Because of Idiots Queensland raises Fines for Accidents at Railroad Crossings

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 14th, 2012

Week in Review

Despite how dangerous trying to beat a train at a railroad crossing is people do it all of the time.  YouTube is full of videos of people trying to beat trains at crossings and losing.  It happens far more than most people probably think.  And being that a train has no steering wheel and sometimes takes a mile to stop, they should.  In Queensland, Australia, they’re trying something else to get people to think before they cross (see Fines for ignoring rail crossing warnings doubled by Tony Moore posted 10/15/2012 on the Brisbane Times Queensland).

Motorists or pedestrians who ignore warnings that a train is approaching a rail crossing and race into it can now be fined $8800, a frustrated Transport Minister Scott Emerson has announced.

The maximum fine has been doubled – up from $4400 – after a string of incidents last week caused accidents and triggered hours of transport congestion.

‘‘I have had a gutful of drivers who ignore the rules and go into these areas causing incidents at our level crossings,’’ Mr Emerson said.

‘‘These idiots cause massive disruption to our public transport system,’’ he said…

In the past 12 months, boom gates have been struck by vehicles 194 times and 180,000 rail commuters have been delayed.

There are few locomotive engineers who haven’t killed someone at a grade crossing.  It’s a horrific thing to have to live through.  And with.  Because all they can do is blow their whistle and slam on the brakes.  Which rarely stops a train in time.  Or it could even cause a more dangerous derailment.  It’s especially hard when you kill a car full of kids.

Will this help prevent grade crossing accidents?  Perhaps.  Some people may alter their behavior.  But probably not the young.  Who do stupid things.  Because they’re not mature enough to make responsible decisions.  They drink while under age.  Do drugs.  Have unprotected sex.  They drive recklessly.  And even drive around railroad crossing gates while a locomotive is speeding towards them at 67 mph.

As a side note these are also the people who vote overwhelmingly Democrat.  And who Democrats aggressively court during election campaigns.  Why?  Because responsible, mature people tend to vote Republican.  But the cool people vote Democrat.  Because the Democrats don’t frown on the fun things kids like to do.

Should we raise the voting age?  To match the drinking age?  Or should we lower the drinking age to match the voting age.  The overwhelming majority would probably not want to do the latter.  So would they support the former?  Perhaps.  But the youth vote would probably thwart any such change.  As well as the liberal Democrats who need the youth vote to get them elected.  As the responsible and mature people won’t vote for them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Government provides more Solar Power Subsidies to Encourage Bad Investments into Solar Power

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 14th, 2012

Week in Review

When it comes to electric power the smart money is on coal.  So of course our government chooses solar (see US gov’t sets aside 285,000 acres for solar, wind development posted 10/12/2012 on EDI).

The US government has finalized a plan to encourage new solar-energy projects on federal lands in several western states. The area covered by the new agreement is 285,000 acres, consisting of seventeen “solar energy zones.” considered to be the best locations for solar development…

The Obama administration has authorized the development of 10,000 megawatts of solar, wind and geothermal projects. These would provide enough energy to power more than 3.5 million homes, said Salazar. According to Salazar, solar and wind energy production has doubled since Obama took office.

You know what the federal government doesn’t have to encourage?  The building of coal-fired power plants.  In fact, the demand for the electric power a coal-fired power plant produces is so great that the government has to increase the cost of building and operating them to discourage people from building them.  Why?  To please President Obama’s liberal, environmental base.  Which includes a lot of wealthy donors.  The environmentalists don’t like coal or the cheap and reliable electric power it produces.  So they attack coal.  And encourage government to subsidize solar power.  Because solar power is not cheap or reliable like the electric power produced by coal-fired power plants.  Which is why no one will build a solar power plant without massive government subsidies.

Power plants have capacity factors.  Which we calculate by dividing actual power produced by the maximum possible power a power plant can produce over a period of time.  A typical capacity factor for a coal-fired plant is approximately 90%.  Because all you need is fuel.  Unlike a solar power plant.  Which has a capacity factor of approximately 20%.  The reason why it’s so much lower than a coal-fired power plant is that solar power plants turn off every evening at dusk and turn back on at dawn.  Something you don’t have to do with coal.  Because you can burn coal all day long.  Even at night.  Which is when we use electric power the most.  To light our homes.  To run our air conditioners after work.  To power our televisions we watch after dinner.

