I got a copy of this email sent out by Congressman Pomeroy's office this morning (no, I'm not on the mailing list) to someone I know, detailing a problem he has with Medicare funding and its impact on rural medicine. Apparently a new requirement of having routine therapeutic services performed by a nurse or other professional will only be reimbursed if "a doctor or mid-level practitioner is physically present," instead of within 30 minutes of the hospital. Obviously this is not good for the practice of rural medicine in many cases.
Congressman Pomeroy makes a good point. I won't disagree with him on that. There is, however, an even stronger point brought up by this last paragraph in his email:
I have been in touch with CMS and the Administration to make clear that this new rule is not acceptable, and I’m going to keep pushing them to resolve this issue. This policy might be just fine for hospitals in New York City and other urban centers, but here in North Dakota, this cookie-cutter approach is exactly the wrong way to go about it.
I think many North Dakotans would agree with you, Congressman. Why is it, then, if something so relatively small as a reimbursement requirement for therapeutic services is so unacceptable and worthy of a fight, do you want to support your party's unwanted, unconstitutional "cookie-cutter" approach to nationalizing health care entirely?
Congressman Pomeroy has been dutifully following his political party's lead and voting at Nancy Pelosi's behest to force a "cookie-cutter approach" to the federal government's takeover of the nation's health care system. Doing so would force North Dakota to abide by the same bureaucratic nightmare as "New York City and other urban centers," and that's justifiable to Congressman Pomeroy? Does he actually think rural North Dakota would have any influence in such a system or how it's designed?
But now he's going to act all indignant and promise to fight because of a reimbursement criteria that does the same? This relatively insignificant issue will become irrelevant if he keeps voting for the federal government's takeover of the entire healthcare system!
This is just one more example of the fact that, for liberal Democrats, "health care reform" is not about health care, health care funding, health insurance, or health coverage. It is about power. It is about pushing this country so far into European style socialism, even at the expense of a number of political careers, that it will be impossible to bring it back. For them, the health care system is simply a tool, the blunt instrument by which they will bludgeon this country into irreversible mediocrity and bureaucratically induced suffering. How do you think that affects North Dakotans, Congressman Pomeroy?
[ add comment ] ( 6 views ) | permalink | Click a dot to rate this entry: ( 3 / 366 )
This fella (and his roommate, who was barking in a different corner) now stands taller than the fence meant to contain him. If you thought that BEWARE OF THE DOG sign was serious before, I'm sure you'll be on the lookout now! My guess is that neither of them have any intention of leaping over the chain link, but one can't be took careful.
[ add comment ] ( 6 views ) | permalink | Click a dot to rate this entry: ( 3 / 456 )
A few posts back I mentioned a photo in which the plumes of steam from the
[ add comment ] ( 14 views ) | permalink | Click a dot to rate this entry: ( 3 / 402 )
According to this article, self-proclaimed "budget hawk" Gaylord Kent Conrad, on-paper resident of North Dakota, wants to bridge the gap between his spending and government revenue from the taxpayers by...yes, another tax!
Chairman Kent Conrad, D-ND, raised the point during a hearing Wednesday, Feb. 24, on the subject of President Obama’s recent budget request for 2010-11. Conrad highlighted some of the options.
“And these include increasing the gas (fuel) tax; charging for each mile traveled; adding more tolls; continuing general fund transfers, which I strongly oppose; and identifying other funding sources,” Conrad said.
“Now let’s be frank, none of these are popular options. But we have to find a way to close this funding gap. We are going to have to start making tough choices.”
First off, it would be hilarious how Kent Conrad keeps claiming to be a "budget hawk" if it wasn't so sad, and the consequences for our nation so dire. But the way he wants to bring those budgets into line is never by cutting government spending! It's always about bleeding the taxpayer a little bit more.
Imagine what that's going to do to rural North Dakotans that have long drives to get into town, or the farm families Kent Conrad claims to represent when he leaves his million dollar beach house, bought at a cushy rate from Countrywide Financial, to fly back to North Dakota for a bit and pretend he's representing North Dakotans for a while. How about poor people who can't afford newer, more fuel efficient cars? It seems that the people these Democrats claim to stand for are always the ones who take the biggest pounding as a result of Democrat policies!
Uh oh...you mean that beach house in Delaware didn't show up on his required financial disclosure reports? Say it ain't so, Gaylord! Hm...it seems that he has stricken his real first name from even his Wikipedia entry. It's the "G" in GKC, the name of the corporation he set up and to which, for the sum of one dollar, sold the apartments he uses to claim North Dakota residency on paper for himself and Senator Byron Dorgan so they can run for re-election.
We can't get this tax-hungry crook out of office fast enough.
[ 2 comments ] ( 23 views ) | permalink | Click a dot to rate this entry: ( 3.1 / 377 )
pu·sil·lan'i·mous: adj. contemptibly timid.
par'ti·san: adj. disagreeing with Democrats.
Liberals are wordsmiths. They have to be; they have no ideas of worth, a predicament demonstrated by their inability to come out and simply say what they want to achieve and why. The very term "liberal" itself characterizes their craft, in that it used to have a good connotation until it came to mean them. With that the case, they shriek and recoil with revulsion when described as "liberals" and instead cling to the term "progressive." Of course, once that term gets connected with them and their ideology, they'll have to jettison it in favor of another trendy label. They will probably always have one label for their enemies, however: "partisan."
