Single payor and the doctor shortage.

You may not be counting the numbers of doctors in the USA, but you have noted that it takes much longer to get an appointment with your personal doctor. You have noted that your personal doctor spends less time with you during an appointment. And you may have noted that your doctor, or a friend’s doctor, has opened a “boutique” or “concierge” medical practice – not in your price range.

A doctor shortage has been looming for quite some time. Obamacare didn’t start it, but it did exacerbate it. Now the Democrat “Medicare-for-all” plan will drive the final nail in the coffin.

[Source: Doctor Shortage Will Only Worsen Under Single-Payer, by Sally C. Pipes]

The Association of American Medical Colleges recently projected a shortfall of up to 120,000 physicians by 2030. That is only 12 years into the future. Presumably you are still planning to be alive and occasionally in need of a doctor twelve years hence. But, clearly, it also means that the doctor shortage is already a reality, just not as severe as it will be in a few years.

And the problem will not confine itself to the absolute number of doctors. An article in a recent issue of the Mayo Clinic Proceedings says that nearly one in five doctors plan to switch to part-time clinical hours, 27% plan to leave their current practice, and 9% plan to get an administrative job or switch careers entirely. While Obamacare didn’t cause the problem to start it created countless administrative headaches for doctors. Some have responded by retiring early or leaving the practice of medicine altogether.

As physicians look to their futures their morale sinks. Half of doctors wouldn’t recommend the profession to their children. Are the patients worse? No. It is the regulatory burden that is causing physicians to realize that the reason they went through the rigors of medical training – to help SICK PEOPLE – has now become a task of satisfying government make-work regulations.

Who remembers “The Stimulus?” Not that easy is it? That is because the Democrats never utter the word “stimulus” any longer. They know that Americans hated that trillion-dollar boondoggle and the “shovel ready” projects. But the “stimulus” wasn’t just a waste of taxpayer dollars, it created a bureaucratic nightmare for doctors.

Tell me if you recognize this? You are discussing your problem with your doctor who no longer makes eye contact with you. Why is that? Because their eyes are on a computer screen and they are furiously typing in required “blanks.” The “stimulus” requires doctors to store patients’ medical records digitally rather than on paper (footnote). If they refused to comply, the government would cut their Medicare reimbursements. And the utter nonsense of what must be IN THE DIGITAL record makes for a daunting experience. Today’s US doctor is the highest paid clerical worker in the world.

Alternatively, you may have noticed that there is a person with your doctor during your private medical conference who is, instead, tying furiously. Or, unknown to you, your doctor has a micro device attached to their glasses or other paraphernalia that is transmitting your every word to a transcriptionist in India or elsewhere. Now doesn’t that sound like a good reason to spend 4 years in college, 4 years in medical school, and 4 years minimum in postdoctoral training. Obamacare strengthened this mandate.

[Directly from the Pipes article] According to a recent Stanford Medicine survey of primary care physicians, “62 percent of time devoted to each patient is being spent in the Electronic Health Record.” Three in four primary care doctors say electronic health records have added hours to their workday. And 71% say they’re a cause of physician burnout.

As bad as Obamacare was for patient record keeping mandates, “Medicare-for all” will wither your doctor where he/she sits! You may think that doctors earn too much money, but, let me assure you, THEY DON’T THINK SO. Medicare-for-all bill, S. 1804, calls for paying doctors at current Medicare reimbursement rates, which are roughly 40% lower than private insurers’ reimbursement rates. What would you tell your employer if they said you were getting a 40% pay cut?

