Catholic Women have more Sex and that Sex is more Satisfying

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 26th, 2014

Week in Review

The Democrats get the youth vote.  Because the Democrats aren’t these kids’ parents.  After a lifetime (i.e., high school) of their parents telling them ‘no’ after they turn 18 they turn on their parents.  And start voting Democrat.  Wait until you’re married before having sex?  I think not, Mom & Dad.  Because there isn’t anything wrong with having cheap meaningless sex with a bunch of different people.  The Democrats understand this.  And provide these young women with birth control and access to abortion so they can have a lot of casual sex without any consequences.  Of course, a lot of this sex won’t be very good (see Devout Catholics Have Better Sex, Study Says by Elizabeth Flock posted 7/17/2013 on US News and World Report—an older article appearing in their Twitter feed this past week).

Devout, married Catholics have the best sex of any demographic group, the Family Research Council said at an event Wednesday, pointing to a collection of studies from the last several decades.

The socially conservative Christian group relied heavily on statistics from the University of Chicago’s last National Health and Social Life Survey, conducted in 1992, which found the most enjoyable and most frequent sex occurring among married people, those who attended church weekly – any church, whether Catholic or not – and people who had the least sexual partners…

The notion that Catholics have better sex isn’t a new one, especially coming from Catholics. In 1994, Andrew Greeley, a Catholic sociologist and priest, published “Sex: The Catholic Experience,” which released a litany of new statistics: 68 percent of Catholics professed to have sex at least once a week versus 56 percent of non-Catholics; 30 percent of Catholics had bought erotic underwear versus 20 percent non-Catholics; and 80 percent of devout Catholic women approved of having sex for pleasure alone.

Girls go to parties where guys ply them with alcohol.  To get them drunk enough to lower their inhibitions.  A Girl may want to be relaxed enough to be with a guy she likes.  While a guy may just want to get her drunk so she can’t say ‘no’.  One thing for sure, though, whatever happens won’t be the subject of any romance novel.  It could be a scene in a porn movie.  But it sure won’t end up on the big screen in a love story.

Let’s face it, any sex where being inebriated is a prerequisite just isn’t going to be that good.  Or memorable.  Further, it is likely to leave a woman filled with shame or regret.  As she worries about what she did.  With whom she did it with.  And then the questions to fret over.  Did she take any precautions?  Is she pregnant?  Did she catch a sexually transmitted disease?  Did someone make a video of her while she was passed out and naked?  Doing things to her?  Is she going to see herself on the Internet?  Will her friends and her family see her on the Internet?  Her professors?  Her boss?  Will this come up should she decide to run for public office?

To have the same frequency of sex married women have may leave her with more feelings of shame and regret.  And an emptiness.  For while she is having sex a married woman is making love.  For a married woman doesn’t have to get drunk to lower her inhibitions.  For there are no inhibitions to lower.  She doesn’t have to worry about catching an STD.  And if she gets pregnant it may be because she wanted to get pregnant.  Also, there is no shame and regret the day after.  For a married woman is not coming home disheveled the following morning.  Where her neighbors can see her wearing the same clothes she had on the night before.  And see her underwear fall out of her purse while digging out her keys.

For a married woman sex is about love-making.  Sharing intimate moments with the person she loves.  Someone she wants to please.  Just as her husband wants to please her.  As well as honor her and protect her.  He won’t be posting any videos of her passed out and naked on the Internet.  Sure, they may leave the bathroom door open, but there’s honor and protection.  As well as an active sex life spiced up with things like erotic underwear.

So what are the Democrats really doing to our young women by being anti-parents?  Opening them up to a lot of shame and regret.  And worse.  Democrats are ruining their sex lives.  For using birth control and abortion to stay unmarried only makes their sex lives less fulfilling.  At least according to this study.  And it’s rather ironic that the women who oppose birth control and abortion (i.e., Catholics) are having better sex lives than those who don’t.  So once again their parents were right.  Even when it comes to waiting until marriage to have sex.  For if you do it will apparently blow your socks off.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Marijuana may be Worse than Alcohol

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 15th, 2014

Week in Review

Walter White could cook the best meth on television.  And he could have had the greatest fake drug empire on TV.  But there was always one part of the drug business that continued to be the source of all of his trouble.  Distribution.  As his distributors all tried to kill him.  Krazy-8.  Tuco.  Gus.  Lydia.  He could cook the meth.  But he couldn’t move it.  Which forced him into dealing with these people who eventually wanted to kill him.  And they would have had Walter not killed them first.

