I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided.
Oh, come on, Jimmah. Nothing matches the devastation you dealt yourself as president. Carter was actually the first vote I ever cast and the last one I ever cast for a Democrat.
Was he a necessary president?
Perhaps.
Just as a cat has to cough up a hairball every now and then to clear it's throat, there's an argument to be made for the electorate needing to embrace sheer incompetence under the guise of "change."
Now where have I heard that before?
Will Obama be Carter II?
Could be.
There are similarities. What remains to be seen is if Obama's arrogance somehow protects him, or only hastens the decline in his popularity.
My sense is that people aren't really in the mood to be approving of any politician these days. If Obama doesn't deliver as big as his scripted rhetoric without the ums and uhs - he could be in for a big come down real quick.


"Deflation is worse than inflation."
Really, how the hell would you know?
Posted by: templar knight | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Tavis Smiley has declared that "we're all working for Barack Obama" and that "we have to help make Obama a great president."
Posted by: Lala | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 10:54 AM
CNN does it again. The big media propaganda machine is one reason Israel hasn't eliminated its savage attackers a long time ago. CNN shows faked video, then pulls it without comment when it is shown to be fake. No apologies for damage done. What pieces of human garbage these Columbia journo grads are. (Well no. Just naive products of the human garbage professors who "educated them". Thanks Dan Schorr, you scumball.)
http://lawhawk.blogspot.com/2009/01/doc-propaganda.html
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Fred,
And it was obviously faked. They were so stupid to air it in the first place as people familiar with CPR spotted it right away.
Posted by: Lala | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 11:16 AM
THE ABSURDITY OF DRUG IMPORTATION.
"Obama supports the Dorgan-Snowe bill to allow importation of "lower-priced, Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs from other countries,"
"What the bill allows you to do, quite simply, is go to Canada and pick up a pack of Lipitor. But Lipitor is made by an American company in an American factory. Canada imports the drug. In theory, that should impose the extra cost on Canada and it should be cheaper in America. But it isn't. Canada has a national health care system that bargains down drug prices. They are so effective at it that it is literally cheaper for American consumers to buy back American-produced pharmaceuticals that drug companies have already sold at a profit to Canada than it is to buy from the producers directly. It's inane. And allowing drug reimportation does not solve this problem. It dramatizes it."
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2009&base_name=the_absurdity_of_drug_importat
Nah, we don't need any single payer health care system. What reason could there possibly be to want reduce our health care costs by 1/2.
ElRushbo, Hannity, and Fox say it's a bad idea and what reasonable dittohead would dare to doubt them.
Posted by: jharp | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 12:15 PM
The right to marry whomever they choose. Just as heterosexuals can.
Actually, heterosexuals cannot marry whomever they want; for instance, they can't marry multiple people, they can't marry children, they can't marry siblings, and they can't marry their parents.
All of which are restrictions that "gay marriage" supporters want overturned as well.
http://beyondmarriage.org/
http://www.acluutah.org/pluralmarriage.htm
We should also add that gay and lesbian liberals fully support and endorse dressing toddler-age children as sexual slaves and taking them to sex fairs to "show off" in front of naked and semi-naked adults masturbating and having public sex -- which they claim is an "educational experience".
http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/004352.html
And what do they call people who oppose that? "Homophobic" and "close-minded".
Just like jharp and his screaming ilk intimidate social workers into believing that investigating and stopping child molestation is "homophobic".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480151/Gay-couple-left-free-abuse-boys--social-workers-feared-branded-homophobic.html
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 12:18 PM
LOL....jharp is again trying his single-payer crap after having his lies unraveled in another thread.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/01/whats-wrong-in-minnesota.html#comment-144414096
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/01/whats-wrong-in-minnesota.html#comment-144414556
Of course healthcare in Canada costs less. They virtually ban jury trials for malpractice, they disallow massive legal fees, and they require that those who sue others and lose pay the legal costs of the defendants. They also deny and delay care.