The British lesson [Directly from the Pipes article]:

  • Practicing medicine in Britain is incredibly stressful. General practitioners are often forced to see up to 70 patients a day.
  • In a recent survey of young British doctors, eight in ten report experiencing “excessive stress.”
  • Nearly a third have a mental disorder of some sort, according to a 2011 study in the British Medical Journal.
  • Physicians experiencing burnout are twice as likely to make a mistake as doctors who aren’t overburdened. Incorrect prescriptions and diagnoses can easily prove fatal.
  • Over the last decade, the NHS has lost nearly 5,000 general practitioners. According to the chairwoman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, the country is “hemorrhaging family doctors.”
  • It’s not just physicians who are leaving — more than 33,000 British nurses abandon their profession every year. That’s enough to staff over 20 hospitals. Working conditions are so bad that some are leaving to work at grocery stores, which have better hours and pay.

My friends, if you want to see a cataclysm in medical care, elect a Democrat majority! And, by the by, British doctors can have a private practice and there is private insurance in Great Britain. Indeed, as it becomes increasingly difficult to obtain care through the National Health Service, private insurance is booming! Private insurance is banned under “Medicare-for-all.”

Roy Filly

Footnote:

I am not saying that a digital medical record is not better than a paper medical record. I am saying that the way the government set it up it is nightmarish!

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

“Medicare-for-all.” The old bait and switch!

If you are a Democrat socialist you probably believe in ‘Medicare-for-all’ as proposed by Bernie Sanders or the similar bill introduced by disgraced former Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. Now former President Barack Obama made a stunning policy shift and endorsed “Medicare-for-all” – big surprise there.

Sixteen senators, one-third of the Democrats in the upper chamber, signed up as co-sponsors. Importantly, all senatorial hopefuls for the 2020 Democrat presidential nomination supported the bill (Sen. Corey Booker, D-N.J.; Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif.; Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.). As well, one-hundred-and-twenty-three, more than 60 percent of the Democrats in the lower chamber, co-sponsored the similar Conyers ‘Medicare-for-all’ bill. If you want the list just ‘click.’

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University analyzed the ‘Medicare-for-all’ proposal. And I am certain you already guessed that this government-run healthcare scheme will be costly. How costly is that, ask you? A mere $32 trillion over the next 10 years, answer I, or $3.2 trillion per year. (Currently the government only collects $3.18 trillion per year in taxes, thus this proposal doubles needed federal revenues.)

From a polling perspective, 70% of all Americans respond favorably to the proposal. However, when I lost my job-provided medical insurance coverage and went on to Medicare my premiums rose many thousands of dollars per year. Most of those polled are not on Medicare and believe it is “free.”

But even if you are on Medicare and love it (including the premiums) you may be surprised to learn that the Democrat proposal isn’t anything like Medicare. They are only using the label. The actual bill provides dangerously inadequate health care.

What else should we be wary of that is “hidden” in this bill?

[Source: The Medicare-for-All Hoax, by Betsy McCaughey]

Let’s look at the list:

  • It takes away private health coverage from half of all Americans.
  • Democrats don’t advertise that private insurance would be banned under their proposed legislation.
  • The 157 million Americans who get their insurance through their employer could no longer do so. Employers would be barred from covering workers or their families
  • Union members and executives who bargained for gold-plated private plans would lose them and have to settle for the same one-size-fits-all public coverage.
  • Illegal immigrants get the same benefits. 
  • Americans would be automatically enrolled in the public program.

[Directly from the McCaughey article] The new scheme would guarantee hospital care, doctors’ visits, even dental, vision and long-term care, all provided by Uncle Sam. But that’s only until the money runs out. Sanders’ bill imposes hard-and-fast dollar caps on how much health care the country can consume yearly. That means limiting mammograms, hip replacements and other procedures. Sanders’ bill creates new regional health authorities to curb “overutilization” of care.

Seniors and baby boomers are big losers under “Medicare-for-all.” Whenever boomers have to vie with younger people for health resources, they get pushed to the back of the line. In the United Kingdom’s single-payer system, boomers are turned away for hip replacements. They’re told they have fewer years of life ahead to benefit from costly medical procedures. British women are livid because many are being refused breast reconstruction after lumpectomies and mastectomies. At least in Britain, people are free to buy private insurance and go outside the government system for care. But that’s not true under “Medicare-for-all.” You’d be trapped.