Breaking Bad was only a television show.  But it showed a very difficult part of the drug business.  Distribution.  For you can make or grow all the drugs you want but if you can’t distribute them they won’t make you a dime.  Which is why Walter was forced into dealing with these people.  Because it’s not easy moving illegal drugs.  Even on television.

Colorado has decriminalized marijuana.  And they’ve had medical marijuana and medical marijuana pot shops for awhile.  A legal way to distribute marijuana.  Which may have caught the attention of people in the real drug business (see Colorado Pot Shops Raided By The Feds May Be Shut For Good by Matt Ferner posted 4/15/2014 on Huffington Post).

Four Denver-area medical marijuana businesses may be permanently shuttered after federal officials reportedly probing links with Colombian drug cartels raided the shops in November…

State regulators notified the four shops on April 3 that state licenses to operate as medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities would be denied. The state alleged violations of state code that in some cases stretched back to 2012, according to state Marijuana Enforcement Division documents.

“You have operated the licensed premises in a manner that adversely affects the public health or welfare or the safety of the immediate neighborhoods in which your establishments are located,” the state notice of denial reads…

The Department of Justice has released little about the raids, which came less than two months before Colorado’s legal recreational marijuana shops opened. Federal authorities suggested the businesses may not have complied with guidelines outlined in DOJ’s August memo that assented to the new retail marijuana laws in Colorado and Washington state…

The DOJ guidance says federal authorities will continue to prosecute to prevent:

•The distribution of marijuana to minors;

•Revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels;

•The diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states…

An unpleasant development for the ‘pot is no worse than alcohol’ crowd.  For pot does come with a little excess baggage.  A legal pot outlet may provide cover for illegal pot sales.  As the Feds’ raid on these Colorado pot shops would suggest.  But there is yet another unpleasant development for the ‘pot is no worse than alcohol’ crowd.  A study that shows pot may be worse than alcohol (see Casual marijuana use changes brain, new report shows by Kay Lazar posted 4/15/2014 on The Boston Globe).

Young adults who occasionally smoked marijuana show abnormalities in two key areas of their brain related to emotion, motivation and decision making, and the degree of changes appear to be directly related to the number of joints smoked per week, according to a new study by Boston researchers.

Other studies have revealed brain changes among heavy marijuana users, but this research is believed to be the first to demonstrate such abnormalities in young, casual pot smokers.

The scientists did not study whether the changes were linked to corresponding declines in brain function, but say the signs suggest young people might be especially vulnerable because their brains are still developing.

“This is when you are making major decisions in your life, when you are choosing a major, starting a career, making long-lasting friendships and relationships,” said lead author Jodi Gilman, a psychology instructor at Harvard Medical School and a brain scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

The findings, to be published Wednesday in the Journal of Neuroscience, come amid an increased debate about the long-term effects of marijuana, as a growing number of states legalize the drug for medicinal and recreational use.

This is a tough development for Democrats.  Long seen as the cool political party by the young.  Because Democrats are the anti-parents.  When Mom and Dad told their kids to wait until they were in a serious relationship before having sex the Democrats passed out free condoms and provided access to abortion.  And when Mom and Dad told their children to say ‘no’ to drugs like Nancy Reagan the Democrats have been all for relaxing the drug laws.  As the war on drugs was costly and filled our prisons while being ineffective.  So the Democrats have been the party of sex and drugs.  While the Republicans have been the party of their parents.

So of course the young gravitate to the Democrat Party.  As the Democrats support these destructive lifestyles they so enjoy.  But as our kids suffer with STDs, deal with a pregnancy while still high school age and suffer from brain damage from smoking marijuana they may have second thoughts about the cool political party.  For all Mom and Dad wanted was for them to remain healthy and to be successful.  While Democrats appear to facilitate a destructive lifestyle just to win the youth vote.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

A Large Majority of People polled want Tax Reform to make Tax Code Simpler and Fairer

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 14th, 2014

Week in Review

People fear the IRS.  (Oh, by the way, happy tax day.)  The IRS targeting of conservative groups to silence the opposition has been chilling to say the least.  But the tax code is so convoluted that it takes an army of accountants and tax lawyers to comply.  Easy for the big corporations.  But a nightmare for small business.  For complying is costly.  And tax audits are about as enjoyable as a colonoscopy the hard way.  Without anesthetic.  Creating a great disincentive for people to become small business owners.  Which hurts us all.  For small businesses are the number one job creator in the country.

