.
February 11th, 2009
03:30 PM ET

Stimulus bill: a step toward nationalized health care?

Program Note: To hear more about the stimulus bill tune in to AC360° tonight at 10 p.m. ET.

Leslie Sanchez
CNN Contributor and Republican Strategist

Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., says the Democrats have buried a poison pill inside the nearly trillion-dollar stimulus package moving through Congress that would jeopardize your ability to get life-saving treatments for cancer, Alzheimer's and multiple sclerosis.

In an article for RedState.com, Shadegg says the $1.1 billion "Comparative Effectiveness Research" study that has been slipped into the stimulus, ostensibly to help the government get the biggest bang for its health care bucks, is actually a leading wedge into a single-payer health care system.

As Shadegg points out, comparative effectiveness is used by single-payer health care systems to determine which treatments or medications are the most efficient. It's one of the tools socialized medicine uses to deprive your grandmother of expensive Alzheimer's drugs, or your daughter from getting a bone marrow transplant.

What's "comparative effectiveness" got to do with creating jobs, which President Obama said Monday night was the main point of the package? Not much. But it does a lot to advance the liberal agenda for health care. Nevertheless it is surprising that the White House would give this measure the go ahead since they are contemplating a major health care reform effort of their own.

The American public has embraced the idea that the package is a pork-laden "Trojan Horse" that lets liberal politicians get in one measure many of the things they have wanted for the last 30 years. Thanks to Shadegg's team of researchers, who uncovered this boondoggle, the "CER" program will likely suffer the same fate as the hundreds of millions the House originally allocated for family planning in the first draft of the stimulus that became an embarrassment to the Democrats.

But for Republicans, who are almost completed united in their opposition to it, the stimulus will be a gift that keeps on giving. It's a treasure trove of costly nonsense, some of it trivial, some of it having profound implications for the country's future that will reignite suspicions about liberal activist government for years to come.

Contrary to the presidential spin, Republicans and Democrats both recognize the need to act boldly in response to the economic crisis. But that's not what's the stimulus bill is about. The package is a way for liberals like Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and others to force their wish list of programs onto a unsuspecting American public.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has it wrong when he says the American people don't care about the pork in the stimulus. He and the other Democrats leading the charge on behalf of the package need to remember the words of Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."


Filed under: Economy • Leslie Sanchez • Raw Politics
soundoff (26 Responses)
  1. sandra tahmahkera

    I would like to know what the president is planning on doing to help the disabled veterans of america who are disabled due to fighting to keep this country free? also what has he planned for the lower class people who also are on social security and or disabled? he is planning on so many thing for the rich or for the big businesses what about the little people? most of us have worked all our lives and now are on social security with out hope it will continue.

    February 11, 2009 at 11:30 pm |
  2. spinpolitico

    Lisa in CA...

    I really was not assigning blame to either Carter or Clinton. I am sure their intent was noble. However the nature of politics is such that it does not really allow one to think beyond the tip of their nose and their next election. This is why we have a government that will forever remain reactive to the problems, for they are forever trying to fix the problems that they themselves have created. WE have never created any of these problems. WE pay our taxes, balance our checkbooks, and can't print up our own money at will.

    So, that was just a bit of history of when it all began, and who began it. The real inexcusable crimes remain Frank and Dodd. As Chairpeople of their respective commitees, they had DIRECT responsibility for the oversight of all this, and they also had the responsibility to report HONESTLY. They were neither responsible nor honest.

    The subprime loans fiasco was the inception of these current problems. It is not the totality of them. THe Government involvement in them (as they are going about it), will be a bigger problem in the long run then you can ever imagine. If you doubt this, I invite you to name me ONE thing the Government ever fixed... (that could not have been accomplished in a fraction of the time and a fraction of the cost by the private sector). As I said, they can't even count votes with accuracy. The ONLY thing they never fail to succeed at, is to vote themselves a 10% pay raise every year.

    February 11, 2009 at 10:59 pm |
  3. spinpolitico

    Lisa in California...

    I made 3 blog posts, they only published one of them (perhaps a bit of censorship, afterall, CNN sells Obama t-shirts for profit, but that does not portray unbiased news reporting). I think the whole lot of them, Republicans and Democrats alike, ought to be booted out of office. I will share the most succienct NEWS article I have read lately. The SAD thing is, I had to get it from Pravda. It follows:

    It has become a rather common yearly and some times even monthly occurrence that the imperial elites of America gallop up on their white horses to read the riot act to the rest of the world, some times even to the EU, on how to be a republic.

