Connect with us

Healthcare

The hypocrisy of the healthcare debate

Published

on

Jimmy Kimmel Healthcare Hypocrisy

It never ceases to amaze me… the value the Left places on those who have done little to nothing to earn their way in the world, and the utter lack of regard for those who work hard and struggle because of government interference. The only time liberals adore success is when it comes from a Hollywood Leftist who hasn’t had to struggle to pay bills in years.

This issue manifested itself in the last week as Jimmy Kimmel, the mediocre comedian and late-night talk show host decided he didn’t like the Graham-Cassidy healthcare bill. Many, if not most, true conservatives don’t like the bill either, as it leaves massive taxation in the hands of the federal government.

As JD Rucker, co-founder of the Federalist Party said:

“We’re working on a Federalist plan for healthcare for two reasons. First, the Graham-Cassidy debacle is pseudo-federalism. It only gives a little more say to individuals, businesses, and states when they should have all the say. Second, we won’t make the same mistake the GOP made: being granted control by the people, then squandering it by not having a plan ready from the beginning.”

Well, it’s nice to know SOMEONE has a plan for taking control out of the hands of the inept federal government, because it sure isn’t the GOP and it certainly isn’t the Democrats.

That aside, it’s amazing how Kimmel is adored by the Left for his statements solely because his child needed open heart surgery. Many people’s children need expensive surgeries and other medical treatments, and most of them are in nowhere near as good a position financially as Kimmel is financially to pay for those surgeries out of pocket.

Rucker’s son, Jacob, had a condition much like Kimmel’s son. Here’s what he had to say:

“My son had a similar situation as Kimmel’s. He needed open heart surgery a week after he was born. He was treated by the same doctor in the same hospital. What Kimmel won’t tell you because he either doesn’t know or doesn’t care is that this private hospital funded by private donations has always helped people who can’t pay for procedures. Obamacare didn’t change that. Repealing it won’t change that, either.

“America doesn’t need federal health insurance meddling to protect the most vulnerable. It needs families, communities, and states to work together on solutions that don’t include unelected DC bureaucrats declaring who gets treatment, what treatment they’re allowed to get, and who has to pay for it.”

Health insurance has long been costly, but that’s because the United States has been at the forefront of cutting edge medicine for decades. You get what you pay for, and the American health care system is second to none.

Further, if there is an emergency, no one is denied care thanks to laws already in place and the generosity of Americans, just as Rucker pointed out. The liberal narrative of people dying in the streets is simply not true. I certainly don’t remember finding dead people in the streets prior to the enactment of Obamacare, but I sure know plenty of people who are in despair over being able to pay their healthcare bills since Obamacare became law.

Stories have abounded for years since the Affordable Care Act’s passage that people could no longer afford the health care plans that used to sustain their families. Even if they could, the plans were often found to be “unacceptable” under the terms of the ACA. This of course put the lie to President Obama’s “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” statement which was repeated ad nauseum. Most reporters for most of the major media outlets have glossed over what may be the most blatant lie in modern political history, despite the plethora of stories available that demonstrate Obama’s claim to have been a lie.

The news media and the rest of the liberal intelligencia continually give credence to the distorted views of people like Kimmel, whose stances are in no way based in reality, while ignoring hard working Americans struggling to make it, the very people who have suffered under Obamacare. The reason for this is obvious… The whole debate isn’t really about providing healthcare, nor is it even about who pays for healthcare, which is a separate, but more relevant issue to the healthcare discussion. It’s about what every debate between the Left and their teammates, and the neocons in the Republican party verses actual conservatives is about: it is about control verses freedom. It’s about the government deciding what is best for the individual verses the individual deciding what is best for his or her family.

The Democrats want single-payer healthcare. I don’t think this is a secret. If we can all just accept this basic premise, it will allow for more honest debate. The question is WHY they want single-payer.

Those pushing single-payer will tell you that they do so because they want healthcare to be free for everyone, and for everyone to have equal access to it. The people who push this narrative fall into one of two categories: 1) people who are ignorant and don’t understand how horrible single-payer has been everywhere it has been tried or 2) those who know this, but are deliberately lying.

