Doctor shortage is coming…or is it already here?
From WSJ:
The new federal health-care law has raised the stakes for hospitals and schools already scrambling to train more doctors.
Experts warn there won’t be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law. At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.
That shortfall is predicted despite a push by teaching hospitals and medical schools to boost the number of U.S. doctors, which now totals about 954,000.
The greatest demand will be for primary-care physicians. These general practitioners, internists, family physicians and pediatricians will have a larger role under the new law, coordinating care for each patient.
So what happens when ObamaCare kicks in?
A shortage of primary-care and other physicians could mean more-limited access to health care and longer wait times for patients.
In other words: Welcome to Canada! For those of you on the left, that’s not a good thing.
Exit question: How long until Waxman calls the doctors onto the floor of Congress to browbeat them for pointing this out?
Justice Hillary Clinton?
Sen. Hatch (R-UT) says he’s heard the Hilldawg’s name bandied about as a possible replacement for liberal SCOTUS Justice Stevens, who is retiring a decade short of the century mark of life. How Hatch has any insider info on B.O.’s thinking, I dunno. Story here.
Anywho, this may stun you fine folks, but I think I might support the choice. Before you think I’ve been hitting the bong, please hear me out.
First of all, ObaMao isn’t going to pick a conservative or a centrist. Period. Secondly, the ideological makeup wouldn’t change, as you’re replacing a leftist with a leftist.
No, I think our gain would be to get this disaster out of the State Department. She’s alienated our allies and has bungled so many foreign policy moves that it’s not even funny. While I know that Oprompter would replace her with another leftist hack, his stock is badly damaged now, compared to when he was first sworn in. The GOP could now mount an offense against whatever Marxist surrender-happy meat stick B.O. picks.
Additionally, there are those who think that B.O. will be so badly damaged in 2012 that either he won’t run or he’ll get a primary challenge, either of which would open the door for Her Highness. She’d be better on the Court and not in the Oval Office.
Obviously, this is not a warm, enthusiastic endorsement for Shrillary. It’s a backhanded “How can we be screwed the least?” endorsement.
What sayeth the commenters? 
Obama: Hey, Sarah! Gates is comfy with my nukes plan; Gates: No, I’m not!
Sarah Palin drives the left nuttier than they already are. B.O. has lowered himself frequently since being coronated last year, displaying without question (the science is settled) that he is a small, petty man, unfit for the presidency. Oprompter said this last week in response to Palin’s claims that B.O.’s nuke policy was wussified:
The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues…What I would say to [critics] is, is that if the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff are comfortable with it, I’m probably going to take my advice from them and not from Sarah Palin.
Makes sense to listen to the SecDef over a pundit, right? Of course! There’s just one problem: he didn’t listen to his SecDef!
Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.
Ergo, Palin’s characterization of President Training Wheels’ nuke policy was correct.
BTW, Palin retorted thusly:
Palin shot back later at a speech to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, further mocking Obama’s earlier career and “all the vast nuclear experience that he acquired as a community organizer.”
Heh. In fairness to B.O., he does have a cursory knowledge of bombs, when you consider that he’s best buds with Bill Ayers.
French president: Hey, maybe Obama is a nutjob
Heh.
A new report circulating in the Kremlin today authored by France’s Directorate-General for External Security (DGSE) and recently “obtained” by the FSB shockingly quotes French President Nicolas Sarkozy [photo top right with Obama] as stating that President Barack Obama is “a dangerous[ly] aliéné”, which translates into his, Obama, being a “mad lunatic”, or in the American vernacular, “insane”.
Dude, the Frogs are insulting our president! The friggin’ Frogs! Hey, I’m not saying that he’s wrong or that I object. I’m just saying…the Frogs!
Crush Liberalism Radio, Sunday, April 11, 10 pm EST
Phones open this week. Feel free to call in. This week’s main discussion will be the pettiness of Obama, how Palin gets under the left’s skin, insurance woes in MA coming soon to America, and more…Sunday night on Crush Liberalism radio!
See you there!
Stupak retiring?
After selling his soul to Satan Obama and flushing his lifetime 100% approval rating from pro-life groups down the crapper, Stupunk has apparently seen the writing on the wall. Details:
Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak, the congressman who led anti-abortion rights Democrats in the House during health care negotiations, will retire this year, CBS News has learned. He is expected to announce his plans later this morning.
Had Stupak sought re-election, he would have faced challengers from both the left and the right backed by interest groups angered by Stupak’s health care vote.
