Thursday, April 30, 2009

Renaming the swine flu

President Obama formally picked Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as his nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services with nary a squawk. She is another tax cheat, now almost obligatory for an Obama cabinet member, and daughter of Ohio's former Governor Gilligan. She is a tax and spend Democrat getting Kansas deeply in debt during the good years, and most recently solved a financial crisis in her state by cutting education funding. The nomination went through easily because of the made-up hysteria by the press and the government (Emmanuel: "never waste a crisis") about the pandemic called "the swine flu." Sibelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services will oversee a massive department with wide-ranging responsibilities, the key to the President’s vision for health care--to nationalize it--or spread limited, low level care, as it were. The 61 year old Sebelius was raised a Catholic in Cincinnati, however, she will have no problem rescinding whatever few rights and protections are left for the unborn American children. Being a Catholic means nothing on this issue (Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, et al)--party comes before Pope and Church when you've got a new messiah to follow. President Obama owes the radical, pro-abortion feminists because he squashed their dream of a woman president, just like he owes the unions and ACORN handing them the auto and mortgage/foreclosure bailouts.

Therefore, I propose renaming the swine flu the "Sebelius Flu." For too long, American women have languished in the background with very little named for them--diseases, laws (even Roe v. Wade didn't use a real name), mountains, buildings, etc. With four syllables, eight if you count influenza, the newly named disease will help fill up the time on the 24 hour cable news, broadcast news, and presidential news conferences. Although an awkward space filler on a teleprompter, Sebelius Influenza can be learned by even the least fluent of speakers.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

You think nationalized care would be limited, low level care?

What do you think we have now???

I work for a major corporation, earn four times as much as a family member who works for the government and pay nearly $15,000 out of pocket per year on premiums and medical bills for a relatively healthy family of three while she pays a fraction of that for a family of four with many more problems. I would love to switch over to her "limited, low level coverage."

A guy got his fingers cut off and his health insurance provider forced him to choose which finger he wanted to reattach, since it wouldn't cover them all. Somehow, I suspect he would like some of that "limited, low level coverage as well."

The number one cause of bankruptcies in the US is medical bills. How do you think those families would feel about limited, low level government coverage?

Just curious, do you know where America ranks in terms of health care spending as a percent of GDP?

And DO YOU HAVE ANY CLUE where America ranks in terms of quality of health care?

Norma said...

Since you're Anonymous, I have no way of checking the details, but let's say the "relative" earns $60,000 and you're 4x that--$240,000. Most employers have a small co-pay. Maybe you ought to change jobs.

And the intention is not for you to have what gov't employees get. That's rich! Truly, you didn't believe that did you? This is a joke, right? Under socialism, there will be government employees (bureaucrats just like now) and then there will be employees of companies owned by the government. Not the same. But since I've only translated communist publications, not actually lived or worked in a communist country, that's about all I know. But I did translate the medical newspapers.

Anonymous said...

Your horrible communist vision sounds a lot like medicare. I'm sure you refuse your benefits on principle, don't you?

Just curious, do you know where America ranks in terms of health care spending as a percent of GDP?

And DO YOU HAVE ANY CLUE where America ranks in terms of quality of health care?

You're so worried about limited, low level care, and yet you have no response to the fact that this is what most of us have now, no matter what kind of coverage we have.

Norma said...

Do the countries you're comparing the USA with have porous borders and have to provide medical care for the illegals?

You obviously need to cross the border to Canada or Mexico and wait in line. If you think health care is expensive now, just wait til we get Obama care. Medicare, medicaid, and SCHIP are extremely pricey.

Now if you're afraid of losing your job for posting, you can e-mail, otherwise, get your own blog.

anonymous said...

Why do you think there are such long lines in Canada? All evidence points to more doctors per capita, shorter ER wait times than in the US and higher satisfaction with overall quality of care.

Spare me the argument that illegals are the cause for our skyrocketing costs, you know that it's much more than that.

You STILL have no answer to the fact that the current system offers little more than limited, low level care to everyone, and you are obviously afraid to go near statistics showing that we spend nearly twice as much as a % of GDP as the next closest country in health care, while at the same time having the highest percentage of the population remaining uninsured, and despite this, we STILL rank at the bottom of the list on nearly every measure of quality.

And btw, you DO reject your socialist medicare benefits on principle, don't you?

thing said...

oh, what a competition!

Please support my ideas "masquerade" at: http://www.renametheswineflu.com/names/1786 or
"pigtorrent" at: http://www.renametheswineflu.com/names/1762
Take care of your health!

Thanks! :-)