Napoleon and Obama

When Napoleon marched on Moscow in 1812, he had 600,000 troops. After defeat, only 40,000 frost-bitten and half starved survivors stumbled back into France. Are Democrats setting themselves up for this kind of debacle? Hopefully so.

Passage of the unpopular health bill could sink them. Their big gamble might be as disastrous as Napoleon’s, Rahm Emanuel’s optimism notwithstanding. Over-reaching has its perils.

Global Governance in the Offing

According to the G-20 and Copenhagen collaborators, global governance is necessary to deal with over-paid bankers, financial regulation, environmental problems and labor law. Once the government is in place, well-meaning bureaucrats and parliamentarians will make decisions about the propriety of:

one child policy

size of car

size of house

banker pay, manager pay, union pay, dishwasher pay

languages to be taught in school

quotas for college admission

religions that are unacceptable

mass transit vs. family and individual vehicles

tax rates


physician assisted suicide

thermostat settings

health procedures that are too expensive

IVF, amniocentesis, and abortion to weed out undesirables prior to birth.

Everything will be regulated.

This article puts it well. Global government is all the rage. A second article, particularly about the Copenhagen discussions, is in accord.

Sex-change Operations On Demand

Forcing Taxpayers to Support Abortion, Sex-Change and Physician Assisted Suicide

It should be alarmingly clear that if national health dictates pass, it will only be matter of time before advocates secure payments for abortion, sex-change operations and physician assisted suicide, either by forcing private insurers to cover them, or under government-run plans. Every American will either be forced to patronize a private insurer, buy a government policy, or pay a penalty, which is a de facto way of corralling their participation. Government agencies will determine what procedures must be covered.

Abortion is taxpayer-supported in many European countries through their national health programs. It is free, to the patient, in Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands. It is free to low income women in Germany and subsidized in Sweden. Source BBC.

Brazil, Britain and Cuba now offer sex-change operations at taxpayer expense.

In Oregon, a woman was offered physician-assisted suicide under the State plan.

Below are the stories that pertain.


A growing number of public and commercial health insurance plans in the United States now contain defined benefits covering sex reassignment related procedures, usually including genital reconstruction surgery (MTF and FTM), chest reconstruction (FTM), breast augmentation (MTF), and hysterectomy (FTM).[2] In June 2008, the American Medical Association House of Delegates declared that discrimination [3], stating that the denial to patients with Gender Identity Disorder of otherwise covered benefits represents discrimination, and that the AMA supports “public and private health insurance coverage for treatment for gender identity disorder as recommended by the patient’s physician.” Other organizations have issued similar statements, including WPATH [4], the American Psychological Association [5], and the National Association of Social Workers [6]. Wikipedia

HEALTH-CUBA: Free Sex Change Operations Approved
By Dalia Acosta

HAVANA, Jun 6 (IPS) – New horizons opened up for transsexuals in Cuba with the approval of a Public Health Ministry resolution that establishes guidelines for their health care, including free gender reassignment operations.

“It was just approved. The operations will begin to be carried out as soon as the Cuban medical team is ready to start,” Mariela Castro, head of the National Centre for Sex Education (CENESEX), told IPS.

In Britain:

Many transsexuals, often intensely uncomfortable living with the genitalia they were born with, find it impossible to wait the necessary year or two before being admitted to one of the few hospitals which collaborates with the public health service and end up covering the costs themselves…

Nov 6, 2009  The NHS carried out some 150 operations in the last year (up from about  I remember a MTF transexual referred to me once as a born woman,

Abstract Whereas hormonal and surgical sex change have been increasingly refined and accepted medically during the past 40 years, legal protections have only recently received attention. This overview focuses on employment, medical treatment, and civil status as male or female in the United States and the United Kingdom. Employment protection in the UK is assured since a court decision in 1994, but in the U.S. is generally uncertain and inconsistent between states. Health care, including surgery, under the UK National Health Service, is assured since a court decision in 1996.

Brazil govt offers free sex change operations

06/07/2008 | 09:17 AM



RIO DE JANEIRO—Brazil’s health minister said on Thurday that sex change operations would now be free under the country’s public health system.

The powerful story of Barbara Wagner demonstrates why this discussion is of utmost importance. When Barbara’s lung cancer reappeared during the spring of 2008 her oncologist recommended aggressive treatment with Tarceva, a new chemotherapy. However, Oregon’s state run health plan denied the potentially life altering drug because they did not feel it was “cost-effective.” Instead, the State plan offered to pay for either hospice care or physician-assisted suicide.

New ObamaCare Cost Estimate

New ObamaCare Cost Estimate

By me

Healthcare reform is projected to cost $900 billion. Don’t believe it.

Like yeast, waistlines and Gore’s rhetoric, government costs expand.