Medicare is FOR seniors. Medicare-for-all is AGAINST seniors. As well, Medicare (which, by the by, only pays only about 88 cents for every dollar of care) hasn’t caused every hospital to “go broke” because hospitals shift the unmet costs on their patients with private insurance (not that I am a fan of cost shifting – I am not – but, as the saying goes, “any port in a storm”). But  “Medicare-for-all,” makes cost-shifting impossible. What’s the alternative, ask you? Easy, answer I. The alternatives are lower quality of care, longer waits, limited access to technology (footnote).

Get ready America!

Roy Filly

Footnote:

[Directly from the McCaughey article] Single-payer advocates don’t deny it. Stanford economist Victor Fuchs argues in the Journal of the American Medical Association that curbing the use of mammograms, new drugs and diagnostic technologies would make single-payer affordable. In short, go low-tech. But millions of American women have survived breast cancer thanks to high-tech screening and new gene-based therapies. Low-tech medicine would be a death sentence. The United Kingdom’s rock bottom survival rates for breast, lung, ovarian and pancreatic cancer are the result of that low-tech approach. British newspapers are declaring, “Cancer shame as UK survival rates lag behind the rest of the world.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

You can learn a lot from graphs.

Americans keep wondering why medical costs keep rising and yet it increasing difficult to see their doctor – and when they finally get an appointment the doctor has about 15 minutes available? My answer (and, by the by, I lived it)…  Government invariably destroys free markets.

I don’t know what the trigger for the next financial debacle will be, but here is a good candidate. And, in case you were wondering, global debt today is greater than it was before the financial crisis. Any of my readers think the government also fomented this?!?!

I’m no longer certain on whom conservatives can rely. The classical media is in the bag with leftists. Hollywood is in the bag with leftists. And now social media. When you come in BELOW THE IRS AND THE DMV you are deep in the mire.

Despite the graphs above, economic optimism is growing. Thank you hard working Americans and President Trump.

Please note the so-called “Democratic Socialist” countries on the graph below. I believe people want a well-paying job over government handouts. “Rugged Individualism” still appears to be alive and kicking.

Below is a map of how the United States uses it land. But you really must go to the interactive map on Bloomberg (just scroll down and new maps appear). It is very cool!

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

We should believe the Special Counsel. No! Not that one!

We are bombarded with excerpts from Woodward’s book (Michael Wolff’s book is already a distant memory) and an anonymous op-ed. These individuals hate our President and want his agenda to fail – despite the obvious success of that agenda. They believe Trump is “unhinged.” Which of these successful policies was “unhinged?’ They believe Trump is a racist, misogynist, homophobe, etc., etc. I challenge them, or anyone, to identify a single right of black American citizens, Hispanic American citizens, LGBT American citizens, Muslim American citizens or women that they possessed on January 20, 2017 but they NO LONGER HAVE?

I, for one, am willing to hear out Robert Mueller. But, to date, he has yet to utter one word about the president (something that should go into the plus column of his investigation). Therefore, and obviously, this post is NOT ABOUT Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. It is about Special Counsel Ken Starr’s investigation during the Clinton era.

It turns out that Special Counsel Ken Starr has a book which is hitting bookshelves across the nation; “Contempt: A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation.” In it he states that he considered charging then-first lady Hillary Clinton with perjury. He considered this after her “preposterous” deposition with investigators in 1995.

[Source: Ken Starr says he considered perjury charges against Hillary Clinton, in explosive new memoir, by Alex Pappas]

“I was upset over Mrs. Clinton’s performance, and was even considering bringing the matter before the Washington grand jury for possible indictment on perjury,” Starr writes.

“In the space of three hours, she claimed, by our count, over a hundred times that she ‘did not recall’ or ‘did not remember,’” says Starr. “This suggested outright mendacity. To be sure, human memory is notoriously fallible, but her strained performance struck us as preposterous.

