Conservative Boot Camp

I found this posting at American Thinker. I thought this was a light-hearted, yet telling poke at the press which is working so hard to insert itself into the political process this election season. A tip of the hat to the poster, BillG at American Thinker.

Someone sent this to me. I do not know the source. I think it is sadly funny.

TODAY’S MEDIA

A man is walking through the zoo when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion’s cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside the cage to devour her right in front the her screaming parents. The man runs to the cage, hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch. Whimpering from the pain, the lion jumps back, letting go of the girl. The man then returns her to her terrified parents.

A reporter has seen the whole scene and says to the rescuer:
“Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I saw a man do in my whole life.”

“Why, it was nothing,” said the man. “Really, the lion was behind bars and I knew God would protect me just as He did Daniel in the lions den long, long ago. I just saw this little kid in danger, and I acted in the way I knew was right.”

“I noticed a Bible in your pocket. Are you a Republican,” asked the journalist.

“Yes, and I’m a Christian on my way to a Bible study,” the man replies.

“Well, I’ll make sure this won’t go unnoticed. I’m a journalist and tomorrow’s paper will have this on the front page.”

The journalist leaves. The following morning the man buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on first page:

“Right Wing Republican Christian Fundamentalist Assaults African Immigrant and Steals His Lunch.”

Posted by: BillG | June 29, 2008 06:18 PM

Well, here’s another sad story from socialised medicine land - Great Britain. Man has cancer and is denied a treatment that will extend his life and make him more comfortable. It’s expensive and the local NHS trust looked at his age (77) and his prognosis (poor) and denied him the treatment. He wanted to pay the cost privately, but was told that to do so would force him to pay for all of his treatment.

Poor fellow wrapped a plastic trash bag around his head and suffocated himself. Sad stuff.

What is particularly telling are the comments that accompanied the story. Please read these comments and as you do, realise that all but one of them come from people who are stuck with this system. I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting some of the comments to provided emphasis. Note the one comment that is especially highlighted with italic and special emphasis. It’s the one lone person supporting the actions of the NHS. I’d be willing to bet that the commenter is a younger man who is in good health. He’s very cavalier about life and death - obviously he’s not faced any health crises of his own - yet. Let’s check back with him in a few years and see if he’s still so pro-health rationing.

IVF and sex changes are NOT life threatening, they are lifestyle choices, yet you can get them on the NHS. Why them and not for this which most definitely is life-threatening.
- Phil, Chelmsford, England, 24/6/2008 5:43

What’s the point in working all your life and paying taxes etc and when you really need something like this you get refused? I hope Brown and all his sidekicks needs something to save their lives including all these health bosses and they get refused, all they think about is lining their greedy god-damn pockets!
- Sheila, Sunderland, 24/6/2008 5:50

I do not know how NHS managers sleep at night - it must be because they have no conscience. They do not see things from the front line like the medical staff as they are in their offices. I spent a week in hospital nearly two years ago and saw bed managers bullying nurses in order to try to get them to discharge patients early. I’ve seen jobs for bed managers advertised on 37k a year salaries, which makes a mockery of the dedicated staff who have spent years studying and training for the good of the patients. Between that and the way the NHS treats people with serious illnesses it is a scandal.
- Linda, Fife, 24/6/2008 6:00

We can’t fund this yet we give six billion pounds a year to the EU (soon apparently to be ten billion) to subsidise other countries. Incredible.
- John, Harrogate,UK, 24/6/2008 6:03

My sympathies with Albert’s family. Who has the right to play ‘God’ are they doctors or just men in suits? Seems like the NHS is being run like the government and councils by faceless useless inhumans.
- Karen, ex pat USA, 24/6/2008 6:17

This is awful. How dare this man be refused treatment. There is something seriously wrong with the NHS. I’ve lost two people in my family over the last 12 months because of the NHS. It all boils down to money and I’m sick of it. They are gambling with people’s lives. The destruction and devastation of the families to who have to sit back and watch their loved ones die is absolutely soul destroying. Something HAS to be done about this.
- Anon, UK, 24/6/2008 6:19

Outrageous - this lousy government with its health commissars spending billions on administration from increased National Insurance contributions and leaving patients at the end of the line being denied life-giving drugs that are routine in the rest of Europe. I hope Barrie and Albert had a Civil Partnership so that there is no question of Inheritance Tax being levied and pension rights denied as was my fate when my partner died of kidney cancer in 2005 three month’s before the Civil Partnership Act came into force after Brown delayed its implementation.
- Chris Wyatt, Manchester UK, 24/6/2008 6:22