So a simpler and friendlier tax code would go a long way to create economic growth.  And an IRS less like the Gestapo or KGB would make a lot of small business owners sleep easier at night.  And encourage more people to take the plunge and start a small business.  A majority of people polled in a NAM poll agree.  And believe the time for serious tax reform is now (see New NAM Poll Says Voters Want Candidates Who Support a Simpler Tax Code posted 4/14/2014 on National Association of Manufacturers).

•Over 76 percent of voters will be more likely to favor a candidate who supports comprehensive tax reform.

•Nearly 73 percent of respondents support comprehensive reform to make the tax code simpler and fairer, even if their personal tax burden remains the same.

•An overwhelming majority, 85 percent, believe it is important that Congress and the President put aside partisanship to enact comprehensive tax reform.

We know why the Democrats don’t want to reform the tax code.  For having that power did wonders to silence the opposition during the 2012 presidential campaign.  Allowing President Obama to win reelection with 4 dead Americans in Benghazi.  And having the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  So when their only campaign strategy is to attack and intimidate the opposition because their policies have failed it comes in handy to have a political force at your disposal to put the fear of God into your opponents.  Especially when you can place that political force above the law.  Which it apparently is based on no one being punished for said targeting of conservative groups.

But the people may be tiring of the same failed Democrat policies.  It’s been over 5 years and the economy is still horrible.  Some 10 million people have left the labor force since President Obama took office.  If you add these people to those the BLS counts as unemployed the unemployment rate (at the end of February) would be 13.7%.  Not 6.7% as officially reported.  So there is a lot of dissatisfaction out there.  At least among those who want a job.  And those who do and are paying ever more taxes with nothing to show for it.  So they may vote for the candidate promising tax reform this fall.  Even if it means voting Republican.  As the oppressive IRS is now forever tied to the Democrat Party thanks to their targeting of conservative groups.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Women and Men in the Exact Same Jobs are earning the Exact Same Income

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 13th, 2014

Week in Review

The Democrats are running out of ways to buy votes.  Which they desperately need as more people suffer the ravages of Obamacare.  Who will be entering the voting booth angry this fall.  Looking for someone to blame for taking away the health insurance and doctors they liked and wanted to keep.  And being that Obamacare was passed on purely partisan lines (no Republicans voted for it) the Democrats are sweating bullets as the midterm elections approach.  So they turn to an oldie but goldie.  The pay gap lie (see What pay gap? Young women out-earn men in cities, GOP pundit claims posted 4/8/2014 on PolitiFact).

We watched the debate play out between conservative pundit Sabrina Schaeffer and liberal pundit Elizabeth Plank on MSNBC’s The Reid Report, and again later between former White House adviser Anita Dunn and conservative pundit Genevieve Wood on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper.

“If you compare women to men in the same job with similar background, similar experiences that they bring to the table, the wage gap all but disappears,” Wood said. “Women have made great strides. Instead of celebrating that, this is a political year, the White House wants to portray this war on women…”

PolitiFact has given you the nuts and bolts about the 77 cents statistic — you can read the two most important works in this area here and here. Basically, there is a wage gap, but it tends to disappear when you compare women and men in the exact same jobs who have the same levels of experience and education.

Well, there it is.  Equal pay for equal work.  When men and women have the same education, experience and skills doing the same job there is no pay gap.  Case closed.  In fact, single women without children are actually earning more than single men.  Which is the key to this argument.  For a woman’s earnings fall with interruptions in her career as she takes time off to have children.  Or works reduced hours to care for her children.  This is where the pay gap comes in.  When you compare apples and oranges.  Comparing women who take time off or cut back their working hours or take lower paying jobs that allow her to spend more time with her children to men who don’t.  Because they’re single.  Or are married and have a wife who takes time off to spend more time with their children.

In fact, women are making great strides.  At the expense of men (see Is the Gender Pay Gap Closing or Has Progress Stalled? by Josh Zumbrun posted 4/11/2014 on The Wall Street Journal).

“There’s no question that one of the things that ‘77 cents’ doesn’t emphasize is that there’s been enormous gains,” said Harvard University economist Claudia Goldin.

