REALLY THE REALM OF BILL OF RIGHTS
|
|
|
senate vote no where iz mitch hope he did not cute a deal
song by ptah 4lightzound "one houndreed dayzzzzzz"
http://demandanautopsy.com
|
| ||
The trumpets got the ball don't touch i'am down early vote Now!!!!
TIME TO MARCH 50TH NEW NORMAL IN THE USA
The izm party
now iz the time for those who really want change and not those who want stop
change become independent. no matter what your current party the izm party iz for you,all of us.
now get to working on the true america.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05Sq10U-yVc
change become independent. no matter what your current party the izm party iz for you,all of us.
now get to working on the true america.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05Sq10U-yVc
IF YOU IT'S NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU ,THEN @ LEAST
DONATE TO THE IZMPARTY BEFOR RUN THE THE GB WELL DRY. THAT IZ FOR THOSE WHO KNOW NOW THAT OIL RESERVES WILL NOT BE SOLD TO OR ALLIES AROUND THE WORLD. THANYOU
http://www.state.gov/s/cpr/rls/dpl/32122.htm
FIRST ONE HUNDRED DAYS!
The hardest thing ever was helping our current president through those first
100 days . After that it was all downhill , until I GOT THROWN UNDER THE BUS
now it'z all in Gods handz and that iz when a person such as I created the izm party.
This iz gov. Nikki R. HALEY ONE OF THE FIRST.
WHEN WILL WE STAND UP AND BECOME THE FIRST AGIAN, THE WORLD IZ NOT
WAITING. AND THEY NEED TO HAVE DINNER OR LUNCH WITH THE PEOPLE WE ARE THE ONES HUGERY FOR A BITE TRUTH NOT NUCLEAR RADIATION NOT BP GIVINING MORE
TO OUR BROTHERS CAMPAIN, BUT GIVE TO THE SUFFERING GIVE TO THOES WHO PULLED THERE OWN SELFS UP FROM UNDER THE BUS AND HELPED EVERY LASTONE OF US HERE AND GONE AND ON THE WAY. STOP THE PETTY STUFF BEFOR THE PEOPLE REALLY WAKE BEFOR GOD REALLY COME AROUND.
WHT EVER HAPPEN TO THIS
Freedom of speech From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For free speech in specific jurisdictions, see Freedom of speech by country. "Freedom of expression" redirects here. For other uses, see Freedom of expression (disambiguation). For other uses, see Freedom of speech (disambiguation). Part of a series on Freedom Concepts Liberty
(positive · negative · social) Rights
Free will
Moral responsibility By type Academic · Civil
Economic · Intellectual
Political · Scientific By right Assembly · Association
Education · Information
Movement · Press
Religion · Speech (public)
Speech (schools) · Thought Part of a series on Censorship By media Books · Films · Internet
Music · Press · Radio · Thought
Speech and expression
Video games
Methods Bleeping · Book burning
Broadcast delay · Chilling effect
Censor bars · Concision
Conspiracy of silence
Content-control software
Euphemism · Expurgation
Gag order · Heckling
Internet censorship circumvention
Memory hole · Newspaper theft
Pixelization · Political correctness
Postal · Prior restraint
Propaganda model
Revisionism · Sanitization/Redaction
Self-censorship · Speech code
Strategic lawsuit · Verbal offence
Whitewashing Contexts Corporate · Political · Religious
Ideological · Criminal speech
Hate speech · Media bias
Suppression of dissent · Systemic bias By country Censorship · Freedom of speech
Internet censorship Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's ideas via speech. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity and incitement to commit a crime.
The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[1][2]
Contents [hide]
"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."[5]
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."[6]
Today freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.[7] Based on John Milton's arguments, freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:
[edit] Relationship to other rights The right to freedom of speech and expression is closely related to other rights, and may be limited when conflicting with other rights (see Limitations on freedom of speech).[7] The right to freedom of expression is also related to the right to a fair trial and court proceeding which may limit access to the search for information or determine the opportunity and means in which freedom of expression is manifested within court proceedings.[8] As a general principle freedom of expression may not limit the right to privacy, as well as the honor and reputation of others. However greater latitude is given when criticism of public figures is involved.[8] The right to freedom of expression is particularly important for media, which plays a special role as the bearer of the general right to freedom of expression for all.[7] However, freedom of the press is not necessarily enabling freedom of speech. Judith Lichtenberg has outlined conditions in which freedom of the press may constrain freedom of speech, for example where the media suppresses information or stifles the diversity of voices inherent in freedom of speech. Lichtenberg argues that freedom of the press is simply a form of property right summed up by the principle "no money, no voice".[9]
[edit] Origins Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern international human rights instruments.[10] It is thought that ancient Athens’ democratic ideology of free speech may have emerged in the late 6th or early 5th century BC.[11] Two of the most cherished values of the Roman Republic were freedom of religion and freedom of speech.[12] In Islamic ethics, freedom of speech was first declared in the Rashidun period by the caliph Umar in the 7th century AD.[13][verification needed] In the Abbasid Caliphate period, freedom of speech was also declared by al-Hashimi (a cousin of Caliph al-Ma'mun) in a letter to one of the religious opponents he was attempting to convert through reason.[14]
[edit] Freedom of speech, dissent and truth First page of John Milton's 1644 edition of Areopagitica, in it he argued forcefully against the Licensing Order of 1643. In "Panegyricae orationes septem" (1596) Henric van Cuyck, a Dutch Bishop, defended the need for censorship. Van Cuyck argued that Johannes Gutenberg's printing press had resulted in a world infected by “pernicious lies.” He singled out the Talmud and the Qu’ran, and the writings of Martin Luther, Jean Calvin and Erasmus of Rotterdam.[15] Before the invention of the printing press a writing, once created, could only be physically multiplied by the highly laborious and error-prone process of manual copying out and an elaborate system of censorship and control over scribes existed.[16] Printing allowed for multiple exact copies of a work, leading to a more rapid and widespread circulation of ideas and information (see print culture).[17] The origins of copyright law in most European countries lie in efforts by the Roman Catholic Church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers.[17] In 1501 Pope Alexander VI issued a Bill against the unlicensed printing of books and in 1559 the Index Expurgatorius, or List of Prohibited Books, was issued for the first time.[16] The Index Expurgatorius is the most famous and long lasting example of "bad books" catalogues issued by the Roman Catholic Church, which assumed responsibility to control thoughts and opinions, and suppressed views that went against its doctrines. The Index Expurgatorius was administered by the Roman Inquisition, but enforced by local government authorities, and went through 300 editions. Amongst others it banned or censored books written by Rene Descartes, Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei, David Hume, John Locke, Daniel Defoe, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire.[18] While governments and church encouraged printing in many ways because it allowed for the dissemination of Bibles and government information, works of dissent and criticism could also circulate rapidly. As a consequence, governments established controls over printers across Europe, requiring them to have official licenses to trade and produce books.[17]
Title page of Index Librorum Prohibitorum, or List of Prohibited Books, (Venice 1564). This 1688 edition of Jacobus de Voragine's Golden Legend (1260) was censored according to the Index Librorum Expurgatorum of 1707, which listed the specific passages of books already in circulation that required censorship.[19][20] The notion that the expression of dissent or subversive views should be tolerated, not censured or punished by law, developed alongside the rise of printing and the press. Areopagitica, published in 1644, was John Milton's response to the Parliament of England's re-introduction of government licensing of printers, hence publishers.[21] Church authorities had previously ensured that Milton's essay on the right to divorce was refused a license for publication. In Areopagitica, published without a license,[22] Milton made an impassioned plea for freedom of expression and toleration of falsehood,[21] stating:
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties."[21]
Milton's defense of freedom of expression was grounded in a Protestant worldview and he thought that the English people had the mission to work out the truth of the Reformation, which would lead to the enlightenment of all people. But Milton also articulated the main strands of future discussions about freedom of expression. By defining the scope of freedom of expression and of "harmful" speech Milton argued against the principle of pre-censorship and in favor of tolerance for a wide range of views.[21]
As the "menace" of printing spread, governments established centralised control mechanism.[23] The French crown repressed printing and the printer Etienne Dolet was burned at the stake in 1546. In 1557 the British Crown thought to stem the flow of seditious and heretical books by chartering the Stationers' Company. The right to print was limited to the members of that guild, and thirty years later the Star Chamber was chartered to curtail the "greate enormities and abuses" of "dyvers contentyous and disorderlye persons professinge the arte or mystere of pryntinge or selling of books." The right to print was restricted to two universities and to the 21 existing printers in the city of London, which had 53 printing presses. As the British crown took control of type founding in 1637 printers fled to the Netherlands. Confrontation with authority made printers radical and rebellious, with 800 authors, printers and book dealers being incarcerated in the Bastille in Paris before it was stormed in 1789.[23]
A succession of English thinkers was at the forefront at the beginning of the discussion the idea of a right to freedom of expression, among them John Milton (1608–74) and John Locke (1632–1704). Locke established the individual as the unit of value and the bearer of rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. However Lockes ideas evolved primarily around the concept of a mans right to seek salvation for his or her soul, and was thus primarily concerned with theological matters. Locke did not support a universal toleration and freedom of speech, some groups, like atheists, should not be allowed according to his ideas.[24]
By the second half of the 17th century philosophers on the European continent like Baruch Spinoza and Pierre Bayle developed ideas encompassing a more universal aspect freedom of speech and toleration than the early English philosophers.[25] By the 18th century the idea of freedom of speech was being discussed by thinkers all over the Western world, especially by French philosophes like Denis Diderot, Baron d'Holbach and Claude Adrien Helvétius[26] The idea began to be incorporated in political theory both in theory as well as practice; the first state edict in history proclaiming complete freedom of speech was the one issued December 4 1770 in Denmark-Norway during the regency of Johann Friedrich Struensee.[27] However Struensee himself imposed some minor limitations to this edict in October 7 1771, and it was even further limited after the fall of Struensee with legislation introduced in 1773, although censorship was not reintroduced.[28]
Milton and Locke emphasised the role of Government to protect these rights and this belief was first enshrined in a durable form in the US Constitution, with the First Amendment adding the guarantee that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) argued that human freedom is good and without it there can be no progress in science, law or politics, which according to Mill required free discussion of opinion. Mill's On Liberty, published in 1859 became a classic defence of the right to freedom of expression.[21] Mill argued that truth drives out falsity, therefore the free expression of ideas, true or false, should not be feared. Truth is not stable or fixed, but evolves with time. Mill argued that much of what we once considered true has turned out false. Therefore views should not be prohibited for their apparent falsity. Mill also argued that free discussion is necessary to prevent the "deep slumber of a decided opinion". Discussion would drive the onwards march of truth and by considering false views the basis of true views could be re-affirmed.[29] Furthermore, Mill argued that an opinion only carries intrinsic value to the owner of that opinion, thus silencing the expression of that opinion is an injustice to a basic human right. For Mill, the only instance in which speech can be justifiably suppressed is in order to prevent harm from a clear and direct threat. Neither economic or moral implications, nor the speakers own well-being would justify suppression of speech.[30]
In Evelyn Beatrice Hall's biography of Voltaire, she coined the following phrase to illustrate Voltaire's beliefs: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."[31] Hall's quote is frequently cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.[32] In the 20th Century Noam Chomsky states that: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."[33] Professor Lee Bollinger argues that "the free speech principle involves a special act of carving out one area of social interaction for extraordinary self-restraint, the purpose of which is to develop and demonstrate a social capacity to control feelings evoked by a host of social encounters." Bollinger argues that tolerance is a desirable value, if not essential. However, critics argue that society should be concerned by those who directly deny or advocate, for example, genocide (see Limitations, below).[34]
[edit] Democracy The free speech zone at the 2004 Democratic National Convention The notion of freedom of expression is intimately linked to political debate and the concept of democracy. The norms on limiting freedom of expression mean that public debate may not be completely suppressed even in times of emergency.[8] One of the most notable proponents of the link between freedom of speech and democracy is Alexander Meiklejohn. He argues that the concept of democracy is that of self-government by the people. For such a system to work an informed electorate is necessary. In order to be appropriately knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. According to Meiklejohn, democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if those in power are able to manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism. Meiklejohn acknowledges that the desire to manipulate opinion can stem from the motive of seeking to benefit society. However, he argues, choosing manipulation negates, in its means, the democratic ideal.[35]
Eric Barendt has called this defence of free speech on the grounds of democracy "probably the most attractive and certainly the most fashionable free speech theory in modern Western democracies".[36] Thomas I. Emerson expanded on this defence when he argued that freedom of speech helps to provide a balance between stability and change. Freedom of speech acts as a "safety valve" to let off steam when people might otherwise be bent on revolution. He argues that "The principle of open discussion is a method of achieving a more adaptable and at the same time more stable community, of maintaining the precarious balance between healthy cleavage and necessary consensus." Emerson furthermore maintains that "Opposition serves a vital social function in offsetting or ameliorating (the) normal process of bureaucratic decay."[37]
Research undertaken by the Worldwide Governance Indicators project at the World Bank, indicates that freedom of speech, and the process of accountability that follows it, have a significant impact in the quality of governance of a country. "Voice and Accountability" within a country, defined as "the extent to which a country's citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and free media" is one of the six dimensions of governance that the Worldwide Governance Indicators measure for more than 200 countries.[38]
[edit] Social interaction and community Permanent Free Speech Wall in Charlottesville, VA Richard Moon has developed the argument that the value of freedom of speech and freedom of expression lies with social interactions. Moon writes that "by communicating an individual forms relationships and associations with others – family, friends, co-workers, church congregation, and countrymen. By entering into discussion with others an individual participates in the development of knowledge and in the direction of the community."[39]
[edit] Limitations For specific country examples see Freedom of speech by country, and Criminal speech. According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.[40] Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography, religious belief or hate speech. Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.[41]
Members of Westboro Baptist Church have been specifically banned from entering Canada for hate speech.[42] In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[41] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[41]
In 1985 Joel Feinberg introduced what is known as the "offence principle", arguing that Mill's harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful behaviours of others. Feinberg wrote "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end."[43] Hence Feinberg argues that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive. But, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm.[43] In contrast Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle.[41] Because the degree to which people may take offense varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offense principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large.[41]
[edit] The Internet and Information Society Free Speech flag, from the HD DVD AACS case Jo Glanville, editor of the Index on Censorship, states that "the Internet has been a revolution for censorship as much as for free speech".[44] International, national and regional standards recognise that freedom of speech, as one form of freedom of expression, applies to any medium, including the Internet.[7] The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 was the first major attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the U.S. Supreme Court partially overturned the law.[citation needed] Judge Stewart R. Dalzell, one of the three federal judges who in June 1996 declared parts of the CDA unconstitutional, in his opinion stated the following:[45]
"The Internet is a far more speech-enhancing medium than print, the village green, or the mails. Because it would necessarily affect the Internet itself, the CDA would necessarily reduce the speech available for adults on the medium. This is a constitutionally intolerable result. Some of the dialogue on the Internet surely tests the limits of conventional discourse. Speech on the Internet can be unfiltered, unpolished, and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually explicit, and vulgar – in a word, "indecent" in many communities. But we should expect such speech to occur in a medium in which citizens from all walks of life have a voice. We should also protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates. [. . .] My analysis does not deprive the Government of all means of protecting children from the dangers of Internet communication. The Government can continue to protect children from pornography on the Internet through vigorous enforcement of existing laws criminalizing obscenity and child pornography. [. . .] As we learned at the hearing, there is also a compelling need for public educations about the benefits and dangers of this new medium, and the Government can fill that role as well. In my view, our action today should only mean that Government’s permissible supervision of Internet contents stops at the traditional line of unprotected speech. [. . .] The absence of governmental regulation of Internet content has unquestionably produced a kind of chaos, but as one of the plaintiff’s experts put it with such resonance at the hearing: "What achieved success was the very chaos that the Internet is. The strength of the Internet is chaos." Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so that strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects."[45]
The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression for the "Information Society" in stating:
"We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers."[46]
According to Bernt Hugenholtz and Lucie Guibault the public domain is under pressure from the "commodification of information" as item of information that previously had little or no economic value, have acquired independent economic value in the information age, such as factual data, personal data, genetic information and pure ideas. The commodification of information is taking place through intellectual property law, contract law, as well as broadcasting and telecommunications law.[47]
[edit] Freedom of information Main article: Freedom of information Freedom of information is an extension of freedom of speech where the medium of expression is the Internet. Freedom of information may also refer to the right to privacy in the context of the Internet and information technology. As with the right to freedom of expression, the right to privacy is a recognised human right and freedom of information acts as an extension to this right.[48] Freedom of information may also concern censorship in an information technology context, i.e. the ability to access Web content, without censorship or restrictions.[49]
Freedom of information is also explicitly protected by acts such as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of Ontario, in Canada.[citation needed]
[edit] Internet censorship Main articles: Internet censorship and Internet censorship by country The concept of freedom of information has emerged in response to state sponsored censorship, monitoring and surveillance of the internet. Internet censorship includes the control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet.[50] The Global Internet Freedom Consortium claims to remove blocks to the "free flow of information" for what they term "closed societies".[51] According to the Reporters without Borders (RWB) "internet enemy list" the following states engage in pervasive internet censorship: China, Cuba, Iran, Myanmar/Burma, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.[52]
A widely publicized example of internet censorship is the "Great Firewall of China" (in reference both to its role as a network firewall and to the ancient Great Wall of China). The system blocks content by preventing IP addresses from being routed through and consists of standard firewall and proxy servers at the Internet gateways. The system also selectively engages in DNS poisoning when particular sites are requested. The government does not appear to be systematically examining Internet content, as this appears to be technically impractical.[53] Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations. In accordance with these laws, more than sixty Internet regulations have been made by the People's Republic of China (PRC) government, and censorship systems are vigorously implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ISPs, business companies, and organizations.[54][55]
100 days . After that it was all downhill , until I GOT THROWN UNDER THE BUS
now it'z all in Gods handz and that iz when a person such as I created the izm party.
This iz gov. Nikki R. HALEY ONE OF THE FIRST.
WHEN WILL WE STAND UP AND BECOME THE FIRST AGIAN, THE WORLD IZ NOT
WAITING. AND THEY NEED TO HAVE DINNER OR LUNCH WITH THE PEOPLE WE ARE THE ONES HUGERY FOR A BITE TRUTH NOT NUCLEAR RADIATION NOT BP GIVINING MORE
TO OUR BROTHERS CAMPAIN, BUT GIVE TO THE SUFFERING GIVE TO THOES WHO PULLED THERE OWN SELFS UP FROM UNDER THE BUS AND HELPED EVERY LASTONE OF US HERE AND GONE AND ON THE WAY. STOP THE PETTY STUFF BEFOR THE PEOPLE REALLY WAKE BEFOR GOD REALLY COME AROUND.
WHT EVER HAPPEN TO THIS
Freedom of speech From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For free speech in specific jurisdictions, see Freedom of speech by country. "Freedom of expression" redirects here. For other uses, see Freedom of expression (disambiguation). For other uses, see Freedom of speech (disambiguation). Part of a series on Freedom Concepts Liberty
(positive · negative · social) Rights
Free will
Moral responsibility By type Academic · Civil
Economic · Intellectual
Political · Scientific By right Assembly · Association
Education · Information
Movement · Press
Religion · Speech (public)
Speech (schools) · Thought Part of a series on Censorship By media Books · Films · Internet
Music · Press · Radio · Thought
Speech and expression
Video games
Methods Bleeping · Book burning
Broadcast delay · Chilling effect
Censor bars · Concision
Conspiracy of silence
Content-control software
Euphemism · Expurgation
Gag order · Heckling
Internet censorship circumvention
Memory hole · Newspaper theft
Pixelization · Political correctness
Postal · Prior restraint
Propaganda model
Revisionism · Sanitization/Redaction
Self-censorship · Speech code
Strategic lawsuit · Verbal offence
Whitewashing Contexts Corporate · Political · Religious
Ideological · Criminal speech
Hate speech · Media bias
Suppression of dissent · Systemic bias By country Censorship · Freedom of speech
Internet censorship Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's ideas via speech. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity and incitement to commit a crime.
