Annual NHS sickness levels are 10.7 days a year per employee - higher than the public sector average of 9.7 days and 50 per cent higher than the private sector average of 6.4 days.
And before you try to blame it on infections from patients:
The review found that while NHS workers were more likely to pick up illness and infections through their work, this could not explain all of the higher rates of absence.
The infections probably represent the 1 day difference between NHS and other public sector employees, but just look at the difference between the public sector as a whole and the private sector!
These aren't bad people. They just have no incentive to NOT call in sick.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6049107/Over-45000-NHS-staff-call-in-sick-each-day.html
Showing posts with label Big Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Big Government. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Dems Prepared To Stuff Health Care Down Our Throats
They've got 60; they're now ready to try to use it, according to Politico and Mercury News, among others.
Of course, they blame this on the Republicans, because in the Democrats world, only reform that involves government expansion is true reform, and thus Republicans, who are holding out to only support something they believe in, don't support reform.
It is still unlikely that they will be able to get a public option out of the Senate, as it no longer has popular support (44 for, 47 against, according to the new CBS News poll that continues to show a steady downward trend for the idea) and moderate-to-conservative Dems (Landreiu, Nelson, Warner, Begich, Lincoln, Bayh, etc.) probably wouldn't be able to bring themselves to support it.
The scariest possibility is that the Dems may attempt to use Budget Reconciliation rules, which would only require 50 votes and would allow them to ignore up to 10 moderates, even though those rules are meant only for direct budget-related measures (Robert Byrd, a diehard liberal, has said he would oppose this bill, if they attempted to pass it in this fashion, out of precedent). It would be a decleration of war on Republicans and could be very costly in 2010, but might get the job done. As Republican Punk has said in the past, once a public option is in, there is no getting rid of it. It is an entitlement and people don't vote away entitlements (Welfare being the one exception, and that required a perfect storm even though it only affected a small minority of the population).
We'll keep you updated as news leaks on what a Republican-less reform package out of the Senate would look like.
Of course, they blame this on the Republicans, because in the Democrats world, only reform that involves government expansion is true reform, and thus Republicans, who are holding out to only support something they believe in, don't support reform.
It is still unlikely that they will be able to get a public option out of the Senate, as it no longer has popular support (44 for, 47 against, according to the new CBS News poll that continues to show a steady downward trend for the idea) and moderate-to-conservative Dems (Landreiu, Nelson, Warner, Begich, Lincoln, Bayh, etc.) probably wouldn't be able to bring themselves to support it.
The scariest possibility is that the Dems may attempt to use Budget Reconciliation rules, which would only require 50 votes and would allow them to ignore up to 10 moderates, even though those rules are meant only for direct budget-related measures (Robert Byrd, a diehard liberal, has said he would oppose this bill, if they attempted to pass it in this fashion, out of precedent). It would be a decleration of war on Republicans and could be very costly in 2010, but might get the job done. As Republican Punk has said in the past, once a public option is in, there is no getting rid of it. It is an entitlement and people don't vote away entitlements (Welfare being the one exception, and that required a perfect storm even though it only affected a small minority of the population).
We'll keep you updated as news leaks on what a Republican-less reform package out of the Senate would look like.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Democrats Threaten To Ruin Capitalistic Renewable Energy
Renewable energy is possible the most important new field to emerge through capitalism, and trust us, it will emerge, especially once some form of carbon pricing is created.
However, Democrat policies are creating a green corporatist state:
As this alternative energy industry expands, it is evolving along a very different path than the fossil fuel giants followed. Most of the clean-energy industry's leading voices think that their prosperity depends upon government involvement on four fronts: regulating carbon emissions so that coal, oil, and other fossil fuels bear the cost of their contribution to climate change; mandating that utilities use more renewable power; setting stiff energy-efficiency standards; and increasing federal research into new technologies.
It is important that people, not the government, decide which energy form to use, and beyond the necessity of creating a pricing mechanism, the rest of these threaten to turn the alternative energy industry into a dependent of the growing liberal nanny state.
Source: http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20090814_5569.php
However, Democrat policies are creating a green corporatist state:
As this alternative energy industry expands, it is evolving along a very different path than the fossil fuel giants followed. Most of the clean-energy industry's leading voices think that their prosperity depends upon government involvement on four fronts: regulating carbon emissions so that coal, oil, and other fossil fuels bear the cost of their contribution to climate change; mandating that utilities use more renewable power; setting stiff energy-efficiency standards; and increasing federal research into new technologies.