Single-payer means that the government pays for everything, but because the government is the only one paying, the government also decides what healthcare is worth funding, plus what the patients are worth funding. Many doctors already won’t accept Medicaid because it pays so little. Many doctors do accept Tricare, the military’s insurance, but only out of a sense of patriotism, as it’s often not cost effective to do so. Medicare is equally as problematic as Tricare, but Medicare lacks the patriotism factor to back it up.

Do you think our “best and brightest” will continue to become doctors if they are paid a pittance? Of course they won’t. The greatest healthcare system in the world will no longer exist as we now know it should doctor pay be controlled by the Federal government. Right now, those with means to do so in single-payer countries come here to America to receive medical treatment. Why is that? Because it takes too long to get the treatment they need in their own countries, and because any treatment which is received in their home countries is typically substandard.

The Left embraces the arguments of the Jimmy Kimmels of the world and rejects those of the JD Ruckers of the world for one reason: one argument fits their narrative, the other doesn’t. One argument leads to control over our lives and even our deaths, the other doesn’t.

Hey, Mr. Kimmel- How about a solution where WE control our fates, not the Federal government? Or, at minimum, how about all of the people who have never given a “fig” about WE the people just stay out of our lives? Wouldn’t THAT be a novel idea? Eh, Jimmy?

Still, that would take a miracle: a miracle where the majority of Americans want to do things for themselves, not expecting someone else to do it for them. Far too many feel entitled, and they’re the ones that fall into the first category I spoke above. They are the ones who have called for a soothing lie they so wish to believe, and they’ve done so out of ignorance. Graham-Cassidy IS bad for our country, but not for the reasons Jimmy Kimmel says, and Obamacare is equally as bad. What we need is for the federal government to limit themselves to the powers vested to it in the Constitution. Healthcare is nowhere even close to being a Constitutional power of the Federal government.

Speaking with my father, principled man if there ever was one (I have an upcoming article about that), while I was writing this article, he told me that he didn’t think we could go back to what we had before Obamacare. Or, can we?” If his initial thought is true, then we are on a road with no turns, and full-blown socialism is in our near future… and I see that future. I don’t like it. It looks like Venezuela. Don’t believe me? Wait a few years. You know who you’ll have to thank for that paradise? Media types like Jimmy Kimmel, living happily in their mansions while we the peasants starve. Hardworking businessmen like Rucker who have been through the same situation will have had their warnings ignored.

Benjamin Wilhelm served as a commissioned officer in the United States military for 10 years, serving one combat tour in Afghanistan. He is a recipient of the Bronze Star and Combat Action Badge among other military awards. Ben has worked in a variety of private sector businesses both large and small. He is a former military and civilian firearms instructor and an advocate for veterans issues. Ben is a strict Constitutionalist who sees the Federal government as an out of control leviathan, and the federal debt as a burden that will break the country. Ben is a divorced father of two boys.

Culture and Religion

The Guardian: Pro-lifers are “pro-death”

Published

on

Prolifers are pro-death

Today, on the 45th anniversary of Roe Vs. Wade, The Guardian published an article entitled, “Let’s call pro-lifers what they are: pro-death.”

The article states that the pro-life movement has, by adopting its very name, caused “the battle over reproductive rights” to take on “an apocalyptic tone.” This rhetoric, the article states, “turns every clash between the two sides [pro-life vs. pro-abortion] into a prelude to Armageddon, the final showdown between life and death, good and evil.”

It is only by using debunked and “mythological claim that abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer, lifelong depression and suicide,” the article claims, pro-lifers claim that they are protecting the lives of both the unborn and the mothers. The article does not acknowledge “academic studies dating back to the 1950s show that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer,” as were noted last year in the highly respected journal First Things, nor does the Guardian article acknowledge what psychologists have termed Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS).

“We should take back the mantle of life.”

Using a 2015 article from NPR, the Guardian claims that “the US now bears the ghastly distinction of having the highest maternal mortality rate of all the world’s wealthy democracies.” The Guardian article maligns the maternal mortality rate in the United States, linking the mortality rate with laws imposing abortion restrictions.

Contrary to the article’s claim that maternal mortality rate is directly related to restrictions on abortions, however, the CIA World Factbook shows multiple countries which, having more restrictions on abortion than the US, have lower maternal mortality rates. These countries include Norway, Denmark, Poland, Sweden, Austria, and Germany, to name just a few.