The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[1][2]
Contents [hide]
- 1 The right to freedom of speech and expression
- 2 Origins
- 3 Freedom of speech, dissent and truth
- 4 Democracy
- 5 Social interaction and community
- 6 Limitations
- 7 The Internet and Information Society
- 8 See also
- 9 References
- 10 External links
"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."[5]
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."[6]
Today freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.[7] Based on John Milton's arguments, freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:
- the right to seek information and ideas;
- the right to receive information and ideas;
- the right to impart information and ideas.[7]
[edit] Relationship to other rights The right to freedom of speech and expression is closely related to other rights, and may be limited when conflicting with other rights (see Limitations on freedom of speech).[7] The right to freedom of expression is also related to the right to a fair trial and court proceeding which may limit access to the search for information or determine the opportunity and means in which freedom of expression is manifested within court proceedings.[8] As a general principle freedom of expression may not limit the right to privacy, as well as the honor and reputation of others. However greater latitude is given when criticism of public figures is involved.[8] The right to freedom of expression is particularly important for media, which plays a special role as the bearer of the general right to freedom of expression for all.[7] However, freedom of the press is not necessarily enabling freedom of speech. Judith Lichtenberg has outlined conditions in which freedom of the press may constrain freedom of speech, for example where the media suppresses information or stifles the diversity of voices inherent in freedom of speech. Lichtenberg argues that freedom of the press is simply a form of property right summed up by the principle "no money, no voice".[9]
[edit] Origins Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern international human rights instruments.[10] It is thought that ancient Athens’ democratic ideology of free speech may have emerged in the late 6th or early 5th century BC.[11] Two of the most cherished values of the Roman Republic were freedom of religion and freedom of speech.[12] In Islamic ethics, freedom of speech was first declared in the Rashidun period by the caliph Umar in the 7th century AD.[13][verification needed] In the Abbasid Caliphate period, freedom of speech was also declared by al-Hashimi (a cousin of Caliph al-Ma'mun) in a letter to one of the religious opponents he was attempting to convert through reason.[14]
[edit] Freedom of speech, dissent and truth First page of John Milton's 1644 edition of Areopagitica, in it he argued forcefully against the Licensing Order of 1643. In "Panegyricae orationes septem" (1596) Henric van Cuyck, a Dutch Bishop, defended the need for censorship. Van Cuyck argued that Johannes Gutenberg's printing press had resulted in a world infected by “pernicious lies.” He singled out the Talmud and the Qu’ran, and the writings of Martin Luther, Jean Calvin and Erasmus of Rotterdam.[15] Before the invention of the printing press a writing, once created, could only be physically multiplied by the highly laborious and error-prone process of manual copying out and an elaborate system of censorship and control over scribes existed.[16] Printing allowed for multiple exact copies of a work, leading to a more rapid and widespread circulation of ideas and information (see print culture).[17] The origins of copyright law in most European countries lie in efforts by the Roman Catholic Church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers.[17] In 1501 Pope Alexander VI issued a Bill against the unlicensed printing of books and in 1559 the Index Expurgatorius, or List of Prohibited Books, was issued for the first time.[16] The Index Expurgatorius is the most famous and long lasting example of "bad books" catalogues issued by the Roman Catholic Church, which assumed responsibility to control thoughts and opinions, and suppressed views that went against its doctrines. The Index Expurgatorius was administered by the Roman Inquisition, but enforced by local government authorities, and went through 300 editions. Amongst others it banned or censored books written by Rene Descartes, Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei, David Hume, John Locke, Daniel Defoe, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire.[18] While governments and church encouraged printing in many ways because it allowed for the dissemination of Bibles and government information, works of dissent and criticism could also circulate rapidly. As a consequence, governments established controls over printers across Europe, requiring them to have official licenses to trade and produce books.[17]
Title page of Index Librorum Prohibitorum, or List of Prohibited Books, (Venice 1564). This 1688 edition of Jacobus de Voragine's Golden Legend (1260) was censored according to the Index Librorum Expurgatorum of 1707, which listed the specific passages of books already in circulation that required censorship.[19][20] The notion that the expression of dissent or subversive views should be tolerated, not censured or punished by law, developed alongside the rise of printing and the press. Areopagitica, published in 1644, was John Milton's response to the Parliament of England's re-introduction of government licensing of printers, hence publishers.[21] Church authorities had previously ensured that Milton's essay on the right to divorce was refused a license for publication. In Areopagitica, published without a license,[22] Milton made an impassioned plea for freedom of expression and toleration of falsehood,[21] stating:
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties."[21]
Milton's defense of freedom of expression was grounded in a Protestant worldview and he thought that the English people had the mission to work out the truth of the Reformation, which would lead to the enlightenment of all people. But Milton also articulated the main strands of future discussions about freedom of expression. By defining the scope of freedom of expression and of "harmful" speech Milton argued against the principle of pre-censorship and in favor of tolerance for a wide range of views.[21]
As the "menace" of printing spread, governments established centralised control mechanism.[23] The French crown repressed printing and the printer Etienne Dolet was burned at the stake in 1546. In 1557 the British Crown thought to stem the flow of seditious and heretical books by chartering the Stationers' Company. The right to print was limited to the members of that guild, and thirty years later the Star Chamber was chartered to curtail the "greate enormities and abuses" of "dyvers contentyous and disorderlye persons professinge the arte or mystere of pryntinge or selling of books." The right to print was restricted to two universities and to the 21 existing printers in the city of London, which had 53 printing presses. As the British crown took control of type founding in 1637 printers fled to the Netherlands. Confrontation with authority made printers radical and rebellious, with 800 authors, printers and book dealers being incarcerated in the Bastille in Paris before it was stormed in 1789.[23]
A succession of English thinkers was at the forefront at the beginning of the discussion the idea of a right to freedom of expression, among them John Milton (1608–74) and John Locke (1632–1704). Locke established the individual as the unit of value and the bearer of rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. However Lockes ideas evolved primarily around the concept of a mans right to seek salvation for his or her soul, and was thus primarily concerned with theological matters. Locke did not support a universal toleration and freedom of speech, some groups, like atheists, should not be allowed according to his ideas.[24]
By the second half of the 17th century philosophers on the European continent like Baruch Spinoza and Pierre Bayle developed ideas encompassing a more universal aspect freedom of speech and toleration than the early English philosophers.[25] By the 18th century the idea of freedom of speech was being discussed by thinkers all over the Western world, especially by French philosophes like Denis Diderot, Baron d'Holbach and Claude Adrien Helvétius[26] The idea began to be incorporated in political theory both in theory as well as practice; the first state edict in history proclaiming complete freedom of speech was the one issued December 4 1770 in Denmark-Norway during the regency of Johann Friedrich Struensee.[27] However Struensee himself imposed some minor limitations to this edict in October 7 1771, and it was even further limited after the fall of Struensee with legislation introduced in 1773, although censorship was not reintroduced.[28]
Milton and Locke emphasised the role of Government to protect these rights and this belief was first enshrined in a durable form in the US Constitution, with the First Amendment adding the guarantee that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) argued that human freedom is good and without it there can be no progress in science, law or politics, which according to Mill required free discussion of opinion. Mill's On Liberty, published in 1859 became a classic defence of the right to freedom of expression.[21] Mill argued that truth drives out falsity, therefore the free expression of ideas, true or false, should not be feared. Truth is not stable or fixed, but evolves with time. Mill argued that much of what we once considered true has turned out false. Therefore views should not be prohibited for their apparent falsity. Mill also argued that free discussion is necessary to prevent the "deep slumber of a decided opinion". Discussion would drive the onwards march of truth and by considering false views the basis of true views could be re-affirmed.[29] Furthermore, Mill argued that an opinion only carries intrinsic value to the owner of that opinion, thus silencing the expression of that opinion is an injustice to a basic human right. For Mill, the only instance in which speech can be justifiably suppressed is in order to prevent harm from a clear and direct threat. Neither economic or moral implications, nor the speakers own well-being would justify suppression of speech.[30]
In Evelyn Beatrice Hall's biography of Voltaire, she coined the following phrase to illustrate Voltaire's beliefs: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."[31] Hall's quote is frequently cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.[32] In the 20th Century Noam Chomsky states that: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."[33] Professor Lee Bollinger argues that "the free speech principle involves a special act of carving out one area of social interaction for extraordinary self-restraint, the purpose of which is to develop and demonstrate a social capacity to control feelings evoked by a host of social encounters." Bollinger argues that tolerance is a desirable value, if not essential. However, critics argue that society should be concerned by those who directly deny or advocate, for example, genocide (see Limitations, below).[34]
[edit] Democracy The free speech zone at the 2004 Democratic National Convention The notion of freedom of expression is intimately linked to political debate and the concept of democracy. The norms on limiting freedom of expression mean that public debate may not be completely suppressed even in times of emergency.[8] One of the most notable proponents of the link between freedom of speech and democracy is Alexander Meiklejohn. He argues that the concept of democracy is that of self-government by the people. For such a system to work an informed electorate is necessary. In order to be appropriately knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. According to Meiklejohn, democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if those in power are able to manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism. Meiklejohn acknowledges that the desire to manipulate opinion can stem from the motive of seeking to benefit society. However, he argues, choosing manipulation negates, in its means, the democratic ideal.[35]
Eric Barendt has called this defence of free speech on the grounds of democracy "probably the most attractive and certainly the most fashionable free speech theory in modern Western democracies".[36] Thomas I. Emerson expanded on this defence when he argued that freedom of speech helps to provide a balance between stability and change. Freedom of speech acts as a "safety valve" to let off steam when people might otherwise be bent on revolution. He argues that "The principle of open discussion is a method of achieving a more adaptable and at the same time more stable community, of maintaining the precarious balance between healthy cleavage and necessary consensus." Emerson furthermore maintains that "Opposition serves a vital social function in offsetting or ameliorating (the) normal process of bureaucratic decay."[37]
Research undertaken by the Worldwide Governance Indicators project at the World Bank, indicates that freedom of speech, and the process of accountability that follows it, have a significant impact in the quality of governance of a country. "Voice and Accountability" within a country, defined as "the extent to which a country's citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and free media" is one of the six dimensions of governance that the Worldwide Governance Indicators measure for more than 200 countries.[38]
[edit] Social interaction and community Permanent Free Speech Wall in Charlottesville, VA Richard Moon has developed the argument that the value of freedom of speech and freedom of expression lies with social interactions. Moon writes that "by communicating an individual forms relationships and associations with others – family, friends, co-workers, church congregation, and countrymen. By entering into discussion with others an individual participates in the development of knowledge and in the direction of the community."[39]
[edit] Limitations For specific country examples see Freedom of speech by country, and Criminal speech. According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.[40] Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography, religious belief or hate speech. Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.[41]
Members of Westboro Baptist Church have been specifically banned from entering Canada for hate speech.[42] In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[41] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[41]
In 1985 Joel Feinberg introduced what is known as the "offence principle", arguing that Mill's harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful behaviours of others. Feinberg wrote "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end."[43] Hence Feinberg argues that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive. But, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm.[43] In contrast Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle.[41] Because the degree to which people may take offense varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offense principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large.[41]
[edit] The Internet and Information Society Free Speech flag, from the HD DVD AACS case Jo Glanville, editor of the Index on Censorship, states that "the Internet has been a revolution for censorship as much as for free speech".[44] International, national and regional standards recognise that freedom of speech, as one form of freedom of expression, applies to any medium, including the Internet.[7] The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 was the first major attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the U.S. Supreme Court partially overturned the law.[citation needed] Judge Stewart R. Dalzell, one of the three federal judges who in June 1996 declared parts of the CDA unconstitutional, in his opinion stated the following:[45]
"The Internet is a far more speech-enhancing medium than print, the village green, or the mails. Because it would necessarily affect the Internet itself, the CDA would necessarily reduce the speech available for adults on the medium. This is a constitutionally intolerable result. Some of the dialogue on the Internet surely tests the limits of conventional discourse. Speech on the Internet can be unfiltered, unpolished, and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually explicit, and vulgar – in a word, "indecent" in many communities. But we should expect such speech to occur in a medium in which citizens from all walks of life have a voice. We should also protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates. [. . .] My analysis does not deprive the Government of all means of protecting children from the dangers of Internet communication. The Government can continue to protect children from pornography on the Internet through vigorous enforcement of existing laws criminalizing obscenity and child pornography. [. . .] As we learned at the hearing, there is also a compelling need for public educations about the benefits and dangers of this new medium, and the Government can fill that role as well. In my view, our action today should only mean that Government’s permissible supervision of Internet contents stops at the traditional line of unprotected speech. [. . .] The absence of governmental regulation of Internet content has unquestionably produced a kind of chaos, but as one of the plaintiff’s experts put it with such resonance at the hearing: "What achieved success was the very chaos that the Internet is. The strength of the Internet is chaos." Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so that strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects."[45]
The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression for the "Information Society" in stating:
"We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers."[46]
According to Bernt Hugenholtz and Lucie Guibault the public domain is under pressure from the "commodification of information" as item of information that previously had little or no economic value, have acquired independent economic value in the information age, such as factual data, personal data, genetic information and pure ideas. The commodification of information is taking place through intellectual property law, contract law, as well as broadcasting and telecommunications law.[47]
[edit] Freedom of information Main article: Freedom of information Freedom of information is an extension of freedom of speech where the medium of expression is the Internet. Freedom of information may also refer to the right to privacy in the context of the Internet and information technology. As with the right to freedom of expression, the right to privacy is a recognised human right and freedom of information acts as an extension to this right.[48] Freedom of information may also concern censorship in an information technology context, i.e. the ability to access Web content, without censorship or restrictions.[49]
Freedom of information is also explicitly protected by acts such as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of Ontario, in Canada.[citation needed]
[edit] Internet censorship Main articles: Internet censorship and Internet censorship by country The concept of freedom of information has emerged in response to state sponsored censorship, monitoring and surveillance of the internet. Internet censorship includes the control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet.[50] The Global Internet Freedom Consortium claims to remove blocks to the "free flow of information" for what they term "closed societies".[51] According to the Reporters without Borders (RWB) "internet enemy list" the following states engage in pervasive internet censorship: China, Cuba, Iran, Myanmar/Burma, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.[52]
A widely publicized example of internet censorship is the "Great Firewall of China" (in reference both to its role as a network firewall and to the ancient Great Wall of China). The system blocks content by preventing IP addresses from being routed through and consists of standard firewall and proxy servers at the Internet gateways. The system also selectively engages in DNS poisoning when particular sites are requested. The government does not appear to be systematically examining Internet content, as this appears to be technically impractical.[53] Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations. In accordance with these laws, more than sixty Internet regulations have been made by the People's Republic of China (PRC) government, and censorship systems are vigorously implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ISPs, business companies, and organizations.[54][55]
FOR OUR PARTY RISE UP AND BE A REAL VOICE WE MUST DONATE ,
ECCLESIASTES 10:19 MEN PREPARE A MEAL FOR ENJOYMENT,AND WINE MAKES LIFE MERRY AND MONEY IS THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING.
ECCLESIASTES 10:19 MEN PREPARE A MEAL FOR ENJOYMENT,AND WINE MAKES LIFE MERRY AND MONEY IS THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING.
http://www.democrats.org/?nosplash=true
http://www.gop.com/index.php
and of cours you are @ the the izmparty
(independents)
http://www.gop.com/index.php
and of cours you are @ the the izmparty
(independents)
PHOTO BY THE ARTIST PTAH (TRAVIS C. EIKNER
VICE PRESIDENT MONDALE @ THE CARTER CENTER
VICE PRESIDENT MONDALE @ THE CARTER CENTER
VIDEOS
http://youtu.be/OEBa9vWVjF0
http://youtu.be/4oAB83Z1ydE
The Obama Deception: Why Cornel West Went Ballistic
By Chris Hedges
May 16, 2011 "Truthdig' -- The moral philosopher Cornel West, if Barack Obama’s ascent to power was a morality play, would be the voice of conscience. Rahm Emanuel, a cynical product of the Chicago political machine, would be Satan. Emanuel in the first scene of the play would dangle power, privilege, fame and money before Obama. West would warn Obama that the quality of a life is defined by its moral commitment, that his legacy will be determined by his willingness to defy the cruel assault by the corporate state and the financial elite against the poor and working men and women, and that justice must never be sacrificed on the altar of power.
Perhaps there was never much of a struggle in Obama’s heart. Perhaps West only provided a moral veneer. Perhaps the dark heart of Emanuel was always the dark heart of Obama. Only Obama knows. But we know how the play ends. West is banished like honest Kent in “King Lear.” Emanuel and immoral mediocrities from Lawrence Summers to Timothy Geithner to Robert Gates—think of Goneril and Regan in the Shakespearean tragedy—take power. We lose. And Obama becomes an obedient servant of the corporate elite in exchange for the hollow trappings of authority.
No one grasps this tragic descent better than West, who did 65 campaign events for Obama, believed in the potential for change and was encouraged by the populist rhetoric of the Obama campaign. He now nurses, like many others who placed their faith in Obama, the anguish of the deceived, manipulated and betrayed. He bitterly describes Obama as “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it.”
“When you look at a society you look at it through the lens of the least of these, the weak and the vulnerable; you are committed to loving them first, not exclusively, but first, and therefore giving them priority,” says West, the Class of 1943 University Professor of African American Studies and Religion at Princeton University. “And even at this moment, when the empire is in deep decline, the culture is in deep decay, the political system is broken, where nearly everyone is up for sale, you say all I have is the subversive memory of those who came before, personal integrity, trying to live a decent life, and a willingness to live and die for the love of folk who are catching hell. This means civil disobedience, going to jail, supporting progressive forums of social unrest if they in fact awaken the conscience, whatever conscience is left, of the nation. And that’s where I find myself now.”
“I have to take some responsibility,” he admits of his support for Obama as we sit in his book-lined office. “I could have been reading into it more than was there."
"I was thinking maybe he has at least some progressive populist instincts that could become more manifest after the cautious policies of being a senator and working with [Sen. Joe] Lieberman as his mentor,” he says. “But it became very clear when I looked at the neoliberal economic team. The first announcement of Summers and Geithner I went ballistic. I said, ‘Oh, my God, I have really been misled at a very deep level.’ And the same is true for Dennis Ross and the other neo-imperial elites. I said, ‘I have been thoroughly misled, all this populist language is just a facade. I was under the impression that he might bring in the voices of brother Joseph Stiglitz and brother Paul Krugman. I figured, OK, given the structure of constraints of the capitalist democratic procedure that’s probably the best he could do. But at least he would have some voices concerned about working people, dealing with issues of jobs and downsizing and banks, some semblance of democratic accountability for Wall Street oligarchs and corporate plutocrats who are just running amuck. I was completely wrong.”
West says the betrayal occurred on two levels.
“There is the personal level,” he says. “I used to call my dear brother [Obama] every two weeks. I said a prayer on the phone for him, especially before a debate. And I never got a call back. And when I ran into him in the state Capitol in South Carolina when I was down there campaigning for him he was very kind. The first thing he told me was, ‘Brother West, I feel so bad. I haven’t called you back. You been calling me so much. You been giving me so much love, so much support and what have you.’ And I said, ‘I know you’re busy.’ But then a month and half later I would run into other people on the campaign and he’s calling them all the time. I said, wow, this is kind of strange. He doesn’t have time, even two seconds, to say thank you or I’m glad you’re pulling for me and praying for me, but he’s calling these other people. I said, this is very interesting. And then as it turns out with the inauguration I couldn’t get a ticket with my mother and my brother. I said this is very strange. We drive into the hotel and the guy who picks up my bags from the hotel has a ticket to the inauguration. My mom says, ‘That’s something that this dear brother can get a ticket and you can’t get one, honey, all the work you did for him from Iowa.’ Beginning in Iowa to Ohio. We had to watch the thing in the hotel.”
“What it said to me on a personal level,” he goes on, “was that brother Barack Obama had no sense of gratitude, no sense of loyalty, no sense of even courtesy, [no] sense of decency, just to say thank you. Is this the kind of manipulative, Machiavellian orientation we ought to get used to? That was on a personal level.”
But there was also the betrayal on the political and ideological level.
“It became very clear to me as the announcements were being made,” he says, “that this was going to be a newcomer, in many ways like Bill Clinton, who wanted to reassure the Establishment by bringing in persons they felt comfortable with and that we were really going to get someone who was using intermittent progressive populist language in order to justify a centrist, neoliberalist policy that we see in the opportunism of Bill Clinton. It was very much going to be a kind of black face of the DLC [Democratic Leadership Council].”
Obama and West’s last personal contact took place a year ago at a gathering of the Urban League when, he says, Obama “cussed me out.” Obama, after his address, which promoted his administration’s championing of charter schools, approached West, who was seated in the front row.
"He makes a bee line to me right after the talk, in front of everybody,” West says. “He just lets me have it. He says, ‘You ought to be ashamed of yourself, saying I’m not a progressive. Is that the best you can do? Who do you think you are?’ I smiled. I shook his hand. And a sister hollered in the back, ‘You can’t talk to professor West. That’s Dr. Cornel West. Who do you think you are?’ You can go to jail talking to the president like that. You got to watch yourself. I wanted to slap him on the side of his head.”
“It was so disrespectful,” he went on, “that’s what I didn’t like. I’d already been called, along with all [other] leftists, a “F’ing retard” by Rahm Emanuel because we had critiques of the president.”
Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to the president, has, West said, phoned him to complain about his critiques of Obama. Jarrett was especially perturbed, West says, when he said in an interview last year that he saw a lot of Malcolm X and Ella Baker in Michelle Obama. Jarrett told him his comments were not complimentary to the first lady.
“I said in the world that I live in, in that which authorizes my reality, Ella Baker is a towering figure,” he says, munching Fritos and sipping apple juice at his desk. “If I say there is a lot of Ella Baker in Michelle Obama that’s a compliment. She can take it any way she wants. I can tell her I’m sorry it offended you, but I’m going to speak the truth. She is a Harvard Law graduate, a Princeton graduate, and she deals with child obesity and military families. Why doesn’t she visit a prison? Why not spend some time in the hood? That is where she is, but she can’t do it.”
“I think my dear brother Barack Obama has a certain fear of free black men,” West says. “It’s understandable. As a young brother who grows up in a white context, brilliant African father, he’s always had to fear being a white man with black skin. All he has known culturally is white. He is just as human as I am, but that is his cultural formation. When he meets an independent black brother it is frightening. And that’s true for a white brother. When you get a white brother who meets a free, independent black man they got to be mature to really embrace fully what the brother is saying to them. It’s a tension, given the history. It can be overcome. Obama, coming out of Kansas influence, white, loving grandparents, coming out of Hawaii and Indonesia, when he meets these independent black folk who have a history of slavery, Jim Crow, Jane Crow and so on, he is very apprehensive. He has a certain rootlessness, a deracination. It is understandable.”
“He feels most comfortable with upper middle-class white and Jewish men who consider themselves very smart, very savvy and very effective in getting what they want,” he says. “He’s got two homes. He has got his family and whatever challenges go on there, and this other home. Larry Summers blows his mind because he’s so smart. He’s got Establishment connections. He’s embracing me. It is this smartness, this truncated brilliance, that titillates and stimulates brother Barack and makes him feel at home. That is very sad for me.”
“This was maybe America’s last chance to fight back against the greed of the Wall Street oligarchs and corporate plutocrats, to generate some serious discussion about public interest and common good that sustains any democratic experiment,” West laments. “We are squeezing out all of the democratic juices we have. The escalation of the class war against the poor and the working class is intense. More and more working people are beaten down. They are world-weary. They are into self-medication. They are turning on each other. They are scapegoating the most vulnerable rather than confronting the most powerful. It is a profoundly human response to panic and catastrophe. I thought Barack Obama could have provided some way out. But he lacks backbone.”
“Can you imagine if Barack Obama had taken office and deliberately educated and taught the American people about the nature of the financial catastrophe and what greed was really taking place?” West asks. “If he had told us what kind of mechanisms of accountability needed to be in place, if he had focused on homeowners rather than investment banks for bailouts and engaged in massive job creation he could have nipped in the bud the right-wing populism of the tea party folk. The tea party folk are right when they say the government is corrupt. It is corrupt. Big business and banks have taken over government and corrupted it in deep ways.
“We have got to attempt to tell the truth, and that truth is painful,” he says. “It is a truth that is against the thick lies of the mainstream. In telling that truth we become so maladjusted to the prevailing injustice that the Democratic Party, more and more, is not just milquetoast and spineless, as it was before, but thoroughly complicitous with some of the worst things in the American empire. I don’t think in good conscience I could tell anybody to vote for Obama. If it turns out in the end that we have a crypto-fascist movement and the only thing standing between us and fascism is Barack Obama, then we have to put our foot on the brake. But we’ve got to think seriously of third-party candidates, third formations, third parties. Our last hope is to generate a democratic awakening among our fellow citizens. This means raising our voices, very loud and strong, bearing witness, individually and collectively. Tavis [Smiley] and I have talked about ways of civil disobedience, beginning with ways for both of us to get arrested, to galvanize attention to the plight of those in prisons, in the hoods, in poor white communities. We must never give up. We must never allow hope to be eliminated or suffocated.”
Chris Hedges, whose column is published Mondays on Truthdig, spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than 50 countries and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times, for which he was a foreign correspondent for 15 years.
© 2011 TruthDig.com
Buzz ItShare
Login
Follow the discussion
Comments (100)
Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity
+33
capt jim · 2 days ago
"West says. “He just lets me have it. He says, ‘You ought to be ashamed of yourself, saying I’m not a progressive. Is that the best you can do? Who do you think you are?’ I smiled. I shook his hand. And a sister hollered in the back, ‘You can’t talk to professor West. That’s Dr. Cornel West. Who do you think you are?’ You can go to jail talking to the president like that. You got to watch yourself. I wanted to slap him on the side of his head.”
“It was so disrespectful,” he went on, “that’s what I didn’t like. I’d already been called, along with all [other] leftists, a “F’ing retard” by Rahm Emanuel because we had critiques of the president.” CH
Bastard Barry doing wrong to his friends and supporter, will I be droned, I hate his despicable elitism and war criminal personality--he should NOT be the president much longer--I don't care if he brings in Jimmy Hoffa--he is never again to be trusted!
Report
Reply
1 reply · active 1 day ago
+23
eileen fleming · 2 days ago
Obama is beholden to the Industrial Media Government Military SECURITY/Surveillance Complex but we the people have RIGHTS we have yet to seize:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all [people] are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among [people] deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; and, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the RIGHT of the people to ALTER or to ABOLISH it." -July 4, 1776, The Declaration of Independence.
Report
Reply
+16
Worldist · 2 days ago
It was early on in my political life when the mold was cast, that determined my destination as a dissident. When I was about 25 years old. I was invited to act as a P.R. Agent for the provincial party in power at that time. To be paid about four times the tradesman's pay I would normally get. With a young family to raise, I sorely needed the financial boost. But at the time, of the interview, I looked at the Party leaflet before me and asked the interviewer if I would be expected to endorse what was emblazoned on it? 'We believe in the GOD given right of Private property'. The answer was affirmative, so ended my forage into the so-called straight, corrupt world of Capitalism's Political realm, Since there are only Man made and enforced rights. Nothing is divine! I did find what I was looking for about 3 years later. A scientific carefully researched political movement which relies on critical and honest assessments of reality and to serve the interests of the useful 95% dispossessed working-class. Go to; http://www.worldsocialism.org/canada/
Report
Reply
2 replies · active 1 day ago
-1
free of religion · 2 days ago
Obama is considred a hero according to Al Jazeera TV.
Is he a hero?
I told my wife when they elected Obama and she was with him 100% the time will come when you will hate each letter from his name.
In middle east Al Jazeera is the TV worse than FoxNews and CNN
It the TV of deception
Please every free person go and study the history and supporter of Al Jazeera then you will come to know it is far more worse than CNN and Forxnews.
Al Jazeera TV especially that in Arabic language is the TV of Devil. It is the TV of exterimist Islam on condition that they do no oppose Zionsim.
Report
Reply
2 replies · active 1 day ago
+28
Dismayed_in_America · 2 days ago
While it may seem to be the longest of long-shot strategies, we indeed need a third-party movement of REAL progressives. And we all know by now that Obama is anything but progressive - he was the most outrageous bait-and-switch in at least the last 100 years of U.S. national politics. I would guess that I speak for millions in saying that I will not vote for Obama again under ANY circumstances - I'm voting for a third party candidate. Sadly, and maddeningly, it seems that Ralph Nader has been right all these years.
Report
Reply
1 reply · active 1 day ago
+11
bdjusa · 2 days ago
Stunning eyewitness testimony that the helicopter carrying the Seals and the fake Osama blew up at the compound and left body parts all over the place. Thus no Osama autopsy, no DNA identification and the fake Osama was not dumped in the sea. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/16/unconfirm...
Report
Reply
3 replies · active 1 day ago
-12
urganda 62p · 1 day ago
Cornell West was at UCLA & my daughter was thrilled to hear him and then meet him in person; I like his message here, though I stil HOPE Obama can CHANGE and do what he is supposed to do. I am watching with suspicion how so many female "anti war" (as it pertains Afghanistan or Irak, but not in the land of their loyalties) people are running for Congress, and use any site, venue, subject to campaign.
Report
Reply
1 reply · active 1 day ago
+35
Ackotee · 1 day ago
It is a little late for the lamentations of Cornell West. I could see Obama a mile away. There were many people writing, speaking telling the story about the Lie that Obama is. I listened to the rhetoric of "Yes We Can" and studied his background. There were people such as,
Glen Ford, Paul Street and many others who saw and told what the vacuous "Yes We Can" man was really about. But the distinguished Dr. West knew none of this until now. But now he tell us he is, wait for it, Shocked and surprised. I'm not buying the BS. Obama never said a thing about the working class or the poor during his campaign. His record in Chicago as a "Community Activist" and Senator speak volumes about the empty suit Obama is. Did Cornell think Obama was going to make him Education Secretary or something then when it did not appear he got all upset. Now he decides to say something. Now that Obama has thrown him under the bus like so many others before. No, no pity here for one of Obama's greatest champions. Even to the point of denouncing anyone who would question the man.
Many Whites think that all Blacks voted for Obama because he was Black. Well I'm Black and I can tell you I didn't vote for that shyister, neither did many other Blacks I know. But we don't have voice in the Lame Steam Media. Obama was the perfect trick! Because if Whites spoke against him they were accused of Racism and if Blacks spoke against him they were accused of holding a "brother" down. Just like all Blacks don't worship Obama. Some of us also see threw the smoke and mirrors of Dr. West too.
Report
Reply
9 replies · active 1 day ago
+23
Follow the Facts · 1 day ago
...this expose really and truly lays bare how pathetic the American "system", culture and citizenry are....how could I, sitting here in Los Angeles and having zero personal knowledge about Barack Obama, "see" well in advance of his even being confirmed as candidate (for the presidency) of his own party, that he would become a very, very weak president, should he succeed in getting (s)elected....and this man could not....?
This piece illustrates with painful clarity how false and vacuous, both the system is and the people within it and of course the "electorate" itself...
...."fool me once"...?? – ...but fool me indefinitely...! – Nobody understands!
To judge from this piece, the US citizenry has ZERO dignity. – That has been perfectly stripped from it...and no one even noticed...
Obama DID say, very clearly, in advance, that he WOULD "continue war" and that he was perfectly comfortable with war as a concept...now, where does that leave all the peace-loving, "progressive" worms slithering around Obama's heals...?
