Lovely Alert

We've been waiting since Aug, 2017 - DEMs are too full of TDD = Trump delusional disorder

Do you know what are the grounds of impeachment? - click

The Ukraine phone call didn't do the trick - or did it?  However,

there are many, many distortions Pres. Trump can be nailed, but are any THAT serious, true or valid?

The problem:  It is entirely up to Congress to determine what it considers “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” that constitute grounds for impeachment. 

The Senate will do fast trial and come to sensible conclusion.  The trial is necessary to explain away all doubt.  You can now send Mitch a thank-you note for all his work.  Just look at above nav bar for contact politicians button - do it fast/easy way
But there's more to it.

The problem:  If reasons are deemed by public as NOT that serious, true or invalid, the DEM party becomes petty, vicious losers in the eyes of potential voters.

the VOTE is now on - Why?

More on China - HERE    Why is China such a threat?  HERE

What's the Ukraine scandal all about?

The nut of it all:  Why did Hunter get hired?

Just how unethical is it all anyway?

Bill Bar not investigating?  One possible reason.  Remember, Hillary kills.

Another reason.   Mark Levin is calling for a Special Council - why?

Ukraine is now investigating, but what about the USA?  Senator Ron Johnson has put subpoenas on hold temporarily.  Click  So we still have the Senate doing an investigation.  Send your emails/calls to Ron Johnson encouraging him to continue with pressure and enthusiasm.  Easy peasy contact info

NOW WHAT - 2021 ---- $$$$ going to Ukraine - WHAT

Did you hear about the odd Jerk Joe stance on guns being that Hunter owned a gun while addicted - totally illegal.

Did you hear about Hunter and the China sellout scandal?

Hunter and sex abuse to minors - info

RUSH: You’re right. We have an antiquated screen. I mean, the font on this thing is like 1988. You know, like those green screen computers used to be? So I’m sorry. I knew there wasn’t a Sandy Springs, California.

CALLER: No problem. The great thing about Sandy Springs is we created the city a few years ago and privatized everything so all our public employees are private contracted employees, we don’t have pension problems. So we’re not going to have the problems they have out in California.

RUSH: What’s the population of Sandy Springs?

CALLER: It’s about 90,000.

RUSH: Really?

CALLER: That’s correct.

RUSH: You got a privatized city that big?

CALLER: That’s right. We are a model.

RUSH: Did you build from scratch or did you secede from Atlanta?

CALLER: We seceded from Atlanta, that is correct, after 30 years of fighting.

RUSH: I remember this.

CALLER: Yes.

RUSH: We had calls from people in your-yet-to-be-named town on this program, I remember that.

CALLER: Well, it’s been very successful so far, and I expect it to just keep getting better.

RUSH: Are you accepting new residents?

CALLER: Sure.

                 Why you will never win an argument with a DEM.    

RUSH: Yeah, I know.

CALLER: — but this time on steroids, and that’s just going to lead to massive tax increases. Even Volcker was out there yesterday saying we need a VAT tax and an energy tax. We gotta do something about these deficits, but they’re not going to do anything about it.

RUSH: No, because the problem with the deficits is not taxation and insufficient taxation. The problem with the deficits is out-of-control spending by the regime.

CALLER: Right. And they’re not going to do anything about it. It’s just going to be worse, and — as you say over and over again — it’s gotta be by design. And one more point I would like to make.

RUSH: Quickly.

CALLER: I’m all for breaking up these big banks and stuff, but the mainstream media line is that Wall Street took over Washington. That’s wrong. Washington took over Wall Street, and now they’re using Wall Street to take over Main Street.

RUSH: Exactly right. Excellent timing. That’s a great call from Mark in Georgia.

RUSH: All right, let’s put this in perspective out there: $535 billion shortfall in the state pension plans at the state Public Employees Retirement System, the state teachers retirement system, and one other; $535 billion is more than the gross domestic product of Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Switzerland, or Poland? Saudi Arabia is an oil giant. I thought every sheik had $535 billion, but they don’t. Five-hundred-thirty-five billion, unfunded, underfunded pension, how does this happen? And also on a related story: ‘The pension plans at General Motors and Chrysler are underfunded by a total of $17 billion and could fail if the automakers do not return to profitability,’ and they aren’t. Obama Motors reported a first quarter loss of $4.3 billion. Now, what the hell was the bailout if not to protect these pension plans? Wasn’t the bailout of GM and Chrysler essentially to make sure that the unions health care plans stayed intact? What did they do, forget to fund the pensions? They bailed out these companies, what, 25 or $50 billion, they’re still $17 billion underfunded in the pensions?