In addition, jharp refuses to deal with the reality that one of the primary drivers of cost in the US healthcare system is that people on Medicaid and Medicare, the free government health insurance programs, use much more costly care far more than do the uninsured or privately-insured -- and that the government does not reimburse hospitals fully for it, requiring the cost to be spread to others.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/01/whats-wrong-in-minnesota.html#comment-144416374
In short, jharp and his Democrat leftist party could immediately slash costs across the system if they forced their welfare-addicted base to use less-expensive healthcare and implemented the same legal restrictions on lawsuits that the "single-payer" systems that they have admire.
But they won't. Instead, they want the government to pay for their own healthcare and force everyone else to pay the bills.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Off topic but: This is how Illinois Democrats deal with their corrupt politicians.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090109/ap_on_re_us/illinois_governor;_ylt=Ap_d8.6asjYg.BBwNr4lH0Ws0NUE
"-- SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – The Illinois House voted overwhelmingly Friday to impeach Gov. Rod Blagojevich, an unprecedented action that sets up a Senate trial on whether he should be thrown out for abuse of power, including allegations that he tried to sell President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat.
Impeachment required just 60 votes. The final result was 114-1. --"
For future reference, the next time a Republican politico is up to his eyeballs in corruption, maybe the respective Republican-lead state legislatures can take a hand at this. Then they won't get tossed out on their asses come the next election season.
Posted by: IslamoLlama | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 12:37 PM
"-- Actually, heterosexuals cannot marry whomever they want; for instance, they can't marry multiple people, they can't marry children, they can't marry siblings, and they can't marry their parents.
All of which are restrictions that "gay marriage" supporters want overturned as well. --"
Wait, when did Mormons become gay marriage supporters? I thought they campaigned aggressively for Prop 8?
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon216.htm
Utah is pretty deep red. I guess that means Republicans and gay marriage supporters are in consensus on the whole marrying your 8-year-old twins. So long as they aren't your same gender.
"-- We should also add that gay and lesbian liberals fully support and endorse dressing toddler-age children as sexual slaves and taking them to sex fairs to "show off" in front of naked and semi-naked adults masturbating and having public sex -- which they claim is an "educational experience". --"
Wait, did you say "gay and lesbian liberals" or "Catholic Priests"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Abuse_by_priests_in_Catholic_Orders
Republicans have been adamant in their support of the Catholic Church in the face of these charges. So it's ok to molest and degrade children so long as you do it in a religious environment?
That's some high moral standards you got there NDT.
Posted by: IslamoLlama | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 12:44 PM
much easier to make the polygamy argument over same sex marriage...
good luck trying to advance the weaker of the two arguments, while simultaneously dismissing the easier argument to make.
Posted by: mark l. | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 01:19 PM
along the lines of social policy catering to sexual deviations from norm...
shouldn't bisexuals be given the ability to marry a man and a woman?
Posted by: mark l. | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 01:26 PM
"But, again, inflation isn't even a shadow of an issue right now."
Inflation is ALWAYS the risk when emerging from a recession. If the shadows you see are just confined to two years ahead, you have learned nothing from economic history.
Inflation is far worse than a recession.
If you devalue your currency, you will have to offer better rates of interest on all future debt. The rise in interest payments will bleed into a rise in borrowing rates. The result is that the rich get really rich, and the poor, who cannot invest go further in debt to keep up with prices that are inflating.
there is no quicker path to creating a larger divide between the Edwards 'two americas'. Feel free to tax employment income, the truely wealthly do not rely upon work as a source of income, but do so by taking advantage of the money that they will never have to pay taxes on.
Posted by: mark l. | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 01:40 PM
Let's see, the Mormon church repudiates polygamy and excommunicates people (like Warren Jeffs) who practice it; the Catholic Church has repudiated child abuse and excommunicated (or defrocked) the priests who practiced it.