It is important that people, not the government, decide which energy form to use, and beyond the necessity of creating a pricing mechanism, the rest of these threaten to turn the alternative energy industry into a dependent of the growing liberal nanny state.
Source: http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20090814_5569.php
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Newt Sums Up The Left's Argument: Trust The Government
Supporters of government-run health care dismiss these worries as alarmist. They argue that because their big government health care bill doesn’t overtly call for rationing, it is somehow illegitimate to talk about this danger.
But it is always legitimate to consider the long-term consequences of a government program. By refusing to have an honest debate of this issue -- to explore honestly the consequences of the “painful choices” that all supporters of government health care say must be made -- their argument boils down to nothing more than this:
Trust the government.
Trust the politicians who are passing 1000-page bills they haven’t read.
Trust the leaders who are demonizing the citizens seeking to express their disagreement by calling them “un-American.”
Trust the advisors who advocate sacrificing the weak and the old and then hide in the shadows.
Trust the government to know what’s best for the most intimate, most personal part of you and your family’s life: your health.
Go ask a British citizen if it’s worth it.
To just shut up and trust the government.
To Read The Entire (Intelligent As Always) Editorial: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33100
But it is always legitimate to consider the long-term consequences of a government program. By refusing to have an honest debate of this issue -- to explore honestly the consequences of the “painful choices” that all supporters of government health care say must be made -- their argument boils down to nothing more than this:
Trust the government.
Trust the politicians who are passing 1000-page bills they haven’t read.
Trust the leaders who are demonizing the citizens seeking to express their disagreement by calling them “un-American.”
Trust the advisors who advocate sacrificing the weak and the old and then hide in the shadows.
Trust the government to know what’s best for the most intimate, most personal part of you and your family’s life: your health.
Go ask a British citizen if it’s worth it.
To just shut up and trust the government.
To Read The Entire (Intelligent As Always) Editorial: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33100
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Chuck Norris Reads Entirety Of Pelosi-Care; Finds Interesting Nugget
Leave it to the man himself to take a break from slamming down terrorists in Texas to do what most of our elected officials have failed: read the House's health care legislation. And he found something quite interesting (and a little unnerving):
It's outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.
The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."
Innocuous enough? Mr. Norris understands the unfortunate problem with this well-intentioned (supposedly) concept:
Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values? Their own? Certain experts'? From what field and theory of childhood development? As if there are one-size-fits-all parenting techniques! Do we really believe they would contextualize and personalize every form of parenting in their education, or would they merely universally indoctrinate with their own?
Are we to assume the state's mediators would understand every parent's social or religious core values on parenting? Or would they teach some secular-progressive and religiously neutered version of parental values and wisdom? And if they were to consult and coach those who expect babies, would they ever decide circumstances to be not beneficial for the children and encourage abortions?
One government rebuttal is that this program would be "voluntary." Is that right? Does that imply that this agency would just sit back passively until some parent needing parenting skills said, "I don't think I'll call my parents, priest or friends or read a plethora of books, but I'll go down to the local government offices"? To the contrary, the bill points to specific targeted groups and problems, on Page 840: The state "shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families."
Are we further to conclude by those words that low-income families know less about parenting? Are middle- and upper-class parents really better parents? Less neglectful of their children? Less needful of parental help and training? Is this "prioritized" training not a biased, discriminatory and even prejudicial stereotype and generalization that has no place in federal government, law or practice?
Bottom line: Is all this what you want or expect in a universal health care bill being rushed through Congress? Do you want government agents coming into your home and telling you how to parent your children? When did government health care turn into government child care?
That is the problem with government intervention in general. It will always expand beyond the area it was initially intended to cover, and giving up freedom is necessarily part of the equation.
And nothing...NOTHING...differs more from household to household than the way we raise our children.
For more of Mr. Norris' commentary (that is progressively making him seem like a more attractive political candidate someday): http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2009/08/11/dirty_secret_no_1_in_obamacare?page=full&comments=true
It's outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.
The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."
Innocuous enough? Mr. Norris understands the unfortunate problem with this well-intentioned (supposedly) concept:
Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values? Their own? Certain experts'? From what field and theory of childhood development? As if there are one-size-fits-all parenting techniques! Do we really believe they would contextualize and personalize every form of parenting in their education, or would they merely universally indoctrinate with their own?