Looking at the data above shows three clear trends that have emerged since the 1970s:

1) The spread between the sexes narrowed between 1970 and 2000. It has made little progress since.

2) Men have made no income gains in over four decades. Adjusted for inflation, men earn less today than they did in 1972.

3) Women continued to make gains until the recession began. Whatever forces slowed the income growth of men from 1970 to 2000 did not halt the income growth of women.

Simple economics.  Supply and demand.  Men were making more and more every year.  Until the Sexual Revolution.  When women began to flood the labor market.  With more labor available the cost of labor fell.  So as women gained education and experience the supply of educated and experienced workers grew.  Allowing employers to pay less for these now more plentiful educated and experienced workers.  Which is why as women enjoyed income gains men saw their income decline when adjusted for inflation.  Simple economics.  Supply and demand.

A long time ago in high school chemistry I remember my lab partner did not complete a homework assignment that was part 1 of a 2-part grade.  There was a homework part.  And a lab part.  Being a nice person I asked the teacher if we could share the grade on the homework part (which I had received an ‘A’ on.  Or a 4.0).  The teacher was more than generous.  He said, “Sure.  A 4.0 divided by 2 equals a 2.0 for each.”  Or, a ‘C’ for each.  Suffice it to say my lab partner did not get a 2.0 on the homework that went undone.

This is why men are earning less.  Because women have entered the workforce.  The revenue businesses use to pay their employees didn’t increase like the number of educated and experienced workers did.  So the amount of available revenue for pay and benefits was shared by more people.  Each getting less than a man did before the Sexual Revolution (when adjusted for inflation).  So instead of a single paycheck supporting a family these days it now takes two paychecks.  Because men are making less today since women have lowered the price of labor.  By increasing the supply of labor.  Not because they are paid less.  But because there are so many workers for so few jobs that businesses don’t have to pay as much as they once did to hire people.  Which is more to blame for pressure on wages than any pay gap.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Democrats think they can do National Health Care better than Britain despite the Obamacare Website Rollout Disaster

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 30th, 2014

Week in Review

Those on the left settled for the Affordable Care Act.  It’s not what they wanted.  But they think it can, in time, give them what they want.  Single-payer health care.  Or a true national health care system.  Like they have in Britain.  Oh how the left would love to have a no nonsense National Health Service (NHS) in the United States.  A system totally funded by general taxation.  Because that would be better than Obamacare.  And far better than what Obamacare replaced.  Now those who think that are either lying to the American people.  Or are completely ignorant to what’s going on in the NHS.  For the highly esteemed NHS is on life support (see £10 each can save the NHS by Norman Warner and Jack O’Sullivan posted 3/30/2014 on the guardian).

A care and cash crisis is sending the NHS bust. In its present form, a shortfall of £30bn a year, or more, is expected by 2020. Paying off the nation’s deficit means five more years of further deep public expenditure cuts, whoever is in government. So, over-protecting an outdated, cosseted and unaffordable healthcare system inevitably means starving other vital public services, unless we choke off economic growth and worsen the cost of living with big tax increases. That might be worth contemplating if the NHS was offering brilliant care. But it isn’t.

Just look at the thousands of frail elderly people who get the care they need only by queuing in A&E and spending weeks in hospital – the most expensive and often the worst way to look after them. And let’s not forget that the NHS is sleepwalking through an obesity epidemic.

These are truths hidden from public view. Many politicians and clinicians are scared to tell people that our much-loved 65-year-old NHS no longer meets the country’s needs. Frankly, it is often poor value for money, and the greatest public spending challenge after the general election…

Our specialist hospital services should be concentrated in fewer, safer, better-equipped and more expert centres with 24/7 consultant cover and improved transport links…

A new integrated “National Health and Care Service” would pioneer a “co-producing” health partnership between state and citizen, with annual personal health MOTs agreeing responsibilities over the year for both services and the individual. At the heart of this relationship would be an NHS membership scheme, charging £10 a month (with some exemptions) collected through council tax for local preventative services to help people stay healthy.

This is one of several new funding streams urgently needed to renew impoverished parts of our care system but preserving a mainly tax-funded NHS that is largely free at the point of use. We have to escape the constraints of general taxation if we want a decent system…

Just 3.5% of the annual 500,000 deaths lead to payment of inheritance tax. We must expect the elderly, after their deaths, to contribute more. NHS free entitlements, such as continuing care, could be reduced or means-tested and hotel costs in hospital charged, as in France and Germany.