Report
Reply
+14
Follow the Facts · 1 day ago
...and then the posts here...the "solution" is a "third party"...?? – ...you gotta be kidding...
...the solution is running as fast as you can from a system and construct that NEVER had any integrity and never will, no matter how many "parties" you try to dream up...that is spectacularly infantile to suggest...
Who cares how many "parties" there are as long as there is no workable mechanisms to enforce accountability – it's all smoke and mirrors...
George Carlin could have said that and made it very funny at the same time...
The central government has no legitimate purpose nor legitimate standing...dignity comes from asserting self-determination and control....
Report
Reply
1234567Next »
Post a new comment
Or post a video comment
Embed video
Check Spelling
Comment as a Guest, or login:
Login to IntenseDebate
Login to WordPress.com
Login to Twitter
Login to OpenID
Name Email
Displayed next to your comments.
Not displayed publicly.
Submit Comment
Subscribe to
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate material will be removed from the site.
SARAH PALIN
I overstand now why all of alaska should move to arizona http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haMePBnkJhY&feature=channel_video_title
TO ALL INDEPENDENTS WHOLE VOTE EVEN DURING PRIMARYIES SO THEY CAN FEEL THE LOVE OF THE IZM PARTY STAY FOUCS. A BETTER AMERICA WILL COME. DONATE EYE NEED YOUR HELP MORE TO COME SOON.
FOR THOSE WHO ARE CULTIVATING AMERICA AND ALL VOTERS LEARN YOUR CONSTITUTION CLAIM THAT UNDER GOD UNLESS THEY HAVE ALREADY CHANGED THIS WHO KNOWS IT? READ THE CONSTITUTION
http://www.wereadtheconstitution.com/
See what has come, now iz the time to make your vote really count,
eye know this iz stupid like those who are not registered to vote after this there will be silence
the rest iz up the people and how they would like to live http://projectvote.org/?gclid=CLLvl_Lh4awCFe1dtgodomOioA
WATCH! NOW IZ THE TIME
http://www.livestation.com/channels
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/history
THE GOOD OLDAYS ARE LONG GONE NOW ,NOW LOOK WHATS ABOUT TO OCCUR.
Robert Lane Gibbs
THOSE WHO ARE DID THIS TO THE WILL PAY
THE JUSTICES SELECTED BY PTAH ALL THE WAY THROUGH THERE CONFORMATION
WILL REPEALING HEALTHCARE BRING A DEPRESSION WE ALL CAN FEEL?
THE BEST IZ IN CANADA
Health care in Canada From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Under Lester Pearson's Liberal government, Canada's health care was expanded through the Medical Care Act, or Medicare to provide near universal coverage to all Canadians 'according to their need for such services and irrespective of their ability to pay'. [1]. Tommy Douglas' (centre left) number one concern was the creation of Medicare. In the summer of 1962, Saskatchewan became the centre of a hard-fought struggle between the provincial government, the North American medical establishment, and the province's physicians, who brought things to a halt with a doctors' strike. Health care in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded health care system, which is mostly free at the point of use and has most services provided by private entities.[2] It is guided by the provisions of the Canada Health Act.[3] The government assures the quality of care through federal standards. The government does not participate in day-to-day care or collect any information about an individual's health, which remains confidential between a person and his or her physician. Canada's provincially based Medicare systems are cost-effective partly because of their administrative simplicity. In each province each doctor handles the insurance claim against the provincial insurer. There is no need for the person who accesses health care to be involved in billing and reclaim. Private insurance is only a minimal part of the overall health care system. Competitive practices such as advertising are kept to a minimum, thus maximizing the percentage of revenues that go directly towards care. In general, costs are paid through funding from income taxes, although British Columbia is the only province to impose a fixed monthly premium which is waived or reduced for those on low incomes.[4] There are no deductibles on basic health care and co-pays are extremely low or non-existent (supplemental insurance such as Fair Pharmacare may have deductibles, depending on income).
A health card is issued by the Provincial Ministry of Health to each individual who enrolls for the program and everyone receives the same level of care.[5] There is no need for a variety of plans because virtually all essential basic care is covered, including maternity and infertility problems. Depending on the province, dental and vision care may not be covered but are often insured by employers through private companies. In some provinces, private supplemental plans are available for those who desire private rooms if they are hospitalized. Cosmetic surgery and some forms of elective surgery are not considered essential care and are generally not covered. These can be paid out-of-pocket or through private insurers. Health coverage is not affected by loss or change of jobs, as long as premiums are up to date, and there are no lifetime limits or exclusions for pre-existing conditions.
Pharmaceutical medications are covered by public funds for the elderly or indigent,[6] or through employment-based private insurance. Drug prices are negotiated with suppliers by the federal government to control costs. Family physicians are chosen by individuals. If a patient wishes to see a specialist or is counseled to see a specialist, a referral can be made by a GP. Preventive care and early detection are considered important and yearly checkups are encouraged. Early detection not only extends life expectancy and quality of life, but cuts down overall costs.
Contents [hide]
A 2009 Harris/Decima poll found 82% of Canadians preferred their healthcare system to the one in the United States, more than ten times as many as the 8% stating a preference for a US-style health care system for Canada[9] while a Strategic Counsel survey in 2008 found 91% of Canadians preferring their healthcare system to that of the U.S.[10][11] The same article mentioned that when asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent). Respondents then rated quality of service as excellent (36% Canada, 40% US), and being very satisfied with health care services (42% Canada, 53% US). When asked "overall the Canadian health care system was performing very well, fairly well, not very well or not at all?" 70% of Canadians rated their system as working either "well" or "very well".[citation needed] A 2003 Gallup poll found only 25% of Americans are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation", versus 50% of those in the UK and 57% of Canadians. Those "very dissatisfied" made up 44% of Americans, 25% of respondents of Britons, and 17% of Canadians. The same report portrays a different story in terms of quality. When asked about the quality of medical care in their respective nations, 17% were strongly satisfied in the U.S. compared to 13% in Canada and 11% in Britain.[12]
[edit] Economics Total Canadian health care expenditures in 1997 dollars from 1975 to 2009.[13] Canadian per capita health care spending by age group in 2007.[14] The amount Canadians spend on health care in 1997 dollars has increased every year between 1975 and 2009 from $39.7 billion to $137.3 billion or a more than doubling of per capita spending from $1,715 to $4089.[15] In 2009 dollars spending is expected to reach $183.1 billion ( a more than five percent increase over the previous year ) or $5,452 per person.[16] Most of this increase in health care costs has been covered by public funds.[17] The greatest proportion of this money goes to hospitals ($51B), followed by pharmaceuticals ($30B), and physicians ($26B).[16] Total spending in 2007 was equivalent to 10.1% of the gross domestic product which was slightly above the average for OECD countries, and below the 16.0% of GDP spent on health care in the United States.[18] The proportion spent on hospitals and physicians has declined between 1975 and 2009 while the amount spent on pharmaceuticals has increased.[19]
Of the three biggest health care expenses, the amount spent on pharmaceuticals has increased the most. In 1997 the total price of drugs surpassed that of doctors. In 1975 the three biggest health costs were hospitals ($5.5B/44.7%), physicians ($1.8B/15.1% ), and medications ($1.1B/8.8% ) while in 2007 the three biggest costs were hospitals ($45.4B/28.2% ), medications ($26.5B/16.5% ), and physicians ($21.5B/13.4% ).[20]
In 2009, the government funded about 70% of Canadians' health care costs.[21] This covered most hospital and physician cost while the dental and pharmaceutical costs were primarily paid for by individuals.[21] This is slightly below the OECD average. Under the terms of the Canada Health Act, public funding is required to pay for medically necessary care, but only if it is delivered in hospitals or by physicians. There is considerable variation across the provinces/territories as to the extent to which such costs as out of hospital prescription medications, physical therapy, long-term care, dental care and ambulance services are covered.[22]
Canada has a publicly funded medicare system, with most services provided by the private sector. Each province may opt out, though none currently do. Canada's system is known as a single payer system, where basic services are provided by private doctors (since 2002 they have been allowed to incorporate), with the entire fee paid for by the government at the same rate. Most government funding (94%) comes from the provincial level.[14] Most family doctors receive a fee per visit. These rates are negotiated between the provincial governments and the province's medical associations, usually on an annual basis. Pharmaceutical costs are set at a global median by government price controls.
Hospital care is delivered by publicly funded hospitals in Canada. Most of the public hospitals, each of which are independent institutions incorporated under provincial Corporations Acts, are required by law to operate within their budget.[23] Amalgamation of hospitals in the 1990s has reduced competition between hospitals. As the cost of patient care has increased, hospitals have been forced to cut costs or reduce services. Applying perspective (pharmacoeconomic) to analyze cost reduction, it has been shown that savings made by individual hospitals result in actual cost increases to the Provinces.[24]
Health care costs per capita vary across Canada with Quebec ($4,891) and British Columbia ($5,254) at the lowest level and Alberta ($6,072) and Newfoundland ($5,970) at the highest.[14] It is also the greatest at the extremes of age at a cost of $17,469 per capita in those older than 80 and $8,239 for those less than 1 year old in comparison to $3,809 for those between 1 and 64 years old in 2007.[14]
[edit] History [edit] 18th century Hospitals were initially places which cared for the poor; others were cared for at home. In Quebec (formerly known as New France and then as Lower Canada), a series of charitable institutions, many set up by Catholic religious orders, provided such care.[25] As the country grew, hospitals grew with them. They tended to be not-for-profit, and were run by municipal governments, charitable organizations, and religious denominations (both Catholic and Protestant).[26] These organizations tended to be at arm's length from government; they received subsidies from provincial governments to admit and treat all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. Dr. David Parker of the Maritimes was the first to operate using anesthetic. One of the first "modern" operations, the removal of a tumour, was performed by William Fraser Tolmie in British Columbia.
[edit] 19th century The first medical schools were established in Lower Canada in the 1820s. These included the Montreal Medical Institution, which is the faculty of medicine at McGill University today; in the mid-1870s, Sir William Osler changed the face of medical school instruction throughout the West with the introduction of the hands-on approach. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Upper Canada was established in 1839 and in 1869 was permanently incorporated. In 1834, William Kelly, a surgeon with the Royal Navy, introduced the idea of preventing the spread of disease via sanitation measures following epidemics of cholera. In 1871, female physicians Emily Howard Stowe and Jennie Kidd Trout won the right for women to be admitted to medical schools and granted licenses from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. In 1883, Emily Stowe led the creation of the Ontario Medical College for Women, affiliated with the University of Toronto. In 1892, Dr. William Osler wrote the landmark text The Principles and Practice of Medicine, which dominated medical instruction in the West for the next 40 years. Around this time, a movement began that called for the improved health care for the poor, focusing mainly on sanitation and hygiene. This period saw important advances including the provision of safe drinking water to most of the population, public baths and beaches, and municipal garbage services to remove waste from the city. During this period, medical care was severely lacking for the poor and minorities such as First Nations[27]
[edit] 20th century The twentieth century saw the discovery of insulin by Frederick Banting and his colleagues, Charles Best, J.J.R. Macleod, and J.B. Collip[28] in 1922. For this, Frederick Banting and J.J.R. Macleod of the University of Toronto won the 1923 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine.[29] Dr. Wilder Penfield, who discovered a successful surgical treatment for epilepsy called the "Montreal procedure", founded the Montreal Neurological Institute in 1934.
The early 20th century saw the first widespread calls for increased government involvement and the idea of a national health insurance system had considerable popularity. During the Great Depression calls for a public health system were widespread. Doctors who had long feared such an idea reconsidered hoping a government system could provide some stability as the depression had badly affected the medical community. However, governments had little money to enact the idea. In 1935, the United Farmers of Alberta passed a bill creating a provincial insurance program, but they lost office later that year and the Social Credit Party scrapped the plan due to the financial situation in the province. The next year a health insurance bill passed in British Columbia, but its implementation was halted over objections from doctors. William Lyon Mackenzie King promised to introduce such a scheme, but while he created the Department of Health he failed to introduce a national program.
[edit] The beginning of coverage Canadian health care spending for 1970 to 2007 compared with other nations It was not until 1946 that the first Canadian province introduced near universal health coverage. Saskatchewan had long suffered a shortage of doctors, leading to the creation of municipal doctor programs in the early twentieth century in which a town would subsidize a doctor to practice there. Soon after, groups of communities joined to open union hospitals under a similar model. There had thus been a long history of government involvement in Saskatchewan health care, and a significant section of it was already controlled and paid for by the government. In 1946, Tommy Douglas' Co-operative Commonwealth Federation government in Saskatchewan passed the Saskatchewan Hospitalization Act, which guaranteed free hospital care for much of the population. Douglas had hoped to provide universal health care, but the province did not have the money.
In 1950, Alberta created a program similar to Saskatchewan's. Alberta, however, created Medical Services (Alberta) Incorporated (MS(A)I) in 1948 to provide prepaid health services. This scheme eventually provided medical coverage to over 90% of the population.[30]
In 1957, the St. Laurent federal government passed the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act[31] to fund 50% of the cost of such programs for any provincial government that adopted them. The HIDS Act outlined five conditions: public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, and accessibility. These remain the pillars of the Canada Health Act.
By 1961, all ten provinces had agreed to start HIDS Act programs. In Saskatchewan, the act meant that half of their current program would now be paid for by the federal government. Premier Woodrow Lloyd decided to use this freed money to extend the health coverage to also include physicians. Despite the sharp disagreement of the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons, Lloyd introduced the law in 1962 after defeating the Saskatchewan Doctors' Strike in July.
[edit] Medical Care Act The Saskatchewan program proved a success and the federal government of Lester B. Pearson introduced the Medical Care Act in 1966 that extended the HIDS Act cost-sharing to allow each province to establish a universal health care plan -an initiative that was supported by the New Democratic Party (NDP). It also set up the Medicare system. In 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed, which prohibited user fees and extra billing by doctors. In 1999, the prime minister and most premiers reaffirmed in the Social Union Framework Agreement that they are committed to health care that has "comprehensiveness, universality, portability, public administration and accessibility."[32]
[edit] Government involvement The various levels of government pay for about 70% of Canadians' health care, although this number has decreased somewhat in recent years.[33] The Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly called the British North America Act, 1867, and still known informally as the BNA Act) did not give either the federal or provincial governments responsibility for health care, as it was then a minor concern. The Act did give the provinces responsibility for regulating hospitals, and the provinces claimed that their general responsibility for local and private matters encompassed health care. The federal government felt that the health of the population fell under the Peace, Order, and Good Government part of its responsibilities. This led to several decades of debate over jurisdiction that were not resolved until the 1930s. Eventually the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council JCPC decided that the administration and delivery of health care was a provincial concern, but that the federal government also had the responsibility of protecting the health and well-being of the population.
By far the largest government health program is Medicare, which is actually ten provincial programs, such as OHIP in Ontario, that are required to meet the general guidelines laid out in the federal Canada Health Act. Almost all government health spending goes through Medicare, but there are several smaller programs. The federal government directly administers health to groups such as the military, and inmates of federal prisons. They also provide some care to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and veterans, but these groups mostly use the public system. Prior to 1966, Veterans Affairs Canada had a large health care network, but this was merged into the general system with the creation of Medicare. The largest group the federal government is directly responsible for is First Nations. Native peoples are a federal responsibility and the federal government guarantees complete coverage of their health needs. For the last 20 years and despite health care being a guaranteed right for First Nations due to the many treaties the government of Canada signed for access to First Nations lands and resources, the amount of coverage provided by the Federal government has diminished drastically for optometry, dentistry, and medicines. Status First Nations individuals only qualify for a set amount of visits to the optometrist and dentist, with a limited amount of coverage for glasses, eye exams, fillings, root canals, etc. For the most part First Nations people use the normal hospitals and the federal government then fully compensates the provincial government for the expense. The federal government also covers any user fees the province charges. The federal government maintains a network of clinics and health centres on Native Reserves. At the provincial level, there are also several much smaller health programs alongside Medicare. The largest of these is the health care costs paid by the worker's compensation system. Regardless of federal efforts, healthcare for First Nations has generally not been considered effective.[34][35][36]
Despite being a provincial responsibility, the large health costs have long been partially funded by the federal government. The cost sharing agreement created by the HIDS Act and extended by the Medical Care Act was discontinued in 1977 and replaced by Established Programs Financing. This gave a bloc transfer to the provinces, giving them more flexibility but also reducing federal influence on the health system. In 1996, when faced with a large budget shortfall, the Liberal federal government merged the health transfers with the transfers for other social programs into the Canada Health and Social Transfer, and overall funding levels were cut. This placed considerable pressure on the provinces, and combined with population aging and the generally high rate of inflation in health costs, has caused problems with the system.
[edit] Private sector About 27.6% of Canadians' health care is paid for through the private sector. This mostly goes towards services not covered or only partially covered by Medicare, such as prescription drugs, dentistry and optometry. Some 75% of Canadians have some form of supplementary private health insurance; many of them receive it through their employers.[37] There are also large private entities that can buy priority access to medical services in Canada, such as WCB in BC.
The Canadian system is for the most part publicly funded, yet most of the services are provided by private enterprises. Most doctors do not receive an annual salary, but receive a fee per visit or service.[2] According to Dr. Albert Schumacher, former president of the Canadian Medical Association, an estimated 75 percent of Canadian health care services are delivered privately, but funded publicly.
"Frontline practitioners whether they're GPs or specialists by and large are not salaried. They're small hardware stores. Same thing with labs and radiology clinics ...The situation we are seeing now are more services around not being funded publicly but people having to pay for them, or their insurance companies. We have sort of a passive privatization."[2]
"Although there are laws prohibiting or curtailing private health care in some provinces, they can be changed", according to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine.[38][39] In June 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) that Quebec's prohibition against private health insurance for medically necessary services laws violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, potentially opening the door to much more private sector participation in the health system. Justices Beverley McLachlin, Jack Major, Michel Bastarache and Marie Deschamps found for the majority. "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care", wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin.
The Quebec and federal governments asked the high court to suspend its ruling for 18 months. Less than two months after its initial ruling, the court agreed to suspend its decision for 12 months, retroactive to June 9, 2005.[40]
[edit] Physicians and medical organization Canada, like its North American neighbour the United States, has a ratio of practising physicians to population that is below the OECD average [41] but a level of practising nurses that is higher than either the U.S. or the OECD average.[42]
Family physicians in Canada make an average of $202,000 a year (2006, before expenses).[43] Alberta has the highest average salary of around $230,000, while Quebec has the lowest average annual salary at $165,000, arguably creating interprovincial competition for doctors and contributing to local shortages.[43] In fact, the cost of living in Alberta is considerably higher than the cost of living in Quebec, so absolute income differentials can be massively misleading.
In 1991, the Ontario Medical Association agreed to become a province-wide closed shop, making the OMA union a monopoly. Critics argue that this measure has restricted the supply of doctors to guarantee its members' incomes.[44]
In September 2008, the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontarian government agreed to a new four-year contract that will see doctors receive a 12.25% pay raise. The new agreement is expected to cost Ontarians an extra $1 billion. Referring to the agreement, Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty said,"One of the things that we've got to do, of course, is ensure that we're competitive ... to attract and keep doctors here in Ontario...".[45]
In December 2008, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada reported a critical shortage of obstetricians and gynaecologists. The report stated that only 1,370 obstetricians were practicing in Canada and that number is expected to fall by at least one-third within five years. The society is asking the government to increase the number of medical school spots for obstetrics and gynecologists by 30 per cent a year for three years and also recommended rotating placements of doctors into smaller communities to encourage them to take up residence there.[46]
Each province regulates its medical profession through a self-governing College of Physicians and Surgeons, which is responsible for licensing physicians, setting practice standards, and investigating and disciplining its members.
The national doctors association is called the Canadian Medical Association;[47] it describes its mission as "To serve and unite the physicians of Canada and be the national advocate, in partnership with the people of Canada, for the highest standards of health and health care. "[48] Because health care is deemed to be under provincial/territorial jurisdiction, negotiations on behalf of physicians are conducted by provincial associations such as the Ontario Medical Association. The views of Canadian doctors have been mixed, particularly in their support for allowing parallel private financing. The history of Canadian physicians in the development of Medicare has been described by C. David Naylor.[49] Since the passage of the 1984 Canada Health Act, the CMA itself has been a strong advocate of maintaining a strong publicly funded system, including lobbying the federal government to increase funding, and being a founding member of (and active participant in) the Health Action Lobby (HEAL).[50]
However, there are internal disputes. In particular, some provincial medical associations have argued for permitting a larger private role. To some extent, this has been a reaction to strong cost control; CIHI estimates that 99% of physician expenditures in Canada come from public sector sources, and physicians—particularly those providing elective procedures who have been squeezed for operating room time—have accordingly looked for alternative revenue sources.
One indication of this internal dispute came when Dr. Brian Day of B.C. was elected CMA president in August 2007. Day is the owner of the largest private hospital in Canada and a vocal supporter of increasing private health care in Canada. The CMA presidency rotates among the provinces, with the provincial association electing a candidate who is customarily ratified by the CMA general meeting. Day's selection was sufficiently controversial that he was challenged—albeit unsuccessfully—by another physician. The newspaper story went on to note that "Day said he has never supported the privatization of health care in Canada, and accused his detractors of deliberately distorting his position." [51]
[edit] Criticisms [edit] Wait times Health Canada, a federal department, publishes a series of surveys of the health care system in Canada based on Canadians' first-hand experiences of the health care system.[52]
Although life-threatening cases are dealt with immediately, some services needed are non-urgent and patients are seen at the next-available appointment in their local chosen facility.
The median wait time in Canada to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 89.5% waiting fewer than 90 days.[52]
The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans [53] is two weeks with 86.4% waiting fewer than 90 days.[52]
The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting fewer than 90 days.[52]
Another study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 57% of Canadians reported waiting 30 days (4 weeks) or more to see a specialist, broadly in line with the current official statistics. A quarter (24%) of all Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room.[54]
Dr. Brian Day was once quoted as saying "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two-to-three years."[55] Day gave no source for his two to three years claim. The Canadian Health Coalition has responded succinctly to Day's claims, pointing out that "access to veterinary care for animals is based on ability to pay. Dogs are put down if their owners can’t pay. Access to care should not be based on ability to pay." [56] Regional administrations of Medicare across Canada publish their own wait time data on the internet. For instance in British Columbia the wait time for a hip replacement is currently a little under ten weeks.[57] The CHC is one of many groups across Canada calling for increased provincial and federal funding for medicare and an end to provincial funding cuts as solutions to unacceptable wait times.[58] In a 2007 episode of ABC News's 20/20 titled "Sick in America", host John Stossel cited numerous examples of Canadians who did not get the health care that they needed.[59] The Fraser Institute, a conservative think tank, claims to do its own research and found that treatment time from initial referral by a GP through consultation with a specialist to final treatment, across all specialties and all procedures (emergency, non-urgent, and elective), averaged 17.7 weeks in 2005.[60] However, the report of the Fraser Institute is greatly at odds with the Canadian government's own 2007 report.[61]
Criticisms have been laid during the administration of H1N1 shots in 2009, in parts of Canada, including Hamilton and Toronto. "Wait times for flu shots continued to be hours long yesterday [October 29] as Hamiltonians lined up for the only protection from H1N1 that public health can offer. Waits were about five hours at the clinic on the West Mountain, with 1,000 people in line. The Dundas clinic wasn't much better, with 700 waiting for a shot."[62] "Hundreds of people who lined up in Toronto today were given slips of paper with a time on it so they could return for their vaccination without standing around for hours on end." [63]
Since 2002, the Canadian government has invested $5.5 billion to decrease wait times.[64] In April 2007, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that all ten provinces and three territories would establish patient wait times guarantees by 2010. Canadians will be guaranteed timely access to health care in at least one of the following priority areas, prioritized by each province: cancer care, hip and knee replacement, cardiac care, diagnostic imaging, cataract surgeries or primary care.[65]
[edit] Counter-criticism: some longer wait times can benefit patients It has been observed and found in data that the complete elimination of all waiting times is not ideal. When waiting lists arise through a prioritization process based on physician-determined medical urgency and the procedure's risk, (in contrast to patient's ability to pay or profitability for the physician), waiting lists can possibly help patients. It's been postulated that a system of immediate care can be detrimental for optimal patient outcomes due to avoidance of unnecessary or unproven surgery. An example is the Canadian province of British Columbia, where, according to surgeon Dr. Lawrence Burr, 15 heart patients died in 1990 while on a waiting list for heart surgery. According to Robin Hutchinson, senior medical consultant to the Health Ministry's heart program, had the waiting list not existed and all patients given instant access to the surgery, the expected number of fatalities would have been 22 due to the operation mortality rate at that time. Hutchison noted that the BC Medical Association's media campaign did not make reference to these comparative statistics and only focused on deaths during waiting for surgery.[66]
Since, ideally, waiting lists prioritize higher-risk patients to receive surgery ahead of those with lower risks, this helps reduce overall patient mortality. Consequently, a wealthy or highly insured patient in a system based on profit or ability to pay (as in the U.S.) may be pushed into surgery or other procedures more quickly, with a result in higher morbidity or mortality risk. This is in addition to the better-understood phenomenon in which lower-income, uninsured, or under-insured patients have their care denied or delayed, also resulting in worse health care.[67]
[edit] Restrictions on privately funded health care Main article: Canada Health Act The Canada Health Act, which sets the conditions with which provincial/territorial health insurance plans must comply if they wish to receive their full transfer payments from the federal government, does not allow charges to insured persons for insured services (defined as medically necessary care provided in hospitals or by physicians). Most provinces have responded through various prohibitions on such payments. This does not constitute a ban on privately funded care; indeed, about 30% of Canadian health expenditures come from private sources, both insurance and out-of-pocket payments.[68] The Canada Health Act does not address delivery. Private clinics are therefore permitted, albeit subject to provincial/territorial regulations, but they cannot charge above the agreed-upon fee schedule unless they are treating non-insured persons (which may include those eligible under automobile insurance or worker's compensation, in addition to those who are not Canadian residents), or providing non-insured services. This provision has been controversial among those seeking a greater role for private funding.
