Intellectual dishonesty of the left will actually kill people

Let us start by talking about liberalism. I know, I know, what for?  After all we know that they are actually mentally unstable as witnessed by this typical soliloquy (in the NYT)

Elizabeth Renant

Santa Fe, NM

February 26th, 2010

2:41 pm

The Republican party should, uniformly, be stood up as a group against a wall and shot. Their crazed delusions about "free markets", their worship of the corporate elites, their endless lies and misleading statements about "socialism" and "government interference", and their obdurate protection of the millions the health insurance industry has dumped into their campaign coffers, are responsible for these deaths. The reform of the US's disastrous health care "system" is about 30 years overdue. Its incessant deferment is due to politicians with no spine, no morals, and no imagination. That US citizens have put up with this monstrous situation for so long is also pathetic. I wonder how many of the dead voted Republican throughout their lives?

Interestingly enough, this particular rant (one of the lightest, by far) received 59 "recommendations"

But I'm not here to discuss the mental illness that is liberalism, per se (I've done that in my previous posts).  I'm here to discuss the actual dishonesty being perpetraited on the American people.  Some of whom, bless their hearts, are just ignorant at best.  At worst, they are complicit in the lie that our healthcare system is "broken."  My favorite is we have a healthcare "crisis." Libs love to have open discussions, as long as it contains no facts that will show them for what they really are, clueless.

Let us go forth:

In the NYT, Ms. Andrews writes the following:

An earlier study by the Institute of Medicine estimated that 18,000 people died prematurely in 2000 because they lacked insurance; the Urban Institute updated that figure to 22,000 in 2006. The new study, by liberal advocacy group Families USA, applied the same methodology used in the previous reports to drill down and calculate, on both a national and state-by-state basis, the latest figures.

You may be asking yourself, "I wonder, how do they know this?  After all, people die all the time.  Is there some person that works in the hospital that collects the data and sends it out?  Is there some secret code of conduct that doctors have for those w/insurance vs. those w/out? Why is Barney Frank not wearing an orange jumpsuit?" 

Just so we're on the same page, this is an extension of the now widely discredited study that was done by that bastion of liberalism, Harvard.  What the study basically did was use 20 year-old data.  The researches asked people at the begining of the study "hey do you have health insurance?" The respondents said "yea or nay."  Then they followed them, when the person died, they DID NOT ask if that person had health insurance at the time of death, they used that previous "nay."

It is impossible to extrapalate any real data.  This is predicated on the false notion that in this country, if you have no means of paying, you will not get care.  This is not only a lie, but a damned lie.  Anyone who is sick can get care. ANYONE.  Let's say you have the best coverage in the world, will you be treated?  Yup.  Will there be limits?  Probably.  Can you pay out of pocket?  Always.  Now, let's say yo have no insurance.  Will you be treated? Yup. Will there be limits? Nope.  Can you pay put of pocket? Always.  You see, when you walk into the ED, they ask about your insurance, but most of the time, the doctors don't wait to see what kind of insurance you have to begin treatment or even continue treatment.  Let's say that you don't have insurance and the doctor ordered a specific test or medication, does he/she stop said treatment or test, right in the middle?  I don't think so.  What if you're admitted to the hosptial and the doctor orders a test, and you have no insurance, will you get that test or dialysis or the surgical procedure?  You bet your ass you will.  Let's say you need to see a doctor in the outpatient setting.  There are clinics, many, many clinics that will take a person with no insurance.  In fact, there are social workers, whose job it is to get the non-insured, gov assistance.  You can get drugs, procedures, and supplies.  Another point is that if people were not getting life saving care b/c they lack coverage, then these physicians that are withholding life-saving care are complicit in manslaughter, no?  It is very easy to tell if people died b/c of substandard care (sarcasm).  Blind the researcher to insurance and sex and race and everything except the pertinent medical facts.  Then look at the chart and what was done.  Guaranteed 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time the care will not have changed.  Unless the doctors who were working on that patient without insurance, decided they were not going to treat them b/c they had no insurance, then the data would be skewed!  Man, this is a lot more complicated then the media and the left would have you believe.
This being said, there are individual cases.  These cases defy explanation. Most of the stories you hear about someone not getting this or that are usually lost in translation. However, to change the best health care on the planet for those few cases is not only absurd, it is insane.  I'm not talking about "oh you crazy" type of insane.  I'm talking about locked up in a ward, getting anti-psychotics type of insane.

