Political Logic

1360AM Talk Appearance

Following the uproar over my questioning of Senator Clinton, I was invited to be a guest on talk radio 1360 based in Pittsburgh.  I was invited by Tony Norman, who was subbing for show host

Lynn Cullen - Her popular three hour show tackles local and national topics. Lynn has been a popular fixture in Pittsburgh Broadcasting for over 25 years and a 1360WPTT mainstay since 1998.

Here is the audio from the show.  I have edited out the commercials, but otherwise the talk is in its entirety.

Download 005radio_show.mp3 controller="true" autoplay="false" autostart="0" loop="false" height="20" width="100">

Cops Gone Wild

Once again we have an example of Cops doing bad things. Yesterday a couple with a newborn baby attempted to leave the hospital with their baby. Apparently this couple were having some dispute with the hospital staff, got fed up, and decided to take their baby out of the hospital. However, because the infant had a security bracklet on its wrist the elevator would not operate. The couple were then confronted by the police and security guard. What the police were doing there seems to be in question, as its been reported that they did know the couple were the parents of the baby. At some point the police decided to shoot the father with a taser. The man fell to the ground, while still holding the baby. The baby hit his head on the floor, but is being reported as fine. The father disagrees and says his baby is not acting the same.

This is yet another example of how police throughout the country are showing poor judgement. It is common knowledge that police are not allowed to fire thier guns if there is a chance that innocent people could be hit in the cross fire. It does not take a genuis to realize that this same concept applies to tasers as well; especially given that they are not that accurate. If the taser had hit the baby the electric shock would have almost certainly killed the infant. If the taser missed the infant and hit the fahter (as it did) than what would happen is exactly what did happen. The father fell, the baby with him, and struck its head on the floor. I have not been to a police academy recently, but both scenarios are ones that could have been anticipated by the officers. Therefore, there was no reason to take the risk. They acted with reckless disregard for the safety of the baby.

As usual the police chief and other superiors of the officers are saying they did nothing wrong. I wonder...when will police, security guards, and other law enforcement officers be held to the same standard that we as citizens are held.

I hope the infant is really okay, and I hope the parents sues the hell out of the hospital.

Emotional Silliness

Oooh man. Sometimes I don't have the patience to deal with people that just don't seem to get it. It's like they are unable to focus in on the real issues. Here is a response from a commenter to my original post about my question to Hilary Clinton.

"You throw out that 15% like it's a tiny group of people. It's 45 million. 45 MILLION PEOPLE! And your point is that you're okay with 45 MILLION PEOPLE not having healthcare because you're worried that the richest people in this country might not have it as good as they have it now. The newest irony in your rambling is that part of the frame of your original question to Senator Clinton included the ridiculous premise that any kind of socialized/nationalized healthcare system would hurt blacks the most, blacks who make up a disproportionate percentage of those in poverty, yet now you make the case that it's better that they have no healthcare at all if providing them with healthcare might incovenience a few hundred millionaires. The selfishness of your position is astounding. I wish I could say it's unexpected, but selfishness coming from the right never is."

THIS IS JUST PLAIN ANNOYING!

I'm posting this in addition to the reply I will send this gentleman, so that everyone else can get it straight and clear. In truth I almost don't even know where to begin. I think I'll start with the most numerous assertion about Conservatives or anyone else oppossing different social programs. That I'm being selfish. The truth of the matter is that supporters of a national health system are in fact the selfish ones. How's that?

It's simple. In order to cover the 15% (45 MILLION PEOPLE) who don't have insurance, supporters of national (read socilized medicine) health care wish to scrap our current system, which provides the best health care in the world to 85% (255 MILLION PEOPLE), so that 100% of the people can then have substandard health care.

Let me put it in another context. Let's change the subject from health care to food. Let's say that 15% of the population was starving, and 85% percent of the country was not. And Senator Clinton had a program that would pay for everyone, but the only problem is that the food would be slightly rotten. Should we do it? Would that be a good thing? Yeah, I know you're saying right now that I'm being silly. But the point I'm trying to make is that you don't support programs that don't work. It seems to me that supporters of socialized medicine are more concerned about who's covered, even if its substandard health care. Or they don't think the quality will decrease.

People, people. The systems we are talking about DO NOT FREAKIN WORK! Both Canada and Britain are smaller than our country, have higher taxes than our country, and still people are waiting in line for important life saving procedures. Oh excuse me, let me be exact. Poor and financially strapped people are waiting. The rich, and affluent in Canada and Britain don't wait. They get in a plane and fly to the US. The economically disavantaged in those countries do not have that choice. Do you think that will change in the USA? No, it will not.

Nationalized health care would be a nightmare for many African-Americans and the poor in general. Why? Because they will wait. They will wait and die. Now am I using hyperbole with that last statement, yes but I'm doing so to make a point. Explain to me how having health care insurance is good if you have to wait three months or more for an MRI, or for a surgical procedure? The 45 million people don't need health care. What they need is:

1. Health care that works
2. Health care that gets them services without long waits
3. Health care that is high in quality

Clinton's plan does not do any of those things. The examples of countries she is using as models are having problems with those three issues, and the governments are dealing with the huge costs to their budgets.