Meanwhile, Harry Reid has remained Mormon and Nancy Pelosi has remained Catholic. By your logic, that means they support polygamy and child sexual abuse as well.
Now, let's see IslamoLlama publicly repudiate the ACLU for endorsing and supporting plural marriage, and the gay community for endorsing and supporting not only plural marriage, but incestuous marriage, child marriage, and child sexualization.
After all, she claims to oppose it when she alleges Republicans and religious people do it. Why can't she repudiate it among her own kind?
Answer: Because she doesn't believe it's wrong. Just like she refused to condemn and repudiate her fellow abortion supporters who are telling thirteen-year-old girls to cross state lines to have abortions in order to avoid having to notify their parents or have the laws enforced against the people who get underage minors pregnant.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/16/video-second-indiana-planned-parenthood-clinic-violates-the-law/
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 01:42 PM
Inflation is far worse than a recession.
Mark, remember, you're talking to people who think Jimmy Carter was an economic genius. They've gone into denial about the danger of inflation a couple of eons ago.
Furthermore, they are utterly ignorant of history.
"After 1945 the combination of industrial protectionism, redistribution of income based on increased wages, and growing state intervention in the economy touched off the inflationary process shown in table 1. After so many years of inflation, there is a general consensus among
economists about the mechanics of this process. A persistent fiscal deficit, increasingly financed by monetary emission, caused more and more frequent devaluations of the local currency. The
acceleration of inflation resulted from the demonetization of the economy as the public tried to
avoid the inflation tax."
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGktyonGdJSzcA1nNrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGlxBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=12cau682u/EXP=1231613480/**http%3A//www.cavallo.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/Lessons.PDF
What a surprise. Barack Obama and the Democrat Party support protectionism (banning certain imports or imposing tariffs to force the cost of imports to be more than American-produced goods), redistribution of income, and government takeover of the economy -- financed, of course, by printing more money and running even larger deficits.
Helloooo, Argentina North!
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 01:55 PM
Picks and pokes, since I haven't time to review much of this thread in my usual in depth manner:
Israel v. Gaza: About dashed time the Israelis rolled those so-called "Palestinians" into the sea! Israel - all of Eretz Y'srael... from the Med to the Jordan, and from Sinai to Lebanon... belongs to the Chosen People of Zion.
Israel should settle for nothing less than an unconditional surrender, and removal from its southern territory of any Arabs unwilling to co-exist inside Israel as Israeli subjects on Israel's terms. This whole business of trying to create a "Palestinian state" has been nothing but a farce from the times of the PLO through to Oslo.
Bailouts and the Big Three: No bailouts! The Big Three should be broken up and sold to smaller, more capable auto makers... and certainly de-unionized. The unions themselves are nothing more than useless blood-sucking parasites on the underbelly of what little remains of our manufacturing capability.
Trillion dollar deficits: End the war, return all foreign deployed forces to the CONUS beyond the minimum necessary to secure key refuelling bases and forward observation points on certain strategic bases and posts... returning 90% of all deployed soldiers home to patrol our borders from foreign invasion. This would include sending home soldiers deployed in Europe and in Asia (especially South Korea, where we are very much hated) and returning the bases we currently rent to their host nations.
Red China:
"--- There is no reason why, though, we can't make clothes, shoes, computers, or anything else ---"
"--- Yes there is. We can't compete with the Chinese. I have traded with Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand, Macau, for twenty five years. It is no contest. ---"
Jharp is a tad right on this: it is all about supply (a virtually inexhaustible supply of cheap labour) and demand (insatiable levels of consumer debt spending for cheap Chinese goods).
According to expert economist and foreign trader Peter Schiff.. this state of afairs will likely change for the worst for us: as China uses its wealth in decreasingly valuable $USD to buy up property and goods in the USA for pennies on the hundred dollar bill...