I think the real issues that liberals have is not the fact that some people get insurance and some don't it is the fact that people can afford to get insurance and get different options of treatment.  for example, Nancy Pelosi can get botox.  Some insurances will cover that.  Do most?  Not if it is not medically necessary.  Well, those other people are out of luck.  They have to pay out of pocket.  Well, what about the poor, should they have botox that is not medically necessary?  Well, if they can pay for it, sure!  I don't want to pay for it, why should I?  You see, it's not about anything more than class-warfare.  It's about control. It's about an agenda.  It's about anything and everything except truly providing the best health care.  If it was about providing the best health care, the liberal harpies would be screaming that we cannot go to a system like UK, Canada, et al.

Our media will distort the news and contort themselves to help the agenda of the left.  However, will any of them take the government run health care?  The answer is no.  The answer is no, because they read what goes on in other countries with their health care service.  Remember, the service will decline, because doctors and nurses are human and want to be compensated for their work.  Calling us (I am a physician) money hungry and shills for Big Pharma does nothing for your case.  Many doctors are refusing to treat a certain type of persons. I know of a surgeon that refuses to treat malpractice attorneys.
Anyway, all you have to do is Google "NHS" and see what kind of hits you get.  Here's one to start you on your way.
British NHS- As many as 1,200 patients died amid substandard conditions and care at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust between 2005 and 2008.
(By the way, all of these people had goverment insurance, yet they still died).

On a final note, has anyone done a study to correlate the effects of carrots and mortality?  I mean did any of those people that died "prematurely" eat carrots in the past 20 years?  Maybe it's the Big Veggie industry that's responsible.

You know you've made it, when you have your own stalker

In another case of mental illness, liberals show us the real-life example of 'stalking.'
Now, you may think, and rightly so, that a stalker is someone waiting in the bushes for their prey.  Some pervert laying in wait for a lone female.  You may also think of a disgruntled and mentally unstable guy or gal terrorizing his/her ex.  While this is the typical scenario, this is not the only way a stalker operates. 
Stalking (or a stalker):

"Behavior wherein an individual willfully and repeatedly engages in a knowing course of harassing conduct directed at another person which reasonably and seriously alarms, torments, or terrorizes that person."

There are different types of stalking that was described by Mullen et al. in 1999.  The type I will be discussing is the 'Incomptent' and the 'Resentful'

There are certain charecterstics of each.

1) The incompetent:

These intellectually limited and socially incompetent individuals desire intimacy, but the object of their affection does not reciprocate these feelings.

a) They often lack sufficient skills in courting rituals.

b) They may also display a sense of entitlement: believing they deserve a partner, but lack the ability or desire to engage in subdued, preliminary interpersonal relations.

c) Another aspect of these stalkers is that they may have had previous stalking victims.

d) Unlike the intimacy seekers, those in the incompetent category do not view the victim as having unique qualities; they are not infatuated with the victim -- only attracted, and do not assert that the affection is mutual.

2) The resentful:  

a) The goal of this stalker is to frighten and distress the victim.

b) These stalkers may also experience feelings of injustice and desire revenge.

The victim?  Sarah Palin.

1) Chris Matthews  

2) George Stephanopoulos

3) Maggie Rodriguez

4) Chris Matthews #2

5) CBS 60 minutes

6) CBS Sunday Morning

7) MSNBC.com Steve Adubato

8) NBC Today Show

9) Andrea Mitchell

10) George Stephanopoulos

These stories are only from 12/17/09 until 1/15/10.... 
This will lead into Palin Derangement Syndrome (which will be the next story).

Liberalism, an undocumented mental illness part deux

Last time I discussed how liberalism actually includes many of the features of a mental illness called Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD).  Today I'm going to discuss how libs have the same characteristics as Borderline Personality disorder (BPD).
To start with, all personality disorder traits have one thing in common.  They all have a distorted cognition of reality.  In that alone, this would be enough to label them mentally ill.  However, I will give more correlation.
The classic sign of BPD is something called "splitting."  Splitting is where the patient thinks in terms of only "black and white"  or everyone is only "good or bad."