In 2006, the Government of British Columbia threatened to shut down one private clinic because it was planning to start accepting private payments from patients.[69]
Governments have responded through wait time strategies, discussed above, which attempt to ensure that patients will receive high-quality, necessary services in a timely manner. Nonetheless, the debate continues.
[edit] Cross-border health care ‹ The template below (Cleanup) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus.› This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (Consider using more specific cleanup instructions.) Please help improve this section if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions. (January 2008) The border between Canada and the United States represents a boundary line for medical tourism, in which a country's residents travel elsewhere to seek health care that is more available or affordable.
[edit] Canadians visiting the US to receive health care Some residents of Canada travel to the United States because it provides the nearest facility for their needs. Some do so on quality grounds or because of easier access. A study by Barer, et al., indicates that the majority of Canadians who seek health care in the U.S. are already there for other reasons, including business travel or vacations. A smaller proportion seek care in the U.S. for reasons of confidentiality, including abortions, mental illness, substance abuse, and other problems that they may not wish to divulge to their local physician, family, or employer.
[edit] US citizens visiting Canada to receive health care On the other hand, some US citizens travel to Canada for health-care related reasons:
Canada spent approximately 10.0% of GDP on health care in 2006, more than one percentage point higher than the average of 8.9% in OECD countries.[89] According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, spending is expected to reach $160 billion, or 10.6% of GDP, in 2007.[90] This translates to $4,867 per person.
Most health statistics in Canada are at or above the G8 average.[91] Direct comparisons of health statistics across nations is complex. The OECD collects comparative statistics, and has published brief country profiles.[92][93][94]
Country Life expectancy Infant mortality rate Physicians per 1000 people Nurses per 1000 people Per capita expenditure on health (USD) Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP % of government revenue spent on health % of health costs paid by government Australia 81.4 4.2 2.8 9.7 3,137 8.7 17.7 67.7 Canada 81.3 4.5 2.2 9.0 3,895 10.1 16.7 69.8 France 81.0 4.0 3.4 7.7 3,601 11.0 14.2 79.0 Germany 79.8 3.8 3.5 9.9 3,588 10.4 17.6 76.9 Japan 82.6 2.6 2.1 9.4 2,581 8.1 16.8 81.3 Sweden 81.0 2.5 3.6 10.8 3,323 9.1 13.6 81.7 UK 79.1 4.8 2.5 10.0 2,992 8.4 15.8 81.7 US 78.1 6.9 2.4 10.6 7,290 16.0 18.5 45.4 [edit] See also Canada portal Book: Canada Wikipedia books are collections of articles that can be downloaded or ordered in print.
A health card is issued by the Provincial Ministry of Health to each individual who enrolls for the program and everyone receives the same level of care.[5] There is no need for a variety of plans because virtually all essential basic care is covered, including maternity and infertility problems. Depending on the province, dental and vision care may not be covered but are often insured by employers through private companies. In some provinces, private supplemental plans are available for those who desire private rooms if they are hospitalized. Cosmetic surgery and some forms of elective surgery are not considered essential care and are generally not covered. These can be paid out-of-pocket or through private insurers. Health coverage is not affected by loss or change of jobs, as long as premiums are up to date, and there are no lifetime limits or exclusions for pre-existing conditions.
Pharmaceutical medications are covered by public funds for the elderly or indigent,[6] or through employment-based private insurance. Drug prices are negotiated with suppliers by the federal government to control costs. Family physicians are chosen by individuals. If a patient wishes to see a specialist or is counseled to see a specialist, a referral can be made by a GP. Preventive care and early detection are considered important and yearly checkups are encouraged. Early detection not only extends life expectancy and quality of life, but cuts down overall costs.
Contents [hide]
- 1 Public opinion
- 2 Economics
- 3 History
- 4 Government involvement
- 5 Private sector
- 6 Physicians and medical organization
- 7 Criticisms
- 8 Comparison to other countries
- 9 See also
- 10 References
- 11 External links
A 2009 Harris/Decima poll found 82% of Canadians preferred their healthcare system to the one in the United States, more than ten times as many as the 8% stating a preference for a US-style health care system for Canada[9] while a Strategic Counsel survey in 2008 found 91% of Canadians preferring their healthcare system to that of the U.S.[10][11] The same article mentioned that when asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent). Respondents then rated quality of service as excellent (36% Canada, 40% US), and being very satisfied with health care services (42% Canada, 53% US). When asked "overall the Canadian health care system was performing very well, fairly well, not very well or not at all?" 70% of Canadians rated their system as working either "well" or "very well".[citation needed] A 2003 Gallup poll found only 25% of Americans are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation", versus 50% of those in the UK and 57% of Canadians. Those "very dissatisfied" made up 44% of Americans, 25% of respondents of Britons, and 17% of Canadians. The same report portrays a different story in terms of quality. When asked about the quality of medical care in their respective nations, 17% were strongly satisfied in the U.S. compared to 13% in Canada and 11% in Britain.[12]
[edit] Economics Total Canadian health care expenditures in 1997 dollars from 1975 to 2009.[13] Canadian per capita health care spending by age group in 2007.[14] The amount Canadians spend on health care in 1997 dollars has increased every year between 1975 and 2009 from $39.7 billion to $137.3 billion or a more than doubling of per capita spending from $1,715 to $4089.[15] In 2009 dollars spending is expected to reach $183.1 billion ( a more than five percent increase over the previous year ) or $5,452 per person.[16] Most of this increase in health care costs has been covered by public funds.[17] The greatest proportion of this money goes to hospitals ($51B), followed by pharmaceuticals ($30B), and physicians ($26B).[16] Total spending in 2007 was equivalent to 10.1% of the gross domestic product which was slightly above the average for OECD countries, and below the 16.0% of GDP spent on health care in the United States.[18] The proportion spent on hospitals and physicians has declined between 1975 and 2009 while the amount spent on pharmaceuticals has increased.[19]
Of the three biggest health care expenses, the amount spent on pharmaceuticals has increased the most. In 1997 the total price of drugs surpassed that of doctors. In 1975 the three biggest health costs were hospitals ($5.5B/44.7%), physicians ($1.8B/15.1% ), and medications ($1.1B/8.8% ) while in 2007 the three biggest costs were hospitals ($45.4B/28.2% ), medications ($26.5B/16.5% ), and physicians ($21.5B/13.4% ).[20]
In 2009, the government funded about 70% of Canadians' health care costs.[21] This covered most hospital and physician cost while the dental and pharmaceutical costs were primarily paid for by individuals.[21] This is slightly below the OECD average. Under the terms of the Canada Health Act, public funding is required to pay for medically necessary care, but only if it is delivered in hospitals or by physicians. There is considerable variation across the provinces/territories as to the extent to which such costs as out of hospital prescription medications, physical therapy, long-term care, dental care and ambulance services are covered.[22]
Canada has a publicly funded medicare system, with most services provided by the private sector. Each province may opt out, though none currently do. Canada's system is known as a single payer system, where basic services are provided by private doctors (since 2002 they have been allowed to incorporate), with the entire fee paid for by the government at the same rate. Most government funding (94%) comes from the provincial level.[14] Most family doctors receive a fee per visit. These rates are negotiated between the provincial governments and the province's medical associations, usually on an annual basis. Pharmaceutical costs are set at a global median by government price controls.
Hospital care is delivered by publicly funded hospitals in Canada. Most of the public hospitals, each of which are independent institutions incorporated under provincial Corporations Acts, are required by law to operate within their budget.[23] Amalgamation of hospitals in the 1990s has reduced competition between hospitals. As the cost of patient care has increased, hospitals have been forced to cut costs or reduce services. Applying perspective (pharmacoeconomic) to analyze cost reduction, it has been shown that savings made by individual hospitals result in actual cost increases to the Provinces.[24]
Health care costs per capita vary across Canada with Quebec ($4,891) and British Columbia ($5,254) at the lowest level and Alberta ($6,072) and Newfoundland ($5,970) at the highest.[14] It is also the greatest at the extremes of age at a cost of $17,469 per capita in those older than 80 and $8,239 for those less than 1 year old in comparison to $3,809 for those between 1 and 64 years old in 2007.[14]
[edit] History [edit] 18th century Hospitals were initially places which cared for the poor; others were cared for at home. In Quebec (formerly known as New France and then as Lower Canada), a series of charitable institutions, many set up by Catholic religious orders, provided such care.[25] As the country grew, hospitals grew with them. They tended to be not-for-profit, and were run by municipal governments, charitable organizations, and religious denominations (both Catholic and Protestant).[26] These organizations tended to be at arm's length from government; they received subsidies from provincial governments to admit and treat all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. Dr. David Parker of the Maritimes was the first to operate using anesthetic. One of the first "modern" operations, the removal of a tumour, was performed by William Fraser Tolmie in British Columbia.
[edit] 19th century The first medical schools were established in Lower Canada in the 1820s. These included the Montreal Medical Institution, which is the faculty of medicine at McGill University today; in the mid-1870s, Sir William Osler changed the face of medical school instruction throughout the West with the introduction of the hands-on approach. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Upper Canada was established in 1839 and in 1869 was permanently incorporated. In 1834, William Kelly, a surgeon with the Royal Navy, introduced the idea of preventing the spread of disease via sanitation measures following epidemics of cholera. In 1871, female physicians Emily Howard Stowe and Jennie Kidd Trout won the right for women to be admitted to medical schools and granted licenses from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. In 1883, Emily Stowe led the creation of the Ontario Medical College for Women, affiliated with the University of Toronto. In 1892, Dr. William Osler wrote the landmark text The Principles and Practice of Medicine, which dominated medical instruction in the West for the next 40 years. Around this time, a movement began that called for the improved health care for the poor, focusing mainly on sanitation and hygiene. This period saw important advances including the provision of safe drinking water to most of the population, public baths and beaches, and municipal garbage services to remove waste from the city. During this period, medical care was severely lacking for the poor and minorities such as First Nations[27]
[edit] 20th century The twentieth century saw the discovery of insulin by Frederick Banting and his colleagues, Charles Best, J.J.R. Macleod, and J.B. Collip[28] in 1922. For this, Frederick Banting and J.J.R. Macleod of the University of Toronto won the 1923 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine.[29] Dr. Wilder Penfield, who discovered a successful surgical treatment for epilepsy called the "Montreal procedure", founded the Montreal Neurological Institute in 1934.
The early 20th century saw the first widespread calls for increased government involvement and the idea of a national health insurance system had considerable popularity. During the Great Depression calls for a public health system were widespread. Doctors who had long feared such an idea reconsidered hoping a government system could provide some stability as the depression had badly affected the medical community. However, governments had little money to enact the idea. In 1935, the United Farmers of Alberta passed a bill creating a provincial insurance program, but they lost office later that year and the Social Credit Party scrapped the plan due to the financial situation in the province. The next year a health insurance bill passed in British Columbia, but its implementation was halted over objections from doctors. William Lyon Mackenzie King promised to introduce such a scheme, but while he created the Department of Health he failed to introduce a national program.
[edit] The beginning of coverage Canadian health care spending for 1970 to 2007 compared with other nations It was not until 1946 that the first Canadian province introduced near universal health coverage. Saskatchewan had long suffered a shortage of doctors, leading to the creation of municipal doctor programs in the early twentieth century in which a town would subsidize a doctor to practice there. Soon after, groups of communities joined to open union hospitals under a similar model. There had thus been a long history of government involvement in Saskatchewan health care, and a significant section of it was already controlled and paid for by the government. In 1946, Tommy Douglas' Co-operative Commonwealth Federation government in Saskatchewan passed the Saskatchewan Hospitalization Act, which guaranteed free hospital care for much of the population. Douglas had hoped to provide universal health care, but the province did not have the money.
In 1950, Alberta created a program similar to Saskatchewan's. Alberta, however, created Medical Services (Alberta) Incorporated (MS(A)I) in 1948 to provide prepaid health services. This scheme eventually provided medical coverage to over 90% of the population.[30]
In 1957, the St. Laurent federal government passed the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act[31] to fund 50% of the cost of such programs for any provincial government that adopted them. The HIDS Act outlined five conditions: public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, and accessibility. These remain the pillars of the Canada Health Act.
By 1961, all ten provinces had agreed to start HIDS Act programs. In Saskatchewan, the act meant that half of their current program would now be paid for by the federal government. Premier Woodrow Lloyd decided to use this freed money to extend the health coverage to also include physicians. Despite the sharp disagreement of the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons, Lloyd introduced the law in 1962 after defeating the Saskatchewan Doctors' Strike in July.
[edit] Medical Care Act The Saskatchewan program proved a success and the federal government of Lester B. Pearson introduced the Medical Care Act in 1966 that extended the HIDS Act cost-sharing to allow each province to establish a universal health care plan -an initiative that was supported by the New Democratic Party (NDP). It also set up the Medicare system. In 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed, which prohibited user fees and extra billing by doctors. In 1999, the prime minister and most premiers reaffirmed in the Social Union Framework Agreement that they are committed to health care that has "comprehensiveness, universality, portability, public administration and accessibility."[32]
[edit] Government involvement The various levels of government pay for about 70% of Canadians' health care, although this number has decreased somewhat in recent years.[33] The Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly called the British North America Act, 1867, and still known informally as the BNA Act) did not give either the federal or provincial governments responsibility for health care, as it was then a minor concern. The Act did give the provinces responsibility for regulating hospitals, and the provinces claimed that their general responsibility for local and private matters encompassed health care. The federal government felt that the health of the population fell under the Peace, Order, and Good Government part of its responsibilities. This led to several decades of debate over jurisdiction that were not resolved until the 1930s. Eventually the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council JCPC decided that the administration and delivery of health care was a provincial concern, but that the federal government also had the responsibility of protecting the health and well-being of the population.
By far the largest government health program is Medicare, which is actually ten provincial programs, such as OHIP in Ontario, that are required to meet the general guidelines laid out in the federal Canada Health Act. Almost all government health spending goes through Medicare, but there are several smaller programs. The federal government directly administers health to groups such as the military, and inmates of federal prisons. They also provide some care to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and veterans, but these groups mostly use the public system. Prior to 1966, Veterans Affairs Canada had a large health care network, but this was merged into the general system with the creation of Medicare. The largest group the federal government is directly responsible for is First Nations. Native peoples are a federal responsibility and the federal government guarantees complete coverage of their health needs. For the last 20 years and despite health care being a guaranteed right for First Nations due to the many treaties the government of Canada signed for access to First Nations lands and resources, the amount of coverage provided by the Federal government has diminished drastically for optometry, dentistry, and medicines. Status First Nations individuals only qualify for a set amount of visits to the optometrist and dentist, with a limited amount of coverage for glasses, eye exams, fillings, root canals, etc. For the most part First Nations people use the normal hospitals and the federal government then fully compensates the provincial government for the expense. The federal government also covers any user fees the province charges. The federal government maintains a network of clinics and health centres on Native Reserves. At the provincial level, there are also several much smaller health programs alongside Medicare. The largest of these is the health care costs paid by the worker's compensation system. Regardless of federal efforts, healthcare for First Nations has generally not been considered effective.[34][35][36]
Despite being a provincial responsibility, the large health costs have long been partially funded by the federal government. The cost sharing agreement created by the HIDS Act and extended by the Medical Care Act was discontinued in 1977 and replaced by Established Programs Financing. This gave a bloc transfer to the provinces, giving them more flexibility but also reducing federal influence on the health system. In 1996, when faced with a large budget shortfall, the Liberal federal government merged the health transfers with the transfers for other social programs into the Canada Health and Social Transfer, and overall funding levels were cut. This placed considerable pressure on the provinces, and combined with population aging and the generally high rate of inflation in health costs, has caused problems with the system.
[edit] Private sector About 27.6% of Canadians' health care is paid for through the private sector. This mostly goes towards services not covered or only partially covered by Medicare, such as prescription drugs, dentistry and optometry. Some 75% of Canadians have some form of supplementary private health insurance; many of them receive it through their employers.[37] There are also large private entities that can buy priority access to medical services in Canada, such as WCB in BC.
The Canadian system is for the most part publicly funded, yet most of the services are provided by private enterprises. Most doctors do not receive an annual salary, but receive a fee per visit or service.[2] According to Dr. Albert Schumacher, former president of the Canadian Medical Association, an estimated 75 percent of Canadian health care services are delivered privately, but funded publicly.
"Frontline practitioners whether they're GPs or specialists by and large are not salaried. They're small hardware stores. Same thing with labs and radiology clinics ...The situation we are seeing now are more services around not being funded publicly but people having to pay for them, or their insurance companies. We have sort of a passive privatization."[2]
"Although there are laws prohibiting or curtailing private health care in some provinces, they can be changed", according to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine.[38][39] In June 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) that Quebec's prohibition against private health insurance for medically necessary services laws violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, potentially opening the door to much more private sector participation in the health system. Justices Beverley McLachlin, Jack Major, Michel Bastarache and Marie Deschamps found for the majority. "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care", wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin.
The Quebec and federal governments asked the high court to suspend its ruling for 18 months. Less than two months after its initial ruling, the court agreed to suspend its decision for 12 months, retroactive to June 9, 2005.[40]
[edit] Physicians and medical organization Canada, like its North American neighbour the United States, has a ratio of practising physicians to population that is below the OECD average [41] but a level of practising nurses that is higher than either the U.S. or the OECD average.[42]
Family physicians in Canada make an average of $202,000 a year (2006, before expenses).[43] Alberta has the highest average salary of around $230,000, while Quebec has the lowest average annual salary at $165,000, arguably creating interprovincial competition for doctors and contributing to local shortages.[43] In fact, the cost of living in Alberta is considerably higher than the cost of living in Quebec, so absolute income differentials can be massively misleading.
In 1991, the Ontario Medical Association agreed to become a province-wide closed shop, making the OMA union a monopoly. Critics argue that this measure has restricted the supply of doctors to guarantee its members' incomes.[44]
In September 2008, the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontarian government agreed to a new four-year contract that will see doctors receive a 12.25% pay raise. The new agreement is expected to cost Ontarians an extra $1 billion. Referring to the agreement, Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty said,"One of the things that we've got to do, of course, is ensure that we're competitive ... to attract and keep doctors here in Ontario...".[45]
In December 2008, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada reported a critical shortage of obstetricians and gynaecologists. The report stated that only 1,370 obstetricians were practicing in Canada and that number is expected to fall by at least one-third within five years. The society is asking the government to increase the number of medical school spots for obstetrics and gynecologists by 30 per cent a year for three years and also recommended rotating placements of doctors into smaller communities to encourage them to take up residence there.[46]
Each province regulates its medical profession through a self-governing College of Physicians and Surgeons, which is responsible for licensing physicians, setting practice standards, and investigating and disciplining its members.
The national doctors association is called the Canadian Medical Association;[47] it describes its mission as "To serve and unite the physicians of Canada and be the national advocate, in partnership with the people of Canada, for the highest standards of health and health care. "[48] Because health care is deemed to be under provincial/territorial jurisdiction, negotiations on behalf of physicians are conducted by provincial associations such as the Ontario Medical Association. The views of Canadian doctors have been mixed, particularly in their support for allowing parallel private financing. The history of Canadian physicians in the development of Medicare has been described by C. David Naylor.[49] Since the passage of the 1984 Canada Health Act, the CMA itself has been a strong advocate of maintaining a strong publicly funded system, including lobbying the federal government to increase funding, and being a founding member of (and active participant in) the Health Action Lobby (HEAL).[50]
However, there are internal disputes. In particular, some provincial medical associations have argued for permitting a larger private role. To some extent, this has been a reaction to strong cost control; CIHI estimates that 99% of physician expenditures in Canada come from public sector sources, and physicians—particularly those providing elective procedures who have been squeezed for operating room time—have accordingly looked for alternative revenue sources.
One indication of this internal dispute came when Dr. Brian Day of B.C. was elected CMA president in August 2007. Day is the owner of the largest private hospital in Canada and a vocal supporter of increasing private health care in Canada. The CMA presidency rotates among the provinces, with the provincial association electing a candidate who is customarily ratified by the CMA general meeting. Day's selection was sufficiently controversial that he was challenged—albeit unsuccessfully—by another physician. The newspaper story went on to note that "Day said he has never supported the privatization of health care in Canada, and accused his detractors of deliberately distorting his position." [51]
[edit] Criticisms [edit] Wait times Health Canada, a federal department, publishes a series of surveys of the health care system in Canada based on Canadians' first-hand experiences of the health care system.[52]
Although life-threatening cases are dealt with immediately, some services needed are non-urgent and patients are seen at the next-available appointment in their local chosen facility.
The median wait time in Canada to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 89.5% waiting fewer than 90 days.[52]
The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans [53] is two weeks with 86.4% waiting fewer than 90 days.[52]
The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting fewer than 90 days.[52]
Another study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 57% of Canadians reported waiting 30 days (4 weeks) or more to see a specialist, broadly in line with the current official statistics. A quarter (24%) of all Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room.[54]
Dr. Brian Day was once quoted as saying "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two-to-three years."[55] Day gave no source for his two to three years claim. The Canadian Health Coalition has responded succinctly to Day's claims, pointing out that "access to veterinary care for animals is based on ability to pay. Dogs are put down if their owners can’t pay. Access to care should not be based on ability to pay." [56] Regional administrations of Medicare across Canada publish their own wait time data on the internet. For instance in British Columbia the wait time for a hip replacement is currently a little under ten weeks.[57] The CHC is one of many groups across Canada calling for increased provincial and federal funding for medicare and an end to provincial funding cuts as solutions to unacceptable wait times.[58] In a 2007 episode of ABC News's 20/20 titled "Sick in America", host John Stossel cited numerous examples of Canadians who did not get the health care that they needed.[59] The Fraser Institute, a conservative think tank, claims to do its own research and found that treatment time from initial referral by a GP through consultation with a specialist to final treatment, across all specialties and all procedures (emergency, non-urgent, and elective), averaged 17.7 weeks in 2005.[60] However, the report of the Fraser Institute is greatly at odds with the Canadian government's own 2007 report.[61]
Criticisms have been laid during the administration of H1N1 shots in 2009, in parts of Canada, including Hamilton and Toronto. "Wait times for flu shots continued to be hours long yesterday [October 29] as Hamiltonians lined up for the only protection from H1N1 that public health can offer. Waits were about five hours at the clinic on the West Mountain, with 1,000 people in line. The Dundas clinic wasn't much better, with 700 waiting for a shot."[62] "Hundreds of people who lined up in Toronto today were given slips of paper with a time on it so they could return for their vaccination without standing around for hours on end." [63]
Since 2002, the Canadian government has invested $5.5 billion to decrease wait times.[64] In April 2007, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that all ten provinces and three territories would establish patient wait times guarantees by 2010. Canadians will be guaranteed timely access to health care in at least one of the following priority areas, prioritized by each province: cancer care, hip and knee replacement, cardiac care, diagnostic imaging, cataract surgeries or primary care.[65]
[edit] Counter-criticism: some longer wait times can benefit patients It has been observed and found in data that the complete elimination of all waiting times is not ideal. When waiting lists arise through a prioritization process based on physician-determined medical urgency and the procedure's risk, (in contrast to patient's ability to pay or profitability for the physician), waiting lists can possibly help patients. It's been postulated that a system of immediate care can be detrimental for optimal patient outcomes due to avoidance of unnecessary or unproven surgery. An example is the Canadian province of British Columbia, where, according to surgeon Dr. Lawrence Burr, 15 heart patients died in 1990 while on a waiting list for heart surgery. According to Robin Hutchinson, senior medical consultant to the Health Ministry's heart program, had the waiting list not existed and all patients given instant access to the surgery, the expected number of fatalities would have been 22 due to the operation mortality rate at that time. Hutchison noted that the BC Medical Association's media campaign did not make reference to these comparative statistics and only focused on deaths during waiting for surgery.[66]
Since, ideally, waiting lists prioritize higher-risk patients to receive surgery ahead of those with lower risks, this helps reduce overall patient mortality. Consequently, a wealthy or highly insured patient in a system based on profit or ability to pay (as in the U.S.) may be pushed into surgery or other procedures more quickly, with a result in higher morbidity or mortality risk. This is in addition to the better-understood phenomenon in which lower-income, uninsured, or under-insured patients have their care denied or delayed, also resulting in worse health care.[67]
[edit] Restrictions on privately funded health care Main article: Canada Health Act The Canada Health Act, which sets the conditions with which provincial/territorial health insurance plans must comply if they wish to receive their full transfer payments from the federal government, does not allow charges to insured persons for insured services (defined as medically necessary care provided in hospitals or by physicians). Most provinces have responded through various prohibitions on such payments. This does not constitute a ban on privately funded care; indeed, about 30% of Canadian health expenditures come from private sources, both insurance and out-of-pocket payments.[68] The Canada Health Act does not address delivery. Private clinics are therefore permitted, albeit subject to provincial/territorial regulations, but they cannot charge above the agreed-upon fee schedule unless they are treating non-insured persons (which may include those eligible under automobile insurance or worker's compensation, in addition to those who are not Canadian residents), or providing non-insured services. This provision has been controversial among those seeking a greater role for private funding.
In 2006, the Government of British Columbia threatened to shut down one private clinic because it was planning to start accepting private payments from patients.[69]
Governments have responded through wait time strategies, discussed above, which attempt to ensure that patients will receive high-quality, necessary services in a timely manner. Nonetheless, the debate continues.