The deposition related to the “suicide” of White House adviser Vince Foster. Starr eventually decided against pursuing criminal charges against Hillary Clinton because it would have been hard to prove she lied. Remember that if Mueller decides to pursue perjury charges against President Trump. However, he did say that “What was clear was that Mrs. Clinton couldn’t be bothered to make it appear as if she were telling the truth.”

[Directly form the Pappas article] In another part in the book, Starr writes how, as solicitor general of the United States, he traveled to Little Rock in 1992 when Clinton was running for president. He recalls being picked up by a member of then-Gov. Clinton’s security detail, who told him “salacious story after salacious story about the governor’s notorious extracurricular escapades… The trooper’s highly specific details suggested that the tales were not made up,” Starr writes.

And thanks to JM for sending this to me.

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Donald does it again!

We had the opportunity to see former President Obama try to take credit for President Trump’s accomplishments. I’m certain you laughed as heartily as I did. What Obama should have said, of course, is that he “accomplished it” in the 19 months since he left office.

Obama can make one claim without fear of being criticized. He clearly outdid Trump in one arena. He was the Food Stamp KingEnrollment in the food stamp program soared by 70 percent from 2009 to 2013. And don’t say it was the Great Recession. The recession ended in 2009,

[Sources: Draining the Food Stamp Swamp, by Star Parker and Food stamp enrollment drops by 1.3 million in two months, by Katherine Rodriguez]

The food stamp program is out of control. It has gone from 17 million enrollees in 2000 to about 43 million today, with outlays increasing from $25 billion to more than $70 billion. It needs “administration” – the antithesis of which occurred under President Obama, unless, of course, you believe he planned to increase the number of Americans on the Food Stamp rolls (and I, for one, strongly believe that).

Both President Trump’s budget and House Agriculture committee reforms propose major needed alterations to the program. The problem with the Food Stamp program and other such “anti-poverty” programs is that they begin as a compassionate move to help Americans who have fallen on hard times. Sadly, though, they shortly become a way of life for those individuals. This transformation is not easy to perceive when apparatchiks in Washington are simply “running numbers.” Seventy billion dollars can get lost (only 2%) when more than $4 trillion in spending is requested.

Under The Donald unemployment has fallen to 3.9 percent. Recall that during the recession it peaked at almost 10 percent. In December 2007 – pre recession – the national unemployment rate was 5.0 percentYet the number of Food Stamp recipients is nearly 17 million higher than before the recession. No matter how one slices and dices the numbers IT DOES NOT COMPUTE.

To be completely honest, it isn’t just the Obama administration at fault. Food stamps, as noted above, are big business. I am a pro-business Republican but that certainly doesn’t mean that I want lobbyists from Walmart, Target, Kroger, and Amazon lining up to “talk” to Congressmen about sustaining the rolls of Food Stamp recipients.

Is there any good news, ask you. Yes, answer I. Food stamp enrollment dropped by more than 1.3 million in just two months (and more than 2.2 million overall), under President Trump. It’s not a solution, but it is a step in the right direction. This is an acceleration of the decline that started in 2013. Much of that earlier decline is due to states passing laws requiring food stamp recipients to work, attend school, or take part in job training for a set number of hours a week.

Roy Filly

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Before there was “welfare.”

The most common question I would ask my students when discussing issues related to our medical diagnostic specialty was, “So, is that a ‘good thing’ or a ‘bad thing?'” It might seem like a silly question to ask a student with 23 years of education already under his/her belt, but I assure it is a critical question that should be the most common question we ask ourselves – especially about Big Government programs.

What is the biggest government program? In essence it is “entitlements” or “welfare,” if you prefer (and I do so “prefer”). The first entitlement was Social Security in 1935. Of course, Social Security was never intended to be “welfare.” It was supposed to be a retirement savings account.

Once you include the 60 percent of the budget that is mandatory spending, the military share plunges from 57 percent to 16 percent, and the categories that include Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid collectively account for a majority of federal spending. Of course these three items do not include some 80 other federal welfare programs. And the spending problem only gets worse with time.