Britain has an aging population.  Fewer people are entering the workforce to pay the taxes that fund the NHS.  While more people are leaving the workforce and consuming NHS resources.  So less money is going into the NHS while the NHS is spending more and more money on patients.  Leading to a deficit that they can’t pay for without killing the economy.  Or taking money away from other government services.

If the NHS was providing quality health care they could probably justify taking money away from other areas.  But it’s not.  The one argument for passing Obamacare was that it would reduce the burden on emergency rooms.  But it’s not doing that in Britain.  The wait times are so long to see a doctor or get a procedure that people are going to the emergency room (A/E in Britain) and waiting for hours instead of waiting for months.  Further increasing costs and wait times.  And frustrating patients.

So what is the solution to a failing national health care system?  Close hospitals and make people travel further for treatment.  And charge them £10 ($16.64) monthly in addition to some of the highest tax rates they already pay to fund the NHS.  So, to summarize, to make national health care work in Britain they need to close hospitals, make people travel further for care, charge them more money and make them wait longer for treatment.  Which is basically the argument against the Affordable Care Act.  It would lead to rationing.  And longer wait times.  Worse, the quality of care will decline.  As it has in Britain.  As it will in the United States.  For we also have an aging population.  And we have about five-times the people they have in Britain.  Which will make our problems five-times worse than theirs.

What’s happening in the NHS is no secret.  Any proponent of national health care no doubt looks at Britain and their NHS.  So they must be familiar with how it’s failing.  Yet they press on for a similar system in the United States.  Why?  If it won’t improve our health care system why do they want national health care?  This is the question we should be asking the Democrats.  Why?  Of course they will say Britain just isn’t doing national health care right.  After all, they’ve only been doing it for 66 years.  So what do they know about national health care?  While we, the liberal Democrats will say, will get national health care right from the get-go.  Because we are just so much smarter than everyone else in the world.

Of course the British could, and should, fire back with, “Yeah?  How did that Obamacare website rollout go?  You’d think that someone who is so smart that they could do national health care right from the get-go could actually build a sodding website that works.”

But, of course, they didn’t.  And the website was the easiest part of Obamacare.  A one and done thing.  And if they couldn’t do that right do we really want these people anywhere near our health care?  No.  Especially when the British are struggling with national health care after trying it for 66 years.  For national health care is apparently more difficult to do than building a sodding website that works.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Democrats want Universal Pre-K so they can start Turning our Kids into Democrat Voters Sooner

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 30th, 2014

Week in Review

As the government has gotten more involved in education the further test scores have fallen.  Indian kids and Chinese kids blow American kids away on their tests.  Which is why employers who are looking to hire employees with strong math and science skills turn to the H-1B visa.  And hire foreign workers with those strong science and math skills.  As American kids aren’t graduating with them.  Instead they’re learning about global warming and what a rotten country the United States is.

So we shouldn’t spend another dime on education.  What we need to do is start teaching useful skills.  Like math and science.  Instead of the primary focus of public education.  Turning kids into Democrat voters.  Which is why Democrats are all for universal Pre-K (see Should the Government Fund Universal Pre-K? posted 3/28/2014 on U.S. News and World Report).

One of the centerpieces of Mayor Bill de Blasio’s successful campaign in New York City was a proposal to fund universal pre-kindergarten with higher taxes on the rich. “We’re ready to offer high-quality, full-day, universal pre-K this September for 53,000 New York City children,” de Blasio said during a press conference this week, even as his plan for a tax increase has run into stiff opposition.

And de Blasio isn’t alone in pushing for government funded universal pre-K, as President Obama has also unveiled a proposal to provide pre-school to every four-year-old from low- and moderate-income families. “The size of your paycheck shouldn’t determine your child’s future,” Obama said. “Let’s make sure none of our kids start out the race of life a step behind.”

The country is more conservative than liberal (see Liberal Self-Identification Edges Up to New High in 2013 posted 1/10/2014 on Gallup).  Which is why Democrats had to pass the Affordable Care Act with shady backroom deals (the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, Gator Aid, etc.).  And the President had to tell the Lie of the Year (see Lie of the Year: ‘If you like your health care plan, you can keep it’ posted 12/12/2013 on PolitiFact).  Proving how devious the Democrats have to be to pass legislation the American people don’t want.