[edit] Cross-border health care ‹ The template below (Cleanup) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus.› This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (Consider using more specific cleanup instructions.) Please help improve this section if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions. (January 2008) The border between Canada and the United States represents a boundary line for medical tourism, in which a country's residents travel elsewhere to seek health care that is more available or affordable.
[edit] Canadians visiting the US to receive health care Some residents of Canada travel to the United States because it provides the nearest facility for their needs. Some do so on quality grounds or because of easier access. A study by Barer, et al., indicates that the majority of Canadians who seek health care in the U.S. are already there for other reasons, including business travel or vacations. A smaller proportion seek care in the U.S. for reasons of confidentiality, including abortions, mental illness, substance abuse, and other problems that they may not wish to divulge to their local physician, family, or employer.
- Canadians offered free care in the US paid by the Canadian government have sometimes declined it. In 1990 the British Columbia Medical Association ran radio ads asking, "What's the longest you'd wait in line at a bank before getting really annoyed? Five minutes? Ten minutes? What if you needed a heart operation?" Following this, the government responded, as summarized by Robin Hutchinson, senior medical consultant for the health ministry's heart program. Despite the medically questionable nature of heart bypass for milder cases of chest pain and follow-up studies showing heart bypass recipients were only 25-40% more likely to be relieved of chest pain than people who stay on heart medicine, the "public outcry" following the ads led the government to take action:
- In a Canadian National Population Health Survey of 17,276 Canadian residents, it was reported that only 0.5% sought medical care in the US in the previous year. Of these, less than a quarter had traveled to the U.S. expressly to get that care.[70]
- A 2002 study by Katz, Cardiff, et al., reported the number of Canadians using U.S. services to be "barely detectible relative to the use of care by Canadians at home" and that the results "do not support the widespread perception that Canadian residents seek care extensively in the United States."[71]
- According to a September 14, 2007, article from CTV News, Canadian Liberal MP Belinda Stronach went to the United States for breast cancer surgery in June 2007. Stronach's spokesperson Greg MacEachern was quoted in the article saying that the US was the best place to have this type of surgery done. Stronach paid for the surgery out of her own pocket.[72] Prior to this incident, Stronach had stated in an interview that she was against two-tier health care.[73]
- When Robert Bourassa, the premier of Quebec, needed cancer treatment, he went to the US to get it.[74]
- In 2007, it was reported that Canada sent scores of pregnant women to the US to give birth.[75] In 2007 a woman from Calgary who was pregnant with quadruplets was sent to Great Falls, Montana to give birth. An article on this incident states there were no Canadian hospitals with enough neo-natal intensive beds to accommodate the extremely rare quadruple birth.[76]
- A January 19, 2008, article in The Globe and Mail states, "More than 150 critically ill Canadians – many with life-threatening cerebral hemorrhages – have been rushed to the United States since the spring of 2006 because they could not obtain intensive-care beds here. Before patients with bleeding in or outside the brain have been whisked through U.S. operating-room doors, some have languished for as long as eight hours in Canadian emergency wards while health-care workers scrambled to locate care." [77]
- In 2010, Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams traveled to the US for heart surgery.[78]
[edit] US citizens visiting Canada to receive health care On the other hand, some US citizens travel to Canada for health-care related reasons:
- Many US citizens purchase prescription drugs from Canada, either over the Internet or by traveling there to buy them in person, because prescription drug prices in Canada are substantially lower than prescription drug prices in the United States; this cross-border purchasing has been estimated at $1 billion annually.[84]
- Because medical marijuana is legal in Canada but illegal in most of the US, many US citizens suffering from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and glaucoma have traveled to Canada for medical treatment. One of those is Steve Kubby, the Libertarian Party's 1998 candidate for governor of California, who is suffering from adrenal cancer.[85] Recent legal changes such as Proposition 215 may decrease this type of medical tourism from California only.
- Sarah Palin, in an appearance in Calgary, told her audience that her family once used the Canadian health-care system,[86] before the Canada Health Act although she says it was in the 60s, when the Canadian healthcare system was beginning to reform.
Canada spent approximately 10.0% of GDP on health care in 2006, more than one percentage point higher than the average of 8.9% in OECD countries.[89] According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, spending is expected to reach $160 billion, or 10.6% of GDP, in 2007.[90] This translates to $4,867 per person.
Most health statistics in Canada are at or above the G8 average.[91] Direct comparisons of health statistics across nations is complex. The OECD collects comparative statistics, and has published brief country profiles.[92][93][94]
Country Life expectancy Infant mortality rate Physicians per 1000 people Nurses per 1000 people Per capita expenditure on health (USD) Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP % of government revenue spent on health % of health costs paid by government Australia 81.4 4.2 2.8 9.7 3,137 8.7 17.7 67.7 Canada 81.3 4.5 2.2 9.0 3,895 10.1 16.7 69.8 France 81.0 4.0 3.4 7.7 3,601 11.0 14.2 79.0 Germany 79.8 3.8 3.5 9.9 3,588 10.4 17.6 76.9 Japan 82.6 2.6 2.1 9.4 2,581 8.1 16.8 81.3 Sweden 81.0 2.5 3.6 10.8 3,323 9.1 13.6 81.7 UK 79.1 4.8 2.5 10.0 2,992 8.4 15.8 81.7 US 78.1 6.9 2.4 10.6 7,290 16.0 18.5 45.4 [edit] See also Canada portal Book: Canada Wikipedia books are collections of articles that can be downloaded or ordered in print.
- Health care compared - tabular comparisons of the US, Canada, and other countries not shown above.
- Canada Health Act
- Canada Health Transfer
- Canada Health and Social Transfer
- Indian Health Transfer Policy (Canada)
- Canada's Health Care providers, 2007
- Royal Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada
- Canadian and American health care systems compared
- Medicare (Canada)
- Health Evidence Network of Canada
- Suicide in Canada
- ^ http://www.civilization.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/medicare/medic-5h23e.shtml
- ^ a b c Public vs. private health care CBC, December 1, 2006.
- ^ "Overview of the Canada Health Act".
- ^ http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoben/premium.html#monthly
- ^ "Provincial/Territorial Role in Health".
- ^ CIHI p.91
- ^ "Public health care scores big in poll as MDs study privatization". Healthzone.ca. 2009-08-12. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ "Canada overwhelmingly supports public health care". Nupge.ca. 2009-08-13. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ "Never mind the anecdotes: Do Canadians like their health-care system?". Chicago Tribune. 2009-08-06. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ "Canadians prefer Obama over own leaders: poll - CTV News". CTV.ca. 2008-06-29. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ "Never mind the anecdotes: Do Canadians like their health-care system?". Chicago Tribune. 2009-08-06.
- ^ "Healthcare System Ratings: U.S., Great Britain, Canada". Gallup.com. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ CIHI p.119
- ^ a b c d CIHI p.xiv
- ^ CIHI pg. 119
- ^ a b "www.cbc.ca". CBC News. 2009-11-19.
- ^ CIHI p.24
- ^ CIHI p.55
- ^ CIHI p.20
- ^ CIHI p.112-113
- ^ a b CIHI p.xiii
- ^ "Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care - Public Information - Ontario Health Insurance Plan - Ohip Facts - Ambulance Services Billing".
- ^ Ministry of Health and Long-term Care, Ontario website available at
- ^ MacInnes JK, McAlister VC. Myopia of healthcare reform using business models. Ann R Coll Physicians Surg Can 2001; 34: 20-2. Available at [1]
- ^ Shah, Chandrakant P (2003). Public health and preventive medicine in Canada (5th ed.). Toronto: Elsevier Canada.
- ^ [Marchildon GP. Health Systems in Transition: Canada. Copenhagen, WHO Regional Office for Europe on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Downloaded from http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E87954.pdf].
- ^ Warren, P. (2008). "Physician advocacy essential for Canada's First Nations". Canadian Medical Association Journal 179 (7): 728. doi:10.1503/cmaj.081290. PMC 2535741. PMID 18809906. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ The Discovery of Insulin, 25th Anniversary Edition, by Michael Bliss, Chicago, ISBN 978-0-226-05899-3
- ^ "The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1923". Nobelprize.org. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ "History". Alberta Medical Association. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ Turner, JG (1958). "The Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act: Its Impact on Hospital Administration". Canadian Medical Association journal 78 (10): 768–70. PMC 1829926. PMID 13523526.
- ^ Government of Canada, Social Union, News Release, "A Framework to Improve the Social Union for Canadians: An Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces and Territories, February 4, 1999." Retrieved 20 December 2006.
- ^ CIHI
- ^ Silversides, Ann (October 23, 2007). "The North "like Darfur"". Canadian Medical Association Journal 9 (177): 1013–4. doi:10.1503/cmaj.071359. PMC 2025628. PMID 17954876.
- ^ Gao, Song; et al. (November 4, 2008). "Access to health care among status Aboriginal people with chronic kidney disease". Canadian Medical Association Journal 10 (179): 1007–12. doi:10.1503/cmaj.080063. PMC 2572655. PMID 18981441.
- ^ Peiris, David; Alex Brown, BMed MPH and Alan Cass, MBBS PhD (November 4, 2008). "Addressing inequities in access to quality health care for indigenous people". Canadian Medical Association Journal 10 (179): 985–6. doi:10.1503/cmaj.081445. PMC 2572646. PMID 18981431.
- ^ Private Health Insurance in OECD Countries OECD Health Project, 2004. Retrieved January 21, 2008.
- ^ "Private Health Care in Canada, Robert Steinbrook, N Engl J Med, 354:1661-1664, April 20, 2006". Content.nejm.org. 1970-01-01. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ Kraus, Clifford (2006-02-26). "As Canada's Slow-Motion Public Health System Falters, Private Medical Care Is Surging". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-07-16.
- ^ "CBC News Indepth: Health Care". CBC News.
- ^ "OECD data. Number of practising physicians". Titania.sourceoecd.org. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ "SourceOECD: OECD Health 2007". Titania.sourceoecd.org. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ a b "Que. doctors lagging in fee-for-service payments". Ctv.ca. 2006-12-21. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ Terence Corcoran (November 6). "ONTARIO DOCTORS SOLD OUT AGAIN". National Post. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ "Ont. doctors get 12.25 per cent wage hike". Retrieved 2008-09-15.
- ^ "Obstetrician shortage endangers moms, babies: report says". CTV.ca. 2008-12-05.
- ^ "Canadian Medical Association". Cma.ca. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ "About CMA". Cma.ca. 2010-03-24. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ Naylor, C David (1986). Private Practice, Public Payment: Canadian Medicine and the Politics of Health Insurance 1911-1966. Kingston, Ontario: McGill-Queen's University Press.
- ^ "HEAL home page". Physiotherapy.ca. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ "CBC Private health-care advocate wins CMA presidency". CBC.ca. 2006-08-22. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ a b c d "Healthy Canadians: Canadian government report on comparable health care indicators".
- ^ Diagnostic tests defined as the following: non-emergency magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) devices; computed tomography (CT or CAT) scans; and angiographies that use X-rays to examine the inner opening of blood-filled structures such as veins and arteries.
- ^ Commonwealth Fund, "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International update on the comparative performance of American health care", Karen Davis et al., May 15, 2007.
- ^ Krauss, Clifford (2006-02-28). "Canada's Private Clinics Surge as Public System Falters". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-04.
- ^ [2][dead link]
- ^ Provincial Median Wait Times in British Columbia - mostly 6 weeks or fewer[dead link]
- ^ "Ontario Health Coalition - Home". Web.net. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ 20/20, "Sick in America", ABC News, 2007
- ^ "Hidden costs of Canada's Health Care System". Independent.org. 2004-04-23. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ "Wait Times Tables A Comparison by Province 2007" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/663360
- ^ http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/663640
- ^ Waiting for access, CBC News: In Depth: Health Care, November 29, 2006. Retrieved November 19, 2007.
- ^ Media release Canada’s New Government announces Patient Wait Times Guarantees, Office of the Prime Minister, April 4, 2007. Retrieved November 19, 2007.
- ^ Schmitz, Anthony (January/February 1991). "Health Assurance". In Health 5 (1): pp. 39–47.
- ^ a b Schmitz, Anthony (January/February 1991). "Health Assurance". In Health 5 (1): pp. 39–47.
- ^ Canadian Institute for Health Information (September 27, 2005). CIHI exploring the 70-30 split. Ottawa, Ont.: Canadian Institute for Health Information. ISBN 1-55392-655-2. Retrieved 2007-12-21.
- ^ Cernetig, Miro (2006-12-01). "B.C. gov't gets tough with private clinic". Vancouver Sun (CanWest News Service). Retrieved 2008-01-09.[3]
- ^ [4] Canadian National Population Health Survey study
- ^ Katz, S. J.; Cardiff, K.; Pascali, M.; Barer, M. L.; Evans, R. G. (2002). "Phantoms in the Snow: Canadians' Use of Health Care Services in the United States". Health Affairs 21 (3): 19–31. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.21.3.19. PMID 12025983.
- ^ "Stronach went to U.S. for cancer treatment: report". CTV.ca. 2007-09-14. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ "CBC News: Sunday - Belinda Stronach Interview".[dead link]
- ^ Rationing Health Care: Price Controls Are Hazardous to Our Health The Independent Institute, February 1, 1994
- ^ "Some Canadian mothers forced to give birth in U.S. | KOMO-TV - Seattle, Washington | News". Komo-Tv. 2010-04-01. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ Calgary, The (2007-08-17). "Calgary's quads: Born in the U.S.A". Canada.com. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ Canada (2008-01-19). "Health". Toronto: Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ Heart surgery to sideline N.L. premier for weeks, CBC News, February 2, 2010
- ^ Tanya Talaga (2007-09-06). "Patients suing province over wait times: Man, woman who couldn't get quick treatment travelled to U.S. to get brain tumours removed". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2009-08-07. Retrieved 2009-07-27. "Lindsay McCreith, 66, of Newmarket and Shona Holmes, 43, of Waterdown filed a joint statement of claim yesterday against the province of Ontario. Both say their health suffered because they are denied the right to access care outside of Ontario's "government-run monopolistic" health-care system. They want to be able to buy private health insurance."
- ^ Sam Solomon (2007-09-30). "New lawsuit threatens Ontario private care ban: "Ontario Chaoulli" case seeks to catalyze healthcare reform". National Review of Medicine 4 (16). Archived from the original on 2009-08-07. Retrieved 2009-07-27.
- ^ "Anti-medicare ad an exaggeration: experts". CBC News. 2009-07-31. Archived from the original on 2009-08-07. Retrieved 2009-08-07.
- ^ Ian Welsh (2009-07-21). "Americans Lives vs. Insurance Company Profits: The Real Battle in Health Care Reform". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 2009-08-07. Retrieved 2009-07-21.
- ^ Omar Islam, MD, FRCP(C) (2008-03-27). Rathke Cleft Cyst. Medscape. Retrieved 2009-11-22
- ^ Morgan, S.; Morgan, Steven and Hurley, Jeremiah (2004-03-16). "Internet pharmacy: prices on the up-and-up". CMAJ 170 (6): 945–946. doi:10.1503/cmaj.104001. PMC 359422. PMID 15023915. Retrieved 2007-07-11.
- ^ US cannabis refugees cross border The Guardian July 20, 2002
- ^ Stein, Sam (2010-03-08). "Palin Crossed Border For Canadian Health Care". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ Phyllida Brown (2002-01-26). "WHO to revise its method for ranking health systems". BMJ 324 (7331): 190b. doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7331.190b. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ Deber, Raisa (2004-03-15). "Why Did the World Health Organization Rate Canada's Health System as 30th? Some Thoughts on League Tables". Longwoods Review 2 (1). Retrieved 2008-01-09. "The measure of "overall health system performance" derives from adjusting "goal attainment" for educational attainment. Although goal attainment is in theory based on five measures (level and distribution of health, level and distribution of "responsiveness" and "fairness of financial contribution"), the actual values assigned to most countries, including Canada, were never directly measured. The scores do not incorporate any information about the actual workings of the system, other than as reflected in life expectancy. The primary reason for Canada's low standing rests on the high educational level of its population, particularly as compared to France, rather than on any features of its health system."
- ^ OECD Health Data 2007: How Does Canada Compare, OECD, July 2007. Retrieved February 2, 2009.
- ^ Media release, Health care spending to reach $160 billion this year, Canadian Institute for Health Information, November 13, 2007. Retrieved November 19, 2007.
- ^ ""Health Care: The Romanow Report - By the Numbers" (Saturday, Feb. 4, 2006) globeandmail.com - Canada's best source for news continuously updated from The Globe and Mail". Toronto: The Globe and Mail. 2006-02-04. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. "OECD Health Data 2008: How Does Canada Compare" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-01-09.
- ^ "Updated statistics from a 2009 report". Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. 2010-09-28. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
- ^ "OECD Health Data 2009 - Frequently Requested Data". Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. 2010-09-28
talk about haters no. we are the third party we will be sure to have conformation
that when medicare iz gone or all cleaned up that there iz something in place to help or elders. what happen to or public option people even the nu admin.needs to here the voice of the people . when i started helping and asking for help i had something , now you can not even get hipo crack to kill the pain well thats not true thats all yougot to heal the pain niggas from his on city got to still from the
cvs well maybe this iz it . true independent see's that hateration type ads get u nowhere well doing the right thing only gets you closer to GOD. OUR NEXT PRESIDENT WILL DO RIGHT BY THE
THE LITTLE AMOUNT OF JOBS THAT ARE OCCURRED ARE NOT HELPING AND WILL NOT HELP UNLESS THERE'S A PLAN IN PLACE TO TRAIN AND HIRE IN ALL STATES AND COMMUNITIES.SO AS WE ALL SITE HERE AND WATCH ME WASTE AWAY CONTINUE TO DO THE SAME FOR THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA. I WOULD SAY STAND UP SOME PEOPLE ARE SO SICK MENTALLY,SOCIALLY,EMOTIONALLY, AND IF REPEALED WITH NO PLAN FINICALLY SICKER AND NOT DOING JACK BUT TRYING TO DESTROY WHAT LITTLE I HAVE LEFT AND THEY THE ONES THAT NEED IT MOST (THE HEALING IN ALL FORMS)
SO SIT BACK AND ENJOY THE SHOW!!!
Repealing Job-Killing Health Care Law “First Step Toward Fiscal Sanity” Posted by Don Seymour on January 06, 2011 Here’s a simple fact: if ObamaCare is fully implemented it will add more than $700 billion to the deficit in its first 10 years. That’s why – in a must-read post on National Review – former Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin says repealing the job-killing law “is simply a first step toward fiscal sanity that should happen as soon as possible.” Liberals claim otherwise and point to a CBO cost estimate to claim repealing the massive, costly entitlement would somehow increase the deficit. But as Holtz-Eakin told CNN, “by law, the [CBO] must take the information Congress sends to them -- however implausible -- at face value.” And the legislation Democratic leaders handed over to CBO forced them to:
This and more is explained in a report released today by the House Majority that examines the budget-busting, job-killing impact of ObamaCare. You can view the full report here. Page 15 of the report cites President Obama’s deficit commission, which found that health care spending projections under ObamaCare depend “on large phantom savings.” The commission goes so far as to recommend repealing the CLASS Act, one of the culprits for the rigged CBO score. In its final report, the commission recommends Congress pursue a “number of reforms to reduce federal health spending and slow the growth of health care costs more broadly,” goals ObamaCare was supposed to achieve.
Tomorrow, Republicans will begin keeping their Pledge to America and take what Speaker Boehner calls the “first steps to repeal the job killing health care law that was passed last year over the objections of the American people.” In a press conference today, Boehner said:
“With 10 percent unemployment and massive debt, the American people want us to focus on cutting spending and growing our economy, and that is what repealing the health care law is all about. I hope the House will act next week to repeal the job killing health care law so we can get started on replacing it with commonsense reforms that will reduce the cost of health insurance in America.”
READ MORE:
House Majority Releases Report Documenting ObamaCare’s Devastating Impact on American Jobs (1/6/11)
Dems’ Budgetary Sleight of Hand Hides True Cost of Job-Killing ObamaCare Law (1/4/11)
Boehner Press Office Responds to Senate Democrats re: Repealing Job-Killing ObamaCare Law (1/4/11)
Keeping Our Pledge: GOP to Take First Steps Toward Repealing Job-Killing ObamaCare Law (1/3/11)
Comments The opinions expressed below are those of their respective authors and do not necessarily represent those of this office.
- Ignore the at least $115 billion needed to implement the law;
- Double-count $521 billion in Social Security payroll taxes ($53 billion), CLASS Act premiums ($70 billion), and Medicare cuts ($398 billion);
- Ignore the costly ‘doc-fix’ provision that was included in an earlier analysis; and
- Count ten years of revenues to offset six years of new spending.
This and more is explained in a report released today by the House Majority that examines the budget-busting, job-killing impact of ObamaCare. You can view the full report here. Page 15 of the report cites President Obama’s deficit commission, which found that health care spending projections under ObamaCare depend “on large phantom savings.” The commission goes so far as to recommend repealing the CLASS Act, one of the culprits for the rigged CBO score. In its final report, the commission recommends Congress pursue a “number of reforms to reduce federal health spending and slow the growth of health care costs more broadly,” goals ObamaCare was supposed to achieve.
Tomorrow, Republicans will begin keeping their Pledge to America and take what Speaker Boehner calls the “first steps to repeal the job killing health care law that was passed last year over the objections of the American people.” In a press conference today, Boehner said:
“With 10 percent unemployment and massive debt, the American people want us to focus on cutting spending and growing our economy, and that is what repealing the health care law is all about. I hope the House will act next week to repeal the job killing health care law so we can get started on replacing it with commonsense reforms that will reduce the cost of health insurance in America.”
READ MORE:
House Majority Releases Report Documenting ObamaCare’s Devastating Impact on American Jobs (1/6/11)
Dems’ Budgetary Sleight of Hand Hides True Cost of Job-Killing ObamaCare Law (1/4/11)
Boehner Press Office Responds to Senate Democrats re: Repealing Job-Killing ObamaCare Law (1/4/11)
Keeping Our Pledge: GOP to Take First Steps Toward Repealing Job-Killing ObamaCare Law (1/3/11)
Comments The opinions expressed below are those of their respective authors and do not necessarily represent those of this office.
- Sheilah Blanco commented on 1/7/2011 Here's another humble post script from one of the audience watching Congress on CSPAN. It's applicable to All Parties involved. Please, quit your grandstanding and campaigning and actually do some flippin' work. Save your Barbs and Slogans for your town halls and actual campaign platforms. It's slowing you down. WE THE PEOPLE pay you enough. GET TO WORK. and WORK TOGETHER. Act like the professionals you want US to believe you to be. And if there aren't Jobs with decent pay with benefits, along with a National Plan for Health Care Reform and Progressive Energy Plan that isn't practical for the entire nation, and there isn't a resolution of what to do with parites out to FRAME the USA as a viper den, you know ALL Parties will have H-E-double hockey sticks to pay.
- Paul Yoder commented on 1/7/2011 The following is a response to your attempt to cut spending. A few months ago a German manufacturer was being interviewed on one of our cable business programs. He was obviously very wealthy so the interviewer kept on about all the taxes he was paying in Germany. The guy just didn't seem interested in talking about it, but the interviewer would not let it go. Finally the German said. "I just don't care about the taxes I pay". The interviewer was speechless for a few seconds and then blurted out, "But why don't you care"? The German thought for a couple of seconds and replied. "Because I don't want to be a rich man living in a poor country". Hope this is helpful!!
- Jo Anne Robbins commented on 1/7/2011 I think you and your colleagues are wrong. Adequate health care is something that our nation MUST provide to all citizens. It is a moral issue. People with preexisting conditions, young people living at home, unable to find work, seniors without adequate resources to purchase the medications they need, the poor and the destitute, the MANY people out of work in this country. They all need and shouldn't have to beg for health care. Streamline the paper work component; work harder to eliminate fraud; add a component for reducing the litigation and costly insurance doctors must have: but DON'T waste precious time trying to undo something that is a first step forward to equity in our health care system. I am a Republican who is very disturbed by the lack of courtesy, cooperation and the rude, ignorant behavior I have observed on the part of members of the Republican party in the House and Senate. People in this country are SICK of the tenor of debate and the DISHONESTY of your so called documentation. I am also disgusted with the continuation of adding personal ear marks to bills, increasing costs and adding to the deficit. Actions speak louder than words. BLAH BLAH BLAH. Stop weeping and start thinking. You also might also try to set a good example for health care in America by stopping the disgusting and unhealthy habit of smoking. A DISGUSTED American REPUBLICAN
- RICHARD GREGORY commented on 1/7/2011 MR SPEAKER, I AM SURE YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE COST OF FUEL IN TODAY'S SOCIETY. THE PEOPLE MAKING THE RULES SEEM TO LIKE THE IDEA OF ONE, TWO, AND THREE, NOT TO MENTION FOUR AND FIVE DOLLAR PER GALLON GASOLINE AND FUELS. I REALIZE THE OCCUPIER OF THE WHITE HOUSE LIKES THAT IDEA ALSO. BUT, SEEING THAT HIS GLOBAL WARMING HAS BEEN PROVED WRONG, HE STILL DESIRES TO KEEP THE PRICE OF FUEL ARTIFICIALLHIGH. HOWEVER THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DOES NOT LIKE THIS. PLEASE OPEN EVERY OILFIELD TO DRILLING. WE GAVE YOU THE VOTES!
