Our system needs many fixes, but when it matters most, there’s no better place to get sick.
The most tedious allegation that critics of the U.S. health-care system make is that we spend exorbitantly for poorer results compared with socialized systems in other rich countries. It underpins the Democrats’ ongoing mission to expand Medicare and levy price controls on prescription drugs.
But these critics distort the truth. If a person is going to get sick — and we all are at some point — there’s no better place to do so than the United States.
Government-run systems simply guarantee equal access to long waits for care.
Take Canada, where I grew up. Patients face a median wait of nearly six months between getting a general practitioner’s referral and receiving treatment from a specialist. While the average emergency-room wait time in the United States is about 40 minutes, ER wait times in Nova Scotia averaged two and a half hours this summer — the highest they’d been in four years.
Detractors of the U.S. health system also tend to ignore evidence that mitigates the United States’ poor performance on some health metrics.
For instance, the United States ranks last among the Commonwealth Fund’s eleven rich countries in life expectancy. But the unpleasant truth is that Americans kill each other at a rate seven times higher than in other high-income countries. And no health-care system in the world can revive the dead.
It’s not just homicides. We’re twice as obese as other rich countries. We die in car crashes and from drug overdoses at nearly four times the rate of such peer nations as Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.
There’s also wide regional variation in health outcomes throughout the United States. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that “the life expectancy of Minnesota, a state comparable in size and demographics to Sweden or Denmark, has more similar population health outcomes to these countries than Minnesota has in comparison to Mississippi.”
Then there’s infant mortality, where the United States routinely ranks lower than our peers. Yet countries report births differently around the globe. France counts only the babies born after the 22-week mark, while Poland imposes a one-pound, two-ounce threshold.
In contrast, the United States reports every live birth. And our doctors work to save more premature babies than in any other developed nation. Thanks to superior care and medical technology here in the States, most of those preterm babies survive. And the Herculean effort we undertake to rescue babies that other rich countries don’t even count as live births skews our infant mortality rate higher.
We have prosecutors who won’t prosecute the ‘wrong’ people for their crimes and prosecutors hell-bent on prosecuting the ‘right’ people for what they symbolize.
There is a flip side to the way progressives have perverted the concept of prosecuting crime. It is, in its way, just as insidious as the now-familiar delirium that non-prosecution is the best prosecution.
The flip side is equally the fallout of politicizing state police power. It flows naturally from the conceit that the point of prosecution is to run interference for the Left’s favored groups while penalizing those who oppose progressives. It has only disdain for the quaint idea that we prosecute for the purpose of upholding the rule of law, so society as a whole can flourish.
The flip side is this: When today’s cutting-edge prosecutors do deign to prosecute, the target is ideas, not acts. The objective is not to neutralize those who prey on society, but to frame their acts as part of a morality play: the progressives cast as the guardians of “our values,” and the criminals drawing out contempt more for what motivates them — or, at least, what progressives say motivates them — than for any evil they have done.
This is exemplified by the Kyle Rittenhouse prosecution.
The fact that Rittenhouse, then 17 years old, shot and killed people was not decisive in making his prosecution a national story. More people are routinely shot in Chicago than were shot in Kenosha on that fateful night. And, though not as sedulously suppressed as news of black-on-black violence is, white-on-white violence is usually far too humdrum for the media-Democrat complex to take much notice.
Source: Prosecution and Prejudice
In grad school, I wrote a paper about . Imagine my surprise to see a video on YouTube about the subject that is meticulously researched. As the narrator explains, he is pretty sure it will not be monetized because YouTube does not like educational videos that make people uncomfortable.
Annoy your PC friends:
Source: Aztec Human Sacrifice
One of the questions that arose during the trial, thanks to CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, was related to how this situation would have played out if Kyle Rittenhouse was black. Of course, the insinuation is that he would have been treated much more harshly. Hard leftists on Twitter also made this claim, arguing that a black Rittenhouse would not have been acquitted.Redstate.com
Corporate media outlets are not fanning the flames of racial division for ratings or relevance. The goal is revolution, the rewriting of our Constitution and the dismantling of Western civilization.
“Rittenhouse crossed state lines!”
That rallying cry was no accident. That’s a talking point handed to the useful idiots working inside corporate media. It’s propaganda. So was presidential candidate Joe Biden’s insinuation that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist.