The liberals are destroying public education.  They have control over the curriculum.  And that curriculum is to turn kids into Democrat voters.   Instead of teaching math and science.  Our college graduates may be unable to fill high-tech job openings but they know that their parents’ selfishness caused manmade global warming.  That Christopher Columbus single-handedly killed everything that was good in the New World.  And that America grew into the number one economic power in the world because of slavery.  Despite the South’s slave economy being so poor that they could not compete against the richer paid-labor economy in the North.  And lost the American Civil War.

This is why they want universal Pre-K.  To start the programming earlier.  To get our kids away from their parents sooner.  So the state can have a bigger influence in what they learn.  And what they think.  Does it work?  Well, who do young people typically vote for?  That’s right.  Democrats.  Because Democrats get them while they’re young, uneducated and inexperienced.  Guaranteeing them a few election cycles out of them before they wise up.  And perhaps they can add an election cycle or two if they get these kids sooner with universal Pre-K.  Which can be the only reason why they want universal Pre-K.  At least it would explain our poor test scores.  And why high-tech firms have to use the H-1B visa to find qualified workers.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Lawyers are Anxious to find Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 so they can start the Lawsuits

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 30th, 2014

Week in Review

The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has devastated families of those who were on board.  But some people are absolutely giddy about the missing airplane.  And can’t wait for the wreckage to be found.  Lawyers.  So they can start suing and making a lot of money off of the suffering of others (see Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370: Aviation lawyers flock to China by Peter Ford posted 3/27/2014 on The Christian Science Monitor).

Nineteen days after Malaysia Airlines flight 370 disappeared, search teams have still found no shred of physical evidence to clarify what happened to it or to the 239 people aboard.

But as planes and ships hunt the waters of the Indian Ocean for possible wreckage, lawyers are already scouting for clients at the Lido Hotel in Beijing, where passengers’ relatives are staying.

Holding out the prospect of multimillion dollar compensation deals, aviation disaster lawyers from US and Chinese firms are hovering in the hotel’s coffee shop and corridors in the hope that the biggest mystery in modern aviation history will end with a major payout for victims’ families, and for them…

Mr. Wang, who headed for Beijing as soon as he heard that the plane had disappeared, says he has offered his firm’s services to the relatives of more than 100 passengers on a “no win, no fee” contingency basis, and that about 10 have signed up with Ribbeck…

Equally complex is the question of where any suit against Malaysia Airlines may be heard (though a complaint against Boeing, an American company, would most likely be heard in the United States). While a Malaysian or Chinese court might seem the obvious place, lawyers for potential plaintiffs would be anxious to have any complaint judged in the United States, because “you are looking at a much larger award” there, says Ms. Feng.

This is why they make lawyer jokes.  Call them ambulance chasers.  These are the only people—apart from terrorists— who smile at the loss of life.  Because whenever there is a tragedy it means a big paycheck for a law firm.  Those on the left will call doctors greedy and that they shouldn’t profit on the suffering of others.  Many blaming them for all our health care woes.  Those greedy doctors.  Who the government should force to work for less.  As Obamacare will.  But it should be noted that doctors actually save lives while getting rich.  Lawyers don’t.  They just take the biggest cut of any legal settlement.  Helping themselves far more than they help their clients.  But those on the left have no problem with lawyers getting rich on the suffering of others.  Why?  Because lawyers support Democrats.  And donate money to their campaigns.  Which is why the Democrats will never reform tort law.  Because lawyers and Democrats make a lot of money with these lawsuits.  And they have no intentions of ever changing that.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

Some in Canada consider a Parallel Private Health Care System to reduce Wait Times

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 29th, 2014

Week in Review

People don’t want Obamacare.  And they are getting angry.  Making the Democrats very nervous.  Especially those up for election this fall.  Which is why there is yet another delay in implementing the Affordable Care Act.  To make voters less angry this fall.

This law was never popular.  The American people never wanted it.  The only reason why we have it is because the Democrats pushed it through when they had control of the House, Senate and White House.  And bought off a few recalcitrant Democrat senators (the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, Gator Aid, etc.) to garner the 60 votes necessary to force this unpopular law onto the American people.  So the Democrats could put us on a path towards single-payer.  Which President Obama is on the record preferring.  Single-payer.  But accepted the Affordable Care Act as a means to that end.  So we can one day have a health care system like they have in Canada.  Because things are so much better in Canada (see Waiting times cost B.C. patients $155.5 million last year: Fraser Institute study by Bethany Lindsay posted 3/25/2014 on The Vancouver Sun).