Now, back to California. $535 billion. It was never real. It could never have been real. The money supply in California could never have been real. They were spending money they never had. It’s almost like the House Bank back in the old days in the late eighties. It didn’t matter what your salary was, you could write a check for an unlimited amount on your account and never get an overdraft notice. It sounds like this is the way the libs in California have been running the state. How come these state pension plans, which include health care, are so expensive, and yet the federal health care system is going to be so cheap? How can the two be in the same sentence? ‘Well, yeah, we’re going to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars with Obamacare.’ Yeah, right. Uh-kuh. And yet just the public employees in the state teachers in California pension, underfunded $535 billion. The truth of the matter is, nobody’s gonna notice if LA closes its offices for two days a week. They’re only going to shut down ‘nonessential’ people right? If they’re not essential why are they there in the first place?

Remember when they closed the government because of snowstorms a bunch of times in Washington and 240,000 nonessential people were told don’t show up, including Congress. If they’re nonessential, why do you employ ’em? Now, they are going to have a problem. There will be people that will notice LA shut down for two days a week, and that will be the poor who line up for their benefits. They’re going to be lining up in front of closed offices. Remember the Rodney King riots? There was a line that they were using in the State-Controlled Media after the Rodney King riots. They called the people standing in line for their welfare checks ‘an example of the indomitable human spirit.’ (interruption) Oh, the poor get their checks through direct deposit now? Well, what if you don’t have a bank? (interruption) Everywhere? Even if you don’t have a bank, they start a bank account? Look, I’m just going to tell you something. Snerdley, if you’re telling me that people don’t line up at welfare offices all over the country, they do. And that’s who’s going to notice it when LA shuts down for two days a week, otherwise nobody will. Now, wait ’til these health care mandates kick in in California. I mean, you think it’s bad now? Wait ’til the Obama health care mandates kick in out there, because the states are going to have to pick up the tab. Because of the health care bill, the states are going to have to pick up an ever increasing share of Medicaid and Medicare.

Thank God Pres. Trump got rid of the mandates!  But what about the  increasing share of Medicaid and Medicare?

Why has VA evidently turned blue?

The white, college-educated, indoctrinated women, voters who worry about health care, and Virginians who said that they strongly disapprove of Trump politics matter a great deal in VA politics.

Meantime, the Republican base has shrunk to just 31 percent of the electorate, a new low in the party’s voting strength.

Another strategic factor is the wide political division between heavily Democratic Northern Virginia and the rest of the state that is largely rural and still generally more conservative.

In the last two decades or so, there’s been a significant migration from the Washington metropolitan urban areas into Northern Virginia, including many minorities who have moved up the income scale and transformed its politics by making the state more Democratic.

Prince William County, for example, has more minorities than whites. In upper income Loudoun County, the white population has declined by almost 30 percent since 2000, while Asians are its largest minority group, making up 17 percent of the county.

The state’s growing diversity was a major factor helping to elect Justin Fairfax as lieutenant governor, the first African American to win a statewide election in Virginia since L. Douglas Wilder won the governorship in 1989.

 Topics like crime, violent Latino “MS-13” gangs, and sex offender issues don’t make the top five list of the voters’ major concerns.  Bread and butter issues are what matters:  education and children's issues, schools, roads,  and wages.

Trump and the GOP can fight against sanctuary cities by cutting off federal funding and sending in federal agents to mandate the cities to follow the law.
Why is he not doing it?

3. Sanctuary cities are “akin to roulette.” “The odds suggest that most illegal aliens detained by officials are not career felons and thus supposedly need not be turned over to ICE for deportation,” writes Hanson. “On the chance that some of their 10,000 released criminals will go on to commit further crimes in the manner of Juan Lopez-Sanchez, officials then shrug that the public outcry will be episodic and quickly die down, or will at least not pose political problems as great as would come from deporting aliens.”

But the odds don’t suggest this. Hanson notes that according to Mac Donald, “Two-thirds of all outstanding felony warrants in the city of Los Angeles involved illegal aliens — as well as 95% of outstanding murder warrants.”