Corporate media’s fixation on defining every human encounter in racial terms is a tactic, not a virtue-signal born of white guilt. It’s a strategy that characterizes America’s 400-year narrative arc as racial conflict rather than a moral, societal evolution.
“Well, if Rittenhouse was black, the police would have shot him on sight, and the jury would have convicted him of murder.”
Breonna Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, fired the first shot, striking a Louisville police officer. Walker was never charged with shooting a cop. He’s viewed as a victim and a hero. On the same day Rittenhouse was acquitted, Andrew Coffee was acquitted of murder and attempted murder charges surrounding his shootout with police in Florida. Coffee is black. He’s a felon. He illegally possessed a firearm.
These lies aren’t being told for ratings and relevance. They’re not told out of guilt. The lies camouflage the agenda. They create the illusion that revolutionaries are really just well-intentioned anti-racists. Anyone who objects is a racist or supports white supremacy.
As I think about all that I’m thankful for this year I realize that, in addition to my wonderful wife, family, friends and Church, there are a number of things that come to mind that have to be placed in the category of “politically incorrect” or even (horrors) the unwoke.
1. Styrofoam cups and take-out containers—I love Styrofoam containers, especially in the winter. I like my coffee to be piping hot and I want it to stay that way to the very last drop. Paper cups just don’t do it, plus I typically have to use two. Also, the best way to be sure that your take-out orders remain hot all the way home is for them to be packaged in Styrofoam. It is truly a great invention. Paper is a terrible substitute.
2. Plastic Grocery Bags—they are clearly the most convenient way to bag your groceries, but they are also sturdy and great for a whole host of second, third, and fourth uses. The most important is, of course, disposing of kitty litter. (We have 4 cats.) Also, as an unintended effect, they take up far less landfill space than paper bags.
3. Carbon Dioxide—As a living and breathing human being I am so completely thankful for CO2. Without it no life on earth, especially mine, would be possible. It is food for all plant life which is food for all humans.
4. Our well protected system of private property and free exchange—without it there would be no capitalism and without capitalism we would all be living in abject poverty.
5. Market generated profits—The biggest single driver for people to provide goods and services for others (like me and my family) are profits. If it weren’t for the lure of profits and the ability to earn and keep them, we wouldn’t have any of the great material advantages in our lives—great technology, warm and comfortable homes, inexpensive transportation to all parts of the world, tremendous medical advances, you name it. None of these things would exist without the possibility of producing them for a profit.
6. Market entrepreneurs—These are people who are constantly on the look out for better ways to satisfy the needs and wants of others. And when entrepreneurs are successful, we are all made better off. Great entrepreneurs that I’m particularly thankful for include John D. Rockefeller, whose market insights and innovations drove down the price of kerosene in the late 1800s by almost 70 percent, making lighting affordable to the masses and giving them a life after sunset. As an unintended consequence he probably did more to save the whale than any single human being that ever lived. I’m also thankful for Henry Ford for figuring out how to make relatively fast personal transportation—the car—affordable to people other than the rich. Others who I’m especially thankful for include Sam Walton, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. What all of these great entrepreneurs have in common is they figured out ways to bring what were once luxury goods to the middle and lower classes at very low cost.
7. Millionaires and Billionaires (especially billionaires)—Because they love profits these people put all of that extra wealth in investments which add to the country’s stock of capital and provide a more prosperous future for everyone.
8. The Petroleum and Coal Industries—For providing the affordable and always available energy that makes every aspect of my material and physical wellbeing possible.
9. The Second Amendment—While I have never owned or even shot a gun I am, without a doubt, more protected from both criminals who may attempt to harm me and a government who may try to take away my other rights, when my fellow law abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms is protected.
10. All heterosexual couples—For perpetuating the human race for about 300,000 years now and generating the most important resource on the planet—the human mind.
In the aftermath of the Rittenhouse trial there are a bunch of posts like this floating around social media. They all work off the same talking points so they are basically interchangeable. These are all being shared to bamboozle the gullible and shore up the dedicated idiots. I picked this one because of how many lies and distortions it packed into one post. Going into detail on all of his fuck ups would take a book, so this is kind of a turbo fisk, and it’s still long. I know I’ve got a ton of lawyers who read these, so if I screwed anything up let me know.