- Josh Green commented on 1/7/2011 Test
- Nancy Morfin commented on 1/7/2011 Last week I went to the funeral of my dear niece Anne Slack. She was only 45 years old and died of a hernia repair. What she really died of was a pre-existing condition. She had health insurance when first diagnosed and they operated to repair the hernia with a mesh. Unfortunately, she got a staph infection during the operation and was very sick for three weeks, so they laid her off of her job. They tried to control the infection but after several months said they would need to operate again. Although she had a new job, the health insurance company said they would not insure her because of a pre-existing condition. Obviously this condemned her to death. When she finally got so sick that they took her to the hospital, it refused to treat her since she had no insurance and they sent her to the medical school clinic. There they determined that she had to be operated on and right after the operation, her liver and kidneys shut down and she died. So if she could have survived until 2014 they would not have been able to refuse to insure her. What are you going to do about it? Repeal Obamacare? Repeal your own cushy health plan first please. Get some creditability. An Idaho voter, Nancy Morfin
- Martin Souhrada commented on 1/7/2011 The Honorable John Boehner Mr. Speaker thank you for providing a way for the informed electorate to provide impute for the decision making process. Please do not proceed in the misguided efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act . The independent evidence does not support your description of the act as “job killing” and it will provide health care for 30 million Americans. No Evidence for House Republican Charge that Health Reform Is a “Job-Killer” http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3362
- Trevor Thompson commented on 1/7/2011 Dear Speaker Boehner, Please repeal this crime against liberty as soon as possible. Then please do everything possible to defund and dismantle the following needless and freedom crushing agencies: EPA NPR IRS FDA TSA There are plenty of others, but this would be a good start. Also, please ban all public sector unions from being allowed to exist. Teacher and nurse unions need to go as well. Then get us out of this nightmarish social security experiment. I have plenty of other good ideas that I will be sharing over the coming months. Thank you and God Bless.
- gerald bradshaw commented on 1/7/2011 I have voted Republican all of my life, but the health care reform debate has convinced me that the Republicans are in the pockets of the big insurance companies who paid for their campaign. They will PROUDLY throw the poor and the sick under a buss to help their insurance company masters make larger profits. The fact that everyone does not have health care in the United States of America is nothing short of a national disgrace. I disagree with Obama on many issues, but, unlike the republicans, he truly "gives a damn" about well being of ordinary people. The republicans manipulate people in the name of "patriotism" to do the bidding of the few and the powerful. The attempt to repeal a law that take away the power of insurance companies to leave sick children to die is shameful...and they know it.
- Stephanie R. commented on 1/8/2011 Speaker Boehner, please do not fall for the many progressives that will be storming this site to make it look as if most Americans do not want repeal of this bill, or try to get you to back away from the promises you have made to the American people. There will be many that try to portray themselves as Republicans and anything else they can do to try to make you look bad. Don't fall for it. The majority of the American people want this bill repealed and replaced with common sense reforms. They want you to do whatever it takes to reduce the cost & size of government. They want you to work to bring jobs & properisty back to our country. Those are the 3 most important things this Congress needs to work on. You know what needs to be done. Please do not be swayed. Our country is at stake. Do not let us down. God Bless you & God Bless America.
- jerry 5silovich commented on 1/8/2011 keep ccutting more before you vote to raise the debt limit. i hope you use rep Paul Ryan road to america to get us out of debt and deficit
- John Weddig commented on 1/8/2011 Dear Speaker Boehner, I find it odd that there is such an enormous discrepancy between Republican and CBO calculations of projected health care cost. What we are quite certain of is that health care costs in the United States has been about 16% of GDP. Prior Republican administrations and congress did nothing to repair that situation. I would like to suggest that it is not only American ingenuity and work ethic that is in completion with peoples from around the world but also public policy. Low taxes by themselves will not draw business back to America while our physical and human infrastructure is a basket case. If the new health care legislation needs repair, fix it but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Thank You for your attention and this blog.
- Kurt Conger commented on 1/8/2011 Dear Speaker Boehner: I oppose your efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Your party offers no alternative, is inarticulate in its objections ("job-killing..."), and appears to be more inclined to propagate misinformation through sound-bites. See http://www.politifact.com/subjects/health-care/. I urge you to open up a debate and expose both facts and fabrications regarding the important matter of providing healthcare in the US before dismantling the Law. As one who pays for insurance for a family, I am blessed with the means of doing so. I also understand that my burden currently carries the cost of others in need -- including those less fortunate, but also freeloaders and inefficiencies. Everyone should have access to and acquire basic coverage. We hide the costs today, but it consumes some people who are no less American than those who have the good fortune to be covered. I also take offense to your party's use of the term "The American People..." When you say "the American People don't want Obamacare," it implies that to disagree with the party line and support health care reform is to be un-American. As an American, whose roots go back to 1649, I am disgusted every time I hear your party claim unanimous support by "The People". There are many, and perhaps still a majority, of American who respectfully disagree.
- Ted Howell commented on 1/8/2011 Why do we allow special interest groups to lobby in the House? And have they're offices on taxers Gov's. land and inside the building? Isn't this asking for trouble and bias and paid votes ?It's wrong ! It's greedy and not in the nations best interest. Put a stop to this.That's something the people want done. Thank You Mr. Speaker. Ted R. Howell
- Amanda Last Name commented on 12/4/2011 As a young mother, I am thoroghly concerned about the future of the health care system in America for my sons future. We really do need to reform health care, but Obama rushed plan is not the option. One of the reasons I am proud to be an American is because of our great health care we can provide- Obama's plan would destroy that. Why have doctors pay so much in college tutition to study medicine and then take a hefty decrease in salary, which would happen uder this plan. Most importantly though, Obama's mandted health care would greatly reduce the practice of running some mandated pre cancer screening test for certain age groups and would decrease the, yes right not spendy, multi testing doctors do on patients. This would most definately leave many cancer and cancer risks or health risks go undetected because the mandated health care would not beable to pay for these life saving tests. That is only a few of the reasons why I support this bill. More healthcare insrance options is the key, along with more realistically affordable plans.
MORE THAN REFORMS ARE NEED . REFORMS ARE JUST GOING TO HELP THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY SHOULD HELP THE PEOPLE @ THIS JUNKSER IN TIME AND SPACE BUT Y'ALL GOT IT HAVE @ IT. A NEW PLAN TO MAKE THIS ONE BETTER IZ WHAT IZ NEEDED RIGHT NOW TO MAKE ROMMNEY I MEAN OBAMA IMEAN YOU CARE BETTER. DO NOT FORGETT WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE ECONOMY. YOU ARE WLECOME
Click to set custom HTML
"TAKE YOUR MEDICINE" PTAH STORY IZ AND FOREVER WILL BE HIS *STORY
AZ IT IZ HISTORIC RIGHT NOW IF YOU FIND SOMETHING TO DO INSTEAD OF BEING LIKE THOSE THROUGH OUT HISTORY WHO STOLEN AND LIED AND TAKEN
TRUE HISTORY AND DISTORT. THE GOV. WILL CHOSE YOUR PASTER THE GOV. WILL CHOSE ALMOST EVERYTHING FOR YOU HERE REAL SOON . SO HOW CAN YOU REALLY CHOSE YOUR OWN DOCTOR. IT 'Z VERY REAL THAT ALOT PEOPLE
DO NOT HAVE A CLUE OF THE NOW MUCHLESS WHATS GOING ON IN THERE
ON GOV. AND FOR THOSE OUT HERE PLAYING THESE HO GAMEZ WHAT HAVE YOU
DONE FOR YOUR COUNTRY , I ALREADY NOW !!
if icould put mitt and ryan uphere i would maybe in the next 80dayz
I THINK ICAN I WILL
THE REAL REASON FOR THE POPULATION CONTROL OR (BIRTH CONTROL)IZ WHAT EYE SAID LONG AGO. NO WICK OR OTHER THINGS THAT WILL HELP UNDER
PRIVILEGE WOMEN WITH CHILDREN AND FOR MEN WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOU WILL FEEL THIS MORE THAN NOT (melenated).THE DEBT CEILING IT SHOULD START BY THE FALL.
WITH OTHER THINGSTHAT YOU MAY OR MAY NOT AGREE WITH .SO SIT BACK & ENJOY THE SHOW OR SEE WHICH CANDIDATE WILL ALLOW AMENDMENTS ASAP.
JUST THINK WHY OUR COUNTRY HAS ENOUGH LAND TO POPULATE JUST THINK ABOUT IT. WHO CARES THOUGH RIGHT . THE SOLUTION IZ ALWAYS IN THE PROBLEM .
United States debt-ceiling crisis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Part of a series of articles on United States
budget and debt topics Major dimensions Federal budget · Public debt
Expenditures · Taxation
Economy · Financial position
Military budget Programs Medicare · Social Security Contemporary issues Political debates · Deficit reduction
Health care reform · Social Security debate
Subprime mortgage crisis
Bush tax cuts · Starve the beast
Bowles-Simpson Commission
Debt-ceiling crisis Terminology Cumulative deficit = Debt
Inflation · Balance of payments The United States debt-ceiling crisis was a financial crisis in 2011 that started as a debate in the United States Congress about increasing the debt ceiling. The immediate crisis ended when a complex deal was reached that raised the debt ceiling and reduced proposed increases to future government spending. However, similar debates are anticipated for the 2012 and 2013 budget.[1]
President Barack Obama and Speaker of the House John Boehner announced on July 31 that an agreement had been achieved. After the legislation was passed by both the House and Senate, President Obama signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 into law on August 2, the date estimated by the Department of the Treasury that the borrowing authority of the US would be exhausted.[2]
Four days later, on August 5, the credit-rating agency Standard & Poor's downgraded the credit rating of US government bond for the first time in the country's history. Markets around the world as well as the three major indexes in the US then experienced their most volatile week since the 2008 financial crisis with the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunging for 635 points (or 5.6%) in one day. Yields on US Treasuries, however, dropped as investors, anxious over the dismal prospects of the US economic recovery and the ongoing Eurozone debt crisis, fled into the safety of US government bonds.[3] Moody's and Fitch, however, have retained America's credit rating at AAA.
Contents [hide]
In addition, the Obama administration stated that, without this increase, the US would enter sovereign default (failure to pay the interest and/or principal of US treasury securities on time) thereby creating an international crisis in the financial markets. Alternatively, default could be averted if the government were to promptly reduce its other spending by about half.[4][5][6]
An increase in the debt ceiling requires the approval of both houses of Congress. Republicans and some Democrats insisted that an increase in the debt ceiling be coupled with a plan to reduce the growth in debt. There were differences as to how to reduce the expected increase in the debt. Initially, nearly all Republican legislators (who held a majority in the House of Representatives) opposed any increase in taxes and proposed large spending cuts. A large majority of Democratic legislators (who held a majority in the Senate) favored tax increases along with smaller spending cuts. Supporters of the Tea Party movement pushed their fellow Republicans to reject any agreement that failed to incorporate large and immediate spending cuts or a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.[7][8]
[edit] Background US debt ceiling at the end of each year from 1981 to 2010. The graph indicates which president and which political party controlled Congress each year. US debt from 1940 to 2010. Red lines indicate the Debt Held by the Public (net public debt) and black lines indicate the Total Public Debt Outstanding (gross public debt). The difference between the two is the debt that is held by the federal government itself. The second panel shows the two debt figures as a percentage of US GDP (dollar value of US economic production for that year). The top panel is deflated so every year is in 2010 dollars. [edit] What is the debt ceiling? See also: United States public debt#Debt ceiling In the United States, the federal government can pay for expenditures only if Congress has approved the expenditure. If the total expenditure exceeds the revenues collected there is a budget deficit, and the only way that the shortfall can be paid for is for the government, through the Department of the Treasury, to borrow the shortfall amount by the issue of debt instruments. Under federal law, the amount that the government can borrow is limited by the debt ceiling, which can only be increased with a vote by Congress.
Prior to 1917, Congress directly authorized the amount of each borrowing. In 1917, in order to provide more flexibility to finance the US involvement in World War I, Congress instituted the concept of a "debt ceiling". Since then, the Treasury may borrow any amount needed as long as it keeps the total at or below the authorized ceiling. Some small special classes of debt are not included in this total.[citation needed] To change the debt ceiling, Congress must enact specific legislation, and the President must sign it into law.
The process of setting the debt ceiling is separate and distinct from the regular process of financing government operations, and raising the debt ceiling does not have any direct impact on the budget deficit. The US government passes a federal budget every year. This budget details projected tax collections and outlays and, therefore, the amount of borrowing the government would have to do in that fiscal year. A vote to increase the debt ceiling is, therefore, usually seen as a formality, needed to continue spending that has already been approved previously by the Congress and the President. The Government Accountability Office explains: "The debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits or incur obligations. Rather, it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred."[9] The apparent redundancy of the debt ceiling has led to suggestions that it should be abolished altogether.[10][11]
The US has had public debt since its inception. Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly report on the amount of the debt ($75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791). Every president since Harry Truman has added to the national debt. The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since March 1962,[12] including 18 times under Ronald Reagan, eight times under Bill Clinton, seven times under George W. Bush and three times (as of August 2011) under Barack Obama.
As of May 2011, approximately 40 percent of US government spending relied on borrowed money.[13] Raising the debt ceiling allows the federal government to continue to borrow money to support current spending levels. If the debt ceiling had not been raised, the federal government would have had to cut spending immediately by 40 percent, affecting many daily operations of the government,[13] besides the impact on the domestic and international economies. Treasury can determine what items would be paid.[14] If the interest payments on the national debt are not made, the US would be in default, potentially causing catastrophic economic consequences for the US and the wider world as well. (Effects outside the US would be likely because the United States is a major trading partner with many countries. Other major world powers who hold its debt could demand repayment.)
According to the Treasury, "failing to increase the debt limit would . . . cause the government to default on its legal obligations – an unprecedented event in American history".[15] These legal obligations include paying Social Security and Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the debt, and many other items. Making the promised payments of the principal and interest of US treasury securities on time ensures that the nation does not default on its sovereign debt.[16][17]
Critics have argued that the debt ceiling crisis is "self-inflicted,"[18] as treasury bond interest rates were at historical lows, and the US had no market restrictions on its ability to obtain additional credit.[citation needed] The debt ceiling has been raised 68 times since 1960. Sometimes the increase was treated as routine, many times it was used to score political points for the minority party by criticizing the out-of-control spending of the majority.[19] The only other country with a debt limit is Denmark, which has set its debt ceiling so high that it is unlikely to be reached.[18] If raising the limit ceases to be routine, this may create uncertainty for global markets each time a debt ceiling increase is debated.[18] This crisis has shown how a party in control of only one chamber of Congress (in this case, Republicans in control of the House of Representatives but not the Senate or the Presidency) can have significant influence if it chooses to block the routine raising of the debt limit.[20]
[edit] Recent concern about budget deficits and long-term debt See also: United States public debt#Causes of change in debt Underlying the contentious debate over raising the debt ceiling has been an anxiety, growing since 2008, about the large United States federal budget deficits and the increasing federal debt. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO): "At the end of 2008, that debt equaled 40 percent of the nation's annual economic output (a little above the 40-year average of 37 percent). Since then, the figure has shot upward: By the end of fiscal year 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects federal debt will reach roughly 70 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) — the highest percentage since shortly after World War II." The sharp rise in debt after 2008 stems largely from lower tax revenues and higher federal spending related to the severe recession and persistently high unemployment in 2008–11.[21][22]
In 2009, the Tea Party movement emerged with a focus on reducing government spending and regulation.[23][24] The Tea Party movement helped usher in a wave of new Republican office-holders in the 2010 mid-term elections[25] whose major planks during the campaign included cutting federal spending[26] and stopping any tax increases.[27] These new Republicans and the new Republican House majority greatly affected the 2011 debt ceiling political debate.[28]
In early 2010, President Obama established the Bowles-Simpson Commission to propose recommendations to balance the budget by 2015.[29] The commission issued its report in December 2010, but the recommendations were never adopted.
Throughout 2011, Standard & Poor's and Moody's credit rating services issued warnings that US debt could be downgraded because of the continued large deficits and increasing debt.[30][31][32][33] According to the CBO's 2011 long-term budget outlook, without major policy changes the large budget deficits and growing debt would continue, which "would reduce national saving, leading to higher interest rates, more borrowing from abroad, and less domestic investment — which in turn would lower income growth in the United States."[21] The European sovereign debt crisis was occurring throughout 2010–2011, and there were concerns that the US was on the same trajectory.[34]
[edit] Resort to extraordinary measures Prior to the debt ceiling crisis of 2011, the debt ceiling was last raised on February 12, 2010 to $14.294 trillion.[35][36]
On April 15, 2011, Congress passed the last part of the 2011 United States federal budget, authorizing federal government spending for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year, which ends on September 30, 2011.[citation needed] For the 2011 fiscal year, expenditure was estimated at $3.82 trillion, with expected revenues of $2.17 trillion, leaving a deficit of $1.48 trillion.[citation needed]
However, soon after the 2011 budget was passed, the debt ceiling set in February 2010 was reached. In a letter to Congress of April 4, 2011, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner explained that when the debt ceiling is reached, the US Treasury can declare a debt issuance suspension period and utilize "extraordinary measures" to acquire funds to meet federal obligations but which do not require the issue of new debt,[37] such as the sale of assets from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund and the G Fund of the Thrift Savings Plan. These measures were implemented on May 16, 2011, when Geithner declared a "debt issuance suspension period". According to his letter to Congress, this period could "last until August 2, 2011, when the Department of the Treasury projects that the borrowing authority of the United States will be exhausted".[2] These methods have been used on several previous occasions in which federal debt neared its statutory limit.[38]
[edit] Alternate views of the deadline According to Treasury, the US government would run out of cash to pay all its bills on August 2, 2011, which became the deadline for Congress to vote to increase the debt ceiling.[2][39]
Some commentators disputed that date as the deadline. According to Barclays Capital, Treasury would run out of cash around August 10, when $8.5 billion in Social Security payments were due. According to Wall Street analysts, Treasury would not be able borrow from the capital markets after August 2, but still would have enough incoming cash to meet its obligations until August 15. Analysts also predicted that Treasury would be able to roll over the $90 billion in US debt that matured on August 4, and gain additional time to avert the crisis.[40]
Projections required for debt and cash management can be volatile. Outside experts that track Treasury finances had said that announced Treasury estimates were within the range of uncertainty for their analyses. Delaying an increase in the debt limit past August 2 could have risked a delay in Social Security and other benefit checks, and could have led to disruptions in scheduled Treasury auctions.
[edit] Implications of not raising the debt ceiling Experts were divided on how bad the effects of not raising the debt ceiling for a short period would be on the economy. While some leading economists, including Republican adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, suggested even a brief failure to meet US obligations could have devastating long-term consequences, others argued that the market would write it off as a Congressional dispute and return to normal once the immediate crisis was resolved.[41] Some argued that the worst outcome would be if the US failed to pay interest and/or principal on the national debt to bondholders, thereby defaulting on its sovereign debt.[42] Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned in July 2011 that the consequences of such a default would be higher borrowing costs for the US government (as much as one percent or $150 billion/year in additional interest costs) and the equivalent of bank runs on the money markets and other financial markets, potentially as severe as those of September 2008.[43]
In January 2011 Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner warned that "failure to raise the limit would precipitate a default by the United States. Default would effectively impose a significant and long-lasting tax on all Americans and all American businesses and could lead to the loss of millions of American jobs. Even a very short-term or limited default would have catastrophic economic consequences that would last for decades."[44]
Senators Pat Toomey and Jim DeMint expressed deep concern that administration officials were stating or implying that failure to raise the nation's debt limit would constitute a default on US debt and precipitate a financial crisis:[45] "We believe it is irresponsible and harmful for you to sow the seeds of doubt in the market regarding the full faith and credit of the United States and ask that you set the record straight — that you will use all available Treasury funds necessary to prevent default while Congress addresses the looming debt crisis."[46]
Geithner responded that prioritizing debt would require "cutting roughly 40 percent of all government payments", which could only be achieved by "selectively defaulting on obligations previously approved by Congress". He argued that this would harm the reputation of the United States so severely that there is "no guarantee that investors would continue to re-invest in new Treasury securities", forcing the government to repay the principal on existing debt as it matured, which it would be unable to do under any conceivable circumstance. He concluded: "There is no alternative to enactment of a timely increase in the debt limit."[47] On January 25, 2011, Senator Toomey introduced The Full Faith And Credit Act bill [S.163[48]] that would require the Treasury to prioritize payments to service the national debt over other obligations.[49] (The bill was cleared by its committee for consideration the next day and added to the Senate "calendar of business", but no further action had occurred by mid-August 2011.[50])
Even if the Treasury were to prioritize payments on the debt above other spending and avoid formal default on its bonds, failure to raise the debt ceiling would force the government to reduce its spending by as much as ten percent of GDP overnight, leading to a corresponding fall in aggregate demand. Keynesian economists believe that such a significant shock, if sustained, would reverse the economic recovery and send the country into a recession.[51][52]
[edit] Proposed resolutions President Barack Obama met with Speaker of the House John Boehner on the patio near the Oval Office on Sunday, July 3, 2011, during the debt ceiling increase negotiations. Congress considered whether and by how much to extend the debt ceiling (or eliminate it), and what long-term policy changes (if any) should be made concurrently.[53]
The Republican position on raising the debt ceiling:
The Democratic position on raising the debt ceiling:
The US House of Representatives originally refused to raise the debt ceiling without deficit reduction, voting down a "clean" bill to increase the debt ceiling without conditions. The May 31 vote was 318 to 97, with all 236 Republicans and 82 Democrats voting to defeat the bill.[71] The Republicans largely believed a deficit reduction deal should be based solely on spending cuts, including cuts to entitlements, without any tax increases, to reduce or solve the long-term issue of debt.[72] Obama and the Democrats in the US Congress wanted an increase in the debt ceiling to solve the short-term borrowing problem, and in exchange supported a decrease in the budget deficit, to be funded by a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases.[73] Some prominent liberal economists, such as Paul Krugman, Larry Summers, and Brad DeLong, and prominent investors such as Bill Gross, went even further, and argued that not only should the debt ceiling be raised, but federal spending (and, therefore, the deficit) should be increased in the short term (as long as the economy remains in the liquidity trap), which they believed would stimulate the economy, reduce unemployment, and ultimately reduce the deficit in the medium to long term.[74][75]
Some Tea Party Caucus and other Republicans, however, (including, but not limited to, Senators Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee, and Representatives Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Allen West) expressed skepticism about raising the debt ceiling (with some suggesting the consequences of default are exaggerated), arguing that the debt ceiling should not be raised, and "instead the federal debt [should] be 'capped' at the current limit,"[76] "although that would oblige the government to cut spending by almost half overnight."[73]
Jack Balkin, the Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School, suggested two other ways to solve the debt ceiling crisis: he pointed out that the US Treasury has the power to issue platinum coins in any denomination, so it could solve the debt ceiling crisis by simply issuing two platinum coins in denominations of $1 trillion each, depositing them into its account in the Federal Reserve, and writing checks on the proceeds. Another way to solve the debt ceiling crisis, Balkin suggested, would be for the federal government to sell the Federal Reserve an option to purchase government property for $2 trillion. The Federal Reserve would then credit the proceeds to the government's checking account. Once Congress lifted the debt ceiling, the president could buy back the option for a dollar, or the option could simply expire in 90 days.[77]
In a report issued by the credit rating agency Moody's, analyst Steven Hess suggested that the government should consider getting rid of the limit altogether, because the difficulty inherent in reaching an agreement to raise the debt ceiling "creates a high level of uncertainty" and an increased risk of default. As reported by The Washington Post, "without a limit dependent on congressional approval, the report said, the agency would worry less about the government's ability to meet its debt obligations."[78] Other public figures, including Democratic ex-President Bill Clinton and Republican ex-CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, have suggested eliminating the debt ceiling.[79]
[edit] Possible methods of bypassing the debt ceiling [edit] Fourteenth Amendment During the debate, some scholars, Democratic lawmakers,[67][68][69] and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner[80] suggested that the President could declare that the debt ceiling violates the Constitution and issue an Executive Order to direct the Treasury to issue more debt.[70] They point to Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, passed in the context of the Civil War Reconstruction, that states that the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned. Others rebutted this argument by pointing to Section 8 of Article 1 and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which state that Congress has the power of the purse and the authority to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.[81]
Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have power . . .To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; Amendment XIV, Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Amendment XIV, Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Arguments
[edit] Monetizing gold A similar crisis was faced during the Eisenhower Administration in 1953. The debt ceiling was not raised until the spring of 1954.[94] To accommodate the gap, the Eisenhower administration increased its gold certificate deposits at the Federal Reserve, which it could do because the market price of gold had increased. According to experts,[95] the Secretary of the Treasury is still authorized to monetize 8,000 tons of gold, valued under the old law at approximately $42 per ounce, but with a market value worth over $1,600 per ounce.[96]
[edit] Agreement Main article: Budget Control Act of 2011 President Barack Obama makes a statement in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House announcing a deal that resolved the US debt ceiling crisis. July 31, 2011. Wikinews has related news: Bill passed to raise US debt limit On July 31, 2011, President Obama announced that the leaders of both parties in both chambers had reached an agreement that would reduce the deficit and avoid default.[97] The same day, Speaker Boehner's office outlined the agreement for House Republicans.[98] According to the statement:
The agreement, entitled the Budget Control Act of 2011,[100] passed the House on August 1, 2011, by a vote of 269–161; 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for it, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted against it.[101] The Senate passed the agreement on August 2, 2011, by a vote of 74–26; seven Democrats and 19 Republicans voted against it.[102] Obama signed the bill shortly after it was passed by the Senate.[101]
budget and debt topics Major dimensions Federal budget · Public debt
Expenditures · Taxation
Economy · Financial position
Military budget Programs Medicare · Social Security Contemporary issues Political debates · Deficit reduction
Health care reform · Social Security debate
Subprime mortgage crisis
Bush tax cuts · Starve the beast
Bowles-Simpson Commission
Debt-ceiling crisis Terminology Cumulative deficit = Debt
Inflation · Balance of payments The United States debt-ceiling crisis was a financial crisis in 2011 that started as a debate in the United States Congress about increasing the debt ceiling. The immediate crisis ended when a complex deal was reached that raised the debt ceiling and reduced proposed increases to future government spending. However, similar debates are anticipated for the 2012 and 2013 budget.[1]
President Barack Obama and Speaker of the House John Boehner announced on July 31 that an agreement had been achieved. After the legislation was passed by both the House and Senate, President Obama signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 into law on August 2, the date estimated by the Department of the Treasury that the borrowing authority of the US would be exhausted.[2]
Four days later, on August 5, the credit-rating agency Standard & Poor's downgraded the credit rating of US government bond for the first time in the country's history. Markets around the world as well as the three major indexes in the US then experienced their most volatile week since the 2008 financial crisis with the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunging for 635 points (or 5.6%) in one day. Yields on US Treasuries, however, dropped as investors, anxious over the dismal prospects of the US economic recovery and the ongoing Eurozone debt crisis, fled into the safety of US government bonds.[3] Moody's and Fitch, however, have retained America's credit rating at AAA.