    This is of course rather humerus for as far as republics go, the US is definitely a failed one. Disregarding the fact that the US constitution is routinely ignored, the power politics of the past 130 years have done everything in their power to make sure there are enough stumbling blocks and hurdles that only their chosen candidates can muster the needed support to run for any high office.

    Between extremely complicated election laws, requiring armies of lawyers, double standards for the major parties to the exclusion of third parties, dirty tricks, intimidation , and a media hell bent on serving the power politic and not the people, the system makes sure that reelection rates to the US Congress stay at or above a 95% rate. Most senators die or retire, the only way to clear them from their seats. But what a job, 4 months of actual work, high perks, the ability to be bribed at will (both branches of the One Party system feed from the hands of pretty much the same special interests), tax payer paid retirement and pensions after one stint, and many many other benefits. This on top of the right to vote in your own 10% yearly raise, while most of their constituents have not seen a raise above 3% in 20 years.

    This only gets ever more accentuated in presidential races, where almost always its two versions of the same Marxist theme running. Ronald Reagan was the only exception since Nixon and that was 19 years ago.

    But does this corruption stop the hypocrites from lecturing the world? Of course not. It is a pity for them that, at least in Europe and East Asia, the level of literacy is much higher than the US' 65% and the people there see that the Imperial preaching is nothing but hypocritical nonsense. However, at home, this plays into the self righteous ignorance of the masses.

    One additional, of many possible, examples. While DC's favorite target is the "autocratic" Russian state, let us examine the passage of a Russian bill. The bill, which stands alone, must be read twice to a quorum of the Duma , from the first word to the last word. This by its nature causes bills to be short and to the point, with clear laws and they stand or fall on their own merit. A proper system if ever one could be invented.

    Now in the American system, a time limit is set for congressmen to read the bills on their own. There is of course, no requirement for them to do so and who has the time while partying with special interests and flying around the world on tax payer monies? Corruption smells like roses in the empire. Furthermore, bills do not stand alone but can either have riders, that is unpopular bills attached to a popular bill so that killing an unpopular bill will also kill the popular bill. This is holding hostage the will of the people to the interests of corruption, a very common tool in the American congress. The other option is what is called an omni -bill, a document that can be thousands of pages long and contain hundreds of new laws. The time limit for reading the complex legal language s usually 2 or 3 weeks. This way incredible amounts of laws are passed on to the shoulders of the serfs without any discussion or debate.

    An example of this is Patriot Act, which in essence created the American KGB. This was a bill of 10,000+ pages, something that would break even Dostoevsky . What percentage of the congressmen read the whole bill before signing? Zero...that is right, zero read any significant portion...none, but vote on it they did. Who even knows all the little surprises hidden in those 10,000+ pages?

    And this is the model of a democratic republic? (12-11-08, Pravda)

    February 11, 2009 at 10:43 pm |
  4. Jonathan Simeone

    Let's face it–there is no perfect solution to our health care problem. If we do next to nothing, like those on the far right want, we will still have a system that spends far too much, does not cover millions, and in many instances does not provide the best outcomes. But if we allow the government to run health care, as many on the left where I hang out want, we may have longer lines and less of an incentive for people to innovate. At some point, how we resolve these two different possibilities will come down to one simple choice. Would we rather have a society that gives great health care to a select few, good health care to most, and no health care to some? Or would we rather have a system that offers great health care to a select few and really good health care to everyone else. As for me, I'll take the latter.

    February 11, 2009 at 9:38 pm |
  5. Susan

    Leslie:

    The poison pill ( as you state ) will affect every individuals healthcare in the United States. Medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system . A new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology will be set up to monitor treatments and make sure that your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. Hospitals and doctors can face penalties if they do not become what is called a meaningful user, as to be defined by the HHS secretary.

    I think we would all like our doctors ( that know us ) guide our medical decision making process then some entity that follows some planned formula.

    If there was just some tort reform we could save millions of dollars in healthcare costs, thus insurance would become less expensive and if would become more affordable for ALL.