Additionally, Jessica Vaughn of the Center for Immigration Studies found that in a nine-month timeframe in 2014, sanctuary cities shielded 9,265 illegals from deportation, 62 percent of which “had significant prior criminal histories” and 2,320 of them were subsequently rearrested for new crimes, according to Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review.

“There is no telling how many have committed crimes and were never caught,” writes Horowitz. “This is just a nine-month snapshot of the devastation from sanctuary policies. As of last year, 69% of them were still at large. So much for not being a flight risk.”

According to Vaughn, from January 2014 to September 30, 2015, sanctuary cities rebuked over 17,000 detainers, 68 percent of which involved “individuals with a prior criminal history.”

Based on these statistics, it would seem that the odds are against the cities’ residents who could be harmed by criminal aliens, which makes it no surprise that… According to Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, crime has risen in “sanctuary cities” across the nation.

This would make sense given the aforementioned statistics and the fact that there is a clear link between illegal immigration and crime.

5. There are an estimated 300 sanctuary cities, counties, and states, according to Vaughn. The full map on such jurisdictions can be seen here. Do you live in a sanctuary city?  Do you know which states are Sanctuary?  Get informed CLICK HERE

The scientists are a virtual irrelevance in this story: merely the useful idiots of a political agenda.

That agenda is part religion – a kind of pagan nature worship expressed through opposition to Western-industrialized civilization and the embrace of retrograde technologies like wind power.

And it’s part leftist politics and economics: a way by which Europe can destroy and overtake the United States’ economic hegemony by neutralizing one of its greatest competitive advantages – the abundance of fossil fuels which have now made it the world’s number one energy superpower.

You'll be surprised to learn the origins of the global warming rhetoric - click

Below video explains why renewable won't work - oddly, answer is Nuclear

Watch 7/24/21  Pres Trump rally in AZ  HERE  

about election integrity. AZ Audit - so far  = thousands of voter irregularities and discrepancies.  Official results might be released by end of Aug.  Once fraud is proven, then what?

Have you ever wondered why University students are not thinking with all their pistons, aside from indoctrination?   They are actually sick - click

Why are some people leaning toward Socialism?  click       Why hate a Conservative?



The Con Game (19 cons)

In the United States, medical costs have been increasing inexorably for many years, as have the numbers of the uninsured; the latter is currently estimated to be as high as 47 million persons. A single-payer system has long been suggested by some as the most logical solution to the current crisis in health care access and affordability
(1). Under a single-payer health system, the federal government would ultimately be responsible for reimbursement of most medical services provided by clinicians and hospitals. The hope is that a single-payer system will both improve access to health care and reduce health care costs. By definition, under a single-payer system no one would be without health insurance, and cost savings might be achieved through a reduction in administrative expenses coupled with an emphasis on preventive medicine and the universal adoption of electronic medical records. However, I have substantial concerns over whether these potential benefits can actually be accomplished. It is the history of government bureaus to become large and complex rather than lean and efficient. Furthermore, access to preventive care does not equate to individual adherence to the precepts of such care. Finally, I fear that the ultimate toll of a single-payer system will be a reduction in the quality of health care that Americans may be unwilling to bear.

Proponents of a single-payer system argue that government-sponsored insurance would save money by reducing wasteful administrative costs. Yet comparisons of administrative expenditures between private and government-run insurance programs are misleading
(2). Health care workers and union pay are enormous and rising. How to lower health care costs?  Also, the cost of administering a private insurance plan includes the expense of collecting premium dollars, which also applies to government insurance programs such as Medicare. However, this expense does not register on Medicare's budget insofar as a separate government agency (the Internal Revenue Service) performs this function. Furthermore, many states tax premiums paid to private insurers, and also tax their profits; government programs are not so encumbered. Finally, Medicare spends approximately twice as much on claims than most private insurers (older patients consume more services), and administrative expense is expressed as a percent of claims paid. Thus, Medicare looks more thrifty than it really is (2). Estimates of the bureaucratic cost savings under a single-payer system do not account for the expense of administering a greatly expanded Medicare-like program or the price of collecting new employer and individual taxes.

