their kook base that they can't afford to appear for even a millisecond as if they might root for an American victory.

Of course he also paid the usual lip service to our troops and our fallen men and women; I just wish someone would ask him what he would do with those 3700 US deaths that he and his friends love bringing up.

So, how about it Jack Reed, will you validate those three-thousand seven hundred American sacrifices, or will you waste them????????????????????????

Just a Reminder

Ok, just to recap. Since the beginning of the war, Democrat leaders have made the following statements.

John Kerry: ". . . troops terrorizing women and children in the night"

John Kerry speaking to college students: if you don't do well in school, you end up "getting stuck in Iraq"

John Murtha: our troops are ". . . killing innocent civilians in cold blood"

Barack Obama: U.S. troops need to be doing more than ". . . air raiding villages and killing civilians"

And now they have the audacity to question and criticize General Petraeus. Not to mention refusing to condemn a New York Times ad, from the left wing kook group Moveon.org, referring to him as "General Betray-us".
Who supports our troops again???????

Oh, one more tidbit of opinion. If one has been a "peace monger" since the beginning of this thing, I have no quarrel with them. I for one am not sure that it was not a mistake to invade Iraq. However, to vote for the war and then demand through relentless media talking points for an immediate pull-out, is treasonous; and such a solution leaves absolutely zero chance for the 3000 plus American deaths to be justified. In fact, whether or not we should have invaded in the first place is a moot point now. Afterall, shouldn't we all, at this point, be rooting for an American victory and a stable Iraq???????????

And just to remind you of a few key votes in favor of House Joint Resolution 114, better known as the Iraq War Resolution.

John Kerry-- Yea
John Murtha-- Yea
Hillary Clinton-- Yea
John Edwards-- Yea
Harry Reid-- Yea
Diane Feinstein-- Yea
Tom Daschle-- Yea

For some of you out there, "Yea" is a fancy way of saying "yes" or "yeah".