So 10,000 megawatts is not likely to power 3.5 million homes.  Especially at night.  Unless they build a very expensive energy storage system to store the electric power they make during the day to use at night.  As long as no one needs any electric power during the day.  As you can see solar power is not what the government thinks it is.  It’s a novelty at best.  That is very, very expensive despite sunlight being free.  Why is it so expensive?  Because that 285,000 acres needs to be covered with solar panels.  And for this power to be useful at night there’s that aforementioned energy storage system.  All of this to provide what a coal-fired power plant can produce with about 30% the installed capacity of the solar power plant.  Which makes the logical and rational choice coal.  Not solar.  Yet our government chooses solar over coal.  Which tells us what?  Our government is neither logical nor rational.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

NHS closes Emergency Departments to Save Costs while Angering Britons

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 14th, 2012

Week in Review

Some of the most expensive services in health care are emergency departments.  Or A/E departments in Britain.  For accident and emergency departments.  Because you need a lot of staffing to handle everything from a heart attack to severe trauma from an accident to a difficult pregnancy.  Doctors, nurses, technicians, orderlies, pharmacists, administrative, cleaning, security, etc.  Not to mention the diagnostic equipment.  Medical devices.  Medicine.  Oxygen.  It adds up.  So it’s no surprise that the NHS is looking at A/E closures to cut costs (see 28,619 Mail on Sunday readers write to Government to stop A&E closures… and Ministers still do nothing by Nick Craven and David Rose posted 10/13/2012 on the Daily Mail).

Thousands of you sent in your protests against A&E closures – and this week we delivered two bulging mailbags full of your demands to David Cameron’s doorstep.

Nearly 30,000 Mail on Sunday readers have called for the Government to reverse the policy of downgrading and axeing local casualty departments across England and Wales.

A total of 28,619 protests were lodged – 17,170 coupons, 7,377 emails and 4,072 text messages – all prompted by fears that the policy for big, centralised A&E departments could risk lives as it leads to longer journey times to hospital…

Changes in London could result in a massive 47 per increase in the number of people served by each A&E department.

You ever waited for a long time to see a doctor in a crowded emergency waiting room?  Before Obamacare in America?  It was not uncommon on a busy night to wait for up to 3 hours if you had a non-life-threatening condition.  Now imagine being in that waiting room with 47% more people waiting with you.  Which could easily extend that wait time to 4-5 hours.  Or more.  Which is what will happen as Obamacare mutates into a national health service like they have in Britain.  Which is what the proponents of Obamacare want.  National health care.

At that time even the proponents of Obamacare won’t like Obamacare.  And they, too, will mail in enough complaints to fill two bulging mailbags.  (Based on the US having five times the population of the UK, that would probably be 10 bulging mail bags.)  Because these people will want everything for nothing.  But they won’t understand the cost of everything.  Or why the health service will have to cut costs, increase wait times and ration health care treatment.  And they will.  Because the NHS is.  And they can probably do national health care better than Obamacare ever will.

As as well as travelling longer distances after answering 999 calls, it will have to pick up seriously ill patients who turn up at the so-called ‘urgent  care centres’ which are set to replace A&Es but in reality cannot treat any life-threatening conditions.

At just one of the hospitals where A&E is due to close, Ealing, there is already an urgent care centre which transfers up to 50 patients a day to casualty.

Currently, this is a short journey down a corridor, but if casualty closes, as planned, all the patients will have to be transferred by blue-light ambulance to an A&E somewhere else, probably West Middlesex 20 minutes away, or Northwick Park, 45 minutes away.

To cut costs national health care services have really only one option.  As they cannot tell people to have 10% fewer accidents and health care emergencies.  Which leaves health care overhead.  If you close an emergency department (A/E department) you can save some money.  Close a few and you can save a lot of money.  So they do.  And make people travel further for their health care.  Up to 45 minutes by ambulance.  Perhaps an hour or more by car.  Even longer by train for those non-life-threatening emergencies.

This is the future of health care in America.  Under Obamacare.  And whatever that evolves into.  The NHS had some good years.  Before the British population began aging.  Now the British population is older.  More people are leaving the workforce while fewer are entering to replace them.  And as they leave the workforce they’re consuming more and more health care services.  Causing the cost strains in the NHS.  And the need for those cost savings.