Additionally, administrative costs are only a small portion of health care costs in this country. The main problem is overuse of health care, particularly that involving expensive new technologies and drugs
(3). Even within Medicare, which functions as a single-payer health system for elderly Americans, there are wide variations in health care spending across regions, with little or no gains in quality in regions with greater expenditures
(4). Over-attention to administrative costs distracts us from the real problem of wasteful spending due to the overuse of health care services.

A single-payer system will subject physicians to unwanted and unnecessary oversight by government in health care decisions. With the newfound power to benchmark physicians and regulate payments, the government will inevitably restrict the use of potentially beneficial therapies and pay deferentially for perceived differences in quality, with potential unintended consequences such as increased health care disparities
(5). Without price competition from private insurers, the government will be free to pay whatever it wants for health services. Physicians are already inadequately reimbursed for services provided under Medicaid
(6), and reductions in Medicare reimbursement over the years have demonstrably affected access and quality of care in a variety of health care venues
(7–10). Even lower physician payments under single payer will drive many physicians out of business, further restricting access to care. Decreased reimbursement will also prevent hospitals from investing in new health care technologies or trying innovative new therapies
(11). Allowing government, rather than the free market, to set health care prices is a dangerous proposition.

Despite the general perception, health insurance alone will not overcome the problem of access to health care in this country. Many patients with adequate insurance do not come to their appointments or do not adhere to recommended therapies. Part of what we perceive to be medical problems can actually be traced to societal conditions. How can we ensure, for example, that all pregnant women receive prenatal care? How can we force patients with asthma to use their prescribed inhalers regularly? How can we stop patients from smoking and eating an unhealthy diet? Health coverage and medical advice would yield little or nothing unless patients do their part.

Single-payer health insurance would also lead to rationing and long waiting times for medical services. The adverse consequences of waiting for health services in countries with single-payer insurance are well documented
(12, 13). Access to a waiting list for health care does not equate with access to health care, which is one reason why patients from abroad often prefer to come to the U.S. for treatment. It is unlikely that Americans would welcome these changes.

The strongest argument against a single-payer system may well be the outcomes in states that have attempted to expand health care access through the use of government programs and mandates. TennCare was a widely touted managed-care Medicaid program adopted by Tennessee in 1994 that was characterized as the solution to providing health insurance to most uncovered residents while simultaneously controlling costs
(14). TennCare's subsequent collapse has been attributed to mismanagement and unrealistic fiscal planning, a perhaps predictable consequence of government administration of health care
(15). Massachusetts enacted legislation in 2006 that was intended to move that state to near-universal health care coverage. Indeed, by 2008 some 165,000 more residents were insured through a combination of employer mandates and government subsidized insurance, and overall, almost 93% of non-elderly adults had coverage by late 2007
(16). However, because inadequate (or no) provision was made to expand the provider workforce, many of these patients had no access to care (16), and costs have escalated so far beyond estimates that additional financial support is required
(17)  Instead of adopting universal coverage through single-payer health care, a better approach to the health insurance problem in this country would be to control costs. There are several ways to do this. First, we need tort reform, with limits on allowable law suits and malpractice awards. The practice of defensive medicine has been estimated to add up to $50 billion annually to health costs
(18). Using an example from our own field, does every patient with an abnormal chest radiograph require computed tomography and then positron emission tomography? How many of us feel comfortable not ordering these tests when they are recommended by the radiologist, who is also practicing defensive medicine? Second, we need to increase the use of health savings accounts (HSAs).  A type of savings account that lets you set aside money on a pre-tax basis to pay for qualified medical expenses. By using untaxed dollars in a Health Savings Account (HSA) to pay for deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, and some other expenses, you may be able to lower your overall health care costs. HSA funds generally may not be used to pay premiums.

While you can use the funds in an HSA at any time to pay for qualified medical expenses, you may contribute to an HSA only if you have a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP).  What's that?

What's the difference between the HSA or HRA?

(19), and value becomes an important consideration. Third, all money spent on medical care, including drugs, should be tax-deductible. This will level the playing field for people who do not receive insurance as a medical benefit from an employer. Fourth, physicians should be permitted to charge lower fees for patients paying cash, without financial penalties from private insurers. Finally, retired physicians should be permitted to work at free health care clinics with immunity from malpractice threats.

A government-controlled system is not the answer.  Recent history tells us the government is not best equipped to do that job. Once the government wrests control and dictates the practice of medicine, it would mean the death knell for the medical profession as we know it and the end of what many consider to be the best medical care in the world.