Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (164775)	3/18/2010 10:18:32 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Buying Votes With Water Politics: The water spigots are back on, at least temporarily, in California's Central Valley. Turned off to protect a tiny fish, they happen to be in the districts of two congressmen "undecided" on health care reform. One could chalk it up to good fortune or just good constituent service. But in the middle of a contentious health care debate marked by Cornhusker Kickbacks and Louisiana Purchases, we may be forgiven if we find an announcement by the Department of the Interior regarding California's water supply a tad too coincidental. On Tuesday, the Department of the Interior announced it was increasing water allocations for the Central Valley of California, a region that depends on these water allocations for local agriculture and jobs. The timing adds to our suspicions. According to the Interior announcement, "Typically (the Bureau of) Reclamation would release the March allocation update around March 22nd, but moved up the announcement at the urging of Senators (Diane) Feinstein and (Barbara) Boxer, and Congressmen (Jim) Costa and (Dennis) Cardoza." Blue Dog Democrats Costa, who represents California's 20th Congressional District (Fresno), and Cardoza, who represents the 18th (Stockton to Modesto), are both listed as "undecided" in the upcoming vote on health care reform, whether it be on the Senate bill itself or the "deem and pass" resolution known as the Slaughter rule, after Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter. The rule subverts the Constitution by allowing the bill to pass without members actually having to vote on it. Interior's announcement gives Costa and Cardoza something to assuage the wrath of angry constituents just in time for any vote. They chose what was behind door number one. This isn't the first time. To get them out of the "undecided" column in last December's House vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership promised $500 million for a new University of California-Merced Medical School. Costa and Cardoza then voted "aye." During the 109th Congress, Cardoza was co-chairman of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of moderate and conservative Democrats who allegedly had the Constitution, limited government and their constituents' best interests at heart. Lately, many have just rolled over and played dead. Cardoza and Costa were among 28 Blue Dog Democrats who voted for the first House bill. The 2-inch-long delta smelt, a fish destined for the Endangered Species list, plugs the drains releasing water to the farmlands. So to protect it, environmentalists filed lawsuits and the decision was made to restrict the water flow and safeguard the smelt, even if that meant turning some of America's best farmland into the functional equivalent of Death Valley. Last September, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of faraway South Carolina tried to help San Joaquin Valley farmers by offering an amendment to a $32 billion Interior Department funding bill. His amendment would have overturned the decision by Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and temporarily restored valley irrigation deliveries. The amendment was defeated by a near-straight party-line vote of 61-36, with both Boxer and Feinstein voting against restoring the Central Valley water supply. Feinstein claimed to be blindsided by the amendment to the appropriations bill she was managing in the Senate, bizarrely comparing the move to a "Pearl Harbor." "No one from California has called, written or indicated they wanted this on the calendar," Feinstein protested at the time. But DeMint produced letters in support of the amendment signed by the Westlands Federation, the Western Growers Association and the California Grape & Tree Fruit League. The 400-mile San Joaquin Valley is a fertile strip of farmland that produces more fruits and vegetables per square foot than any comparable land in the nation — when it has water. Now it's a place where farmers no longer farm but instead line up at food banks to feed the families of those who once fed the rest of the country and a good chunk of the world. In affected areas, the jobless rate has hit 14%, with farming towns like Mendota experiencing jobless rates nearing 40%. Agricultural losses could eventually total in the billions. All to protect a minnow, while politicians use the San Joaquin Valley as a bargaining chip in what some might consider a political bribe. Once we had a Congress and congressmen who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for our freedom and liberty. Now we are stuck with the likes of these.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (164775)	3/19/2010 8:30:44 AM
From: jlallen	4 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

To Repeat: Doctors Could Hang It Up IBD Editorials Posted 03/17/2010 06:48 PM ET Health Overhaul: We were harshly criticized last September for an IBD/TIPP Poll that showed 45% of doctors would consider leaving medicine if a health care takeover passed. A new poll has vindicated our findings. Our questionnaire went out Aug. 28 to some 25,600 doctors nationwide. Of that substantial sample, we got 1,476 responses. One hundred of those were retired, leaving 1,376. At the time, virtually no one had stopped to ask doctors how they felt about the medical takeover being discussed in Congress. We thought it was vital to ask them, since any overhaul would rise or fall on its implementation by doctors themselves. To say we were stunned with the results is an understatement. Of the physicians queried, 45% said they'd consider closing their practice or retiring early if the overhaul then being considered were enacted. Also, 65% said they opposed the government's attempts at taking over the health care system. Just 33% supported it. Given that the White House and Congress both promised then — as they do now — to provide health care coverage for 31 million new patients while at the same time cutting costs from the $2.4 trillion a year we spend on medical care, we thought it was important to reveal that doctors wouldn't go along with it. What we found was that of the 800,000 physicians practicing in the U.S. in 2006, as many as 360,000 might leave the profession. So with the proposed overhaul, we'd be trying to cover 31 million more patients with up to 45% fewer doctors. Impossible. It can't be done. What came after the Sept. 16 article in which we detailed our poll results was bizarre and in some ways disheartening. A number of liberal groups attacked us for telling the truth, hinting that we were lying, part of an ideological conspiracy or just incompetent. "IBD/TIPP Doctors Poll Is Not Trustworthy," ran the headline of one much-read piece on the FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right blog. The Huffington Post attacked the very integrity of our poll: "Investor's Business Daily Publishes Ludicrous Poll Claiming 45% Of Doctors Would Quit Over Reform." Meanwhile, after the poll was aired on Fox News Channel, Media Matters, the liberal watchdog, went with the relatively sedate "Just in case you needed another reason not to listen to Investor's Business Daily," then called it "garbage." Others were far less kind, but because we're circulated at a number of schools across the nation, we can't reprint the comments here. Suffice to say that many of those comments lacked logical coherence and often contained language that failed to measure up to minimal standards of civil discourse and polite political debate. Why bring all this back up? For no other reason than to note that a new poll completely vindicates our findings of last summer. This poll, conducted by the Medicus Firm, a physician search and consulting outfit, found that 29.2% of the nearly 1,200 doctors it queried said they would quit or retire early if a health overhaul were passed into law. That number jumped to 45.7% — nearly identical to our own — if a public option were included. This poll, by the way, was published as an insert in the New England Journal of Medicine — one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. While the poll doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the journal, would the editors allow a poll in their peer-reviewed medical publication if they thought it were false? Not likely. In the end, it's clear: A health care overhaul, as it's now being pushed, could lead to a precipitous drop in the number of doctors. "Many physicians feel that they cannot continue to practice if patient loads increase while pay decreases," wrote Kevin Perpetua, managing partner of the Medicus Firm, summing up his findings. So for the record, we still stand by our findings. Our poll wasn't "ludicrous" or "untrustworthy." It was dead-on. And it's still relevant. Just last week, President Obama stood in front of a carefully selected group of doctors all wearing smocks to give the impression that ObamaCare has broad physician support. It doesn't. It was nothing but a phony photo-op. But don't take our word for it. Ask a doctor. investors.com