    February 11, 2009 at 8:33 pm |
  6. jaelle

    I really don't understand what Americans are SOO afraid of when it comes to nationalized health care for everyone. Many, many countries have it. Look outside your borders people! Sheesh, you do everything else your way, what makes you think you can' t tailor your government health care to suit your own fears. Look at what other countries are doing, see what's not working, avoid their mistakes, and treat your people with human dignity. As Obama said, you put the first man on the moon, you can figure out how to provide great health care without making some go without.

    As someone who has lived with nationalized health care my whole life, I can tell you that the fear in this article is so clearly absurd. Paranoid much? It is this type of hyperbole that prevents progress. End of story.

    February 11, 2009 at 7:35 pm |
  7. Lisa in CA

    @spinpolitico, while you're blaming Clinton for strengthening this "mandate", would you be so kind as to also blame the GOP - afterall, they did have control of the House and Senate in 1999, they could have voted it down. Apparently not all the GOP was against it?

    February 11, 2009 at 7:10 pm |
  8. spinpolitico

    Donna D

    The hostory of the Republican Party these past 8 years has been largely reprehensible. However, in regards to the Economy, this was largely due to the inability of Frank and Dodds to carry out the mandates of their offices. They supported the perpetuation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who sold the market their junk subprime loans.

    This started in 1975 under Carter, surely with good intent. It was strengthened by Clinton in 1999 (mandating that they carry a portfolio of these subprime loans to be maintained at certain levels). The Republicans tried on 3 occassions to intervene against this. They predicted what might happen. It did. And in the midst of all their concerns, there was Frank and Dodd saying all was fine.

    Now our first 350 billion was oversaw by....yup you guessed it...Frank and Dodds. Twiddely Dee and Twiddely Dumb. What did they do? Well first, they overspent by 78 billion. (a mere 23% error)! Secondily, even the GAO cannot account for how this money was spent. Essentially, 350 billion just disappeared.

    Now they are issuing another 800 billion. Who is oversight? Yup, these two bozo's that probably cannot even reconcile their own checkbook. We are turning over the entire future of this country to people that cannot balance a budget, cannot account for what they have already spent, have made an almost 25% error in what the did spend...and they cannot even accurately count VOTES!! Think about this...apprx 130 million people and that evoked 13 FBI investigations and several lawsuit because no one can seemingly ever get it right. Yet, they are entrusted on how to accurately and wisely spend trillions of dollars?

    This is pure insanity.

    February 11, 2009 at 6:37 pm |
  9. Joy in Seattle

    I find this section on health care in the stimulus bill terrifying. The national database is horrifying, along with the implication that we could be denied care if it was deemed "unnecessary." Or to make sure that my care is equal and fair to other people.

    I have a medical condition and I take a medicine that works wonders, but I need my kidney and liver checked every 6 months. Would I be switched to another med that doesn't work as well, has more side effects, but cuts those testing costs? Or just denied the medicine at all because I don't "need" it somehow?

    I trust my doctor implicitly. I do not trust every single doctor, nurse, or medical tech in the world. Suddenly, anyone who managed to get a job in health care would have access to our records. As well, the government would have access. Our founding fathers themselves said we shouldn't trust the government and I don't.

    This is my privacy and my health. The government wants to take it over and tell me what is good for me just to cut costs. That is a nightmare. We all know it is.

    February 11, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
  10. spinpolitico

    Consider this with me:

    Obama has expressed in no uncertain terms the urgency of this Stimulus package. His language is such that it is to be deemed a National Emergency, that if delayed, will have catasrophic results. In the midst of then what surely must be a crises of unprecedented proportions, he has also mandated that the Census Bureau be under the Control of the White House. Think about this....

    When is the last time you have seen anything on the News in regards to this little innocuous branch of the Government.? What scandal has arisen out of the Census Bureau that makes it stand out? Yet, in the midst of "the sky is falling" doomsday announcements, they had the presence of mind to terminate the Commissioner and take this branch over. The Bureau has always acted pretty much as an independent Agency for a reason, and has supplied its statistics for Politicians to utilize. Now the White House will have CONTROL over those demographics that can be manipulated for the creation of distrcit boundary lines, funding, and all manner of things that keep the Power in their hands. If seeing the incongruency of being in the midst of a crises, and orchestrating this move, does not make people wake up, I don't know what will.