Waiting for medically necessary surgeries cost British Columbian patients about $155.5 million in lost time last year, a Fraser Institute economist claims in a new study.

It estimates that the total cost to Canadian patients of waiting for treatment after seeing a specialist was $1.1 billion in 2013, up from $982 million in 2012. Quebec had the highest cost at $267.7 million.

Author Nadeem Esmail said the report explores a consequence of waiting for care that Canadians don’t often consider…

Esmail said that in order to address the problem of long waiting times, he’d like to see Canada allow more private sector participation in the provision of health care, including the development of a parallel private system…

Overall, British Columbians waited a median 10.4 weeks for treatment after their first appointment with a specialist last year, compared to 9.6 weeks across Canada, according to the study.

Imagine that.  The Republicans were right.  A single-payer health care system leads to rationing of health care resources.  And sick people waiting for their turn for fewer, rationed health care resources leads to, of course, longer wait times.  This is what the Democrats want to force on the American people.  Even when some in Canada are suggesting a parallel private health care system to reduce wait times down from 10 weeks or so.  Which is why the Democrats had to be as devious as possible to pass Obamacare into law.  With shady backroom deals like the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback and Gator Aid.  And then lying through their teeth about being able to keep the health insurance and doctors you liked and wanted to keep.  A lie so bold it earned President Obama the Lie of the Year from PolitiFact.

Will this anger boil over this November at the 2014 midterm elections?  Will voters remember how the Democrats lied and made backroom deals to change a health care system we liked and wanted to keep?  Apparently President Obama thinks so.  Which is why he violated the law once again and extended the enrollment period for Obamacare.  Without having Congress rewrite the law.  To make this latest change in the Affordable Care Act (and the 30 or so that preceded it) legal.  But then again, when the media keeps giving the president a pass on his law-breaking activities what incentive does the administration have to act lawful?  It’s kind of like Vladimir Putin taking Crimea.  The way Putin sees it no one is going to do anything when he breaks the law so what incentive does he have to abide by international law?  If anything he’s probably puzzled why President Obama is saying anything at all.  For what’s a little law-breaking between two law breakers?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

It Appears Obamacare was Designed to Fail so they could give us a Single-Payer System

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 23rd, 2014

Week in Review

The Democrats have longed for national health care.  Because if the government controls health care they control one-sixth of the U.S. economy.  Which means one-sixth of the U.S. economy would flow through Washington.  That’s a lot of money.  And a lot of that can flow into politicians’ pockets.  Allowing them to spend more than they ever had before.  And the best thing about it is that once they get control of it they can scare the people into raising taxes.  “Unless the people tell their Congress members to raise tax rates we will have to make cuts in the national health care budget.  Which means some people won’t get the tests they need.  The treatment they need.  Or the surgery they need.”  Imagine the fear that’ll put into the American people.

So when President Clinton entered office his administration tried to give us national health care.  Hillarycare.  But the people said in no uncertain terms that they didn’t want national health care.  By voting Republicans in everywhere during the 1994 midterm election.  That was the end of Hillarycare.  And President Clinton moved to the center.  While the Democrats noted that if they were going to pass national health care into law they would have to be devious.  Which is what Obamacare apparently is.  A devious plan to get us to a single-payer system against our will (see Why Is the ObamaCare Mandate So Toothless? posted 3/19/2014 on Investors).

Health Care: Some think Democrats designed ObamaCare to fail so they could get to a single payer system. Seems a bit extreme. But it does help explain why they made the individual mandate so easy to avoid…

In fact, of the 30 million uninsured expected in 2016, 19 million will be exempt from the individual mandate, according to the Congressional Budget Office…

On top of this, ObamaCare includes various “hardship exemptions” — some of which appear to be so laughably easy to qualify for that it’ll be a shock if any uninsured pay the tax penalty…

The form even encourages people who “aren’t sure” to “ask for an exemption…”

What’s more, those who don’t qualify for an exemption could avoid the penalty simply by not paying it. Democrats specifically barred the IRS from charging civil and criminal penalties, imposing liens or seizing assets and bank accounts to collect unpaid ObamaCare penalties. It can take it only from a tax refund…

This leaves the question of why Democrats would make a key pillar of the ObamaCare structure so incredibly weak.