The authors proceed to list various circumstances that may lead to the death of the mother. For example:

“Take the not-at-all-hypothetical case of a woman who wants an abortion because of a pre-existing health condition, like diabetes, that could lead to problems with pregnancy…”

The article concludes with the following exhortation.

“And surely the time has come to raise the charge that the “pro-life” movement is, in effect, pro-death.”

Reference

Let’s call the pro-lifers what they are: pro-death

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/22/abortion-lets-call-the-pro-lifers-what-they-are-pro-deathEver since the anti-abortion movement claimed the “pro-life” label in the 1970s, the battle over reproductive rights has taken an apocalyptic tone. If the anti-abortion side is pro-life, then the other side – the millions of women who rally every January to keep abortion legal and safe – must be composed of the gaunt, gray-winged handmaidens of death.

This polarizing rhetoric turns every clash between the two sides into a prelude to Armageddon, the final showdown between life and death, good and evil. When charged with caring only for life in its fetal form, the anti-abortion side hoists its mythological claim that abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer, lifelong depression and suicide. Thus they can say that they do not only save fetal lives, but the lives of the women who carry these fetuses.

My Take

If I had to sum up a pro-lifer’s response to this article in one word, it would be celebration.

The pro-life movement is the only movement dominated, run, and lead by women; the only movement dedicated solely to saving lives and caring for women. The “pro-lifers” have earned their name with righteous labor and a glorious mission.

This is a battle “between life and death, good and evil.”

The fact the pro-abortion advocates are now attempting to re-frame “pro-lifers” as being “pro-death” shows the world precisely how effective the pro-life movement has been.

Make no mistake: this effort towards re-branding is nothing other than a sign of weakness.

This, I believe, is worth celebrating!

Continue Reading

Healthcare

Fake medical news

Published

on

Fake medical news

CNN won four – count ’em – four Fake News Awards. It’s unfortunate that Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s commentary on the President’s so-called heart disease wasn’t available when the awards were being selected. Then they would have won five. And on the way, they created a new category of Fake News: Fake Medical News.

Let’s get one thing clear here. This isn’t the distance diagnosis of Trump’s “mental illness” that Dr. Bandy Lee, a formerly licensed psychiatrist made. That sort of diagnosis requires that evidence be manufactured. No, this is the process of taking existing evidence and twisting it into something that it isn’t. Of course, that’s standard fare for the Left, so we really shouldn’t be surprised.

Trump Health

The first is the trend of the President’s Agatston Coronary Calcium Score. This is the data. And it’s factually correct. So far, no problem. But right below the data is a false statement.
This graphic, which CNN put up twice during their interview segment with Dr. Gupta has several clear statements. We can’t go Democrat and twist them, so we have to take them at face value. After all, that’s exactly what CNN wants us to do.

“A score of 100+ = High Risk of Heart Attack or Heart Disease Within 3-5 Years”

During the interview, Dr. Gupta admitted that this score is about average for 71 year old men in the US. If the caption was true, then the average 71 year old man in the US is at “high risk” for a heart attack in the next three to five years, and that’s, to quote Rush Limbaugh, “Barbra Streisand!” Yes, they have the “get out of jail free” line “or Heart Disease,” but it doesn’t change the way CNN used the data. They wanted us to believe that the President is on death’s door due to heart disease.

Yes, Dr Gupta flatly declared “The President HAS heart disease.” Had he actually spent time reviewing how cardiac tests are properly used, he wouldn’t have been able to say that. So after consultation with the former Chief of Cardiology at a major metropolitan medical center, we can now properly understand this data.

President Trump is 71 years old. You expect calcium in his coronary arteries at this age. But we don’t know where that calcium is, and that makes a difference. If it’s all in one spot that means something very different from a little here and a little there. Further, CNN flatly lied in their graphic. The proper outlook should have been “moderate risk,” not “high risk.” And with just the Agatston score, you can’t determine the presence or absence of heart disease. It’s only a screening test, and even if your score is over 2,000 – Trump’s is only 133 –  there’s still a 13% chance that you don’t have any coronary disease.

Dr. Gupta could have discovered this information with a simple internet search. It’s all out there. So Gupta’s statement that “Trump has cardiac disease” is coming from either an idiot or a liar… You pick.

At age 71, there’s no reason to even look at a calcium score. All the calcium score tells you is that you need a functional test. What’s that? A stress test! And you may want to add an echocardiogram. But at age 71, those would be routine, so there’s no point in looking at a calcium score. At age 65 I had both, just like the President, and we didn’t bother with an Agatston score. And just like the President, mine are NORMAL. What does this mean?

A normal stress test in a 71 year old male means that the President has a very low risk of any sort of cardiac event for at least the next two years. But Gupta got all excited about risk factor modification. Let’s get real. If his lifestyle has worked for Donald Trump for 71 years and he’s at low risk, what does he really need to change? There’s very little chance that he will ever develop coronary disease.

What things are they recommending? Diet and exercise. Give me a break. Yes, the President could lose a few pounds. That would improve his golf game and make him look better when he’s standing next to Melania. But the calorie restriction high carb diet they’ll prescribe will make things worse, not better. There’s a better way, and Dr. Jason Fung and Nina Teicholz have proved it.[i] Exercise is good for some things, but it won’t help his weight. And the only thing wrong with Donald Trump’s cheeseburgers is the bun. He should get rid of it.

One other part of the problem is that they are pushing statins on him. Statins can lower cholesterol, but it turns out that doing that can easily affect your thinking, since cholesterol is a YUUGE part of the cell membranes in the brain. We also should recall that all those studies that appear to say that lowering cholesterol is good for you seem to ignore all the bad things that the drugs do. In short, if the President just gave up carbs, he’d lose weight and wouldn’t have any need for statins.

So what’s really going on here? We have a neurosurgeon who works for a network that wants to destroy the President giving a message that matches the Left’s party line. He couldn’t be bothered to do his homework and discover that the President’s doctor is right. Trump’s heart is in great shape. And while we’re at it, let’s look at that other thing – the echocardiogram.

Echocardiography lets us get a view of how the heart muscle and valves work. Trump’s echo was – drum roll please – normal. That means that his heart valves are fine. But there’s something more important here. If you have blocked arteries in your heart, areas of heart muscle won’t get enough blood flow and won’t contract properly. They’re called “segmental wall motion abnormalities,” and you’ll see them on the echo. If you don’t have those, you don’t have blocked arteries. That’s called “normal.”

But we’re not done. The Left is grasping at straws. A number of docs are arguing in print that high cholesterol will kill him. As I said before, it’s time to re-read all those old studies. And for the rest of us, read “The Big Fat Surprise.” The actual data simply does not support those claims. A researcher named Ancel Keys simply lied about a host of studies and managed to get his views established as the gospel truth. Only now we are starting to learn why Eskimos and the Masai were able to live for millennia on very high fat diets with zero heart disease, zero cancer, zero high blood pressure, zero obesity, or any of our other modern health problems.

But Dr. Gupta is not the only liar on the Left. Trump takes finasteride to prevent hair loss. Numerous commentators are dropping hints that its documented side effects of sexual dysfunction and depression may be in play. They have no data, but are happy to drop hints about a possible “sudden onset of mental illness.”[ii]

Let’s wrap this up. Donald Trump is in excellent health. Frankly, the only diet change he should make is to dump the buns from his cheeseburgers. And he should dump the statins with them. As Dr. Malcolm Kendrick notes, “Statins might alter what is written on your death certificate, but they are extremely unlikely to change the date.”[iii] We might even suggest that he drop the Finasteride and switch to Rogaine.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta should go back to neurosurgery, a field where he is respected. But don’t count on that happening. CNN likes his way of presenting lies about Trump’s health. So all we can really do is to laugh at them on inauguration day in 2024 when President Trump watches Mike Pence take the Oath of Office.


Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?

Published

on

The Real Mitt Romney

Utah is abuzz with rumors and anxiety over the possibility of a Senate run from former governor of Massachusetts and Holladay, Utah’s own (according to his recent Twitter edit), Mitt Romney. Romney has yet to declare candidacy, but according to a poll on Thursday from radio host Rod Arquette, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee’s favorability among Utahns approximates 60%.