Are we to assume the state's mediators would understand every parent's social or religious core values on parenting? Or would they teach some secular-progressive and religiously neutered version of parental values and wisdom? And if they were to consult and coach those who expect babies, would they ever decide circumstances to be not beneficial for the children and encourage abortions?
One government rebuttal is that this program would be "voluntary." Is that right? Does that imply that this agency would just sit back passively until some parent needing parenting skills said, "I don't think I'll call my parents, priest or friends or read a plethora of books, but I'll go down to the local government offices"? To the contrary, the bill points to specific targeted groups and problems, on Page 840: The state "shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families."
Are we further to conclude by those words that low-income families know less about parenting? Are middle- and upper-class parents really better parents? Less neglectful of their children? Less needful of parental help and training? Is this "prioritized" training not a biased, discriminatory and even prejudicial stereotype and generalization that has no place in federal government, law or practice?
Bottom line: Is all this what you want or expect in a universal health care bill being rushed through Congress? Do you want government agents coming into your home and telling you how to parent your children? When did government health care turn into government child care?
That is the problem with government intervention in general. It will always expand beyond the area it was initially intended to cover, and giving up freedom is necessarily part of the equation.
And nothing...NOTHING...differs more from household to household than the way we raise our children.
For more of Mr. Norris' commentary (that is progressively making him seem like a more attractive political candidate someday): http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2009/08/11/dirty_secret_no_1_in_obamacare?page=full&comments=true
Monday, July 20, 2009
$23 Trillion
A series of bailouts, bank rescues and other economic lifelines could end up costing the federal government as much as $23 trillion, the U.S. government’s watchdog over the effort says – a staggering amount that is nearly double the nation’s entire economic output for a year.
If the feds end up spending that amount, it could be more than the federal government has spent on any single effort in American history.
In fact, $23 trillion is more than the total cost of all the wars the United States has ever fought, put together. World War II, for example, cost $4.1 trillion in 2008 dollars, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Even the Moon landings and the New Deal didn’t come close to $23 trillion: the Moon shot in 1969 cost an estimated $237 billion in current dollars, and the entire Depression-era Roosevelt relief program came in at $500 billion, according to Jim Bianco of Bianco Research.
The annual gross domestic product of the United States is just over $14 trillion.
In addition, TARP proves to be the perfect example of how giving government power will inherently lead to further (undemocratic) expansion.
Originally, TARP was intended, Barofsky writes, to facilitate “the purchase, management, and sale of up to $700 billion of “toxic” assets, primarily troubled mortgages and mortgage-backed securities.”
But that plan was soon rejected, and the TARP instead became a grab bag of bailout initiatives, including bailouts for GM, Chrysler and auto parts suppliers as the federal government struggled in real time to contain a spiraling economic disaster.
Barofsky reports that TARP has come to include 12 separate programs that include a total of as much as $3 trillion.
God bless George W. Bush and Barack Obama. I'll be over here, listening to Morrissey and slowly becoming an anarchist.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25164.html#ixzz0Lpgw44MW
If the feds end up spending that amount, it could be more than the federal government has spent on any single effort in American history.
In fact, $23 trillion is more than the total cost of all the wars the United States has ever fought, put together. World War II, for example, cost $4.1 trillion in 2008 dollars, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Even the Moon landings and the New Deal didn’t come close to $23 trillion: the Moon shot in 1969 cost an estimated $237 billion in current dollars, and the entire Depression-era Roosevelt relief program came in at $500 billion, according to Jim Bianco of Bianco Research.
The annual gross domestic product of the United States is just over $14 trillion.
In addition, TARP proves to be the perfect example of how giving government power will inherently lead to further (undemocratic) expansion.
Originally, TARP was intended, Barofsky writes, to facilitate “the purchase, management, and sale of up to $700 billion of “toxic” assets, primarily troubled mortgages and mortgage-backed securities.”
But that plan was soon rejected, and the TARP instead became a grab bag of bailout initiatives, including bailouts for GM, Chrysler and auto parts suppliers as the federal government struggled in real time to contain a spiraling economic disaster.
Barofsky reports that TARP has come to include 12 separate programs that include a total of as much as $3 trillion.
God bless George W. Bush and Barack Obama. I'll be over here, listening to Morrissey and slowly becoming an anarchist.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25164.html#ixzz0Lpgw44MW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)