瀟灑人生路
人的一生最重要的是自由和隨之而來的責任。
正文
奧巴馬現在到處批判華盛頓如何妨礙他的改革，華盛頓如何把黨派的利益置於美國人民利益之上，好象他多麽勇敢無畏，多麽為民作主似的。
真是可笑啊，他這是在攻擊誰啊？白宮是你當家，國會是你的民主黨當家，最高法院也有你推薦的人，誰是華盛頓啊？ 不就是你和你的民主黨嗎？您這不是賊喊捉賊是什麽？
這個競選能手除了能煽動群眾鬧群眾，把美國人階級化，對立化，大嘴一張，花納稅人的錢不上千億他沒興趣以外，再沒有任何本事。
美國聯邦政府三權鼎立，互相製約。政治上兩黨對立，旗鼓相當，這是美國立國之本，其目的就是要防止美國出獨裁總統，防止一黨專政，保護美國人民的自由。
奧巴馬對此很不習慣，很反感。 反感到了在國會演講中對最高法院進行攻擊的地步。一群民主黨議員們起立鼓掌叫好。
當三權鼎立的兩權被一黨控製，兩權聯合攻擊第三權的時候，美國大難臨頭了！！！
Supreme Court chief fights back after criticism from Obama
It\'s no secret that many think the fierce mood of partisanship is routinely crippling Washington. While most of the fur flies between the major parties in Congress — with the president weighing in occasionally to keep his party leaders on message — this week has seen an outbreak of hostilities in a less traditional venue: between the Supreme Court and the president.
In a controversy stretching back to January’s State of the Union Address, Chief Justice John Roberts told a group of law students at the University of Alabama that President Obama’s very public dissent from the Court’s Citizens United ruling, which effectively rolled back most existing restraints on corporate funding of political campaigns, was a provocation to the court’s cherished independence.
On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances, and the decorum, said Roberts. The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.
It\'s true that Obama pulled few punches in characterizing the Citizens United ruling, which had been handed down just prior to the State of the Union speech.
Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections, Obama said. Well, I don\'t think American elections should be bankrolled by America\'s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.
Some of the lawmakers on hand interrupted Obama’s remarks with cheers of support. But television cameras panned the Court members in attendance and caught Justice Samuel Alito mouthing the words not true.
真是可笑啊，他這是在攻擊誰啊？白宮是你當家，國會是你的民主黨當家，最高法院也有你推薦的人，誰是華盛頓啊？ 不就是你和你的民主黨嗎？您這不是賊喊捉賊是什麽？
這個競選能手除了能煽動群眾鬧群眾，把美國人階級化，對立化，大嘴一張，花納稅人的錢不上千億他沒興趣以外，再沒有任何本事。
美國聯邦政府三權鼎立，互相製約。政治上兩黨對立，旗鼓相當，這是美國立國之本，其目的就是要防止美國出獨裁總統，防止一黨專政，保護美國人民的自由。
奧巴馬對此很不習慣，很反感。 反感到了在國會演講中對最高法院進行攻擊的地步。一群民主黨議員們起立鼓掌叫好。
當三權鼎立的兩權被一黨控製，兩權聯合攻擊第三權的時候，美國大難臨頭了！！！
Supreme Court chief fights back after criticism from Obama
It\'s no secret that many think the fierce mood of partisanship is routinely crippling Washington. While most of the fur flies between the major parties in Congress — with the president weighing in occasionally to keep his party leaders on message — this week has seen an outbreak of hostilities in a less traditional venue: between the Supreme Court and the president.
In a controversy stretching back to January’s State of the Union Address, Chief Justice John Roberts told a group of law students at the University of Alabama that President Obama’s very public dissent from the Court’s Citizens United ruling, which effectively rolled back most existing restraints on corporate funding of political campaigns, was a provocation to the court’s cherished independence.
On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances, and the decorum, said Roberts. The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.
It\'s true that Obama pulled few punches in characterizing the Citizens United ruling, which had been handed down just prior to the State of the Union speech.
Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections, Obama said. Well, I don\'t think American elections should be bankrolled by America\'s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.