So, my question to you is, “Do you remember all of the Americans dying of privation in the streets before federal welfare programs were initiated?” And, when you were growing up (assuming you are 50 years old or older) did you even ever once read an article in the news about ‘the homeless problem?'” How about large numbers of people defecating in the streets? Me neither!

Who took care of people in need if the government didn’t do it? These needy individuals were looked after by their families, charitable organizations or their local churches.

According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), more than 1.5 million nonprofit organizations are registered in the U.S. (Footnote). This number includes public charities, private foundations, and other types of nonprofit organizations, including chambers of commerce, fraternal organizations and civic leagues.

The number of foundations has been rising rapidly. Why is that, ask you? The simple answer is the “death tax.” People of wealth would much prefer to leave significant portions of their wealth to a foundation that bears their name rather than hand the money over to a bloated federal government that will not even say “Thank you.” After all, according to the feds, they are just paying their FAIR SHARE.

[Source: Before and After Welfare Handouts, by Walter E. Williams]

[Directly from the Williams article] In 1887, religious leaders founded the Charity Organization Society, which became the first United Way organization. In 1904, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America started helping at-risk youths reach their full potential… With their millions of dollars, industrial giants such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller created our nation’s first philanthropic organizations.

In Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America (1835),” he wrote extensively about how Americans love to form all kinds of nongovernmental associations (professional, social, civic and other volunteer organizations) to help one another. They sought to serve the public good and improve the quality of human lives.

Americans are the most generous people on Earth. First, Americans broke all records last year in terms of generosity for the first time passing the $400 billion mark. According to Giving USA Americans have hit a record three years in a row. The new peak in contributions is record-setting whether measured in current or inflation-adjusted dollars.

As noted, the United States has built the most extraordinary collection of charitable, philanthropic, and civic organizations in the world, and this country is the planet’s largest source of humanitarian aid. American government programs and private giving constitute one of the greatest efforts to help people in history.

OK, let’s ask the question? So who among Americans are the more generous, Democrats (you know, the ALTRUISTS) or Republicans (you know, the “deplorables”)? When it comes to giving to charity, Republicans in the United States on the whole are more generous than just about any other people on the planet. And, those individuals that Democrats love to hate, “the religious right,” are the most generous Americans of all.

Republican states are more generous than Democratic states by a wide margin. In GOP states like Utah and Mississippi, families donate more than seven percent of their income to charity. In liberal New England states like Massachusetts, the number is less than half that. Western and southern Republican states show high rates of charitable giving. Liberal New England states? Not so much.

So, how about those European socialists that are so “generous?” Because Republicans give at such a high rate, it boosts America’s generosity compared with other countries. Investor’s Business Daily reports:

In no European economy are the people more generous with their own money than the people of the U.S. According to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data… the total of Americans’ voluntary social spending reached 10.2% of GDP… The only country that is remotely close in its generosity is the Netherlands, where the total was 6% of the nation’s economy. Only two other nations, Canada and the United Kingdom, exceeded 5%.

And how about those evil “1%-ers” that Democrat socialists deride on a daily basis? Very large charitable donations—categorized here as gifts of $100 million or more totaled at least $3.3 billion. “Each year, gifts of $100 million or more play a significant role for some individual donors and many different types of charities, and they do affect the numbers. However, Americans’ collective generosity would still be enormous even without those jaw-dropping gifts,” said Patrick M. Rooney, Ph.D. Interestingly, more Americans give than vote in the U.S…

[Directly from the Williams article] Before the welfare state, charity embodied both a sense of gratitude on the behalf of the recipient and magnanimity on the behalves of donors. There was a sense of civility by the recipients. They did not feel that they were owed, were entitled to or had a right to the largesse of the donor. Recipients probably felt that if they weren’t civil and didn’t express their gratitude, more assistance wouldn’t be forthcoming. In other words, they were reluctant to bite the hand that helped them. With churches and other private agencies helping, people were much likelier to help themselves and less likely to engage in self-destructive behavior. Part of the message of charitable groups was: “We’ll help you if you help yourself…”

Civility and gratitude toward one’s benefactors are no longer required in the welfare state. In fact, one can be arrogant and hostile toward the “donors” (taxpayers), as well as the civil servants who dish out the benefits. The handouts that recipients get are no longer called charity; they’re called entitlements — as if what is received were earned.