Death by Socialism.
- Mr. J. Smith, Birmingham, England, 24/6/2008 6:28

ABSOLUTELY DISGRACEFUL! My Dad had cancer in 1977 and then the doctors/hospital could not do enough for him, there was no such thing as primary care trusts and the hospital was clean and nice and the food (not that he could eat any, he had stomach cancer) was wonderful and the wards were kept clean and tidy.
- Roz Benfield, West Sussex, 24/6/2008 6:30

And why, if a patient is able and willing to pay for the drugs themselves, are they then refused ALL NHS treatment?? Tragic. My condolences to Mr Baxter’s partner and family.
- Linda, Birmingham, 24/6/2008 6:34

What is the NHS for if it refuses to give out drugs? What happened to health care for all? I would like to know if the NHS can refuse treatment can we refuse paying into the system?
- Tony, Dartford, Kent, 24/6/2008 6:39

Enough is enough. We contribute to a system that is ‘Free at the point of delivery’ - whatever that means. We don’t get reduced contributions based on post code. Someone has to take the NHS, the Government, whoever to Court to get a ruling on this very unsatisfactory ’system.’ Our thoughts must be with those and their families, who are treated this way. Disgraceful.
- Mike P, Leeds, England, 24/6/2008 6:46

This is so sad. How can you put a prize on someone’s life like that? Refusing him the drug but then giving it to someone else.
- H.Gray, Kent, 24/6/2008 6:56

An absolute disgrace, I hope the decision makers rightly feel responsible towards his death. If he offered to meet the cost, why should all other treatment be refused?
- Paul, Portsmouth, 24/6/2008 7:22

How is it that the government can dish out 8,000 pounds yearly for for Muslim extremist and terrorist Abu Qatada and 45,000 pounds a year for his wife’s childcare benefits leaving this guy with nothing? Unbelievable.
- adam, Saratoga, California, 24/6/2008 7:30

How very very sad. How can they do this? If it isn’t enough that you know you are terminally ill and then you have this to cope with. Expressing their condolences to his family is just not good enough!
- jenny mccabe, newport, shrops, 24/6/2008 8:04

25 grand doesn’t sound too much, but multiply that by thousands for all the other cases, and the trusts simply can’t afford to ’save’ everyone, as barbaric as it sounds. So of course, priority will be given to those who are younger. - Adam, UK, 24/6/2008 8:08

This is truly awful. These folk have paid in to the system all their lives, to be told NO you can’t have it. Now MPs want their salaries raised, they (MPs) should have been made to fund the treatment.
- Albina, Harrogate, United Kingdom, 24/6/2008 8:26

Money is more important to the non-medical people running our Health Trusts. They gather in massive pay packets for themselves and leave the people on the front line and the patients who have paid in all their lives for treatment with nothing. They should be ashamed of themselves. Shame on them. This poor man. Believe me the medical staff are fed up with non-medical administrators, coming up to them and telling them how to do their jobs! If a patient is recommended by their Doctors to have a certain course of treatment it should go ahead and not turned into a ‘Court Of Enquiry’!
- Rob, Surrey, UK, 24/6/2008 8:32

More evil from the Labour Party.
- John, London, 24/6/2008 8:37

This is truly shocking. I have to agree with Phil re. IVF etc. I can’t begin to imagine how Albert’s family feel and the desperation he must have felt.
“Would not improved his condition” but happy to take £25k from the man.
- Teri, Merseyside, 24/6/2008 8:38

What a complete disgrace! You spend your life paying into a system that lets you down when you need it most. I could weep for this poor man, who must have utterly hopeless. I think we should be able to sue our local trusts for neglect when this sort of thing happens. It is not acceptable.
- Mel Davis, London, 24/6/2008 8:40

Come the next election, I will reserve my vote for whichever party offers us a guarantee that we will ALL receive the necessary medical treatment and drugs to prolong or save our lives. And if this does not happen, then I will abstain from voting.
- Elaine, Banbury, 24/6/2008 8:45

Are you reading this Michael Moore?
- Paul, Bucks, England, 24/6/2008 8:45

Why exactly are we refusing to pay for cancer treatments for UK nationals but prepared to pay for lengthy and expensive HIV treatments for non-UK nationals?
- Housewife-43, Wales, 24/6/2008 8:46

This article in the Telegraph UK points out the lunacy of single-payer socialised health care. It discusses the anticipated announcement by the Tories of their proposed changes to the National Health when they assume power. In the announcement we learn that:

“The Conservative leader will reveal that an extra 38,000 lives a year would be
saved if the country’s healthcare system performed in line with the
international average. If results improved to match the best in the world,
more than 100,000 lives would be saved.”

38,000 people - the size of a mid-sized town, or suburb or the student population of a large university, die each year because they have this second-rate health plan. That’s a lot. Scaling that number up to the size of the US, we would be losing 190,000 people a year. That’s a lot. It’s almost 4 times as many people as we lose in road accidents per year. And they die because of socialised medicine.