The term "partisan" has had its own negative connotation as well, often meaning someone who reflexively or instinctively clings tenaciously to one side of a disagreement. Perhaps that was a bad thing in the distant past, but these days the policies of the left must be reflexively and instinctively opposed. If we'd had some ferocious partisanship opposing the New Deal, the Great Society, or other such failed entitlement programs before they were enacted, we might not find our nation up to its eyeballs in debt!
When liberals are faced with a debate of ideas, they immediately change the game to one of name calling. It makes sense when you take into account that they're really in the branding business. That's why we have a litany of legislation with titles totally opposite of the substance of their text. That's also why they label their advocacy groups with such innocuous name as Centers for the Public Good. Since ideas, at least ones that survive in the realm of sanity, aren't their strong point, they instead resort to bludgeoning their opponents with insults. Their favorite, of course, is "partisan."
I'm happy to be labeled a "partisan" if it means I oppose liberal Democrats at every turn. For politicians on the right, however, it seems to be the worst sort of punishment one could be asked to bear. For decades Republicans have cowered in fear of being branded as "partisans" by the liberal Democrats and their advocates in the media. Having bought into the lie that "moderates" will turn in distaste from anyone perceived as a partisan, these Republicans shrink from the term as a vampire would from a brandished crucifix. It's no wonder we conservatives decry the absence of leadership on our side. Nobody seems ready to stand up to - gasp - the labels wielded by the liberal Democrats!
For those of us who simply want to work our jobs, live our lives, practice our faith, raise our children, and have the government impede us as little as possible, only one term can suitably describe these sissified Republicans: pusillanimous. Their contemptible timidity saddens those of us who count on them to champion our cause, stand up for our Nation and its founding principles, and stand guard against further bureaucratic government into our lives. Rather than fighting on our behalf, they're dithering and dodging in the hopes that everyone in the establishment will like them. That is not a sign of character, and it's certainly not leadership.
Show me a candidate for local, state, or national office who has the guts to come out and say, "I oppose abortion and will be a fierce partisan in my stand against the murder of innocent children in the womb" and I'll be chomping at the bit to give that man or woman my vote. The same goes for issues such as national security, tax reform, border security and immigration enforcement, or the myriad rights which the leftists are trying to strip from my fellow citizens and me in total defiance of the Constitution. I want a partisan.
The leftists have their fierce partisan fighters...where are ours? We seem to be the only side with defectors in this war for the future of our nation, culture and heritage! For instance, I was sickened by Sen. McCain's promises to "reach across the aisle" to work with Democrats. He's a remarkable man, but he's obviously been in government too long if he can't see the fact that some things need to be wholly opposed because they're wrong. Period.
Hypothetical: Let's say the North American Man/Boy Love Association decides they want to codify into law their right to prey on young children (don't think they don't dream of that day). Naturally the decadent left, with President Obama at the helm, champions this "bold new initiative to bring about relationship change for adults and children all across this great nation." Dorgan, Conrad, and Pomeroy ride the party line as usual, parroting talking points about how all North Dakotans want such legislation and it's good for North Dakotans while whining about "out of state money" financing any campaign to oppose them. First off, they'd never name it the "Legalizing Child Rape Act of 2010." No, it'd be something like the "Fairness in Relationships Act" or something obfuscating like that, like so many dishonestly named bills in recent years.
The point I'm trying to make with such a drastic example is: just exactly how do you "reach across the aisle" and work with something like that? Do you "compromise" by "only" lowering the age at which a predator can sodomize a child? Do you "only" lessen the penalties for someone convicted of such an offense? No. The correct answer is that you do not cross the aisle to work with the Democrats on the issue, because they're WRONG. Yes, it is that simple. It is just as simple when it comes to government taking over the health care system, labeling carbon dioxide a harmful pollutant, or considering treaties that turn our nation's sovereignty over to a bogus international climate regulatory organization as well.
When the Democrats seek to grant citizenship to millions of criminals who are in our country illegally, you don't cross that aisle. When they want to cripple our nation's energy supply to placate rabid environmentalists, you don't cross that aisle. When they want to destroy our economy in the name of falsified "climate change" pseudo-science, you don't cross that aisle. Sure, it will cut down on the number of invites you receive from Meet the Press, but standing your ground is the right thing to do. I say again:I want a partisan.
We partisans are finally influencing things in Washington, however. When even the most liberal of Republicans won't vote for cloture on the health care takeover by the Democrats, that's an indication. Call it self preservation on their part if you wish, but the fact remains that they're taking notice of how their constituents feel on this matter. It's too late in that we lack the numbers to stop such legislation outright, but the indignance of the Democrats at the Republican rejection of this bill shows that they're nervous about owning it one hundred percent. What we need now, and what conservatives have been craving for some time now, is some leadership. If we'd had an articulate conservative leader in the last election, Obama would still be in Chicago with his thug pals.
Sorry, Senator McCain, the last election proved that Americans couldn't be less interested in an aisle crosser. Step by step we've watched as you establishment Republicans let the government chip away at our freedom as it grows larger and more unwieldy. Bit by bit the radical left has won victories in driving Christian faith from public view, hamstringing our military, and bludgeoning citizens with the multiculturalist and politically correct movements. It's time for you Republicans to start acting on our behalf or get out of office and make way for someone who will. We desire to see someone who's got the nerve to roll up their sleeves and oppose all this lunacy. Your days of being contemptibly timid and remaining in office are over. We've had enough pusillanimity; now show us some partisanship...or we'll find someone who will.
[ add comment ] ( 4 views ) | permalink | Click a dot to rate this entry: ( 3 / 305 )