潇洒人生路
人的一生最重要的是自由和随之而来的责任。
正文
奥巴马现在到处批判华盛顿如何妨碍他的改革，华盛顿如何把党派的利益置于美国人民利益之上，好象他多么勇敢无畏，多么为民作主似的。
真是可笑啊，他这是在攻击谁啊？白宫是你当家，国会是你的民主党当家，最高法院也有你推荐的人，谁是华盛顿啊？ 不就是你和你的民主党吗？您这不是贼喊捉贼是什么？
这个竞选能手除了能煽动群众闹群众，把美国人阶级化，对立化，大嘴一张，花纳税人的钱不上千亿他没兴趣以外，再没有任何本事。
美国联邦政府三权鼎立，互相制约。政治上两党对立，旗鼓相当，这是美国立国之本，其目的就是要防止美国出独裁总统，防止一党专政，保护美国人民的自由。
奥巴马对此很不习惯，很反感。 反感到了在国会演讲中对最高法院进行攻击的地步。一群民主党议员们起立鼓掌叫好。
当三权鼎立的两权被一党控制，两权联合攻击第三权的时候，美国大难临头了！！！
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，他这是在攻击谁啊？白宫是你当家，国会是你的民主党当家，最高法院也有你推荐的人，谁是华盛顿啊？ 不就是你和你的民主党吗？您这不是贼喊捉贼是什么？
这个竞选能手除了能煽动群众闹群众，把美国人阶级化，对立化，大嘴一张，花纳税人的钱不上千亿他没兴趣以外，再没有任何本事。
美国联邦政府三权鼎立，互相制约。政治上两党对立，旗鼓相当，这是美国立国之本，其目的就是要防止美国出独裁总统，防止一党专政，保护美国人民的自由。
奥巴马对此很不习惯，很反感。 反感到了在国会演讲中对最高法院进行攻击的地步。一群民主党议员们起立鼓掌叫好。
当三权鼎立的两权被一党控制，两权联合攻击第三权的时候，美国大难临头了！！！
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.
来源: 医者意也
长话短说，奥巴马的这个医改其实是弄错了对象，是个表面风光而实质错误的政治医改。大家可以看到，奥巴马自始至终都是以医疗保险公司为假想敌，攻击保险公司的唯利是图导致病人得不到应有的治疗而死亡。但问题是保险公司以盈利为目标难道是错的吗？难道美国不是资本主义社会而是共产主义？保险公司到底又有多贪婪呢？用数据来说明一下吧。
2009年，全美14家最大的医疗保险公司的总盈利是90亿美元，而当年全美的医疗开支是2.472兆美元。你有没有看错？没有！所有的这些医疗公司的盈利总和只占医疗开支的0.4%！
再看看根据路透社的研究报告，每年美国大概会浪费高达8500亿美元在种种医疗失误和行政费用上面，这占了每年医疗总开支的三分一。
从这两个数字，大家可以看到，奥巴马经常挂在嘴边的冷酷无情的保险公司根本不是问题，他们的收的保险费绝大部分是用于支付医生和医院送过来的账单，其中就包括那8500亿的浪费。尽管保险公司经常性的严格审查控制医生和医院的浮滥支出，他们的盈利仍然只有可怜的90亿。仅仅是整个医疗支出的零头。那么大部分的钱去了哪里？
每年为防范医疗事故而滥用抗生素和进行化验等就佔医疗预算浪费额的37%。
22%的浪费来自弄虚作假，每年有2,000亿美元为此买单，譬如虚假医疗证明、收取回扣等。
办事低效及行政冗员带来18%的医疗资源浪费。
每年有500亿至1,000亿美元用于医疗事故，佔浪费总额的11%。
每年用于糖尿病等可避免病症的医疗费用为300亿至500亿美元。
人人有饭吃，人人有医保当然是件政治上很讨好的政策，问题是实际上实行起来很可能就会变味。首先第一个可能就是整个社会医疗开支会大增。当然了，保险公司再也不能拒绝有病史的人投保，也不准对个人开支设限。你要知道，医生不是普通的卖东西的人，医生是能够创造需求的，比如说，医生要你吃这个药，你不敢不吃，两个药效果大概相同，但是如果医生要求你吃贵的那种药，你也不敢不吃对吧？医生要你做MRI，你也不敢不做对吧？医生要你做手术，你也得乖乖的做手术。所以医改后，尽管保险公司仍然会审查控制医疗账单，但是医生会变着法子的给病人做各种各样的检查和治疗，薄利多销，以量来弥补保险公司的克扣。举个例子，在美国由于人工关节手术比较贵，有保险公司控制支出，所以医生比较少做人工关节的手术。而在加拿大，由于全民保健，没有支付的顾虑，医生经常性的会要求病人做人工关节手术。最后的这些医疗支出由谁买单？羊毛出在羊身上，不靠增税靠什么？羊毛难道还能出在牛身上？
大锅饭了，中国几十年前搞大公社时早就有过教训。人人有饭吃最后就变成人人没饭吃。英国加拿大这些全民保险的国家的人体会就很深，民众看病轮候时间之长令人绝望。最近加拿大的一个省长竟然跑到美国来做心脏手术就是典型的例子。难道一省之长都得不到应有的医疗照顾？正是如此，其一，全民保险就必须人人平等，人人都必须排队轮候，省长也未必能够插队得到优先治疗。其二，加拿大全民保险导致医生收入低下，医生都跑到美国来谋生，所以能够做这些手术的医生甚至医疗设备都极度缺乏。
综上所述，奥巴马这个医改其实是柿子挑软的捏，把民众的注意力转移到无关紧要的保险公司那里，而刻意忽略了支出浩大的现有的医疗体系，最后的结果将是变成拖垮美国的最后一根稻草。
奥巴马是分裂美国派系的黑手党大佬嘛！