Red China will move its export stream to Europe, Japan, and Russia, as well as manfucturing goods for their own, and lifting their 1.5BN plus population out of poverty... and we will be faced with crippling inflation as the Chinese flood us with all those worthless FRNs ($USD) we printed up by the divine fiat of Greenspan and Bernanke.
Meanwhile we cannot produce anything or keep our jobs, much less keep up with Chinese and Japanese coming over here to buy up everything like a couple of drunken college girls armed with Daddy's credit cards.
The American hyper-wealthy will abscond their wealth overseas, the middle class will shoulder the tax burdens and join the ranks of economic privation and virtual serfdom, while the truly poor fester and riot when the food shortages and energy shortages start to kick in.
As things stand, we shall be blessed indeed if this republic survives intact past 2012 without splintering into several dozen smaller bankrupt fiefdoms ruled by regional warlords and/or their political allies: if you think you have seen society become unhinged during the past election, that won't be a patch on what could happen.
Let Red China spend all that money we send to Walmart to protect the Pacific/Asian regions, and Japan also, which can EASILY match our military spending budget if it ever wanted to. We should only be concerned with protecting our territorial waters and trade routes, and the defense of our actual states and continent, and not waging wars of foreign aggression.
Only by doing this, and trimming back our government in a manner that would make Cal Coolidge seem like a profligate spender by comparison, shall we preserve this republic, which is well on its way to certain collapse and ruin.
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 02:01 PM
Of course we can compete with the Chinese if we abandon the idea that CHEAP is the top reason to choose a product, if all we want is the cheapest possible product then no, we can't compete...but considering killer pet food, lead painted toys, chemical milk and a host of other examples of exactly how China monitors its manufacturing base, you might think people would learn some lessons about QUALITY vs. COST.
However, I suspect we are too far down the path of relentless consumerism ever to absorb this message.
I can't agree on Israel, if they want to take over all of the occupied territories, then fine, they have to grant the Arabs there FULL citizenship and equal rights with the Jews, which I don't think they will do, otherwise, they're no better than any other racist group who gives preference to their own class over another.
Posted by: Anon | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 02:14 PM
Harpo says Lipttor should cost less in Canada then in the USA. But no. It should cost the same in Canada, they should raise the price there. Who paid for the invention and manufacturing process for Lipitor?
"His name is Bob Sliskovic and he got a job with Warner-Lambert in 1984. For nearly two decades, his career seemed to mirror the prosperity enjoyed by the overall pharmaceutical industry. Now, though, he’s getting the boot as Pfizer, which bought Warner-Lambert in 1999, closes down its research labs in Ann Arbor, Michigan. And The Wall Street Journal uses Sliskovic to illustrate the rough ride big drugmakers are enduring these days.
Chemists such as Sliskovic are apparently feeling their share of the pain. Although the Journal writes that it’s not clear how many chemists have lost pharma jobs, the paper cites Bureau of Labor Statistics data - overall, 116,000 chemists were employed in 2006, down from 140,000 in 2003. During the same period, employment of biologists rose to 116,000 from 112,000. Just as the rise of biotech is contributing to an economic boom in Northern California, the paper notes that the decline of chemical-based research is hurting Michigan, along with some regions of New Jersey and Illinois."
http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/12/chemist-who-helped-invent-lipitor-gets-laid-off/
If people like Harpo are heard, there will be a lot fewer drugs developed. The cost of development, not recoverable in an unfree market, will make it unprofitable.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 02:54 PM
"Harpo says Lipttor should cost less in Canada then in the USA. But no. It should cost the same in Canada, they should raise the price there."
As usual, Fred, you have no idea what you are talking about.
1) I didn't say Lipitor should cost less in Canada. I merely pointed out that it does.
2) Canada should and can sell Lipitor for whatever in the hell price they choose.
3) And if Pfizer doesn't like it they can stop selling them Lipitor.