Contents [hide]
- 1 Context
- 2 Background
- 3 Resort to extraordinary measures
- 4 Implications of not raising the debt ceiling
- 5 Proposed resolutions
- 6 Agreement
- 7 Reaction
- 8 Timeline
- 9 See also
- 10 References
- 11 External links
In addition, the Obama administration stated that, without this increase, the US would enter sovereign default (failure to pay the interest and/or principal of US treasury securities on time) thereby creating an international crisis in the financial markets. Alternatively, default could be averted if the government were to promptly reduce its other spending by about half.[4][5][6]
An increase in the debt ceiling requires the approval of both houses of Congress. Republicans and some Democrats insisted that an increase in the debt ceiling be coupled with a plan to reduce the growth in debt. There were differences as to how to reduce the expected increase in the debt. Initially, nearly all Republican legislators (who held a majority in the House of Representatives) opposed any increase in taxes and proposed large spending cuts. A large majority of Democratic legislators (who held a majority in the Senate) favored tax increases along with smaller spending cuts. Supporters of the Tea Party movement pushed their fellow Republicans to reject any agreement that failed to incorporate large and immediate spending cuts or a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.[7][8]
[edit] Background US debt ceiling at the end of each year from 1981 to 2010. The graph indicates which president and which political party controlled Congress each year. US debt from 1940 to 2010. Red lines indicate the Debt Held by the Public (net public debt) and black lines indicate the Total Public Debt Outstanding (gross public debt). The difference between the two is the debt that is held by the federal government itself. The second panel shows the two debt figures as a percentage of US GDP (dollar value of US economic production for that year). The top panel is deflated so every year is in 2010 dollars. [edit] What is the debt ceiling? See also: United States public debt#Debt ceiling In the United States, the federal government can pay for expenditures only if Congress has approved the expenditure. If the total expenditure exceeds the revenues collected there is a budget deficit, and the only way that the shortfall can be paid for is for the government, through the Department of the Treasury, to borrow the shortfall amount by the issue of debt instruments. Under federal law, the amount that the government can borrow is limited by the debt ceiling, which can only be increased with a vote by Congress.
Prior to 1917, Congress directly authorized the amount of each borrowing. In 1917, in order to provide more flexibility to finance the US involvement in World War I, Congress instituted the concept of a "debt ceiling". Since then, the Treasury may borrow any amount needed as long as it keeps the total at or below the authorized ceiling. Some small special classes of debt are not included in this total.[citation needed] To change the debt ceiling, Congress must enact specific legislation, and the President must sign it into law.
The process of setting the debt ceiling is separate and distinct from the regular process of financing government operations, and raising the debt ceiling does not have any direct impact on the budget deficit. The US government passes a federal budget every year. This budget details projected tax collections and outlays and, therefore, the amount of borrowing the government would have to do in that fiscal year. A vote to increase the debt ceiling is, therefore, usually seen as a formality, needed to continue spending that has already been approved previously by the Congress and the President. The Government Accountability Office explains: "The debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits or incur obligations. Rather, it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred."[9] The apparent redundancy of the debt ceiling has led to suggestions that it should be abolished altogether.[10][11]
The US has had public debt since its inception. Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly report on the amount of the debt ($75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791). Every president since Harry Truman has added to the national debt. The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since March 1962,[12] including 18 times under Ronald Reagan, eight times under Bill Clinton, seven times under George W. Bush and three times (as of August 2011) under Barack Obama.
As of May 2011, approximately 40 percent of US government spending relied on borrowed money.[13] Raising the debt ceiling allows the federal government to continue to borrow money to support current spending levels. If the debt ceiling had not been raised, the federal government would have had to cut spending immediately by 40 percent, affecting many daily operations of the government,[13] besides the impact on the domestic and international economies. Treasury can determine what items would be paid.[14] If the interest payments on the national debt are not made, the US would be in default, potentially causing catastrophic economic consequences for the US and the wider world as well. (Effects outside the US would be likely because the United States is a major trading partner with many countries. Other major world powers who hold its debt could demand repayment.)
According to the Treasury, "failing to increase the debt limit would . . . cause the government to default on its legal obligations – an unprecedented event in American history".[15] These legal obligations include paying Social Security and Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the debt, and many other items. Making the promised payments of the principal and interest of US treasury securities on time ensures that the nation does not default on its sovereign debt.[16][17]
Critics have argued that the debt ceiling crisis is "self-inflicted,"[18] as treasury bond interest rates were at historical lows, and the US had no market restrictions on its ability to obtain additional credit.[citation needed] The debt ceiling has been raised 68 times since 1960. Sometimes the increase was treated as routine, many times it was used to score political points for the minority party by criticizing the out-of-control spending of the majority.[19] The only other country with a debt limit is Denmark, which has set its debt ceiling so high that it is unlikely to be reached.[18] If raising the limit ceases to be routine, this may create uncertainty for global markets each time a debt ceiling increase is debated.[18] This crisis has shown how a party in control of only one chamber of Congress (in this case, Republicans in control of the House of Representatives but not the Senate or the Presidency) can have significant influence if it chooses to block the routine raising of the debt limit.[20]
[edit] Recent concern about budget deficits and long-term debt See also: United States public debt#Causes of change in debt Underlying the contentious debate over raising the debt ceiling has been an anxiety, growing since 2008, about the large United States federal budget deficits and the increasing federal debt. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO): "At the end of 2008, that debt equaled 40 percent of the nation's annual economic output (a little above the 40-year average of 37 percent). Since then, the figure has shot upward: By the end of fiscal year 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects federal debt will reach roughly 70 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) — the highest percentage since shortly after World War II." The sharp rise in debt after 2008 stems largely from lower tax revenues and higher federal spending related to the severe recession and persistently high unemployment in 2008–11.[21][22]
In 2009, the Tea Party movement emerged with a focus on reducing government spending and regulation.[23][24] The Tea Party movement helped usher in a wave of new Republican office-holders in the 2010 mid-term elections[25] whose major planks during the campaign included cutting federal spending[26] and stopping any tax increases.[27] These new Republicans and the new Republican House majority greatly affected the 2011 debt ceiling political debate.[28]
In early 2010, President Obama established the Bowles-Simpson Commission to propose recommendations to balance the budget by 2015.[29] The commission issued its report in December 2010, but the recommendations were never adopted.
Throughout 2011, Standard & Poor's and Moody's credit rating services issued warnings that US debt could be downgraded because of the continued large deficits and increasing debt.[30][31][32][33] According to the CBO's 2011 long-term budget outlook, without major policy changes the large budget deficits and growing debt would continue, which "would reduce national saving, leading to higher interest rates, more borrowing from abroad, and less domestic investment — which in turn would lower income growth in the United States."[21] The European sovereign debt crisis was occurring throughout 2010–2011, and there were concerns that the US was on the same trajectory.[34]
[edit] Resort to extraordinary measures Prior to the debt ceiling crisis of 2011, the debt ceiling was last raised on February 12, 2010 to $14.294 trillion.[35][36]
On April 15, 2011, Congress passed the last part of the 2011 United States federal budget, authorizing federal government spending for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year, which ends on September 30, 2011.[citation needed] For the 2011 fiscal year, expenditure was estimated at $3.82 trillion, with expected revenues of $2.17 trillion, leaving a deficit of $1.48 trillion.[citation needed]
However, soon after the 2011 budget was passed, the debt ceiling set in February 2010 was reached. In a letter to Congress of April 4, 2011, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner explained that when the debt ceiling is reached, the US Treasury can declare a debt issuance suspension period and utilize "extraordinary measures" to acquire funds to meet federal obligations but which do not require the issue of new debt,[37] such as the sale of assets from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund and the G Fund of the Thrift Savings Plan. These measures were implemented on May 16, 2011, when Geithner declared a "debt issuance suspension period". According to his letter to Congress, this period could "last until August 2, 2011, when the Department of the Treasury projects that the borrowing authority of the United States will be exhausted".[2] These methods have been used on several previous occasions in which federal debt neared its statutory limit.[38]
[edit] Alternate views of the deadline According to Treasury, the US government would run out of cash to pay all its bills on August 2, 2011, which became the deadline for Congress to vote to increase the debt ceiling.[2][39]
Some commentators disputed that date as the deadline. According to Barclays Capital, Treasury would run out of cash around August 10, when $8.5 billion in Social Security payments were due. According to Wall Street analysts, Treasury would not be able borrow from the capital markets after August 2, but still would have enough incoming cash to meet its obligations until August 15. Analysts also predicted that Treasury would be able to roll over the $90 billion in US debt that matured on August 4, and gain additional time to avert the crisis.[40]
Projections required for debt and cash management can be volatile. Outside experts that track Treasury finances had said that announced Treasury estimates were within the range of uncertainty for their analyses. Delaying an increase in the debt limit past August 2 could have risked a delay in Social Security and other benefit checks, and could have led to disruptions in scheduled Treasury auctions.
[edit] Implications of not raising the debt ceiling Experts were divided on how bad the effects of not raising the debt ceiling for a short period would be on the economy. While some leading economists, including Republican adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, suggested even a brief failure to meet US obligations could have devastating long-term consequences, others argued that the market would write it off as a Congressional dispute and return to normal once the immediate crisis was resolved.[41] Some argued that the worst outcome would be if the US failed to pay interest and/or principal on the national debt to bondholders, thereby defaulting on its sovereign debt.[42] Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned in July 2011 that the consequences of such a default would be higher borrowing costs for the US government (as much as one percent or $150 billion/year in additional interest costs) and the equivalent of bank runs on the money markets and other financial markets, potentially as severe as those of September 2008.[43]
In January 2011 Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner warned that "failure to raise the limit would precipitate a default by the United States. Default would effectively impose a significant and long-lasting tax on all Americans and all American businesses and could lead to the loss of millions of American jobs. Even a very short-term or limited default would have catastrophic economic consequences that would last for decades."[44]
Senators Pat Toomey and Jim DeMint expressed deep concern that administration officials were stating or implying that failure to raise the nation's debt limit would constitute a default on US debt and precipitate a financial crisis:[45] "We believe it is irresponsible and harmful for you to sow the seeds of doubt in the market regarding the full faith and credit of the United States and ask that you set the record straight — that you will use all available Treasury funds necessary to prevent default while Congress addresses the looming debt crisis."[46]
Geithner responded that prioritizing debt would require "cutting roughly 40 percent of all government payments", which could only be achieved by "selectively defaulting on obligations previously approved by Congress". He argued that this would harm the reputation of the United States so severely that there is "no guarantee that investors would continue to re-invest in new Treasury securities", forcing the government to repay the principal on existing debt as it matured, which it would be unable to do under any conceivable circumstance. He concluded: "There is no alternative to enactment of a timely increase in the debt limit."[47] On January 25, 2011, Senator Toomey introduced The Full Faith And Credit Act bill [S.163[48]] that would require the Treasury to prioritize payments to service the national debt over other obligations.[49] (The bill was cleared by its committee for consideration the next day and added to the Senate "calendar of business", but no further action had occurred by mid-August 2011.[50])
Even if the Treasury were to prioritize payments on the debt above other spending and avoid formal default on its bonds, failure to raise the debt ceiling would force the government to reduce its spending by as much as ten percent of GDP overnight, leading to a corresponding fall in aggregate demand. Keynesian economists believe that such a significant shock, if sustained, would reverse the economic recovery and send the country into a recession.[51][52]
[edit] Proposed resolutions President Barack Obama met with Speaker of the House John Boehner on the patio near the Oval Office on Sunday, July 3, 2011, during the debt ceiling increase negotiations. Congress considered whether and by how much to extend the debt ceiling (or eliminate it), and what long-term policy changes (if any) should be made concurrently.[53]
The Republican position on raising the debt ceiling:
- Dollar-for-dollar deal – raise the debt ceiling to match corresponding spending cuts[54]
- More of the budget cuts in the first two years[54]
- Spending caps[54]
- Balanced Budget Amendment – to pass Congress and be sent to states for ratification[55][56]
- No tax increases – tax reform could be considered[57]
The Democratic position on raising the debt ceiling:
- Initially wanted a "clean" increase or unconditional raise to the debt ceiling with no spending cuts attached,[60][61]
- Spending cuts combined with tax increases on some categories of taxpayers, to reduce deficits.[62] (1:1 spending cut / tax increase ratio initially desired in the Congress, 3:1 offered by President Obama[63])
- Large debt limit increase to support borrowing into 2013 (after the next election)[64]
- Opposed to any major cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid[65][66]
The US House of Representatives originally refused to raise the debt ceiling without deficit reduction, voting down a "clean" bill to increase the debt ceiling without conditions. The May 31 vote was 318 to 97, with all 236 Republicans and 82 Democrats voting to defeat the bill.[71] The Republicans largely believed a deficit reduction deal should be based solely on spending cuts, including cuts to entitlements, without any tax increases, to reduce or solve the long-term issue of debt.[72] Obama and the Democrats in the US Congress wanted an increase in the debt ceiling to solve the short-term borrowing problem, and in exchange supported a decrease in the budget deficit, to be funded by a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases.[73] Some prominent liberal economists, such as Paul Krugman, Larry Summers, and Brad DeLong, and prominent investors such as Bill Gross, went even further, and argued that not only should the debt ceiling be raised, but federal spending (and, therefore, the deficit) should be increased in the short term (as long as the economy remains in the liquidity trap), which they believed would stimulate the economy, reduce unemployment, and ultimately reduce the deficit in the medium to long term.[74][75]
Some Tea Party Caucus and other Republicans, however, (including, but not limited to, Senators Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee, and Representatives Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Allen West) expressed skepticism about raising the debt ceiling (with some suggesting the consequences of default are exaggerated), arguing that the debt ceiling should not be raised, and "instead the federal debt [should] be 'capped' at the current limit,"[76] "although that would oblige the government to cut spending by almost half overnight."[73]
Jack Balkin, the Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School, suggested two other ways to solve the debt ceiling crisis: he pointed out that the US Treasury has the power to issue platinum coins in any denomination, so it could solve the debt ceiling crisis by simply issuing two platinum coins in denominations of $1 trillion each, depositing them into its account in the Federal Reserve, and writing checks on the proceeds. Another way to solve the debt ceiling crisis, Balkin suggested, would be for the federal government to sell the Federal Reserve an option to purchase government property for $2 trillion. The Federal Reserve would then credit the proceeds to the government's checking account. Once Congress lifted the debt ceiling, the president could buy back the option for a dollar, or the option could simply expire in 90 days.[77]
In a report issued by the credit rating agency Moody's, analyst Steven Hess suggested that the government should consider getting rid of the limit altogether, because the difficulty inherent in reaching an agreement to raise the debt ceiling "creates a high level of uncertainty" and an increased risk of default. As reported by The Washington Post, "without a limit dependent on congressional approval, the report said, the agency would worry less about the government's ability to meet its debt obligations."[78] Other public figures, including Democratic ex-President Bill Clinton and Republican ex-CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, have suggested eliminating the debt ceiling.[79]
[edit] Possible methods of bypassing the debt ceiling [edit] Fourteenth Amendment During the debate, some scholars, Democratic lawmakers,[67][68][69] and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner[80] suggested that the President could declare that the debt ceiling violates the Constitution and issue an Executive Order to direct the Treasury to issue more debt.[70] They point to Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, passed in the context of the Civil War Reconstruction, that states that the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned. Others rebutted this argument by pointing to Section 8 of Article 1 and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which state that Congress has the power of the purse and the authority to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.[81]
Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have power . . .To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; Amendment XIV, Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Amendment XIV, Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Arguments
- Jack Balkin, looking into the Legislative History of the Fourteenth Amendment, argued that Section 4 was adopted to guard against politically-determined default. Referencing the sponsor of the provision, Senator Benjamin Wade, Balkin argued that "the central rationale for Section Four ... was to remove threats of default on federal debts from partisan struggle." Balkin quotes Wade: "every man who has property in the public funds will feel safer when he sees that the national debt is withdrawn from the power of a Congress to repudiate it and placed under the guardianship of the Constitution than he would feel if it were left at loose ends and subject to the varying majorities which may arise in Congress." According to Balkin, this reveals "an important structural principle. The threat of defaulting on government obligations is a powerful weapon, especially in a complex, interconnected world economy. Devoted partisans can use it to disrupt government, to roil ordinary politics, to undermine policies they do not like, even to seek political revenge. Section Four was placed in the Constitution to remove this weapon from ordinary politics."[82]
- Bruce Bartlett, a former adviser to President Ronald Reagan and columnist for The Fiscal Times, argued that Section 4 renders the debt ceiling unconstitutional, and that the President should disregard the debt limit.[83]
- The Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel argued that the President could use the public debt section of the Fourteenth Amendment to force the Treasury to continue paying its debts if an agreement to raise the debt ceiling was not reached.[84]
- Laurence Tribe, professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School, called the argument that the public debt clause can nullify the debt ceiling "false hope" and noted that nothing in the Constitution enabled the President to "usurp legislative power" with regards to the debt. Tribe said that since Congress has means other than borrowing to pay the federal debt (including raising taxes, coining money, and selling federal assets), the argument that the President could seize the power to borrow could be extended to give the President the ability to seize those powers as well.[85]
- Garrett Epps counter-argued that the President would not be usurping Congressional power by invoking Section 4 to declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional, because the debt ceiling exceeds Congressional authority. He called it legislative "double-counting," as paraphrased in The New Republic, "because Congress already appropriated the funds in question, it is the executive branch's duty to enact those appropriations."[86] In other words, given Congress has appropriated money via federal programs, the Executive is obligated to enact and, therefore, fund them, but the debt ceiling's limit on debt prevents the executive from carrying out the instructions given by Congress, on the constitutional authority to set appropriations; essentially, to obey the statutory debt ceiling would require usurping congress' constitutional powers, and hence the statute must be unconstitutional.
- Former President Bill Clinton endorsed this counter-argument, saying he would eliminate the debt ceiling using the 14th Amendment. He called it "crazy" that Congress first appropriates funds and then gets a second vote on whether to pay.[87]
- Matthew Zeitlin added to the counter-argument that, were Section 4 invoked, members of Congress would not have standing to sue the President for allegedly usurping congressional authority, even if they were willing to do so; and those likely to have standing would be people "designed to elicit zero public sympathy: those who purchased credit default swaps which would pay off in the event of government default."[86] Matthew Steinglass argued that, because it would come down to the Supreme Court, the Court would not vote in favor of anyone who could and would sue: it would rule the debt ceiling unconstitutional. This is because, for the Court to rule to uphold the debt ceiling, it would, in effect, be voting for the United States to default, with the consequences that would entail; and, Steinglass argues, the Court would not do that.[88]
- Michael Stern, Senior Counsel to the US House of Representatives from 1996 to 2004, stated that Garrett Epps "had adopted an overly broad interpretation of the Public Debt Clause and that this interpretation, even if accepted, could not justify invalidating the debt limit" because "the President's duty to safeguard the national debt no more enables him to assume Congress's power of the purse than it would enable him to assume the judicial power when (in his opinion) the Supreme Court acts in an unconstitutional manner."[89]
- Rob Natelson, former Constitutional Law Professor at University of Montana, argued that "this is not some issue in the disputed boundaries between legislative and executive power." He continued, "That's why the Constitution itself (Article I, Section 8, Clause 2) gives only Congress, not the President, the power "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States." In another argument, Natelson stated that Bruce Bartlett "deftly omits a crucial part of the quote from the Fourteenth Amendment. It actually says, 'The validity of the public debt of the United States, AUTHORIZED BY LAW ... shall not be questioned.' In other words, Congress has to approve the debt for it not to be questioned. And note that this language refers to existing debt, not to creating new debt. He also neglects to mention that Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically grants to Congress, not to the President, authority to enforce the amendment."[81]
- Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner[80] implied that the debt ceiling may violate the Constitution; however George Madison, General Counsel to the US Treasury, wrote that "Secretary Geithner has never argued that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution allows the President to disregard the statutory debt limit" (but nor did Madison say that Geithner had argued against the proposition either), and that "the Constitution explicitly places the borrowing authority with Congress." He stated that "Secretary Geithner has always viewed the debt limit as a binding legal constraint that can only be raised by Congress."[90]
[edit] Monetizing gold A similar crisis was faced during the Eisenhower Administration in 1953. The debt ceiling was not raised until the spring of 1954.[94] To accommodate the gap, the Eisenhower administration increased its gold certificate deposits at the Federal Reserve, which it could do because the market price of gold had increased. According to experts,[95] the Secretary of the Treasury is still authorized to monetize 8,000 tons of gold, valued under the old law at approximately $42 per ounce, but with a market value worth over $1,600 per ounce.[96]
[edit] Agreement Main article: Budget Control Act of 2011 President Barack Obama makes a statement in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House announcing a deal that resolved the US debt ceiling crisis. July 31, 2011. Wikinews has related news: Bill passed to raise US debt limit On July 31, 2011, President Obama announced that the leaders of both parties in both chambers had reached an agreement that would reduce the deficit and avoid default.[97] The same day, Speaker Boehner's office outlined the agreement for House Republicans.[98] According to the statement:
- The agreement cut spending more than it increased the debt limit. In the first installment ("tranche"), $917 billion would be cut over 10 years in exchange for increasing the debt limit by $900 billion.
- The agreement established a Congressional Joint Select Committee that would produce debt reduction legislation by November 23, 2011, that would be immune from amendments or filibuster. The goal of the legislation is to cut at least $1.5 trillion over the coming 10 years and should be passed by December 23, 2011. The committee would have 12 members, 6 from each party.
- Projected revenue from the Joint Select Committee's legislation must not exceed the revenue baseline produced by current law.[citation needed]
- The agreement specified an incentive for Congress to act. If Congress fails to produce a deficit reduction bill with at least $1.2 trillion in cuts, then Congress can grant a $1.2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling. This would trigger across-the-board cuts ("sequestration") of spending, equally split between defense and non-defense programs. The cuts would apply to mandatory and discretionary spending in the years 2013 to 2021 and be in an amount equal to the difference between $1.2 trillion and the amount of deficit reduction enacted from the joint committee. The sequestration mechanism is the same as the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. There are exemptions—across the board cuts would apply to Medicare, but not to Social Security, Medicaid, civil and military employee pay, or veterans.
- Congress must vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment between October 1, 2011, and the end of the year.
- The debt ceiling may be increased an additional $1.5 trillion if either one of the following two conditions are met:
- A balanced budget amendment is sent to the states
- The joint committee cuts spending by a greater amount than the requested debt ceiling increase
The agreement, entitled the Budget Control Act of 2011,[100] passed the House on August 1, 2011, by a vote of 269–161; 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for it, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted against it.[101] The Senate passed the agreement on August 2, 2011, by a vote of 74–26; seven Democrats and 19 Republicans voted against it.[102] Obama signed the bill shortly after it was passed by the Senate.[101]
WATCH YOUR BACK THE TIME IZ NOW TO GET READY FOR NOV.
Results for New Hampshire Republican Primary (U.S. Presidential Primary)
Jan 10, 2012 (100% of precincts reporting)
Mitt Romney 97,532 39.3%
Ron Paul 56,848 22.9%
Jon Huntsman 41,945 16.9%
Newt Gingrich 23,411 9.4%
Rick Santorum 23,362 9.4%
Rick Perry 1,766 0.7%
Other 3,621 1.5%
Jan 10, 2012 (100% of precincts reporting)
Mitt Romney 97,532 39.3%
Ron Paul 56,848 22.9%
Jon Huntsman 41,945 16.9%
Newt Gingrich 23,411 9.4%
Rick Santorum 23,362 9.4%
Rick Perry 1,766 0.7%
Other 3,621 1.5%
Mitt Romney will need independents in November, but he isn't abandoning his "severely conservative" record.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee has instead launched an aggressive campaign against President Barack Obama that straddles two sometimes-conflicting political ideologies. On some days, he is both a social conservative and social moderate, a right-wing conspiracy theorist and promoter of political compromise. It's a delicate balancing act in a general election effort that's just weeks old but one that's leaning decidedly right so far.
Romney spoke out against China's "one-child policy" on Friday in an apparent nod to social conservatives on Fox News. But later in the same interview, he defended his decision to hire an openly gay staffer who ultimately quit under pressure from social conservatives.
Romney said he hires people "not based upon their ethnicity, or their sexual preference or their gender but upon their capability." He called the staffer, Richard Grenell, who had yet to formally begin his role as a foreign policy spokesman, a "capable individual" and said many senior campaign aides had urged him not to leave. But Grenell's departure pleased some on the religious right who had been critical of his hiring.
The incident offered a look inside a Romney campaign that would like to broaden his appeal to the political center, while harnessing the anti-Obama intensity from his party's right flank. It's a tricky move, with pitfalls lurking on both sides. But Romney so far is trying to prove he won't turn his back on his party's most passionate voters.
He's devoting significant attention to skeptical conservatives who have supported his Republican rivals until very recently. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum gave up his bid last month, while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich made his departure official this week.