    Why the big push for the Stimulus Bill in its current form, that for the most part, remains largely unread by both the Senate and the Congress? Aside from enough bacon grease to have the stench compelll a lawsuit by PETA, there is the foundation for the creation of what the Liberals most want: A 1 party Socialistic System in which they control the reins, and we are their servants. I can predict Obama's words with certitude, and this is what will soon follow:

    "We have made provisions for many jobs by targeting projects aimed at enhancing our infrastructure. Inasmuch they are Federally Funded projects, they must be Union jobs. To help the American people and those workers that need employment, we need to pass the EFCA so the process of unionization is not delayed. This country is in the midst of a great crises, and we MUST help these workers that are enduring such hardships to get back on their feet as quickly as possible".

    I am not certain this is going to be word-by-word...but I am certain that this is exactly what will happen. Once the EFCA passes, this country is GONE for good. We will be totally Socialized, free enterprise and capitalism will be dead. The ability to vote for another party will be gone. We will be the last generation that ever knew what America was. This is totally irreversible.

    February 11, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  11. Donna D

    Why aren't the Republicans offering options instead of the tired old refrain that the stimulus bill is just a spending package and that we need more tax cuts. While undoubtedly there remains a lot pork and special interest legislation in the bill and it should be trimmed to only projects that will create jobs and stimulate the economy, the Republicans were equally guilty of "porking up" bills over the last eight years. The amount of earmarks inserted into bills by Republicans increased 9 times during their 6-year rule from 2000-2006. Oooooh, and I thought only those dastardly liberals did that sort of thing!

    If the vaunted Bush tax cuts they so diligently worked to pass and keep had worked, why are we in this mess now? Things should still be going like gangbusters if you subscribe to that theory, especially because they've had eight years to "trickle down" and stimulate the economy. Growth, wealth, and prosperity were often an illusion for many...people feeling richer than they really were, when they were actually up to their eyeballs in debt.

    And by the way, I'm not a Democrat.

    February 11, 2009 at 6:01 pm |
  12. BRIDGET

    Has anyone thought of a 1 UNION BANKING SYSTEM INSTEAD OF WASHING OUR MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN, WITHOUT ANY SAY ON THIS BAIL OUT AND NEW SPENDING SPREE.
    WHAT HAPPENS IF WE HAVE AN UNEXPECTED EMERGENCY IN ONE OF OUR STATES? I hope we set some money aside for a rainy day.
    Regarding the rushed stimules package , Why do they have to start so many projects at the same time?
    That will turn out to be one big mess. Usually we learn from mistakes. How in the world can this package be approved without testing one project at a time? Profecting the problems from happening on the next project . In the long run his rushed package will backfire on him costing more money fto finish the projects. Most businesses sent proposals to get packages approved . How can our state opporate like this? The reason why we would judge Obama his performance is, he took the chance ,rushed the package,that the American people never asked for this type of change. He took this chance knowing it was not going to be the PEFECT PACKAGE. YOU DON'T CHANCE DECESIONS ON THIS TYPE OF THINKING AND RUSH IT THROUGH. SUCH LITTLE PRIDE.

    February 11, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
  13. Tammy, Berwick, LA

    Socialized medicine, just what we don't need. As a counselor and teacher thinking about opening up my own private practice, I surely don't want our government controlling what I do, who I see as a patient, or how much I charge. It's bad enough the insurance companies will have me in a stranglehold before its over with. I'm sorry. My friends who live in countries with socialized medicine all say its a disaster area. The research I've done says it's a disaster area. The grass isn't always greener. I'm just glad someone actually had guts enough to call this package what it is-the march to a socialist nation.

    February 11, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  14. Luis

    Rationing of health care. Just what we need. To die in the waiting room waiting for a medical service that would be lousy to begin with.

    What don't these dumbass democrats get. We cant afford it. Have you seen the hospital closures in California and Texas lately? We cant afford it to illegals either.

    Look i don't care. I pay $4 dollars a day for my medical insurance. You buy your own and choose your own. simple. $4 dollars is less than a Meal at McDonald so don't give us that B.S that its too expensive. it's not. This is ridiculous.

    Just imagine instead of the government taxing you on medicare and B.S. they would open you an account with a private company.