Posted by: jharp | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 03:13 PM
And I might add, Fred. I really do think you're a decent guy. A bit of a dunce and suffering too much Limbo and Hannity on the brain, but nevertheless a decent person.
Stay well.
Posted by: jharp | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 03:18 PM
"Of course we can compete with the Chinese if we abandon the idea that CHEAP is the top reason to choose a product"
Wrong again, Anon.
The Chinese make cheap because American's demand cheap.
They have full capability to make quality and often do if that is what demand dictates. And we cannot compete. One laborer in China earns less than what we spend on the health care for one U.S. worker.
I have been in this business for twenty five years. If you want quality all you have to do is ask. And of course it costs more yet still is far far less expensive than made in the U.S.
The one item that really blew my mind is when I saw toothpicks made in China. Friggin toothpicks!
Posted by: jharp | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 03:34 PM
"For some strange reason, no conservative ever calls out Nixon or Ford for the crappy handling of the economy, though."
Actually, they do. Nixon's statist policies (price controls, for example) are routinely cited as an example of what NOT to do. That you are ignorant of the debates that happen within the conservative community does not mean they don't happen.
"No wonder you fools lose wars and elections. Stuck in the past. Carter was 30 years ago!"
Meanwhile, Democrats keep looking for the "next JFK" and seem determined to give a Kennedy a Senate seat based solely on membership in that family. That was, what, almost fifty years ago?
Posted by: Rob Crawford | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 03:50 PM
They have full capability to make quality and often do if that is what demand dictates. And we cannot compete. One laborer in China earns less than what we spend on the health care for one U.S. worker.
Perhaps jharp needs to educate himself again.
"For example, GDP per worker in China was only 15 percent of that in the United States in 2005. In the same year, South Korea posted the highest productivity level of any of the emerging countries in the sample, but its GDP per worker was just 58 percent of the U.S. level."
http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci13-8/ci13-8.html
In other words, despite having the free government healthcare and government control of the economy that jharp and the Democrat Party want to implement in the United States, it takes more than six Chinese workers to equal the output value of one American worker.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 03:53 PM
"And I might add, Fred. I really do think you're a decent guy."
Gee thanks, Harp. I base my level of self-esteem on how dolts...er folks like you feel about me. You make me so proud. But to go back to the question at hand.
You are right about my first sentence though, I did misstate. I meant to say, "Harpo feels Lipitor should cost less in the U.S. than in Canada", unless Harpo disagrees with Ezra Klien, as do many people. As for the most of the comment I stand by it and you did not answer it.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 04:08 PM
I meant to say, "Harpo feels Lipitor should cost less in the U.S. than in Canada"
That's better. Though I'm still not sure quite accurate. But at least it is a reasonable claim.
What I wanted to stress was that under a single payer system when you can actually negotiate from a position of strength consumers win.
Posted by: jharp | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 04:16 PM
"-- Let's see, the Mormon church repudiates polygamy and excommunicates people (like Warren Jeffs) who practice it; the Catholic Church has repudiated child abuse and excommunicated (or defrocked) the priests who practiced it. --"
And the GLBT community has formally repudiated child pornography and incest. I'm not sure what your point is, NDT. There are gay baby rapists and polygamous Mormons all the same. As for the Catholic Church, I've yet to hear of any priest being actively excommunicated. There was a rather major scandal involving Bishops and Cardinals simply cycling lower level priests around to avoid legal action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Abusers_moved_to_different_locations
Not sure if you mean "coverup" when you say "excommunicate".
Either way, your problem doesn't appear to be with consensual adult same-gender sex at all. You're objecting to the exploitation of minors. Per your original comment:
"-- Actually, heterosexuals cannot marry whomever they want; for instance, they can't marry multiple people, they can't marry children, they can't marry siblings, and they can't marry their parents.
