Well, Since Democrats Are Admitting Their Stupidity

This blog has become pretty much just about the Obamoron Gaffe-a-Minute Gaffathon-a-Rama, but today, we have another topic. Back to friggin' "healthcare."

I thought that once the idiot had sealed the crowning, we would no longer hear about the ridiculous stupidity of Democrats. You know, they would NEVER talk publicly about any of their stupid, asinine, ridiculous policies, because normal people are overwhelmingly against them. Boy, was I wrong.

From the AP, by way of Rightwing News: Democrats shaped a set of principles Saturday that commits the party to guaranteed health care for all, heading off a potentially divisive debate and edging the party closer to the position of Barack Obama's defeated rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Wow! The Democrats admit that their 'Anointed One' is a moron when it comes to "healthcare." Shocker that Democrats take the Loser Plan from the Loser Candidate and make it into their party platform, huh?

Also: There was little dissent — or room for it — in the day's meeting and a compromise on health policy took one flash-point off the table.

Another bombshell, the Democrats are stifling dissent! The fact that these idiots are even capable of arranging a meeting stuns me. I keep seeing those old Bennie Hill videos running through my mind every time that Democrats try to get together to discuss their anti-American and Death to the Poor! agenda.

I have just a few MORE words about "Universal Healthcare." I really think that I have covered all of the absolute wrongness regarding the topic. If you are not privy to exactly how many times that I have covered this topic and completely p0wned it, just click the "Universal Healthcare" label at the bottom of this post.

There has been one time in our history where the basic tenets of Socialism were tried, the building of the Panama Canal. If you do not know anything about this task, then read David McCullough's The Path Between the Seas. It not only covers the American success story, but also the French monumental failure. And yes, the French are really, really stupid. Of course, they are European, so their stupidity has proven on countless occasions. If you live in Europe by choice, you are a dumbass. Sorry, the truth is harsh sometimes.

The French tried to build the canal as a private enterprise, which is admirable, but also stupid. The United States built the canal as a public works project and were successful because they completely removed the government red-tape from the process. Of course, the typical government red-tape process was tried from the jump, but was proven to be a French-scale failure. Also, the canal was a government project run by producers that cared nothing about profit, they cared only for the work and the success of the project.

Aside: Most producers are the exact same way, their attempt to make a profit is secondary to the success of the endeavor. Profit comes from SUCCESS, not from corruption. I know that is hard to wrap your head around, Moonbeam, but that is generally the case. (Unless we are talking about government failures like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Social Security, et al, by the way.)

Healthcare in the zone was abysmal under the French because, again, they are dumb and lazy people. Not only that, they were nasty as most Europeans are. They dumped their trash on the streets and had no running water or sewage facilities. Bunches and muches of people died from all kinds of diseases brought on by the European nastiness. There were actually reported cases of the damn Bubonic Plague, but, overwhelmingly people died from Yellow Fever and Malaria.

When the US took over the French's record-breaking failure of the canal, they immediately cleaned the place up and started RESEARCH into the causes of the diseases before one shovelful of dirt was moved. Of course, the US had experienced success in Havana, another place run by nasty-ass Europeans, with eradicating Yellow Fever. We found that it was caused by the mosquito and set about killing said pests. And the disease was reduced to the lowest proportions ever experienced, including in the Continental United States.

You hear a bunch about the death from Yellow Fever and Malaria in the Zone, but that was largely not the case once standards were set by the INDIVIDUALS that ran the Zone. The US government STILL was unconvinced (up until after the end of construction) that the disease was caused by mosquitoes. So, government was not the successful entity in this case.

Also, there were numerous hospitals and a system of healthcare available in the Zone that was overwhelmingly successful. For the educated white folks. The uneducated black West Indians were still dropping like flies and lived under conditions so horrible, it cannot be adequately understood. Yet, even though their conditions sucked, they were still living much, much better than their counterparts at home in Barbados, Jamaica, and Haiti. You know, living the European nasty-ass lifestyle.

The educated folks were hard to come by, so they had to be appeased, the unskilled laborers were a dime a dozen. Literally. The poor black laborers accounted for over ninety percent of the deaths. Shocker than Socialism would kill poor folks, huh?

What I am getting to is the exact thing that will happen under a "Universal Healthcare" system in the United States. It will be, as it always has been and still is in every single place tried, a caste system. Those who have money to BUY medical services will be able to do so, the very best available. Those who depend totally on the government to supply their medical services will receive the lowest form of quackery available. As has always been proven in this arena. Always, there are no exceptions. Sorry, Tim Lin, even Taiwan is the same according to my research. Poor folks die at rates usually five times the rates of rich folks, when "universal healthcare" is tried.

Those that are Pro-Universal Healthcare still have a philosophical deficiency in that they have no philosophy, nor possess the intelligence to construct one. This is the primary problem surrounding a population that has been spoon-fed the ridiculous idea that the government SOLVES problems, when the contrary is the actual proven case.

In the WHO report, the researchers took the statistics given by the countries studied. That is wonderful if there is a standard developed to compare services, however that is NOT the case. Over and over again, the United States infant mortality rate being higher than countries with "universal healthcare" is constantly shown as PROVING the inferiority of our medical system. What is ignored is the FACT that our medical system recognizes any baby born with a beating heart and reflexive movement as a viable child. Other countries standards are not so rigid.

A baby with a beating heart and reflexive movement is our standard in the United States. Remember that.

The fact of the matter is this, the vast majority of babies that do die near the time of childbirth, do so within the first twenty-four hours and infant mortality standards allow for the death to occur in the first year. Of all the countries studied, only one counts those fatalities within the first twenty-four hours as "infant mortality," the United States.

Another great difference is the allowance of low birth weight babies into the count. The definition (by the study standards) of "low birth weight" is described as a baby less than 500 grams or 1 pound 1.65 ounces. Again, the United States is the ONLY country in the study that counts those babies born with a beating heart and reflexive movement as a viable child, there is no weight cut-off.

We will even point out physical abnormalities as reasons for NOT counting deaths in other countries. Again, a baby is considered viable in ONE country if that baby has a beating heart and exhibits reflexive movement. Only ONE country recognizes that standard.

Here's a little tidbit of statistical data for you. Worldwide, the vast majority of babies die in the first twenty-four hours and are not counted in the "infant mortality" statistic. In the United States, only forty percent of our babies that die, do so in the first twenty-four hours and ARE counted in that infant mortality rate. See a difference? Is there any part of the WHO report that is actually significant to real medical statistics or standards? Is there any part of the WHO report, when taken at face value and corrected with actual norms, that doesn't PROVE the utter superiority of the system in the United States? Our worst hospitals are better than the best in other countries according to data provided by WHO and corrected by congruent standards.

Apples to apples comparison proves the United States friggin' rules in the realm of medical services. The final score of the Medical Super Bowl is United States 3x10 to the 20th power, Rest of the World 0. (<--actually the RotW score was negative, but the scoreboard was not designed to record negative numbers. The original engineers of the scoreboard didn't think that negative scores in contests were possible. The original engineers were wrong and the newly hired United States engineers are working diligently to correct the French design and construction of the scoreboard.)

The Infant Mortality statistic has been thoroughly discredited. No, don't thank me, it's just my job.

Please take the time to comment.