    February 11, 2009 at 5:09 pm |
  15. Melissa

    As a Canadian living in the US, I seriously have to wonder about the completely insane American idea that not everyone deserves health care and the utterly mindboggling idea that not everyone should have to contribute (this insanity of "why should I pay for anyone else?").

    Why are you working so hard against your own best interest?

    Socialized medical care is NOT the end of the world like you keep trying to make it out.

    You should really look up "Alberta Health Care" on the net and see what type it is. Its still insurance, but you pay it to the gvt. Since every working man and woman contribute as part of their taxes, it results in lower rates for everyone. The last time I received it (which was admittedly about a year ago), it was $88 for a family per month. My boss paid half as per company policy and I paid the other half.

    And yet, our health care is better than yours by leaps and bounds.

    And you know what? I actually CHOSE what doctor that I went to. I didn't get a list from my health insurance company of which providers I could choose from, I made the decision myself. Bad doctors went out of business due to strict gvt regulation.

    But here you have inane costs that no normal person can possibly afford. My husband was paying $240 a month for he and I when he was working (since he lost his job due to the economy, we can't afford health care any longer so now his thyroid medicine costs us $125 a month instead of the $20 it used to). Thats disgraceful. Health is a human right, not a privelege whether your law says that or not.

    Socialist health care aren't dirty words. They really aren't.

    Maybe its time to include "right to health" in your Constitution.... before you become a third world country.

    February 11, 2009 at 5:08 pm |
  16. Carl B Grant

    I have just one question about all the new jobs that will be created by the Stimulus bill.
    How many of these New Jobs will be given to Illegal Aliens, and what if anything is being done to make sure American Citizens are the only people
    benefiting for the Stimulus Bill and not people in other countries in the form of employment (Out sourcing)?

    Carl Grant

    February 11, 2009 at 5:05 pm |
  17. sharon, cape breton

    I get that people might be upset that the President might be "sneeking in" a plan to develop a form of universal health care in the stimulus package, after all he is advocating transparency for his administration. I also get that some may see it as having no reason to be there, after all what does it have to do with job creation? But with overwhelming unemployment rates and the subsequent lack of health care as I result, I can see every reason for it to be in the package he is trying to sell to the American people. Government run health care is not perfect, this I do know to be true. However, what I also know to be true is that if God forbid, I do get sick, break a bone, or find myself in need of surgery I don't have to worry about an outrageous hospital bill. Sure there are wait times and it may be hard to find a family doctor, but the fact remains, you do get taken care of, (and you do get a choice in the kinds of treatment available), without the worry of going bankcrupt without a health plan.

    February 11, 2009 at 4:56 pm |
  18. Jim D

    I have a question that begs to be answered;

    Why isn't anyone in an uproar over current gas prices? In my area, gas prices were at a low of $1.32 last November. Now they are at about $2.

    Prices continue to climb as oil barrel prices hover around $40. This is an outrage. Who is being allowed to make all of these profits? Why isn't anyone concerned about this?

    See how we get lulled to complacency and say "well at least they are not $4 a gallon?"

    You want to stimulate the economy? Our politicians should make gas .50 cents a gallon. Make it a commodity that everybody can freely use and see the positive effect on the economy. Do this by cutting out all federal taxes on it, use part of the stimulus package on it, and make the oil companies absorb the rest for at least the next three months or throughout the summer.

    February 11, 2009 at 4:52 pm |
  19. Casey | Sebastopol, CA

    Oh, puleeze... Lincoln would roll over in his grave to hear all the current "Republicans" using him as a reference. He may have been in the party, but it was a completely different ideology then.

    With respect to nationalized health care and all the other "socialism" accusations - that dog didn't hunt before the election and it still doesn't. Despite Republican claims that the government would do a poor job (IF this bill even did lean that way, which is a stretch) ... those in charge so far haven't done anything to brag about.

    I know you are Republican but can't you have an original thought? Or is swallowing the agenda a prime requirement of the GOP?

    February 11, 2009 at 4:46 pm |
  20. Annie Kate

    For the millions who do not have health care insurance the one payer system sounds a lot better than what they have now – the no payer system. Frankly I think that all the horror stories that have been told about one payer health care insurance have been gleaned from the extremes of the system and only represent a very small percentage of cases – its used for scare tactics. Most of the people who have this type of insurance that I have talked with feel that its much superior than what the US has and much fairer. Since we haven't tried it yet, it is a little premature to judge it – especially on just hearsay evidence.