A) Splitting is not only characteristic in BPD, but in liberalism.  Splitting is also another way of saying 'intolerant'.  This is because to a person with BPD, someone may be all-good at that moment and then turn all-bad in the next.  This is the same as with libs, they may tolerate someone as long as they support their agenda.  As soon as the support begins to decline, so does the love of that individual.

B) Unstable relationships:  This one speaks for itself.  Just pick any lib and look at their relationships.  Edwards, Kerry, Kennedy (any of them) and Clinton, just to name a few.  But this is not the relationship I speak of.  I'm talking about the relationship that libs have with their electorate.  You see, libs use people, until they are no longer useful.  For example.  libs have had a very tumultuous relationship with the senior citizen.  While libs have been using them (for their votes) the libs have been undermining them.  They use the one thing that seniors hold near and dear, their healthcare....for a decades the liberals have been telling them that it is the conservatives that want to take away their  medicare, yet it has always been the liberals who steal and use the medicare fund as their own personal piggy-bank.  The libs are trying, with this healthcare effort, to essentially take away the seniors right to choose their own healthcare.  Another example is how liberals claim that they are compassionate about minority children.  They not only have no compassion for minority children, they have an actual disdain for them.  You see, there are school voucher programs to allow minority kids, attending the rotten public schools, to choose their own schools.  This includes private schools.  The NEA (a teachers union) is not in those schools or if they are has no pull.  Those children get a good education and actually succeed.  Why would the libs then want to cancel these programs?  Well, when you have a mental illness, you don't always make the right choices.

C) Strong feeling of victimization: Another aspect to BPD is that these people have a very highly attuned, albeit incorrect, feeling that they are always the victim.  This falls in lockstep with the liberals own view.  Liberals, like BPD suffers, believe that they are always the victims.  In fact, the key players in this 'victimization' mentality are fake 'victims'.  Election after election, news story after news story show off another class of self-perceived 'victim'.  Whether it's 'minorities', 'single-mothers', 'kids', those with 'illnesses' and today, the 'terrorist.'  They, the 'victims', are thrown into the frey and human nature being as it is, go along with it. 

D) Deliberately manipulative: Since people with BPD have very poor coping skills, they will manipulate the situation or the person to get wanted results.  This too, is the way of the liberal.  They will do anything to get the results they want.  They will lie, cheat and steal.  Case-in-point.  When liberals are faced with a challenge that they are not ready for, they will cry 'foul.'  When conservatives or people in general do not agree with Obama, they are labeled as 'racists'.  The libs will go out of there way to lie about the obvious truth and then try to make you think that you are in the wrong.

E) Suicidal or self-harming behavior: In people with BPD, they will harm themselves, either by cutting themselves (these are the people you may see that have many cut scars on their arms) or by killing themselves outright.  Some of those suicide attempts are cries for help and not real.  The libs do the same thing.  For an ideology they are willing to commit political suicide.  This is best illustrated with the healthcare scenario.  Many of the libs (including blue-dogs) will sacrifice their own candidacy for an agenda that they know will be fatal at the ballot box.  However, they, the libs, do not care. Which goes back to the distortion of cognition.

F) Impulsive behavior:  People with BPD often engage in reckless behaviors such as promiscuos sex,  reckless driving, substance abuse, and others.  Libs often do these things. Take people like Clinton, who is a serial womanizer.  The late Kennedy who actually killed (no pun intended) two birds with one stone.  Chris Dodd and Kennedy made a waitress sandwich.  Conservatives are not immune from this, obviously, but the point is that these actions are just another symptom in a much broader illness.

Unlike people who actually suffer with BPD, libs display much of the same symptomatology for an entirely different reason.  BPD is a real disorder that is multi-factorial, the libs version of this disorder has only one factor, power.  It's not about the people they represent, it's about their own ideology, which is about power.  The treatment approach to BPD is multi-factorial and includes medication and education.  The treatment for liberalism is education, voting them out and sometimes medication for the rest of us.

Denial is not just a symptom of a disease but it's also an excuse libs use.