Smooth move, Ex-Lax. You managed to tick off the right and the left. That takes a certain je ne sais quoi to pull that off, dude.
Chris “Tingles” Matthews: Hey, why doesn’t Obama sell America on how awesome socialism really is?
Well, Tingles is finally being honest about who liberals really are. Shame it had to come after President Manchurian Candidate was elected. Quoth the Leg Thrill guy on the little-watched MSDNC MSNBC network:
The problem is that we don’t think in terms of what would the country be like if we didn’t have Medicare for our parents as they get very old — in their eighties, for example, when they’re still alive, and they need health care, a lot of it. And they don’t have any source of income. They’re not working every morning. They’re not making a paycheck. What would it be like in this country? Calcutta? Poor people all over the place? Old people lying in the streets? I mean, we don’t think about what it would be if we didn’t have health care, if we didn’t have SocSecurity for people at the age of 65, if we didn’t have unemployment compensation, if we didn’t have a progressive income tax. There’s a lot of things we don’t think about. And the right-wing just pounds and pounds away at this idealistic notion of a cowboy country, everybody self-reliant (gasp! People self-reliant? Perish the thought! – Ed.). I think the progressives, for all their power on the blogosphere, have not done a positive case for the advantages of some kind of a social state.
That’s because there are no advantages for a socialist state! Seriously, one has to wonder, when listening to Tingles and his ilk, how the country ever survived before FDR pre-socialized our country. We were not Calcutta or some Third World nation, you leftist buffoon! While they weren’t necessarily the golden years, those days certainly didn’t drive this country to the precipice of bankruptcy the way that socialism has.
As to “they haven’t done a good job explaining the virtues of socialism” statement, there’s a reason for that, Chris: if they tried to be as open as you are about it, they’d win in San Fransicko, Berserkeley, and nearly nowhere else. Normal America rejects socialism, and that’s why you pustules have to force it on us incrementally.
While leftists like Tingles can freely tell both of his viewers how socialism rocks, elected officials have to be dishonest and clandestine about it.
Liberal Congresswoman: No, there is no “requirement” that you buy health insurance under ObamaCare
If you’re going to go all out for Chairman O’s health care “reform”, is it too much to ask that you be a little honest about what’s in the friggin’ plan? From CNS News:
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.) is insisting that the new health care law she voted for last month does not mandate that individuals buy health insurance, despite language in the law that plainly says otherwise.
At an April 5 town hall meeting in Fort Lauderdale (see video below), a constituent asked Wasserman Shultz where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance. She responded that the new health care law did not require individuals to buy health insurance.
In a written statement to CNSNews.com on Wednesday, her press secretary, Jonathan Beeton, said it was true that the health care law did not mandate that individuals buy health insurance and that Wasserman Schultz stood by her assertion at the townhall meeting.
“We actually have not required in this law that you carry health insurance,” Wasserman Schultz said at the townhall meeting.
“Yes, this is accurate,” Beeton said in his statement to CNSNews.com. “You have a choice of insuring yourself with affordable coverage, or paying an assessment that will offset the burden you place on other insured Americans and taxpayers by not being insured.”
There’s just one little problem with that statement…it’s patently and provably false:
The actual law she voted for says otherwise. It contains a requirement that each person have health insurance, and assesses a penalty if they do not.
The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code, the nation’s tax law, adding a section entitled, “Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage,” section 5000A.
“Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter: ‘‘CHAPTER 48—MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE ‘‘Sec. 5000A. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage.”Contrary to Rep. Wasserman Schultz’s claim, this section of the law requires that every individual certify to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that they have a government-approved level of health insurance coverage.
“REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month,” the law reads.
Individuals who fail to compy with this “requirement” are assessed a “shared responsibility payment”–a fine collected by the IRS.
“SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013…there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c).”
But yeah, if you just ignore Webster’s definition of the word “requirement”, and if you just ignore that the word “requirement” is actually used in multiple places in the law, then there is no requirement! Up is down, yes is no, black is white, etc.
But hey, it’s not like she read the bill she voted for, so how could she possibly know what was in it?
Obama to delete references to “Islamic terrorism” in security policy documents
Let’s see here:
The Taliban. al Qaeda. Hamas. Hezbollah. Iran’s ruling clerics. If only I could find one common bond, one thing they all share…
Well, I know one thing they don’t share in common, thanks to President Spineless:
President Barack Obama’s advisers will remove religious terms such as “Islamic extremism” from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.