Some of the lawmakers on hand interrupted Obama’s remarks with cheers of support. But television cameras panned the Court members in attendance and caught Justice Samuel Alito mouthing the words not true.
來源: 醫者意也
長話短說，奧巴馬的這個醫改其實是弄錯了對象，是個表麵風光而實質錯誤的政治醫改。大家可以看到，奧巴馬自始至終都是以醫療保險公司為假想敵，攻擊保險公司的唯利是圖導致病人得不到應有的治療而死亡。但問題是保險公司以盈利為目標難道是錯的嗎？難道美國不是資本主義社會而是共產主義？保險公司到底又有多貪婪呢？用數據來說明一下吧。
2009年，全美14家最大的醫療保險公司的總盈利是90億美元，而當年全美的醫療開支是2.472兆美元。你有沒有看錯？沒有！所有的這些醫療公司的盈利總和隻占醫療開支的0.4%！
再看看根據路透社的研究報告，每年美國大概會浪費高達8500億美元在種種醫療失誤和行政費用上麵，這占了每年醫療總開支的三分一。
從這兩個數字，大家可以看到，奧巴馬經常掛在嘴邊的冷酷無情的保險公司根本不是問題，他們的收的保險費絕大部分是用於支付醫生和醫院送過來的賬單，其中就包括那8500億的浪費。盡管保險公司經常性的嚴格審查控製醫生和醫院的浮濫支出，他們的盈利仍然隻有可憐的90億。僅僅是整個醫療支出的零頭。那麽大部分的錢去了哪裏？
每年為防範醫療事故而濫用抗生素和進行化驗等就佔醫療預算浪費額的37%。
22%的浪費來自弄虛作假，每年有2,000億美元為此買單，譬如虛假醫療證明、收取回扣等。
辦事低效及行政冗員帶來18%的醫療資源浪費。
每年有500億至1,000億美元用於醫療事故，佔浪費總額的11%。
每年用於糖尿病等可避免病症的醫療費用為300億至500億美元。
人人有飯吃，人人有醫保當然是件政治上很討好的政策，問題是實際上實行起來很可能就會變味。首先第一個可能就是整個社會醫療開支會大增。當然了，保險公司再也不能拒絕有病史的人投保，也不準對個人開支設限。你要知道，醫生不是普通的賣東西的人，醫生是能夠創造需求的，比如說，醫生要你吃這個藥，你不敢不吃，兩個藥效果大概相同，但是如果醫生要求你吃貴的那種藥，你也不敢不吃對吧？醫生要你做MRI，你也不敢不做對吧？醫生要你做手術，你也得乖乖的做手術。所以醫改後，盡管保險公司仍然會審查控製醫療賬單，但是醫生會變著法子的給病人做各種各樣的檢查和治療，薄利多銷，以量來彌補保險公司的克扣。舉個例子，在美國由於人工關節手術比較貴，有保險公司控製支出，所以醫生比較少做人工關節的手術。而在加拿大，由於全民保健，沒有支付的顧慮，醫生經常性的會要求病人做人工關節手術。最後的這些醫療支出由誰買單？羊毛出在羊身上，不靠增稅靠什麽？羊毛難道還能出在牛身上？
大鍋飯了，中國幾十年前搞大公社時早就有過教訓。人人有飯吃最後就變成人人沒飯吃。英國加拿大這些全民保險的國家的人體會就很深，民眾看病輪候時間之長令人絕望。最近加拿大的一個省長竟然跑到美國來做心髒手術就是典型的例子。難道一省之長都得不到應有的醫療照顧？正是如此，其一，全民保險就必須人人平等，人人都必須排隊輪候，省長也未必能夠插隊得到優先治療。其二，加拿大全民保險導致醫生收入低下，醫生都跑到美國來謀生，所以能夠做這些手術的醫生甚至醫療設備都極度缺乏。
綜上所述，奧巴馬這個醫改其實是柿子挑軟的捏，把民眾的注意力轉移到無關緊要的保險公司那裏，而刻意忽略了支出浩大的現有的醫療體係，最後的結果將是變成拖垮美國的最後一根稻草。
奧巴馬是分裂美國派係的黑手黨大佬嘛！