Imagine this scenario. Grandma Taylor has an income that is low, but has a family rich in love. She needs surgery. It must be done soon, or her condition will worsen; maybe she has cancer, maybe it's a heart condition. She is worried about the surgery, but glad that President Clinton (god forbid) has rammed through national health care and so she does not have too worry about the costs. She goes to the scheduling desk and the nurse tells her they will not be able to perform the surgery for four months. What does she do? How will her grandchildren and family feel and deal with the stress of knowing that grandma may die as she waits for her surgery date?

I want you think on this hard people, because this is what is happening in Canada and Britain right now today. You want an idea, a smigden of what I'm talking about? Click here to see what a Canadian doctor has to say about socialized medicine.

Look, what is the mantra people? Logic before emotion. Here is the logic. If a program does not work, then a copy of the program will not work. This has nothing to do with rich versus poor. Most people who have health insurance are not rich. So to say that opponents of socialized medicine are selfish and worried about rich people is untrue, and nonsensical. We're worried about ruining the best health care system on the planet. if you wish to alter or add to the system in order to get those 45 million people covered, then let's make it a plan that actually works. A plan that does not involve the government paying for it all or even a large portion of it. We have one federal program like that already--Medicare--and it's having problems even now. Ditto for state medicaid programs. My opposition to this is because of the problems these programs have in the countries with them. Problems that will be compounded because of the size of our country. My question to Clinton is about why she is insisting on a program that has all types of issues. I ask the same question to all that support it.

Clinton's healthcare blindness

Surprises can be both appreciated and unwelcome. Senator Hilary Clinton received a surprise Thursday morning that probably fell into the latter category. As she prepared to speak at the National Black Journalist Convention (NABJ) in Las Vegas this week, I’m sure she wasn’t anticipating anything more than a hug fest. It’s no secret that African-American’s give Democrats overwhelming support—especially if your last name is Clinton. So when I decided to actually ask her a hard question, and attempt to make her back her answer up, I’m sure she was quite annoyed.

I confronted Sen. Clinton regarding her push for socialized—oops I’m sorry—I mean nationalized health care. You can view the entire exchange at the link below.

Clinton confronts critic*

 
The gist of the question was simply that countries like Canada and Britain that have nationalized health care systems wish to move away from them. The cost to the countries is enormous, and thousands of people who need medical procedures like MRI’s, CatScans, and surgeries have to wait months for them. Why then would she insist on bringing this into the U.S.?

Her response in a nutshell was she does not want socialized medicine, I don’t know what I’m talking about, and that Canada, Britain, Japan, Europe, Australia, or any other advanced country (I guess we’re not advanced) have better health care systems than the U.S.

Oh really? 

Then I guess that explains the large numbers of people from these countries, who have the money, flocking to the U.S. every year to get the medical procedures performed.  A little fact that she either didn’t know, or ignored. That did not stop her from trying to put a smack down on me when she said, “I don’t know your name, but if you see my staff maybe you can get educated instead of speaking rhetoric.”

That, of course, got a huge round of applause from the crowd. After all, it is a friendly venue for her. But it completely missed the point. The facts are that we have the best system in the world, and we know this because people come here for medical procedures by the thousands.  Well, at least the people who can afford too. People in Canada or Britain who don't have the money to come to the U.S. have to wait while their physical health gets worse.

I could take hours to explain to Senator Clinton the holes in her statements and arguments, but I’ll just use bullet points to save you from the complete education that she needs.

 

• If the government pays for it its socialized medicine—and yes that includes Medicare.

 

• Medicare is barely holding its own and may go the direction of Social Security because of its rising costs.

 

• If our system was so much worse than these other countries, their most economically advantaged would not come here for many of the medical procedures they need. As Neil Diamond famously sang,“They’re coming to America."

• In a universal (read socialized) system the lower income brackets are hurt more. They have to wait, and can’t fly to another country. There are a lot of African-Americans that still fall into the lower income brackets, and therefore this system would be bad for African-Americans not better.

This is what I don’t get about Clinton in particular and the Democrats in general. We all know that everybody needs health care, but why do they always default to having the government pay for it? Last time that I checked there wasn’t a long list of social ills eradicated by a government program.

The real truth is that for whatever reason Senator Clinton is convinced, despite all proof to the contrary, that government should be the answer. Today it’s about health care, but we could be talking about education, the economy, or energy independence, she seems to default to “let’s gets the government to fix it and we’ll pay for it with higher taxes.” And when you challenge her on the facts, she gets testy. Don’t believe me? Look at the video again.

In the Belly of the Beast

Tonight I'm reporting from enemy territory.  I'm at the National Association of Black Journalist's convention in Las Vegas.  In the coming days both Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama will be speaking to the convention attendees.  The speeches will be predictable as will the response--overwhelming support.  Hence the assertion of being in enemy territory. 

Well over 90% of African-Americans support the Democratic party.  They are enamored with anything or anyone with the Clinton name in it.  Considering that not a single policy of the Democrats are good for the African-American community, I'll never know why.  But what I do know is this.

Clinton and Obama think they are coming into friendly territory, but they didn't count on me.  I'll be here to ask the hard questions the rest of the convention attendees will not ask.  Starting tomorrow, I'll be making sure they get asked the questions they should be asked.  Their assertions regarding taxes, health care, and the War will be challenged.  So get ready for the fireworks.