The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”
So does this mean that B.O. just solved our national security problems related to Islamic terrorist attacks? Simply remove references to it, and presto change-o…no more Islamic terrorism! Dude’s so awesome he just eradicated militant Islamic extremism…with his mind! You’re welcome, America.
God help us until the grown-ups and normal Americans can get back in charge!
Dems unveil electoral strategy: invoke Bush
Yeah, that tactic went over like a fart in church in VA, NJ, and MA, didn’t it? The party of “change” apparently isn’t going to change at all when it comes to their message this year.
Heck, I was one of the people who couldn’t wait for Bush to get out. But now? Well, to answer the question on the billboards, “Yes, I do miss him!” Bush looks like Reagan to Obama’s Carter right about now.
Money quote:
Van Hollen waved off comparisons to the 1994 midterm elections, when insurgent Republicans channeled popular dissatisfaction with Democratic control to knock off 54 Democrats and win back the House. But Van Hollen argued that in 1994 — unlike now — the GOP presented itself as a viable alternative; Democrats were caught flat-footed; and President Bill Clinton’s support was sagging.
Yeah, because BO’s robust 44% approval rating is just the medicine that the government-approved doctor prescribed for the Dems, right?
Night and Day, “McCain the Maverick” edition
Juan McAmnesty on the campaign trail in 2008:
I have a long record and the American people know me very well and that is independent and a maverick of the Senate and I’m happy to say that I’ve got a partner that’s a good maverick along with me now.
Juanny Mac over the weekend:
“I never considered myself a maverick,” he told me. “I consider myself a person who serves the people of Arizona to the best of his abilities.”
Busted.
Hoax story meant to punk us bloggers…punks NYT instead!
“Hi, welcome to Starbucks. Can I take your order?”
“Yes, I would like a venti Awesome Latté, with a shot of rich chocolatey Awesome syrup, sprinkled with fresh Awesome shavings!” 
This story is dripping with delicious point-proving satisfaction that I may go into a diabetic coma right now. Details from Liberty Pundits:
And these clowns wonder why they are circling the drain? This lawyer pulled the fake story stunt to entrap us – political bloggers – because “fact checking is not” our “strong suit,” so he claimed. We ignored the story, and the NYT ran with it.
Gawker’s got a post, which also covers another false story the NYT ran with – but this blog one is just so rich. Let’s go to the source.
New York Personal Injury Attorney Blog.com. Eric Turkewitz wrote in this blog that he had been appointed “official White House law blogger“:
Since word is already dribbling out among my friends, I thought I should let you know here: I’m closing down this blog in the next few weeks to start up a new one at the White House as their official law blogger. I’ll have the opportunity to both expand the scope of my writing and serve my country at the same time. As blogging gigs go, it doesn’t get any better than that.
It’s a good ruse complete with charts and stories. So the NYT gets wind of it. Their “fact-checking” department calls both the lawyer and the White House. Lawyer specifically obfuscates; he confirms NOTHING. The WH? No one home. The story has no confirmation whatsoever on any level.
What does the NYT do? I can’t grab an archived version to link, but here is the cut from Gawker claiming to be the original NYT piece:
After all, as Mr. Turkewitz, a Manhattan lawyer, writes on his New York Personal Injury Law Blog, he is about to be sounding off on all manner of legal issues as the Obama administration’s new White House law blogger.
“Excited about new blogging gig as White House law blogger,” he tweeted this morning. “But hope I don’t have to spend too much time in D.C.”
Spoken like a true New Yorker.
And, alas, here’s the retraction:
[Note: an earlier version of this column had an item about a blog post by a personal-injury lawyer, Eric Turkewitz, announcing that he had been appointed the White House law blogger. Blogospheric chatter indicates a high likelihood that this post was an April Fool hoax. Mr. Turkewitz declined to give us a straight answer on this score, so, pending callback from the White House, we've taken the item down.]
Love the “blogospheric chatter” crack. I think it is called “vetting” or “fact checking.” …
The MSM absolutely loathes the blogosphere. We do the reporting they used to do. They snidely and condescendingly fall back on the “we have multiple layers of fact-checkers at our disposal” defense as to why we break stories before they do. Well, if they do indeed have these “multiple layers of fact-checkers” at their disposal, they clearly do not use them. (Sidebar: Dan Rather and Mary Mapes were unavailable for comment.)
Anywho, this left-wing blogger laid out the bait for the bloggers, and the NYT walked into the trap. And this schmuck says that “fact checking hasn’t always been a strong suit of” the blogger community? Physician, heal thyself!