This would be the starting point for the Americans.  They would not have the good years the NHS had.  Because right from the get-go they will be struggling with the costs of an aging population.  Which they will have to tackle right away by cutting costs, increasing wait times and the rationing of health care treatment.  Meaning that when trying to provide everything for everyone they will end up providing only for those some bureaucrat deems worthy of those limited health care resources.  They won’t be called death panels in the new health care law.  But they will be death panels.  Because someone will have to decide who gets those limited health care resources.  And who doesn’t.  Because they just won’t be able to give everything to everyone.  As the proponents of Obamacare think they will be able to.  And they will be none too happy when they learn this unpleasant little fact.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Salafists, Jihadists and other Islamist Extremists are Joining the Syrian Rebels

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 14th, 2012

Week in Review

During the Democrat National Convention two of the main themes were that GM is alive.  And Osama bin Laden is dead.  Over and over they hammered home how President Obama killed Osama bin Laden.  No doubt angering the Islamist world with excessive spiking of the Osama bin Laden football.  The only thing the president didn’t do was some taunting end zone dance.  And an ‘In your face, al Qaeda” from the president to the Islamist extremist world.  The president wanted to sound tough to dispel rumors that he’s too soft on national security.  So they made it clear to the people watching the Democrat National Convention, and to the world, that President Obama killed Osama bin Laden.

Shortly after this terrorists killed the American ambassador in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11.  Was there a connection?  Well, the Islamist extremists hated America to begin with.  And rubbing the killing of Osama bin laden in their faces probably didn’t help soften their seething hatred of Americans.  It may have played a part.  But being that it was on 9/11 and they used heavy weapons suggests that the attack was in the planning for awhile.  However the protests at embassies throughout the world following the Benghazi attack may have been inflamed by the spiking of the Osama bin Laden football.  Or the publicity of a YouTube video to blame the violence in Benghazi on that people in the Islamic world did not even see until the Obama administration brought it to their attention.

Of course, this Islamist reaction completely baffles the Obama administration.  For they have gone out of their way to be nice to these people that hate us.  When there were protests against our staunch ally in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, President Obama was quick to call for Mubarak to step down from power.  At the beginning of the Arab Spring.  Yes, he was a dictator.  Like most are in that region.  But he was a dictator that promoted regional stability.  That suppressed Islamist extremism.  Kept Iran in its place.  Prevented the flow of arms to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.  Made the Suez Canal safe for all shipping.  Kept the anti-Western Muslim Brotherhood out of power.  And made it safe for Western tourists to travel to Egypt.  But President Obama said Mubarak had to go.  He did not help him.  Did not try to broker a peace deal leaving him in power.  Or one with Mubarak in exile to live out his life.  So Mubarak stepped down.  The Muslim Brotherhood stepped up.  They threw open their border with the Gaza strip.  And talked about abandoning their peace treaty with Israel.  Causing great instability in the region.

When Libya erupted in civil war the Obama administration supported the rebels.  Even though no one knew who the rebels were.  Other than including members of al Qaeda.  Libya was no longer an active enemy of the United States.  And not even a major oil supplier to the United States.  They had even begun to clamp down on Islamist extremists in their country following the US invasion of Iraq.  Yet we supported the rebels with US air power.  Because if we didn’t the war could spill over their borders.  Leading to Libyans fleeing their country and causing a humanitarian crisis.

The Assad regime in Syria was not a friend of the US.  Saddam Hussein may have hidden his chemical weapons in Syria when the US invaded Iraq.  They are a supporter of terrorism.  A client of Iran.  They support Hezbollah in Lebanon.  So they are no friend to the US or regional peace.  Yet when they erupted in civil war the Obama administration did not help these rebels.  And the things they said would happen in Libya if they didn’t get involved there are happening in Syria.  And now because the US (as well as the international community) didn’t help the rebels someone else is (see Syria despatch: rebel fighters fear the growing influence of their ‘Bin Laden’ faction by Ruth Sherlock posted 10/13/2012 on The Telegraph).

Standing on a patch of muddy scrubland just inside Syria’s broken border fence with Turkey, the rebel commander watched glumly as the group of jihadists crossed into his country.

Scruffy, with long beards, some wearing khaki jackets and each clutching a black travel bag, the six men walked silently through the crowd of refugees who had assembled and were waiting to leave Syria. A driver in a pick-up truck quickly greeted the men and drove them away into the countryside.