Allow me to return to my original question. Welfare, is that a ‘good thing’ or a ‘bad thing?’ Charity, is that a ‘good thing’ or a ‘bad thing?’

Roy Filly

Footnote:

The official poverty rate is 12.7 percent, based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2016 estimates. That year, an estimated 43.1 million Americans lived in poverty according to the official measure. If we compare that figure with the number of US non-profits it means that each charity would have to see to the needs of 29 poor Americans. (Okay. That would not be an exact computation, but it makes a general point.)

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Among the many things you won’t hear about from the MSM.

If you watch Hollywood dramas and read articles in the lame stream media you know there are two Satans in America. Donald Trump, of course, leads the list on their diatribes, but number two is fracking. According to them, we will all be dead soon because of the poisons being pumped into our water supplies.

Certainly you have seen the dramatic videos of tap water catching fire because of methane gas contamination from fracking. However, it is well-known that naturally occurring methane can also contaminate tap water. Therefore, it is necessary to discriminate which source caused the problem – fracking or naturally occurring.

A new study used a sophisticated method to correctly ascribe contamination to either fracking or naturally occurring (biogenic) methane, CH4. In order to identify the origins of any CH4 detected in the ground, they employed radiocarbon dating of the samples to determine if the compounds had come from the drilling sites or were biogenic.

Also, unlike other “studies,” these researchers took baseline samples prior to any drilling and continued taking their samples both during the drilling process and well after the drilling was done. As a scientist, this is what I call a well-designed research project.

[Source: The Study You Won’t Be Hearing About: No Impact On Groundwater From Fracking, by Jazz Shaw]

So what did they find? They found no evidence of contamination. Please feel free to read the study results.

So, were these “researchers” just flunkies of Exxon Mobile and British Petroleum? No. The research was funded by the David and Sara Westin Foundation and the Deer Creek Foundation. Both have no association with or love for Exxon Mobile.

So, did the researchers pick some tiny site to monitor? No. They chose the vast Utica Shale hydraulic fracturing region of Ohio. The map below shows the Utica Shale region encompassing a significant portion of three states.

Among the studies findings:

  • They found no relationship between CH4 concentration or source in groundwater and proximity to active gas well sites.
  • No significant changes in CH4 concentration
  • No significant changes in CH4 isotopic composition
  • No significant changes in pH
  • No significant changes in conductivity in water wells

The study data documented that high levels of biogenic CH4 can be present in groundwater wells independent of hydraulic fracturing activity. Therefore, any studies that failed to employ isotopic or other fingerprinting techniques for CH4 source identification are useless.

As my readers know I am not a fan of Global Warming Alarmists, but I do care deeply about a clean environment. If fracking is contaminating our water we should all be concerned. This study is the best to date showing that fracking does not contaminate our ground water supplies.

Roy Filly

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Another Trump accomplishment – a big one.

The lame stream media have turned into a nonstop Trump hatefest. Therefore, some very good news got lost in the shuffle.

There are few things Americans love more than seeing their income increase. As it turns out, household income just reached an all-time high in July. Inflation-adjusted median household incomes rose to $62,450. Median annual household income worldwide is $9,733 (although seven small countries and principalities like Monaco, Lichtenstein and Iceland have a greater median annual income than the US).