Why do they die? Well, it’s because of the waiting lists to get services. It’s because of the poor sanitation. It’s because of the denial of services inherent in rationed systems. It’s because care is denied to the elderly, the really sick, the obese, those who smoke, drink or engage in lifestyle choices that the system determines are bad. It’s because those who pay for care outside the National Health are denied future care, even though they still pay for it through their taxes. It’s because socialised medicine just doesn’t work very well.

In Britain, they currently spend around $3K per year per person. Their estimates are that they’ll be spending closer to $3.3K per year per person by 2010, with no change in outcomes. If we spent comparable amounts per year person, we’d have spent $884 billion in 2007 and we’d be at $1.1 trillion by 2010. About a third of our federal budget would go to health care. It’s not something that we can afford.

Please read this article. It’s posted at WorldNetDaily and gives you just one more reason to fear the universal government-run health strategies being suggested by modern liberals. The story centers around the need for the government-run Medicaid program in Oregon, as administered by a contractor, to deny cancer treatment to an individual while offering to pay for an assisted suicide. Read this and weep - if you vote in a modern liberal and vote in modern liberals in Congress, this will become a more frequent occurrence. Adding 49 million people to the health care system, the number estimated by both Clinton and Obama during the election, without a corresponding increase in providers will force waiting times and service rationing on a massive scale.

Will you be one of the ones denied? Will it be a family member? Will it be a friend? You can duck your head in the sand all you want, but the stories from socialised medicine systems are unequivocal - there will be waiting times and service rationing.

This idea has been brewing inside my head for a while now. It has to do with whether or not the 22nd Amendment should be modified. As you know, the 22nd Amendment was crafted following the unprecedented Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was elected to four terms in office, although he died before completing his fourth term. The 22nd Amendment was designed to limit the time any one person could spend in the office of President to two four-year terms or one four-year term in the case of a person who had, as Vice President, succeeded a sitting President for more than two years of that sitting President’s term. Technically, a person who as Vice President succeeded a sitting President, but served less than two years of that term would still be eligible for two additional four-year terms in office.

OK, with the technical part out of the way, let’s look at what our history has been since the 22nd Amendment was ratified in February, 1951:

• Truman - served most of FDR’s fourth term and one of his own
• Eisenhower - served two full terms
• Kennedy - served a little more than half a term
• Johnson - served the balance of Kennedy’s term and one full term of his own
• Nixon - served one full term and resigned a little more than halfway through his second term
• Ford - served the balance of Nixon’s second term
• Carter - served one full term
• Reagan - served two full terms
• Bush 41 - served one full terms
• Clinton - served two full terms
• Bush 43 - presumably will serve two full terms

Now as survey that list, I see that five Presidents in the past 57 years have been elected for more than one term, whether they completed it or not. That’s out of 11 people who’ve held the office in that same span of time. Of the two-termers, Eisenhower is the only one who wasn’t under threat of investigation, impeached or resigned. I’m holding Bush 43 in abeyance for the moment because it’s too early to tell. Of the Presidents who could have served another term, Johnson did not seek another term in office, Ford lost, Carter lost and Bush 41 lost.

Focusing on the last three two-termers, Reagan, Clinton and Bush 43, all three have come into significantly difficult periods of scrutiny while in office with Clinton actually being impeached though not removed from office. Reagan had the Iran/Contra scandal to work through and spent a fair amount of his time and energy defending his actions in that. Clinton and/or his wife were almost continuously under the microscope for misdeeds of one sort or another. Bush 43 has faced constant assaults on his nominees and appointees since he rose to the office.

My central thesis for this post is that maybe, just maybe, it’s time to re-visit the two term idea and talk about a one term Presidency. The only way that a person could serve more than one term would be to succeed a sitting President but serve less than one year of that term. Why do I propose this? Well partly to stir thinking about the issue, but partly because it seems as though the full two term stretch of eight years is too much for the way our political system works in today’s environment.

It seems to me that the real legacy of two terms in office is that eight years is long enough for people to be really sick of you, especially in a world in which news overload is a problem. Given that the “loyal opposition” begin hammering at a President even before their inauguration, and given that there are now news sources with 168 hours of time to fill a week, and given that reporting has dropped any pretext of objectivity, it’s bound to happen that a two term President is likely to become a liability to the Nation long before their second term has expired. It happened with Reagan, it happened with Clinton, it’s happened with Bush 43. Is it really in our best interests to leave leaders in office long enough for a majority to strongly dislike them? Does that practice provide the most stability for us as a nation? Are we content to lurch from crisis to crisis rather than to plot a smoother, straighter course?