His intentions remain a mystery, but should he toss his hat into the ring, Utahns would face a far more compelling question: which Mitt Romney will we see?

That could depend entirely on his audience.

Utah is a strange place politically. The more I participate in local politics, the more I realize that most Utahns care little, if at all, about policy. Their main concern is personality — and I can prove it.

According to Conservative Review’s Liberty Scorecard, Utah’s federal representation boasts the largest spread within the same party: a 71% gap between Senator Mike Lee’s 100% rating and Senator Orrin Hatch’s dismal 29%. As for Utah’s remaining representatives, Chris Stewart comes in 2nd place with a 70% score, followed by Mia Love with 62% and Rob Bishop with 60%. Recently elected Representative John Curtis is too fresh to merit a rating, but his predecessor, Jason Chaffetz, amassed a score of 78%.

In other words, the same electorate is voting overwhelmingly for candidates with wildly differing philosophies. But the common thread is easy to find: niceness.

Utah may be a traditionally red state, but it’s also a caring state. And when the two come into apparent conflict, Utahn’s typically opt for the latter.

Mitt Romney’s image of clean-cut benevolence is deeply ingrained in the Beehive State’s collective psyche, which is why he can garner a comfortable majority in favorability without hinting at any policy whatsoever — besides his obvious disdain for President Trump.

In fact, Romney’s renewed prominence in Utah most notably stems from his 2016 speech at the University of Utah, during which he rightly condemned then-candidate Trump’s character and personal history. Trump’s lifelong moral despotism and his abrasive conduct on the campaign trail were deep causes of concern for stalwart Utahns, who accordingly panned Trump in the primary (13.82%) and reluctantly nudged him to victory in the general election (45.5%).

Now, a week following Trump’s “bleep-hole” comments about Haiti and African countries in favor of places like Norway and South Korea — comments Mia Love has already condemned — Mitt Romney is again perfectly poised to emerge as Trump’s foil.

But unfortunately, his chances in Utah have little to do with policy.

Now that we know our audience, we’re brought back to the initial question: which Mitt Romney will we see? Whether you like Romney as a person but dislike him as a politician, vice versa, both, or neither, his long-standing reputation as a flip-flopper is unarguably well deserved. From abortion and Reagan to guns and taxes, Romney’s history of political metamorphosis is scrutinously documented.

Not coincidentally, his progressive standpoints persisted throughout his governorship and Senate candidacy in left-leaning Massachusetts, while his conservative reformation occurred just in time for his presidential bids.

Of course, it’s possible that Romney was sincere in his numerous changes of heart — one thing people are entitled to is the evolution of their personal beliefs. But as this is politics, one should be very cautious in attributing motive, one way or another.

The problem is that while Romney painted himself as a Democrat Lite for Massachusetts and a red-blooded conservative for the RNC, there’s no telling what persona he might adopt for a Senate race in Utah beyond that of the “nice guy,” and in politics, words like “nice,” “caring,” and “compassionate” often mean social programs.

Ideological shifts aside, Romney is at best a pragmatist, not a constitutionalist, having proven his disregard for natural rights on matters of health care and abortion — Romneycare was as much a violation of rights on a state level as Obamacare is federally, and his “pro-life” position that states should have “the authority to decide whether they want to have abortion or not, state by state” exhibits ignorance of the sole purpose of the federal government: securing our unalienable rights, even in matters of state nullification.

Romney also experienced backlash from conservatives in August 2017 when he publicly defended Antifa, a domestic terrorist organization, following the horrifying neo-Nazi display in Charlottesville.

In short, Mitt Romney is not good for Utah, nor is he good for liberty. At best, he would establish an elevated moral compass in terms of personal lifestyle, but that’s no excuse to squander freedom.

Romney would most likely amount to no more than another Jeff Flake — a well-meaning, moderate, Mormon Senator, a good man with strong values, who blatantly misunderstands the role of government and the cause of individual liberty.

This has nothing to do with objective opposition to Donald Trump. I applauded Romney’s speech at the University of Utah, and I’ve had plenty to say about Trump’s shortcomings over the past two years.

But the cult of personality is just as dangerous in one direction as another, and if Romney has plans to run for office in Utah, he’s found the perfect base to latch onto a “nice guy,” whatever he stands (or falls) for.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.