As usual, the idiot I’m fisking is in italics. My responses are in bold.
From a military legal worker:
– after you read this you’ll agree that’s almost certainly a lie or a bit of exaggeration.
Some Democrats Have Had It With The Gender Insanity
Democrat Kara Dansky writes at — surprise! — The Federalist:
It is not an exaggeration to say that the United States is in crisis about the meanings of the words sex and gender. We are all victims of this crisis, but the primary victims are women and girls.
Feminists have a saying: we cannot protect women and girls on the basis of sex if we cannot say what sex is. My hope is that lawmakers across the political aisle will get a grip and right the wrongs that have been perpetrated in the name of “gender identity.”
Every single human being is either female or male. No one “is transgender.” It’s long past time that lawmakers across the political aisle and members of corporate media said so.
Kara Dansky is a feminist, lawyer, and advocate, and the author of the new book, “The Abolition of Sex: How the ‘Transgender’ Agenda Harms Women and Girls.” She currently serves as the president of the U.S. Chapter of the Women’s Human Rights Campaign.
Here’s an interesting video that was brought to my attention by commenter “DNW”:
I wasn’t previously familiar with Ana Kasparian, the woman speaking in the video, but <ahref=”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Kasparian”>apparently she’s a fairly prominent leftist “journalist”:
Anahit Misak “Ana” Kasparian; born July 7, 1986, is an American progressive political commentator, media host, university instructor, and journalist. She is the main host and a producer of the online news show The Young Turks, having begun working as a fill-in producer for the show in 2007. She also appeared on the television version of the show that aired on Current TV. She formerly hosted The Point on the TYT Network and currently co-hosts a Jacobin YouTube show, Weekends with Ana Kasparian and Nando Vila.
The clip is noteworthy for a couple of reasons. The first is that she is admitting that until now – which is well over a year after the events in question, events that have been discussed and analyzed incessantly and for which much accessible video has existed almost from the start – she didn’t know one of the most basic facts of the case, which is that Rosenbaum (who was killed by Rittenhouse) was chasing Rittenhouse and not the other way around.
THE PURDUE STUDY:
Several years ago I corresponded with Dr. J. Eric Dietz, who, with the help of three co-author/students, was working on a study on how to mitigate active shooter attacks. What security measures, the study sought to answer, were effective in stopping attacks, or at least, in minimizing casualties? Dr. Dietz let me know when the study was done. A download is available here.
Those wishing to be informed about the methodology of the study should download it. It is only 25 pages long and very readable, even for the scientific layman. Basically, the study used computer modeling based on data from actual school attacks to determine which of four scenarios would be most effective:
Scenario 1: A normal school. No access control or security present, no one carrying handguns, concealed or otherwise.
Scenario 2: A school where 5%-10% of the staff are carrying concealed handguns.
Scenario 3: A school with an assigned school resource officer–an armed police officer.
Scenario 4: A school with a school resource officer and 5-10% of the school staff carrying concealed handguns.
The study correctly controls for common variables and influencing factors, and there has been very little media coverage or scientific criticism of the study. Dr. Dietz was interviewed for a brief, local news article:
For the past year, Dietz and his students have used data from real-life events including the Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook Elementary tragedies to analyze further. Research shows it takes, on average, 12 minutes, for police to respond to a school shooting in the United States.
Dietz said it’s the reason why every second counts.
They found adding one armed school resource office in school could reduce response times by 80-percent. Casualties dropped by nearly 70-percent.
Researchers also determined arming up to 10-percent of a school’s teachers and faculty could decrease casualties by 10-percent.
‘We have to put everything on the table and try to get emotion out,’ said Dietz. ‘We’re not looking to arm schools and we’re not trying to create gunfire fights in schools. We’re just looking at it with a police and science point-of-view and how we can benefit children in schools.
Imagine that. I suspect the very absence of criticism is a sign anti-liberty/gun proponents—which is much of the Media–-do not want to give the study any publicity. When the Clinton Administration did a study on the defensive use of guns in the hope of finding justification for gun bans, they were horrified to find Americans use guns to stop crimes up to 1.5 million times a year, commonly without firing a shot. They did everything they could to disown and bury the study. Fortunately, they failed.
Source: School Attacks: #6 of a series