    February 11, 2009 at 4:46 pm |
  21. earle,florida

    Just one question? Who was it that squashed,"Stim Cell Research",and relinquished FDA oversite,and (cut funding by the government to zip) basically gave control to big "Pharma",...

    February 11, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
  22. Eric From BC

    It is clear that partisan politics will be in vogue for some time in Washington. That is democracy in action and part of the package that was crafted by the constitutional designers. However, that being stated, calling a move to universal healthcare pork instead of political ideology does little to help the debate. Much of what is added and subtracted to this and other bills is the product of compromise and debate but before meaningful dialogue can progress we need to define our terms. To what does pork in a bill actually refer? It appears to me that if President Obama was elected on a platform of healthcare reform that he has an obligation to attempt to move that agenda along with a stimulus bill. Unless he is incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time then I believe he should be moving on his agenda in more than one direction at once. During the election John McCain was seen to suspend his campaign because he needed to deal only with the economy but Obama was vocal that he could handle more than one issue at one time. It appears President Obama is simply carrying through with this and introducing a whole lot of debate at once. Is the conversation too deep without reverting to terms like pork that everyone interprets in a negative connotation or does the word itself sell the articles that limit meaningful dialogue?

    February 11, 2009 at 4:08 pm |
  23. Lisa in CA

    I find it interesting that the GOP is so opposed to Nationalized Health Care. But then, again, why should they care? Their health care is guaranteed for life and I doubt they have ever had to wait for any kind of test or been told they cannot have a procedure done. And here's the best part - we, the tax payers, are paying for it. Frankly, if it's good enough for them, since I'm paying for it, it's good enough for me as well.

    As to Sen. Schumer, maybe his constituency doesn't care about the pork in the bill, but many others' constituencies do. I know this particular Dem does. I can't afford it for one. For another, did Obama not promise us that he would strip this bill of any pork? We aren't even a month into his administration and he's already lying to us. Can't wait to see what further "change" he has in store for us. What's the saying – the more things change, the more they stay the same? In this case, same players just in different chairs.

    February 11, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
  24. Paul, Renton WA

    Shadegg is just grandstanding against the Stimulus Package. We note that he doesn't like it and he will not compromise on anything. 'Nitpicking at everything and offering nothing reasonable' is the GOP recipe to do nothing. These days we just can't wait for the Republican party to play ball. Apparently bipartisanship and compromise are not in the GOP vocabulary.

    Guess what, we are going to have to fix the US health care system, probably the most expensive of all Western industrial countries and least efficient. If American businesses want to be competitive internationally, we need to have to fix health care and health insurance industry fast.

    The single-payer health care system is probably the best option offered at this point, but the door is open to other reasonable solutions. Unfortunately politicians like Shadegg aren't offering anything but the standard GOP "Do Nothing".

    I'm not going to hold my breath till most Republicans step up to be taken seriously and work to resolve our economic problems.

    February 11, 2009 at 3:58 pm |
  25. JC- Los Angeles

    Universal healthcare fraud will rival, if not surpass, the collossal mortgage fraud that has led our nation to ruin.

    With Wall Street struggling, the connected few will work with Timothy Geithner and create ways for the investment houses to make a killing off universal healthcare fraud.

    While Wall Street hedged their collective bets against a real estate collapse, they will similarly hedge their bets against policies being paid.

    I can just hear them now: "hey, if it's universal healthcare, that means it's universal and everyone will have it, therefore, everyone will be a potential victim; there's money to be made boys."

    February 11, 2009 at 3:57 pm |
  26. Tim

    You know what else? I read that the Democrats slipped in a bit with the funding for rebuilding schools that requires children to learn about gay marriage and why abortions are a good way to have guilt-free sex. It's true!

    ::cough can we stop this nonsense? cough::

    Not everything is an evil liberal – or conservative – plot. It's extremely worthwhile to know if expensive medical treatments actually work or not. The health care industry is somewhat known for being revenue-driven, not results driven...

    Is this a *great* bit of funding? No. Should it be elsewhere? Yeah, probably. But let's not get carried away here.

    February 11, 2009 at 3:57 pm |