  • Take Boston’s Big Dig, the massive tunnel project. Estimate: $2 billion. Actual: $15 billion, more than seven times as high.
  • Take Scotland’s Parliament building. Estimate: $680 million. Actual: $7.70 billion, more than ten times as high.
  • Take Seattle’s Light rail. Estimate: $2.3 billion. Actual: $4.2 billion, almost double.
  • Take Medicare. It cost six times as much in 1990 as projected.

Let’s not for a minute accept the Democrats claim of a cost of $900 billion. It seems prudent to use a six-times multiplier and call it $5.4 trillion.

Natural Law: An Introduction and Re-examination

Book Report:

Natural Law: An Introduction and Re-examination.

By Howard P. Kainz

Read December 2009

Not as easy as The Quest for Moral Foundations because it was a compendium, as survey of old and new opinions about natural law ethics. Trying to explain two dozen philosophers in141 pages sacrifices a thorough approach.

It seemed to have as a mission to refute the simple mission of Montague Brown in his The Quest for Moral Foundations, to show all the permutations and objections to that Aristotle/Aquinas approach. It appears that John Finnis is the current embodiment of the two sages, their most fervent exponent. Kainz repeatedly referred to Finnis’ Natural Law and Natural Rights.

In the final chapter, where current issues are applied to the various styles of natural law, the author seems to take a “here’s how this could be handled using this approach, as opposed to that approach to natural law.” He seemed non-committal.

I enjoyed the book, though, feeling a little snowed, at times I had to push myself to get through. I won’t buy a copy for annotation. A second reading, sometime later, will probably illuminate the ideas.

Messages to Senators Tester and Baucus

Letters to Tester and Baucus

  • No New Entitlements! Vote no on healthcare.
  • Senate healthcare bills are goulash! Vote no on healthcare.
  • “Anything that can get 60 votes.” A fine way to make policy.
  • I object to higher costs and lower quality implicit in healthcare legislation.
  • Vote no. I don’t want higher taxes, fewer doctors, longer lines, fewer medical innovations.
  • Stop the Senate healthcare runaway!
  • Don’t nationalize healthcare!
  • Discretion and changeable requirements make CBO’s cost projections moot.
  • 40% American approve. 98% Senate Democrats approve. Now that’s “connecting with the American people”!
  • Have you read the bill? (War and Peace is 1,000 pages shorter.) Have you read the Constitution? Vote no on healthcare.
  • Your “total domination” is suffocating me…healthcare and other attacks on individualism, property and markets.
  • Government can’t and shouldn’t manage the entire US healthcare industry. Your presumption is utmost vanity.
  • Don’t let this octopus out of the aquarium!
  • Save us from your beneficence! Vote no on Senate healthcare.
  • May your conscience be pricked all your days if your vote enables socialized healthcare to pass. Many guilty, sleepless nights to you. May your political career terminate.
  • Quit telling me how to run my life. Vote no on healthcare legislation.
  • Quit threatening higher taxes and higher premiums. Vote no on healthcare.
  • Quit spending money you don’t have. Vote no on healthcare.
  • Thanks for laying bare the total domination and control, the welfare state mentality of the Democratic Party in all its sordid grandeur. I’m referring to healthcare legislation and the many other assaults presently leveled at our citizens. Now we know what liberals really want and how they view the individual and the family. At least you’ve made this clear!

Public Option By Any Other Name

I read it last night. The Senate is dropping public option.

Reuters: “Senate Democratic negotiators said they had reached agreement on Tuesday on a compromise scaled-back public insurance plan in a broad healthcare overhaul and would seek cost estimates on the the deal.”

I read on.

“A team of 10 Senate Democrats–five liberals and five moderates–had been working for days on a substitute to the government-run plan included in the Senate bill, which has dismayed some moderates.

Democratic Senate sources said the substitute proposal would create a non-profit plan operated by insurers but administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which supervises health coverage for federal workers.”

Take a look at that sentence. A non-profit plan makes me think of Bkue Cross and Blue Shield. That’s not too distressing. When the story says the plan, “will be operated by insurers but administered by the Office of Personnel Management”, I spot a conflict. If you operate a business, but a government agency is the administrator, who is really in charge, the operator or the administrator?

Who hires the workers and sets their pay? What products do you offer? (What kinds of health insurance? What do you cover; what do you exclude?) What is the cost to consumers? How do you respond to competition? If you lose money, who bails you out? Who do you answer to? Who are your “stockholders” and “constituents”? When the government owns GM, it certainly feels entitled to call the shots such as determining colors for cars, pay for executives, plant and dealership closures, retail prices, fuel efficiency. In health care, the government would decide if mammograms, abortions, and sex change operations are covered, if patients have to pay any portion of medical services, and the thousands of choices in cost, efficiency, and offerings, with their underlying moral and economic assumptions.

A few days back a senator remarked that it was imperative to get rid of the name “public option”. She didn’t care what it was called, as long as it could shed the perjorative name that many in the public associate with excess government control. It seems her wish was consumated.