All of which are restrictions that "gay marriage" supporters want overturned as well. --"
"Gay Marriage" supports don't appear to be any more for incest or child rape than Mormons or Catholics. They certainly aren't interested in shoving their children into loveless marriages after depriving them of birth control like Palin's evangelical movement or the wacko Southern Baptists.
You're not going to prevent gay people from fucking by dangling matrimony outside their reach. Laurence v Texas decided against moralizing anal sex years ago. So unless you can come up with a compelling reason for a man and a woman to engage in a legal contract that two men or two women can't (and I haven't heard one yet), its just a matter of time before either the courts or the legislature roll back the archaic homophobia legislation.
Honestly, I wouldn't feel too sad if they legalized polygamy next. I wouldn't even object to someone marrying a box turtle. There's no legal limit to the number of people you can have sex with either. At a certain point, people will just stop caring about putting up a fight.
Posted by: IslamoLlama | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 05:58 PM
A box turtle can't consent to marriage or sex with a human, that would be animal cruelty of a fairly high order.
There isn't any really rational reason why polyigamy is illegal, especially considering it is sanctioned in the bible as well as the koran, can't recall what the hindu's say about it.
Why must gay marriage advocates be so over the top and in everyone's face?? That is the trouble, why not try and educate people, or do things a little more slowly to prevent backlash,then as you say, when society is ready for it, it will happen with no fuss, pushing too hard too fast will only cause resentment and possibly increase prejudice against gays.
My problem with the gay marriage issue isn't moral or even philosophical...I'm just tired of liberals who have to have whatever they want RIGHT NOW and they don't care what the destroy or who they hurt or what the unintended consequences may be...they want it NOW and that's it. That is a very, very short sighted and destructive mindset and that is what I can't support.
Posted by: Anon | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 07:14 PM
LOL...just because you see no value in marriage, IslamoLlama, doesn't mean other people do.
But it's good to see you admit that Democrats support legalizing polygamy, legalizing sex with children, and legalizing marriages to animals. It's not that we didn't know it already, but it's nice to see it in print.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 07:16 PM
And, since we're back on the single-payer kick, here's what Obama and his shills like jharp aren't showing you.
"Sick with ovarian cancer, Sylvia de Vires, an Ontario woman afflicted with a 13-inch, fluid-filled tumor weighing 40 pounds, was unable to get timely care in Canada. She crossed the American border to Pontiac, Mich., where a surgeon removed the tumor, estimating she could not have lived longer than a few weeks more.
The Canadian government pays for U.S. medical care in some circumstances, but it declined to do so in de Vires' case for a bureaucratically perfect, but inhumane, reason: She hadn't properly filled out a form. At death's door, de Vires should have done her paperwork better.
De Vires is far from unusual in seeking medical treatment in the U.S. Even Canadian government officials send patients across the border, increasingly looking to American medicine to deal with their overload of patients and chronic shortage of care.
Since the spring of 2006, Ontario's government has sent at least 164 patients to New York and Michigan for neurosurgery emergencies — defined by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain." Other provinces have followed Ontario's example."
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=299282509335931
Or:
"The study shows that health care in Canada appears to cost less because relative to the United States, Canadian public health insurance does not cover many advanced medical treatments and technologies, common medical resources are in short supply, and access to health care is often severely delayed.
“On average, Americans spend more of their incomes on health care but they get better access to superior medical resources,” Skinner said.
“If Canadians had access to the same quality and quantity of health-care resources that American patients enjoy, the Canadian health-insurance monopoly would cost a lot more than it currently does.”"
http://am.eri.ca/newsandevents/news/6217.aspx
Seriously. Who wants to put the equivalent of the DMV in charge of their health care?
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 07:58 PM
Baby died because hospital had no one on night duty to do C-section
*
*
EXCLUSIVE by Nick Owens 3/01/2009
Shock admission of hospital to mum of dead boy.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/2009/01/03/baby-died-because-hospital-had-no-one-on-night-duty-to-do-c-section-115875-21013171/
Posted by: Lala | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 08:59 PM
Patient 'died of starvation in NHS hospital'
A vulnerable patient died of starvation in an NHS hospital after 26 days without food, according to a disability charity.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4178735/Patient-died-of-starvation-in-NHS-hospital.html
Posted by: Lala | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 09:00 PM
Two young mothers die of pneumonia after medical staff tell them they only had flu
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 11:35 AM on 08th January 2009
* Comments (67)
* Add to My Stories
Two young mothers have died of pneumonia since Christmas after being told by medical staff that they had nothing worse than a bout of flu or a virus.
The two incidents came just days apart as GPs and hospitals were struggling to cope with the huge amounts of people coming down with flu.
Mother-of-one Lisa Knox, 30, died of pneumonia after being sent home by hospital medics with a packet of paracetamol.
And Clare Secker, 19, died of bronchial pneumonia just three days after an out-of-hours medical service said she only had flu.
Miss Secker was feeling weak with a high temperature and unable to eat anything when her mother Janice phoned her local GP.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1107963/Two-young-mothers-die-pneumonia-medical-staff-tell-flu.html
Posted by: Lala | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 09:15 PM
Here's one of the comments left on the NHS article - read them all and be informed about the British NHS
"If people who only have a bad cold stopped blocking up the doctors' surgeries and A and E departments in hospitals with their minor ailments, there would be less liklihood of the serious cases slipping through the net. Imagine having 300 people all queueing up and claiming to have the same symptoms but only one of those is seriously ill.... could you spot the genuine one? It's time for people to take a little more personal responsibility for their own health and stop expecting the state to nanny them throught their lives. My sympathies to the families.
Click to rate Rating 123
- Lanzalady, Lanzarote, 8/1/2009 7:40
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1107963/Two-young-mothers-die-pneumonia-medical-staff-tell-flu.html
Posted by: Lala | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 09:25 PM
Here's one of the comments left on the NHS article - read them all and be informed about the British NHS
"If people who only have a bad cold stopped blocking up the doctors' surgeries and A and E departments in hospitals with their minor ailments, there would be less liklihood of the serious cases slipping through the net. Imagine having 300 people all queueing up and claiming to have the same symptoms but only one of those is seriously ill.... could you spot the genuine one? It's time for people to take a little more personal responsibility for their own health and stop expecting the state to nanny them throught their lives. My sympathies to the families.
Click to rate Rating 123
- Lanzalady, Lanzarote, 8/1/2009 7:40
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1107963/Two-young-mothers-die-pneumonia-medical-staff-tell-flu.html
Posted by: Lala | Friday, January 09, 2009 at 09:25 PM
I was really strongly against homosexual marriage. Then I found out it wouldn't be mandatory, so now I don't care.
Posted by: Hugh G. Rexxion | Saturday, January 10, 2009 at 12:59 AM
Fred Beloit:
“Gee thanks, Harp. I base my level of self-esteem on how dolts...”
Jharp:
“That's better. Though I'm still not sure…”
LOL! Tame that puppy, Fred.
Posted by: Philip McDaniel | Saturday, January 10, 2009 at 10:20 AM
LOL, Hugh
Posted by: Philip McDaniel | Saturday, January 10, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Why chrisisheretotrybutfailtomakeharpolookgood, the last war we lost, with the help of CBS and the NYT of course, was almost 50 years ago. We just won two wars and are on the way to winning the third. Do try to keep up.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Saturday, January 10, 2009 at 11:21 AM
"What a surprise. Barack Obama and the Democrat Party support protectionism (banning certain imports or imposing tariffs to force the cost of imports to be more than American-produced goods)"
Man I hope so! higher tariffs, fines on imports containing lead and other poisons, love to see some of that crap banned and higher fees on importers to pay for extra customs enforcement.
Posted by: WAHOO WILLIE | Sunday, January 11, 2009 at 06:59 PM