[Source: Household Income Jumps To All-Time Highs Under Trump — Why Isn’t This Big News? IBD Editorial]

Almost more amazing as a statistic is that household income increased 4% in the short 19 months that Donald Trump has been president. Percentage increases don’t mean too much without a benchmark comparison. Therefore, as a comparison, there was 0% growth in median household income in the last 19 months of the Obama presidency. Indeed, over Obama’s entire eight years in office, median household income climbed a mere 0.3%. Therefore, President Trump’s policies increased median household income 13 times more in slightly over 1.5 years compared to 8 years under Obama.

The public may never have heard the specifics of the nationwide economy from the media, but they can read the bottom line of their own PAYCHECK!  Not surprisingly their mood is better than it’s been in many years:

  • The IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index surged to a 14-year high in August and Americans are more satisfied with the direction of the country than they’ve been since 2005.
  • The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index just reached an 18-year high.
  • The same report shows that job satisfaction is the highest it’s been since 2005.
  • Remember how the tax cut was only for “the rich.” The Express Employment survey just reported that blue-collar workers are more upbeat about the direction of the economy than the public in general.

The New York Times and Democrats try to claim that the current economic improvements are simply the continuation of growth for which Obama deserves all the credit. If that is so then why was GDP growth an anemic 1.6% during Obama’s last year in office – compared to 3% growth this year (and 4.2% during the last quarter with predictions by the Atlanta Fed for 4.4% growth in this quarter)? And why then did the growth rate DROP in each of the last two quarters of Obama’s last year (94 months after Obama rolled out his economic “plan” – you remember the “stimulus” and the $9 trillion in deficit spending plus trillions in “quantitative easing” by the Federal Reserve and “zero” interest rates throughout his presidency)? And yet after 94 months the GDP showed declines.

My friends, think what you will of Donald Trump (and I am not saying it is easy to stomach his rhetoric) but I’ll take him any day over Barack Hussein Obama (and definitely over Hillary).

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Politics in cartoon form.

What happened to America between July 20, 1969 and today. I firmly believe that the bulk of the blame goes to identity politics as practiced so artfully by leftists. I can remember when Hollywood celebrated our flag and our nation. Think about who Hollywood supports now and you will have the answer to question rolling around in your head RIGHT NOW!

I have regaled my students many times with my first encounter with Google as a physician in the late 1990s. I had never heard the word when one of my students told me he “Googled” the answer to a question I (the professor) was unable to answer for him. Since that day I held Google in high regard. NO LONGER! Will politics corrupt everything good in America?

If I hear one more television pundit say, “We don’t know what we don’t know,” concerning the Mueller investigation I think my head will explode! We know a lot and it is well depicted in the cartoon below

That leftists think the flag of our nation IS OFFENSIVE speaks volumes about their true loyalties. If the left ever truly erases our “borders,” the United States of America will shortly have about 7 billion residents.

Nike is toast!

I will keep my own thoughts about John McCain inside my brain. It sickens me to see leftists “adopt” him. McCain wasn’t my favorite senator, but I believe he truly loved our nation. The left, on the other hand…

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Leftist, Liberal, Progressive… are these synonymous terms?

As I have admitted on multiple occasions in my now more than 2500 posts, I was a Democrat. I was a “Democrat” because I was a “liberal.” Ronald Reagan made me see the light about being a “Democrat.” However, I still consider myself a “liberal” on many issues. For example, I am a free speech absolutist – something about which I believed “liberals” were passionate.

However, I began to see that “the Left” did not support the notion of “free speech.” In line with this confusion I began to question what name should I apply to those I opposed in my writings? My confusion was very visible in my posts. Against who was I railing? That confusion caused me to apply many appellations to those who I thought were taking America in the wrong direction. I used terms like Democrat, progressive, collectivist, statist, altruist, and communist. Finally, I “gave up.” Those who have been reading my posts for years will easily recognize my frustration when I simply combined a slurry of words to describe “the opposition” – progressive/statist/altruists.

In the following video, Dennis Prager clearly explains wherein my confusion arose. Liberals are not the left.

The correct appellation for those I oppose is clear. I oppose LEFTISTS!

And thanks to HKG for sending this to me.

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments
%d bloggers like this: