Private Clinics Are A Threat To Canada’s Socialist Health Care System Or Something

There’s a movement going on in Canada, one which has seen a large expansion of private facilities where people can, get this, go in an pay with their own money to get treatment quickly. And the Fascists/Socialists who love the government to be in control are not happy

Canada’s health system serves as model for Sanders – but faces troubles of its own
Experts warn of ‘major threat’ of privatisation and point to concerns over gaps in coverage, even as Canadians are widely proud of their healthcare system

Bernie Sanders will arrive in Toronto this weekend for a crash course in an unrivalled point of pride for most Canadians: the country’s healthcare system.

The visit – which will include roundtable discussions, facility tours and meetings with patients – is aimed at better understanding how Canada provides universal healthcare that yields a longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the US while spending about half as much per capita.

What Sanders learns will probably inform his push to provide publicly funded healthcare for every American, forming the backbone of a movement that has repeatedly cited Canada as an example to be followed. But as Sanders heralds Canada as a place where health care needs consistently trump the ability to pay, some are sounding the alarm about the inequalities that plague the Canadian system.

Some of these are blatant, thanks to the stream of for-profit medical clinics that have set up shop north of the border in recent decades.

“I think privatisation is a major threat to public health care in Canada,” said Natalie Mehra of the Ontario Health Coalition.

A “major threat!” Why? Because they can set up and take care of people who would rather pay for services now then waiting a long time to get taken care of in the Canadian system. And perhaps get things taken care of in a manner than the Government system won’t take care of. For all the rah rah from Progressives about how great the Canadian system is, lots of people actually come across the border to the U.S. for care. Remember when a baby was brought because there were no beds available?

Earlier this year, her organisation released a report documenting 136 private clinics across the country and highlighted that 71 of these were selling faster access to services covered by the country’s health care system. What’s more, the report suggested that many of the clinics were charging patients while also billing the public health care system – a practice that runs contrary to Canadian law.

While there is certainly a problem with the double billing (possibly, depends on Canadian law), note that the report says they were selling faster access. When you need medical care, do you want it now, or want to wait?

The report was careful not to overstate the role of these clinics, noting that the vast majority of hospital and physician services in Canada continue to be provided within the publicly funded system. “But the threat is real,” it continued. “In the majority of provinces, private clinics have set up shop and are charging user fees to patients.”

The threat is that people will notice that private organizations can take care of people faster than the Government run system, which takes power out of the hands of government, and, by extension, the special interests who are supported by government.

Obviously, some want Something to be done. Which is pretty much that these private clinics be banned.

Meanwhile, the article delves into the notion that the Canadian system avoids coverage of dental and eye care, as well as things like “pharmacare” and psychological disorders.

BTW, why is Sanders taking a fossil fueled trip? This is the same guy who wanted to “bring climate deniers to justice.” If he’s using vast amounts of fossil fuels, doesn’t that make him a “denier”?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Private Clinics Are A Threat To Canada’s Socialist Health Care System Or Something »

Big Businesses Climate Targets Are Unambitious Or Something

The Warmists at the UK Guardian seem shocked that most businesses are simply paying lip service to Hotcoldwetdry

Big companies’ climate change targets are ‘unambitious’, say analysts
While almost all companies have plans in place to reduce carbon emissions, those plans don’t go far enough, according to the Carbon Disclosure Project

Nearly nine out of 10 of the world’s biggest companies have plans in place to reduce carbon emissions, new research has found, but only a fifth of them are doing so for 2030 and beyond.

The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) also found that only 14% of its sample of 1,073 large companies around the world had “science-based targets” – that is, goals to reduce carbon emissions which are in line with the global agreement to hold warming to no more than 2C, enshrined in the 2015 Paris agreement.

“Targets [from companies] have previously been short in scope and pretty unambitious,” Marcus Norton, chief partnerships officer at CDP, told the Guardian. “That is improving.”

I’d hazard to suggest that most of these companies made plans simply for good PR, not because they actually care or want to Do Something, at least when it comes to Doing Something with their own money. It really doesn’t harm them to announce plans, make a big splash, then do pretty much nothing. The only time they’ll really take action is when it saves them money. They are not going to do things that cost them more money.

But, then, this is Warmism in a nutshell: lots of big plans, lots of Pronouncements about Doing Something, but, never actually really doing anything. But demanding that Other People be forced to do something.

Read: Big Businesses Climate Targets Are Unambitious Or Something »

If All You See…

…are wonderful trees pulling evil carbon pollution from the air, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Evil Blogger Lady, with a post explaining Fusion GPS, Bill Kristol, and Matthew Continetti.

Read: If All You See… »

NY Times: We Should Give Dreamers And People Illegally Crossing The Border Legal Protections

You could see this coming a mile away, because this is essentially what the pro-illegal alien community and supporters have been pushing for a long time, namely, amnesty for any who are illegally present in the United States

To Help a Dreamer, Why Do We Have to Hurt Her Cousin?

Last August, Lesli Gonzalez, 22, got a phone call at 6 a.m. Did she know Doralinda Lopez de León, a Guatemalan girl who said she was running from danger and had been caught by Border Patrol agents entering the United States? Yes, Ms. Gonzalez said, she’s my cousin.

Doralinda, 17, had crossed into the United States alone, without a parent. That meant she was “unaccompanied,” a designation that confers special, well-deserved protections on children who were once routinely preyed on by traffickers after deportation. Instead of being quickly sent back, Central American minors are allowed to make their case that they qualify to stay in this country before an immigration judge.

This month, President Trump told Congress that to give legal status to Dreamers like Ms. Gonzalez, whose Mexican parents brought her to the United States unlawfully when she was 3 months old, they must strip protections from children like her cousin Doralinda.

To Ms. Gonzalez, this cruel Catch-22 is not a trade-off that Congress should be forced to make: securing legal status for people like her while throwing Doralinda to the wolves. It’s not just a choice for Congress. This moment should force a reckoning for everyone in this country. Are we going to use child refugees running from harm as a negotiating chip?

It’s always something. Always some sort of sob story. Always some feelings based excuse for people to break our laws and violate our sovereignty. We read in the article about the supporters being enraged that Trump would dare try and stop people coming in illegally, because something something. This is all big meany blah blah blah.

How about this: we can make a choice to no longer offer any help to Dreamers, and just deport them all. How about that? What right do they have to tell the United States how to run its business, how to handle immigration. Let them go back to their birth nations if they don’t like the way we do things.

You can expect more pushes like this, where not only should the Dreamers be given legal status, with a preference for easy citizenship by the illegal alien supporters, but all who cross should get it.

Read: NY Times: We Should Give Dreamers And People Illegally Crossing The Border Legal Protections »

It Starts: Church To Take Down George Washington Plaque To Be “More Welcoming”

The church, as a private organization, has the right to do this. It’s still incredibly insane that they would remove a memorial to the father of the nation, especially with their reasoning

(Washington Times) George Washington was one of the founding members of Christ Church in Alexandria, buying pew No. 5 when the church first opened in 1773, and attending for more than two decades.

This week the church announced it was pulling down a memorial to its one-time vestryman and the country’s first president, saying he and another famous parishioner, Robert E. Lee, have become too controversial and are chasing away would-be parishioners.

While acknowledging “friction” over the decision, the church’s leadership said the twin memorials, which are attached to the wall on either side of the altar, are relics of another era and have no business in a church that proclaims its motto as “All are welcome — no exceptions.”

“The plaques in our sanctuary make some in our presence feel unsafe or unwelcome. Some visitors and guests who worship with us choose not to return because they receive an unintended message from the prominent presence of the plaques,” the church leaders said.

You could make a case about Robert E. Lee, but, George Washington? Really? Supposedly, they will eventually move the memorials somewhere else on the grounds to put them in “historical context.”

What you can probably expect is for a bunch of parishioners to seek a new place of worship.

It’s not clear that the church could divorce itself from Washington even if it wanted to. The website touts itself as “a church where George Washington worshipped,” and displays a picture of its famous patron.

As an original benefactor, Washington bought pew No. 5 when the church opened in 1773. He was a vestryman and contributed to the church throughout his life, according to the Washington Papers project. His family considered the church important enough to him that it donated one of his Bibles after his death.

And this is the way they pay Washington back.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: It Starts: Church To Take Down George Washington Plaque To Be “More Welcoming” »

Surprise: We’ve Been Calculating Earth’s Warming Trend All Wrong, So We’re Doomed

In Science, if you make a hypothesis, and it turns out wrong, you must match the conclusion to the data. In “climate science”, if the conclusion is wrong, change the data to match the hypothesis. And, if you need to do a bit of scaremongering. It’s the new science

New science suggests the ocean could rise more — and faster — than we thought

Climate change could lead to sea level rises that are larger, and happen more rapidly, than previously thought, according to a trio of new studies that reflect mounting concerns about the stability of polar ice.

In one case, the research suggests that previous high end projections for sea level rise by the year 2100 — a little over three feet — could be too low, substituting numbers as high as six feet at the extreme if the world continues to burn large volumes of fossil fuels throughout the century.

I’ll make it easy: they’re trotting out worst case scenarios where you get the type of sea rise that occurred as the last ice age ended. But, of course, even though actual data shows this is all mule fritters scaremongering

“The steady and gradual sea-level rise, observed over the past two centuries [may] not be a complete characterization of how sea level would rise in the future,” the study concludes.

Of course! Their computer models are simply substitutes for palm reading and crystal balls. Obviously, this report is going to be used in the next UN IPCC report.

Another crazy report states that NYC could might possibly maybe WE’RE DOOMED be hit with 500 year floods every 4 years. Mark this prognostication down when it fails.

Read: Surprise: We’ve Been Calculating Earth’s Warming Trend All Wrong, So We’re Doomed »

If All You See…

…is a horrible created created by carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post wishing Hillary Clinton a Birthday.

Read: If All You See… »

‘Climate Change’ Is Totally Making Bugs Worse Or Something

Bugs are the worst part of going outside, you guys

Bugs Are the Worst Part of Going Outside and Climate Change Is Making It Worse
Bug spray will soon be as ubiquitous as sunscreen. Long sleeves in hot weather will lose their dorky reputation.

For people who enjoy the outdoors, the buzz of a mosquito has always held a feeling of impending doom for itchy torment to come. But imagine if the sound also brought risks to your unborn child, or a trip to a hospital, as it does today in many parts of the world outside of North America.

It is clear that from a certain vantage point, the future will be buggy. Thanks to climate change, insect populations are on the move. Some are being lured to new habitats, while others are coaxed to emerge earlier in the year, and their numbers are growing. Research predicts a proliferation of species capable of eating through ecosystems and spreading disease. But beneath the swarms of pest species, the world is also at risk of losing vast populations of insects less able to adapt. And neither outcome bodes well for us.

This all means doom, as we see from the subhead about needing more bug spray, which they delve in to in the article, and wearing long sleeves. And more and more doom. But, interesting, they do not provide scientific proof that this is mostly/solely caused by Mankind.

One wonders how Humanity and the other life on this planet survived during previous warm periods.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Is Totally Making Bugs Worse Or Something »

Trump Is Expanding The Government’s Secret Deportation Weapon Or Something

Did you know there’s a secret weapon for deporting those who are unlawfully present in the United States? It’s so secret that they even have a name for the process

How Trump is expanding the government’s secret deportation weapon

Under President Donald Trump, immigration arrests have jumped by nearly 35 percent. They’re happening at courthouses, restaurants and in front of people’s homes. And these days, anyone who isn’t authorized to be in the country – from gang members to church pastors – is fair game.

These high-profile arrests put immigrants on high alert and attract media attention, but the actual number of deportations has dropped, in part, because overwhelmed immigration courts just can’t keep up.

The Trump administration has a plan to solve this problem: It wants to dramatically expand the authority of on-the-ground officers to expel immigrants without a judge’s review.

While the move has gotten far less attention than splashy raids and the border fence, it has the potential to radically change immigration enforcement nationwide. But there are already flaws in the current system. And legal experts are raising questions about whether the expansion would violate the U.S. Constitution, and would lead to the wrong people being deported.

This fast-track deportation is called “expedited removal,” and it was designed to quickly deport a certain kind of migrant: those who had recently arrived. For the past two decades, it has been used in a more targeted way near the border. Past administrations have expanded it gradually. Trump’s proposed expansion would take it across the nation.

People within 100 miles of the border who have been unlawfully present for two weeks and under can have this method used against them, and the Supreme Court agrees with this.

Under Trump’s plan, expedited removal would be transformed from a specialized tool for recent crossers arrested near the border to a blanket policy that could be used anywhere, potentially on people with deeper ties to the country. It would be expanded to cover the entire country, for anyone who’d been in the United States for as long as two years, the furthest extent conceivable under the law.

Here’s the thing: it’d be great if it is enacted. Team Trump apparently has discussed doing just this multiple times going back to February, per various media reports, such as this most recent one in July. Why should the taxpayers pony up lots of money to house and feed illegals when they can just deport people who should not be here? A 1996 law gave ICE and the Border Patrol the ability to do this. Right now, though, it’s still just in discussion.

Read: Trump Is Expanding The Government’s Secret Deportation Weapon Or Something »

Trump Declares Opioids A Public Health Crisis

CNN’s Dan Merica, usually one to go all sorts of #Resistance when it comes to Trump, provides a mostly balanced article on what Trump’s announcement means

President Donald Trump declared a nationwide public health emergency to combat the opioid crisis Thursday at a White House event, rather than issuing a national disaster declaration.

Both are forms of national emergency declarations, but the primary difference is the scope and funding for each order.

“This epidemic is a national health emergency,” he said. “Nobody has seen anything like what is going on now.”

He added: “As Americans, we cannot allow this to continue. It is time to liberate our communities from this scourge of drug addiction. Never been this way. We can be the generation that ends the opioid epidemic. We can do it.”

Trump, through the Public Health Services Act, directed his acting secretary of health and human services to declare a nationwide health emergency, a designation that will not automatically be followed by additional federal funding for the crisis, according to a senior White House official.

Many, such as the NY Times Editorial Board, are having meltdowns that Trump did not use the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, which would have immediately released funds meant for national emergencies (the Times is also suddenly against Words, which they used to love when Obama was making empty speeches), like hurricanes and floods. Using the Public Health Services Act, the focus is more tailored and focused.

But both Trump and Obama administration officials say that designation would have been too broad and put an undue burden on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Disaster Relief Fund, a fund already cash strapped by recovery efforts from the three major hurricanes that hit the United States this year.

Using FEMA funds to combat the opioid crisis would be “a little bit like asking an engineer to bake a cake,” said Rafael Lemaitre, the former communications director for the White House Drug Policy Office under President Barack Obama.

“I do think the Public Health Service Act is more appropriate route to take than the Stafford Act designation,” he said. “I worked at FEMA for two years and dealt with multiple disasters. The Stafford Act is not structured to deal with a long term, complicated public health crisis like the opioid crisis.”

After this, Dan starts diving into complaints about killing Ocare and stuff, the normal complaints, so, let’s jump to the editorial board of the San Diego Tribune

But the counterargument — that it doesn’t make sense to treat a long-term health crisis like a hurricane — has merit. And the public health emergency declaration is much more than a gesture. It means all affected federal agencies must take necessary emergency steps to reduce opioid overdose deaths. Among its many provisions, Trump’s order gives governors more flexibility in how they use federal grants to address the crisis. And it improves treatment for addicts in isolated rural areas, letting them talk to doctors using telecommunication technologies and get prescriptions without meeting the normal legal requirement they see a doctor in person.

They point out that this is a good start. But, it is important to now fund outreach and treatment by Congress (forgetting there needs to be more enforcement to stop the spread of opioids so that people do not start using them and need treatment.

Sadly, there are plenty of news outlets, both in straight news and opinion, who are manufacturing ways to bash Trump on this, rather than giving him the help and cheerleading needed to get it done.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump Declares Opioids A Public Health Crisis »

Pirate's Cove