Irony: it’s not just for breakfast anymore!
AP: Hey, great news! More sucky economic news forthcoming!
Here’s the intro to the story:
Buoyed by good news on the jobs front, the White House claimed credit Sunday for reversing the downward economic spiral while bracing out-of-work Americans for a slow recovery.
Growing up in the South, we had an expression that fits this perfectly: “polishing a turd”!
Seriously, AP? Seriously?? The “good news” is that there was some hiring…of temporary workers for the census! Once that’s done, then sayonara, census workers.
As you read the cheerleading puff piece “story”, you’d be hard-pressed to find any evidence of “good news on the jobs front.” In other words, the intro is saying “There’s good news: I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to…”
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Happy Easter!
He has risen, my friends, and I am forever grateful for that! 
May you all have a blessed Easter, and I’ll see you again on Monday! Crush Liberalism Radio will return on Monday, April 5, at 10:00 pm EST.
Quote of the day, “IL Dem says he ‘doesn’t care’ what Constitution says” edition
This is merely Example #4,125,562 on how the left doesn’t think too highly of our Constitution:
“I don’t worry about the Constitution.”
…and…
“I believe that it says we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Um…no, it doesn’t. As anyone who has gone beyond 5th grade in social studies can tell you, those words appear in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Then again, when you’re a member of the party that routinely uses the Constitution as Charmin, it’s easy to see how you wouldn’t know what is in it. After all, how can you read a document when you’re wiping your backside with it?
-
Archives
- May 2012 (15)
- April 2012 (20)
- March 2012 (11)
- February 2012 (17)
- January 2012 (19)
- December 2011 (25)
- November 2011 (41)
- October 2011 (38)
- September 2011 (32)
- August 2011 (39)
- July 2011 (28)
- June 2011 (43)
-
Categories
- "art"
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- abortion
- ACLU
- ACORN
- affirmative action
- Afghanistan
- Ahmanutjob
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- anti-Semitism
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- atheists
- Australia
- autism
- Barney Frank
- Beeb
- Biden
- big government
- bigotry
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- bizarre
- Blagojevich
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bloomberg
- Bobby Jindal
- CAIR
- California
- Canada
- Canucks
- capital punishment
- capitalism
- Caroline Kennedy
- Carter
- Castro
- Catholics
- Charlie Crist
- Cheney
- Chicago
- China
- Chris Christie
- Christianity
- Chuck Schumer
- CLOWNS
- CNN
- conservatism
- Constitution
- corruption
- Cuba
- D.C.
- Dan Rather
- Darfur
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- defeatism
- Detroit
- dhimmitude
- Dodd
- drugs
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- Egypt
- eminent domain
- energy
- environuts
- Episcopalians
- Eric Cantor
- Euros
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Farrakhan
- fauxtography
- feminism
- Florida
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- France
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- gay
- Germany
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- Gore
- Grayson
- gun rights
- Halliburton
- headlines
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Hillary
- Holder
- Hollyweirdos
- homeless
- Howard Dean
- Huckabee
- Hugo Chavez
- humor
- hurricanes
- hypocrisy
- illegal immigration
- Imus
- intelligence
- Iran
- Iraq
- irony
- Israel
- Janet Napolitano
- Japan
- Jena
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- judiciary
- karma
- Kennedrunk
- Kerry
- Larry Craig
- Leahy
- Libby
- libertarian
- Libya
- Lieberman
- Lindsey Graham
- Lott
- Louisiana
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- Massachusetts
- McCain
- McClellan
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Memphis
- Mexico
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- military
- minimum wage
- Minnesota
- moonbats
- MSNBC
- Mugabe
- Murtha
- NAACP
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- non-political
- North Korea
- Obama
- Occupy Wall Street
- oil
- Olbermann
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Palin
- Pelosi
- photoshop
- Plamegate
- political correctness
- polls
- Pope
- pork
- privacy
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- Putin
- quote of the day
- Reid
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Romney
- Ron Paul
- Rudy
- Rush
- Russia
- San Francisco
- satire
- Seattle
- separated at birth
- shameful
- Shehag
- smoking
- Social Security
- socialism
- Solyndra
- Soros
- Spitzer
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- taxes
- Tea Party
- Texas
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- tolerance
- TOTUS
- treason
- Uncategorized
- unions
- United Nations
- vandalism
- Vermont
- vote fraud
- Wal-Mart
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett
- Webb
- wingnuts
- Wisconsin
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