Were they worried about the political consequences of making the unpopular mandate too strict, not realizing it would undermine their reform? Or did they know that an ineffective mandate would ultimately wreck ObamaCare, hoping its demise would push the country toward a single payer system?

In other words, were Democrats dangerously incompetent or unbelievably cynical? Neither is a particularly good defense, but each underscores the need to scrap ObamaCare entirely and start over.

The health insurers were all for Obamacare.  At first.  Mandatory health insurance?  Cha-ching.  Easy money.  The government forcing people to buy their policies?  It’s like they died and went to insurance heaven.  But government is full of devious bastards.  The health insurers let their greed cloud that fact.  And now they may pay the ultimate price.  For with all of these mandate exceptions the young and healthy aren’t buying health insurance they won’t use.  Only sick people who will use that health insurance are buying it.  So the health insurers have far too much going out in claims and far too few premiums coming in.  Which won’t help a health insurer stay in business.  But, then again, that may have been the plan all along.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Abenomics didn’t work because Keynesian Economics doesn’t Work

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 16th, 2014

Week in Review

If President Obama and the Democrats had their way do you know what they would do?  All out Keynesian economics.  To the max.  Huge government stimulus upon huge government stimulus.  Keeping interest rates at or below zero so they can borrow as much as they’d like to pay for their deficit spending.  Or just printing the money to spend.  That’s what they’d love to do.  Because they don’t understand economics.  All they know is the politics of Keynesian economics.  Power.  It allows the government to spend far more than any other economic system.  And that lets them buy a lot of votes.

President Obama and the Democrats look at the Chinese with awe and reverence.  They would love to have the power the Chinese communists have.  So they could do whatever they wanted to do.  Just like the Chinese communists do.  And when Prime Minister Shinzo Abe revealed his three arrows of Abenomics the left was impressed.  Large-scale government spending.  Aggressive monetary easing (like all that quantitative easing Ben Bernanke was doing with the Federal Reserve).  And structural reforms.  Government just taking over the economy to fix it and correct all the failings of the free market.  This is what the Democrats want to do in the United States.  Because they are so conceited that only they are smart enough to fix the problems in the economy.  So how has this Keynesian assault worked in Japan?  Not so good (see Blow for Abenomics as Japan’s economy grows less than expected by Rebecca Clancy posted 3/10/2014 on The Telegraph).

Revised data from the government showed that gross domestic product growth was 0.2pc in the three months to December 31 and 1.5pc for 2013…

While the data still marked Japan’s best annual performance in three years, attention will now turn to the Bank of Japan’s monetary policy statement on Tuesday, as weakening growth before next month’s tax hike may push the central bank into a fresh batch of monetary easing measures.

“With Japanese data weaker than expected and their April consumption tax hike imminent, the state of the Japanese economy is cause for significant concern,” said Rebecca O’Keeffe, head of investment at stockbroker Interactive Investor…

Mr Abe swept into power in 2012 on a promise to catapult the Japanese economy out of a decades-long slump, but his policies have met with mixed success.

The weak data hit markets in Asia, with Japan’s Nikkei closing down 1pc at 15,120.14, while China’s Shanghai Composite plunged 2.9pc and the Hang Seng dropped 1.8pc…

While authorities blame the country’s holiday season for the weak results, they add to growing worries about the Chinese economy, with the latest surveys on its key manufacturing sector showing weakness.

Abenomics didn’t work.  Because Keynesian economics doesn’t work.  Government spending and artificially low interest rates just don’t create robust economic activity.  All they create are cronyism.  Malinvestments.  Asset bubbles.  And more painful and longer lasting recessions.  As history has shown.  Especially the deflationary spiral of Japan’s Lost Decade that they’re still trying to recover from.  And the Chinese may follow suit.  For they have nothing but exports.  And you cannot build robust economic activity on exports alone.  You need a thriving middle class.  Which China doesn’t have.

History has shown over and over never to vote for Keynesians.  For their policies never help the people.  They only help those in power.  And their crony friends.  Who get richer while the people get poorer.  The ruling Chinese communists are doing well but the majority of Chinese are still impoverished rural peasants living on subsistence farming.  And President Obama and his crony friends (especially those on Wall Street) have all been doing very well thanks to a booming stock market.  While median family income has fallen during his presidency.  Proving yet again the mistake it is to vote for a Keynesian.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries