The town hall protesters are the equivalent of the mobs that attacked civil rights protesters eh? Rep. Clyburn is a veteran of the civil rights movements, and I doubt he ever dozed off during any of those marches…
Behold, the wonders of centralized government control…
Senate confirms Sotomayor.
“We intend to charge for all our news websites,” Mr Murdoch said.
“If we’re successful, we’ll be followed by all media,” he added, predicting “significant revenues” from charging for differentiated news online.
He warned that “the big competition will be coming from the BBC,” which offers online news for free, but said: “Our policy is to win.”
There is a great article in the Atlantic that questions the wisdom of such a move.
I do too.
News articles are ubiquitous. Google News gives instant access to hundreds if not thousands of articles on a particular subject at a moment’s notice. To practically absolute certainty, I would not pay to subscribe for news content that I can obtain just as easily for free.
Does Murdoch’s move strike anyone as a good idea? Maybe if you own BBC.
One congressman sees things from a different perspective. Rep. Anh (Joseph) Cao from Louisiana highlights the significant moral issues inherent in the proposed national health care. Despite it being an economic failure, it is a moral failure as well.
Maria Antoinette’s life with Louis XVI was marked with frivolousness and extravagance; it was also attributed as a factor bringing France to the throes of financial disaster. Fair or not, she became known as Madame Déficit and was publicly beheaded at age 38.
Life expectancy has grown since 1793, if only for lack of guillotine usage. No matter the economic condition of the nation, I doubt beheading will be reinstated. So, here’s to you, Mr. Obama – Happy 48th – and ten years longer than Mrs. Antoinette.
To celebrate, it may be sweet to reflect upon (or revel in) McCain’s concession: “the stimulus has had some effect.” Perhaps that’s the icing?
But as shortsighted and forgetful as Americans can sometimes be, sometimes the obvious needs to be stated: pumping trillions of dollars into the economy will affect it. Pumping trillions of dollars into *anything* will do *something*.
The ultimate question remains: what is the long term impact of these decisions? Let’s be real – contrary to what some politicians might imply – money does not grow on trees. And while printing new money does seem fun (“Look ma’ – a crisp dollar!”), it’s no fun when the negative effects are felt years down the road by the next generation.
Let’s consider the short term impact. Jobs will be created. People will spend. The Cash for Clunker system aptly exemplifies this (“Look ma’ – car dealerships are making great money again! We’re saved!”). But unless lasting, long-term changes are made, we’ll end up right where we started (“Ma, the Cash for Clunker system ran out of money! Ford needs help). No doubt, Ford needs help. Giving them money without addressing the problem leads to failure. C’mon folks – you don’t need to read tarot cards to figure this out.
In a more drastic, albeit tangible example, Oregon invested an additional $176 million into the state to create over three thousand new jobs. The catch: these jobs lasted a week. I’m not here to debate the finer points painted by the Obama administration. Whether the jobs “created or saved” last a week or a year is largely irrelevant. My point is this:
Present artificiality does not equate future reality; but future reality will reflect the consequences of short term stimulus.
Someone, somewhere down the road, will pay for the trillions we are spending today (“Ma, am *I* going to pay for this?”). Future generations will feel the reverberations: higher interest rates, inflation, less available tax revenue, and a declining American dollar.
But we can worry about those problems another day; today is a celebratory time, right? I’m waiting for the announcement, “qu’ils mangent de la brioche.”
1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.
2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.
3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians receive them.
4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate, and colon cancer:
* Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
* Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.
* More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).
* Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent).
5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent). Conversely, white, young Canadian adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower-income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor.”
6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long—sometimes more than a year—to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.
7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and British adults say their health system needs either “fundamental change” or “complete rebuilding.”
8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the “health care system,” more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared with only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).
9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain. An overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identify computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade—even as economists and policy makers unfamiliar with actual medical practice decry these techniques as wasteful. The United States has thirty-four CT scanners per million Americans, compared to twelve in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has almost twenty-seven MRI machines per million people compared to about six per million in Canada and Britain.
10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.