“Libyans”, muttered the rebel Free Syria Army leader under his breath, shooting the men a dirty look. “We don’t want these extremist people here. Look at them; we didn’t have this style in Syria – who is this? Bin Laden?”

Even before President Bashar al-Assad has been defeated, a war within the civil war is brewing in Syria. It is a battle of ideas, a struggle for the overall direction of the insurgency that is pitting moderate-Muslims against Salafists, jihadists and other Islamist groups.

Syria’s most powerful Islamist brigades have united under a new “liberation front” to wage jihad against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime and turn the country into an Islamic state.

President Obama’s foreign policy has not been much of a success.  In fact, he has made the Middle East, North Africa, the United States and the world a less safe place.  If he had purposely tried to help the Islamist extremist he probably could not have done a better job.  The Arab Spring was less about replacing dictatorships with democracy than replacing one kind of dictatorships with another.  A dictatorship of Islamist extremists.  Salafists, jihadists and other Islamist groups.

None of this is spontaneous.  And none of this had to do with a YouTube video.  Not even the spiking of the Osama bin Laden football.  But the spiking of the Osama bin Laden football is no doubt working as a recruiting tool to bring more jihadists into these extremist groups.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The NHS tells Doctors and Hospitals to get by on less while giving more Free Health Care to Foreigners

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 14th, 2012

Week in Review

The NHS must cut about £5 billion a year to save £15 billion to £20 billion by 2014.  So the pressure is on the health service to pinch every penny.  Ration every service to those who only really need them.  And disapprove services that people don’t absolutely need.  Unless, of course, they’re foreigners who don’t pay any taxes to fund the NHS.  Who can get whatever they want free (see Open door for health tourism: NHS bosses say doctors must treat all foreigners to protect their human rights… but GPs can still turn away BRITONS living too far from surgeries by Sophie Borland posted 10/12/2012 on the Daily Mail).

Health tourists must be given free treatment by GPs because it is their human right, say NHS bosses.

New guidelines tell doctors across England they must register any foreign patient who asks for care otherwise it would be ‘discriminatory’.

These include asylum seekers, overseas students or tourists coming for a short holiday. Once registered, they will be entitled to the same NHS care as all other patients and can receive free blood tests, jabs and – in some cases – free prescription drugs.

In fact, the new rules will give overseas patients more rights than those living in the UK who can be turned away from surgeries if they live a few yards outside its catchment area.

There are also fears the ruling will make it even harder for local patients to get an appointment.

Already half of patients cannot get an appointment with their doctor within 48 hours, according to the Government’s own figures…

One GP, who wished to remain anonymous, said: ‘I am not sure the British taxpayer should be paying for the world’s health treatment for free.’

Mr Skidmore has obtained figures showing that health tourists currently owe the NHS £40million in unpaid medical bills.

Dr Vijayakar Abrol, a GP who practises in Edgbaston, Birmingham, said: ‘The guidance is not worth the paper it is written on. We do not have endless resources. Why should we give these patients – be they from India, Canada, the US or Eastern Europe – free treatment?

‘We cannot go to those countries and get free treatment ourselves.’

Because it’s their human right.  According to the NHS.  Even though technically speaking health care isn’t a right.  For true rights have no cost to others.  Such as the right to free speech.  The right to believe in any faith.  These things people can do without someone else having to pay their way.  Not the same with health care.  As other people are paying for other people.  In other words, this right (health care) compels others to act against their will.  Spending their hard-earned pay not on their families but on the families of others.

How about that?  Half of all people who pay for the NHS can’t get an appointment with their doctor within 48 hours.  But foreigners can get free health care whenever they want.  This was one of the arguments they used to pass Obamacare in the United States.  They said we’re already paying for people who don’t pay for their health insurance as they fill our emergency rooms.  While they deny those emergency room resources to those who do pay for their own health care costs.  So we might as well force everyone to buy health insurance (until we can nationalize health care completely).  But even nationalizing health care won’t remove the problem of people getting health care for free.  Because if it did the NHS wouldn’t be spending £40 million ($64.3 million) on free health care for foreigners.  While at the same time trying to cut NHS spending by £20 billion ($32.2 billion) by 2014.

Something to look forward to under Obamacare.  Giving everything to everyone.  Even if they don’t pay.  Which will, of course, lead to cost cutting, longer waits, rationing and denials of health care treatment.  As they are in the NHS.  Unless you’re a foreigner who doesn’t pay into the system.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,