"It's only been a short time since Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich suspended their campaigns, and we're moving quickly," said Romney senior aide Peter Flaherty, who is leading the campaign's conservative outreach. "We are going to work very hard to continue to work with conservatives, to work with the base, to keep them energized."
Romney met privately Friday with Santorum, who has indicated he will ultimately endorse Romney but has yet to formally do so. Since the day Santorum left the race, Romney's campaign has been recruiting former Santorum staffers and courting his key allies, including his donors. Romney has hired Santorum's former campaign manager to broaden coalitions with conservative groups.
At the same time, the Romney campaign is showering attention on the conservative media.
He and his wife met privately this week with scores of right-leaning bloggers, reporters and columnists for an off-the-record discussion on Capitol Hill. He has granted interviews recently to conservative publications such as The Weekly Standard, the blog "Hot Air," National Review and Human Events magazine.
Romney last month told the website Breitbart TV that the media was involved in a "vast left-wing conspiracy to work together to put out their message and to attack me."
Further, Romney will deliver a commencement address next week at Liberty University, the evangelical institution founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell in Lynchburg, Va. Roughly 48,000 people -- most of them cultural conservatives -- are expected to attend. He becomes the first Mormon to speak at a Liberty graduation.
Such attention, of course, could alienate independents and more moderate voters often credited with deciding close elections.
But for now, the Romney campaign seems more focused on uniting a Republican Party that spent the last year trudging through a bitter primary. His aides highlight the need to energize conservative activists, who will drive turnout on Election Day and ultimately handle the lion's share of the less-glamorous tasks needed to run a national campaign.
They note that Democrats have a ready-made army of volunteers to handle tasks like door-knocking and phone-banking with their support from college students and labor union members. Republicans typically need to rely on party activists to handle such footwork.
The former Massachusetts governor has struggled for much of his primary campaign to excite most conservative voters. Aiming at that group, he described himself as a "severely conservative" Republican governor while speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington in February.
Some conservative leaders said they're still not excited about Romney.
"The attitude of the leadership of the Republican Party is to primarily ignore the evangelical vote and just presume they don't have any other place to go," said John Grant, a Tampa, Fla.-based Republican operative who served as Gingrich's state evangelical co-chair. "There's one place. It's called home."
Grant said he's yet to hear from the Romney campaign, but he'd be willing to join in the effort to defeat Obama. He offered Romney a bit of unsolicited advice: "Stand up and energize those who can make a difference."
Flaherty said that conservative outreach had yet to reach the state levels, where Obama's team has been working with Democratic activists for months. That's all part of the campaign's next stage, he said, "which is to reach out to state leaders and not just conservatives, but all coalitions, and getting about the business of putting together grass-roots organizations in states, counties, cities, precincts and neighborhoods."
In the meantime, the campaign expects to continue courting conservatives, both publicly and privately.
"You see in our party a great deal of enthusiasm about making sure we get America back on track," Romney said on Fox News on Friday. "I expect that you're going to see us all come together."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/05/romney-will-now-need-independents-but-still-tilts-conservative/#ixzz1u0Yeojys
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee has instead launched an aggressive campaign against President Barack Obama that straddles two sometimes-conflicting political ideologies. On some days, he is both a social conservative and social moderate, a right-wing conspiracy theorist and promoter of political compromise. It's a delicate balancing act in a general election effort that's just weeks old but one that's leaning decidedly right so far.
Romney spoke out against China's "one-child policy" on Friday in an apparent nod to social conservatives on Fox News. But later in the same interview, he defended his decision to hire an openly gay staffer who ultimately quit under pressure from social conservatives.
Romney said he hires people "not based upon their ethnicity, or their sexual preference or their gender but upon their capability." He called the staffer, Richard Grenell, who had yet to formally begin his role as a foreign policy spokesman, a "capable individual" and said many senior campaign aides had urged him not to leave. But Grenell's departure pleased some on the religious right who had been critical of his hiring.
The incident offered a look inside a Romney campaign that would like to broaden his appeal to the political center, while harnessing the anti-Obama intensity from his party's right flank. It's a tricky move, with pitfalls lurking on both sides. But Romney so far is trying to prove he won't turn his back on his party's most passionate voters.
He's devoting significant attention to skeptical conservatives who have supported his Republican rivals until very recently. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum gave up his bid last month, while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich made his departure official this week.
"It's only been a short time since Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich suspended their campaigns, and we're moving quickly," said Romney senior aide Peter Flaherty, who is leading the campaign's conservative outreach. "We are going to work very hard to continue to work with conservatives, to work with the base, to keep them energized."
Romney met privately Friday with Santorum, who has indicated he will ultimately endorse Romney but has yet to formally do so. Since the day Santorum left the race, Romney's campaign has been recruiting former Santorum staffers and courting his key allies, including his donors. Romney has hired Santorum's former campaign manager to broaden coalitions with conservative groups.
At the same time, the Romney campaign is showering attention on the conservative media.
He and his wife met privately this week with scores of right-leaning bloggers, reporters and columnists for an off-the-record discussion on Capitol Hill. He has granted interviews recently to conservative publications such as The Weekly Standard, the blog "Hot Air," National Review and Human Events magazine.
Romney last month told the website Breitbart TV that the media was involved in a "vast left-wing conspiracy to work together to put out their message and to attack me."
Further, Romney will deliver a commencement address next week at Liberty University, the evangelical institution founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell in Lynchburg, Va. Roughly 48,000 people -- most of them cultural conservatives -- are expected to attend. He becomes the first Mormon to speak at a Liberty graduation.
Such attention, of course, could alienate independents and more moderate voters often credited with deciding close elections.
But for now, the Romney campaign seems more focused on uniting a Republican Party that spent the last year trudging through a bitter primary. His aides highlight the need to energize conservative activists, who will drive turnout on Election Day and ultimately handle the lion's share of the less-glamorous tasks needed to run a national campaign.
They note that Democrats have a ready-made army of volunteers to handle tasks like door-knocking and phone-banking with their support from college students and labor union members. Republicans typically need to rely on party activists to handle such footwork.
The former Massachusetts governor has struggled for much of his primary campaign to excite most conservative voters. Aiming at that group, he described himself as a "severely conservative" Republican governor while speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington in February.
Some conservative leaders said they're still not excited about Romney.
"The attitude of the leadership of the Republican Party is to primarily ignore the evangelical vote and just presume they don't have any other place to go," said John Grant, a Tampa, Fla.-based Republican operative who served as Gingrich's state evangelical co-chair. "There's one place. It's called home."
Grant said he's yet to hear from the Romney campaign, but he'd be willing to join in the effort to defeat Obama. He offered Romney a bit of unsolicited advice: "Stand up and energize those who can make a difference."
Flaherty said that conservative outreach had yet to reach the state levels, where Obama's team has been working with Democratic activists for months. That's all part of the campaign's next stage, he said, "which is to reach out to state leaders and not just conservatives, but all coalitions, and getting about the business of putting together grass-roots organizations in states, counties, cities, precincts and neighborhoods."
In the meantime, the campaign expects to continue courting conservatives, both publicly and privately.
"You see in our party a great deal of enthusiasm about making sure we get America back on track," Romney said on Fox News on Friday. "I expect that you're going to see us all come together."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/05/romney-will-now-need-independents-but-still-tilts-conservative/#ixzz1u0Yeojys
WHO WILL PUT SOME BREAKS ON A BETTER COUNTRY?
GO TO 4 LIGHT IZ ZOUND TAB AND GO GET RESSURECT PTAH @ ITUNES
WHAT WOULD A TRUE WORLD LEADER DO IN THIS TYPE OF ISSUE ?
HAVE A SLICE OF CHOCOLATE CAKE , THEN
EDU. THE PEOPLE ON BEING THE BETTER MAN IN LIFE ,
LOVE YOUR CHILDREN,AND THAT KARMA IZ A REAL
FORM OF ENERGY THAT WE AS A ALIEN NATION CAN
NOT AFFORD.
IF YOU EVER GET IT FROM FEB.2012 TO PRESENT DO NOT JUST TAKE IT PEOPLE PUT THERE HEARTS ,MINDS, AND SOULS IN TO MAKING THIS AMERICA AND WORLD A BETTER PLACE. IF IT IZ NOT FAIR MAKE IT FAIR AND GIVE TO THOSE WHO HELP .IF NOT THEN WASTE TIME IN THESE LAST DAYS AND TIME AND HOPE FOR A BETTER DAY. THE PEOLE MUST KNOW THAT THIS IS IT AND STAND STRONG FOR GOOD ALL THE TIME . FOOD IZ SHORT, GAS AND OIL ,AND
WELL OBAMA YOU WERE RIGHT WHEN YOU SAID YOU THOUGH IT WOULD BE YOU AND NOT ME. I THOUGHT YOU COULD @ LEAST SAVE A LIFE.
IN CASE OF LIFE ENDING SOONER THAT THIS POISON DOING PTAH IN IMPEACH HIM http://www.nobelprize.org/
IN CASE OF LIFE ENDING SOONER THAT THIS POISON DOING PTAH IN IMPEACH HIM http://www.nobelprize.org/
1. FIRST DOWN GRADE EVER IN THE USA( what does the down grade mean for your buss. morgage your health and debt)
2.OVER 21 COUNRTIES ATTACKT THE USA
3. OUT SOURCING NASA , AND SOLYNDRA
4.OK U GOT A PHONE FROM OBAMA NOW CALL AND ASK FOR MONEY OR FOOD.
2.OVER 21 COUNRTIES ATTACKT THE USA
3. OUT SOURCING NASA , AND SOLYNDRA
4.OK U GOT A PHONE FROM OBAMA NOW CALL AND ASK FOR MONEY OR FOOD.
The foucs should be talking about iz the alternative to gas because acts of war has already been taken on all sides .So to keep the peace
on earth, the izmparty would be focusing on alternitive energy (as we were before we were pulling or self from under the bus .that will create jobs and stability economically, instead of losing the war.
Alternative fuel From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Typical Brazilian filling station with four alternative fuels for sale: biodiesel (B3), gasohol (E25), neat ethanol (E100), and compressed natural gas (CNG). Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. Alternative fuels, known as non-conventional or advanced fuels, are any materials or substances that can be used as fuels, other than conventional fuels. Conventional fuels include: fossil fuels (petroleum (oil), coal, propane, and natural gas), as well as nuclear materials such as uranium and thorium, as well as artificial radioisotope fuels that are made in nuclear reactors, and store their energy.
Some well-known alternative fuels include biodiesel, bioalcohol (methanol, ethanol, butanol), chemically stored electricity (batteries and fuel cells), hydrogen, non-fossil methane, non-fossil natural gas, vegetable oil, and other biomass sources.
Contents [hide]
[edit] Biofuel Main article: Biofuel Alternative fuel dispensers at a regular gasoline station in Arlington, Virginia. B20 biodiesel at the left and E85 ethanol at the right. Biofuels are also considered a renewable source. Although renewable energy is used mostly to generate electricity, it is often assumed that some form of renewable energy or at least it is used to create alternative fuels.
[edit] Biomass Main article: Biomass Biomass in the energy production industry is living and recently dead biological material which can be used as fuel or for industrial production.
[edit] Algae based fuels Main article: Algae fuel Algae based biofuels have been hyped in the media as a potential panacea to our Crude Oil based Transportation problems. Algae could yield more than 2000 gallons of fuel per acre per year of production.[1] Algae based fuels are being successfully tested by the U.S. Navy[2] Algae based plastics show potential to reduce waste and the cost per pound of algae plastic is expected to be cheaper than traditional plastic prices.[3]
[edit] Biodiesel Biodiesel is made from animal fats or vegetable oils, renewable resources that come from plants such as, soybean, sunflowers, corn, olive, peanut, palm, coconut, safflower, canola, sesame, cottonseed, etc. Once these fats or oils are filtered from their hydrocarbons and then combined with alcohol like methanol, biodiesel is brought to life from this chemical reaction. These raw materials can either be mixed with pure diesel to make various proportions, or used alone. Despite one’s mixture preference, biodiesel will release a smaller number of its pollutants (carbon monoxide particulates and hydrocarbons) than conventional diesel, because biodiesel burns both cleaner and more efficiently. Even with regular diesel’s reduced quantity of sulfur from the ULSD (ultra-low sulfur diesel) invention, biodiesel exceeds those levels because it is sulfur-free. [4]
[edit] Alcohol fuels Main articles: Alcohol fuel, Butanol fuel, Ethanol fuel, and Methanol fuel Methanol and Ethanol fuel are typically a primary sources of energy; they are convenient fuels for storing and transporting energy. These alcohols can be used in "internal combustion engines as alternative fuels", with butanol also having known advantages, such as being the only alcohol-based motor fuel that can be transported readily by existing petroleum-product pipeline networks, instead of only by tanker trucks and railroad cars.
[edit] Ammonia Ammonia can be used as fuel. A small machine can be set up to create the fuel and it is used where it is made. Benefits of ammonia include, no need for oil, zero emissions, low cost,[5] and distributed production reducing transport and related pollution.
[edit] Hydrogen Main article: Hydrogen fuel Hydrogen is an emissionless fuel. The byproduct of hydrogen burning is water, although some mono-nitrogen oxides NOx are produced when hydrogen is burned with air.[6][7]
[edit] HCNG Main article: HCNG HCNG (or H2CNG) is a mixture of compressed natural gas and 4-9 percent hydrogen by energy.[8]
[edit] Liquid nitrogen Liquid nitrogen is another type of emissionless fuel.
[edit] Compressed air The air engine is an emission-free piston engine using compressed air as fuel. Unlike hydrogen, compressed air is about one-tenth as expensive as fossil oil, making it an economically attractive alternative fuel.
[edit] Alternative fossil fuels Compressed natural gas (CNG) is a cleaner burning alternative to conventional petroleum automobile fuels. The energy efficiency is generally equal to that of gasoline engines, but lower compared with modern diesel engines. CNG vehicles require a greater amount of space for fuel storage than conventional gasoline power vehicles because CNG takes up more space for each GGE (Gallon of Gas Equivalent). Almost any existing gasoline car can be turned into a bi-fuel (gasoline/CNG) car. However, natural gas is a finite resource like all fossil fuels, and production of natural gas is expected to peak soon after oil.[citation needed]
Natural gas, like hydrogen, is another fuel that burns cleanly; cleaner than both gasoline and diesel engines. Also, none of the smog-forming contaminates are emitted, seen substantially by the latter. Around the world, this gas powers more than 5 million vehicles, and just over 150,000 of these are in the U.S. [9]
[edit] Nuclear power and radiothermal generators Main articles: Nuclear power and radiothermal generator [edit] Nuclear reactors Nuclear power is any nuclear technology designed to extract usable energy from atomic nuclei via controlled nuclear reactions. The only controlled method now practical uses nuclear fission in a fissile fuel (with a small fraction of the power coming from subsequent radioactive decay). Use of the nuclear reaction nuclear fusion for controlled power generation is not yet practical, but is an active area of research.
Nuclear power is usually used by using a nuclear reactor to heat a working fluid such as water, which is then used to create steam pressure, which is converted into mechanical work for the purpose of generating electricity or propulsion in water. Today, more than 15% of the world's electricity comes from nuclear power, and over 150 nuclear-powered naval vessels have been built.
In theory, electricity from nuclear reactors could also be used for propulsion in space, but this has yet to be demonstrated in a space flight. Some smaller reactors, such as the TOPAZ nuclear reactor, are built to minimize moving parts, and use methods that convert nuclear energy to electricity more directly, making them useful for space missions, but this electricity has historically been used for other purposes. Power from nuclear fission has been used in a number of spacecraft, all of them unmanned. The Soviets up to 1988 orbited 33 nuclear reactors in RORSAT military radar satellites, where electric power generated was used to power a radar unit that located ships on the Earth's oceans. The U.S. also orbited one experimental nuclear reactor in 1965, in the SNAP-10A mission. No nuclear reactor has been sent into space since 1988.
[edit] Radiothermal generators In addition, radioisotopes have been used as alternative fuels, on both land and in space. Their use on land is declining due to the danger of theft of isotope and environmental damage if the unit is opened. The decay of radioisotopes generates both heat and electricity in many space probes, particularly probes to outer planets where sunlight is weak, and low temperatures is a problem. Radiothermal generators (RTGs) which use such radioisotopes as fuels do not sustain a nuclear chain reaction, but rather generate electricity from the decay of a radioisotope which has (in turn) been produced on Earth as a concentrated power source (fuel) using energy from an Earth-based nuclear reactor. [10]
[edit] See also Wikinews has news related to: Energy Sustainable development portal Energy portal
on earth, the izmparty would be focusing on alternitive energy (as we were before we were pulling or self from under the bus .that will create jobs and stability economically, instead of losing the war.
Alternative fuel From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Typical Brazilian filling station with four alternative fuels for sale: biodiesel (B3), gasohol (E25), neat ethanol (E100), and compressed natural gas (CNG). Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. Alternative fuels, known as non-conventional or advanced fuels, are any materials or substances that can be used as fuels, other than conventional fuels. Conventional fuels include: fossil fuels (petroleum (oil), coal, propane, and natural gas), as well as nuclear materials such as uranium and thorium, as well as artificial radioisotope fuels that are made in nuclear reactors, and store their energy.
Some well-known alternative fuels include biodiesel, bioalcohol (methanol, ethanol, butanol), chemically stored electricity (batteries and fuel cells), hydrogen, non-fossil methane, non-fossil natural gas, vegetable oil, and other biomass sources.
Contents [hide]
- 1 Background
- 2 Biofuel
- 3 Alcohol fuels
- 4 Ammonia
- 5 Hydrogen
- 6 HCNG
- 7 Liquid nitrogen
- 8 Compressed air
- 9 Alternative fossil fuels
- 10 Nuclear power and radiothermal generators
- 11 See also
- 12 References
- 13 External links
[edit] Biofuel Main article: Biofuel Alternative fuel dispensers at a regular gasoline station in Arlington, Virginia. B20 biodiesel at the left and E85 ethanol at the right. Biofuels are also considered a renewable source. Although renewable energy is used mostly to generate electricity, it is often assumed that some form of renewable energy or at least it is used to create alternative fuels.
[edit] Biomass Main article: Biomass Biomass in the energy production industry is living and recently dead biological material which can be used as fuel or for industrial production.
[edit] Algae based fuels Main article: Algae fuel Algae based biofuels have been hyped in the media as a potential panacea to our Crude Oil based Transportation problems. Algae could yield more than 2000 gallons of fuel per acre per year of production.[1] Algae based fuels are being successfully tested by the U.S. Navy[2] Algae based plastics show potential to reduce waste and the cost per pound of algae plastic is expected to be cheaper than traditional plastic prices.[3]
[edit] Biodiesel Biodiesel is made from animal fats or vegetable oils, renewable resources that come from plants such as, soybean, sunflowers, corn, olive, peanut, palm, coconut, safflower, canola, sesame, cottonseed, etc. Once these fats or oils are filtered from their hydrocarbons and then combined with alcohol like methanol, biodiesel is brought to life from this chemical reaction. These raw materials can either be mixed with pure diesel to make various proportions, or used alone. Despite one’s mixture preference, biodiesel will release a smaller number of its pollutants (carbon monoxide particulates and hydrocarbons) than conventional diesel, because biodiesel burns both cleaner and more efficiently. Even with regular diesel’s reduced quantity of sulfur from the ULSD (ultra-low sulfur diesel) invention, biodiesel exceeds those levels because it is sulfur-free. [4]
[edit] Alcohol fuels Main articles: Alcohol fuel, Butanol fuel, Ethanol fuel, and Methanol fuel Methanol and Ethanol fuel are typically a primary sources of energy; they are convenient fuels for storing and transporting energy. These alcohols can be used in "internal combustion engines as alternative fuels", with butanol also having known advantages, such as being the only alcohol-based motor fuel that can be transported readily by existing petroleum-product pipeline networks, instead of only by tanker trucks and railroad cars.
[edit] Ammonia Ammonia can be used as fuel. A small machine can be set up to create the fuel and it is used where it is made. Benefits of ammonia include, no need for oil, zero emissions, low cost,[5] and distributed production reducing transport and related pollution.
[edit] Hydrogen Main article: Hydrogen fuel Hydrogen is an emissionless fuel. The byproduct of hydrogen burning is water, although some mono-nitrogen oxides NOx are produced when hydrogen is burned with air.[6][7]
[edit] HCNG Main article: HCNG HCNG (or H2CNG) is a mixture of compressed natural gas and 4-9 percent hydrogen by energy.[8]
[edit] Liquid nitrogen Liquid nitrogen is another type of emissionless fuel.
[edit] Compressed air The air engine is an emission-free piston engine using compressed air as fuel. Unlike hydrogen, compressed air is about one-tenth as expensive as fossil oil, making it an economically attractive alternative fuel.
[edit] Alternative fossil fuels Compressed natural gas (CNG) is a cleaner burning alternative to conventional petroleum automobile fuels. The energy efficiency is generally equal to that of gasoline engines, but lower compared with modern diesel engines. CNG vehicles require a greater amount of space for fuel storage than conventional gasoline power vehicles because CNG takes up more space for each GGE (Gallon of Gas Equivalent). Almost any existing gasoline car can be turned into a bi-fuel (gasoline/CNG) car. However, natural gas is a finite resource like all fossil fuels, and production of natural gas is expected to peak soon after oil.[citation needed]
Natural gas, like hydrogen, is another fuel that burns cleanly; cleaner than both gasoline and diesel engines. Also, none of the smog-forming contaminates are emitted, seen substantially by the latter. Around the world, this gas powers more than 5 million vehicles, and just over 150,000 of these are in the U.S. [9]
[edit] Nuclear power and radiothermal generators Main articles: Nuclear power and radiothermal generator [edit] Nuclear reactors Nuclear power is any nuclear technology designed to extract usable energy from atomic nuclei via controlled nuclear reactions. The only controlled method now practical uses nuclear fission in a fissile fuel (with a small fraction of the power coming from subsequent radioactive decay). Use of the nuclear reaction nuclear fusion for controlled power generation is not yet practical, but is an active area of research.
Nuclear power is usually used by using a nuclear reactor to heat a working fluid such as water, which is then used to create steam pressure, which is converted into mechanical work for the purpose of generating electricity or propulsion in water. Today, more than 15% of the world's electricity comes from nuclear power, and over 150 nuclear-powered naval vessels have been built.
In theory, electricity from nuclear reactors could also be used for propulsion in space, but this has yet to be demonstrated in a space flight. Some smaller reactors, such as the TOPAZ nuclear reactor, are built to minimize moving parts, and use methods that convert nuclear energy to electricity more directly, making them useful for space missions, but this electricity has historically been used for other purposes. Power from nuclear fission has been used in a number of spacecraft, all of them unmanned. The Soviets up to 1988 orbited 33 nuclear reactors in RORSAT military radar satellites, where electric power generated was used to power a radar unit that located ships on the Earth's oceans. The U.S. also orbited one experimental nuclear reactor in 1965, in the SNAP-10A mission. No nuclear reactor has been sent into space since 1988.
[edit] Radiothermal generators In addition, radioisotopes have been used as alternative fuels, on both land and in space. Their use on land is declining due to the danger of theft of isotope and environmental damage if the unit is opened. The decay of radioisotopes generates both heat and electricity in many space probes, particularly probes to outer planets where sunlight is weak, and low temperatures is a problem. Radiothermal generators (RTGs) which use such radioisotopes as fuels do not sustain a nuclear chain reaction, but rather generate electricity from the decay of a radioisotope which has (in turn) been produced on Earth as a concentrated power source (fuel) using energy from an Earth-based nuclear reactor. [10]
[edit] See also Wikinews has news related to: Energy Sustainable development portal Energy portal
- Alcohol fuel
- Alternative fuel cars
- Alternative propulsion
- Biogas
- Compressed-air vehicle
- Energy development
- Fischer-Tropsch process
- Greasestock - An alternative fuel festival in New York
- Heating value
- List of 2007 Hybrid Vehicles
- List of energy topics
- Magnesium injection cycle
- NGH - A possible future alternative to LNG for transporting natural gas
- Swiftfuel -- A potential lead-free alternative to 100LL aviation gasoline.
- Vegetable oil used as fuel
- ^ "Is Algae Based Biofuel a Great Green Investment Opportunity". Green World Investor. 2010-04-06. Retrieved 2010-07-11.
- ^ "Navy demonstrates alternative fuel in riverine vessel". Marine Log. 2010-10-22. Retrieved 2010-07-11.
- ^ "Can algae-based plastics reduce our plastic footprint?". Smart Planet. 2009-10-07. Retrieved 2010-04-05.
- ^ Wheeler, Jill (2008). Alternative Cars. ABDO. p. 21. ISBN 978-1-59928-803-1.
- ^ Yirka, Bob (2011-09-05). "Pair claim they can make ammonia to fuel cars for just 20 cents per liter". Physorg.com. Retrieved 2011-09-12.
- ^ College of the Desert (December 2001). "Module 3: Hydrogen use in internal combustion engines". Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). Retrieved 2011-09-12.
- ^ Gable, Christine; Gable, Scott. "Fuel or Fool?". about.com. Retrieved 2011-09-12.
- ^ "Hydrogen/Natural Gas (HCNG) Fuel Blends". Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). 2009-10-07. Retrieved 2010-07-11.
- ^ Wheeler, Jill (2008). Alternative Cars. ABDO. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-59928-803-1.
- ^ Summary of nuclear reactor and RTG powered spacecraft
- Alternative Fuels Data Center (U.S. DOE)
- Alternative Fuels Information Centre (Victorian Government)
- Alternative Fuel Vehicle Training National Alternative Fuels Training Consortium, West Virginia University
- Clean Cities Program U.S. DOE program encouraging alternative fuel use
- International Air Transport Association alternative aviation fuels
- ScienceDaily - Alternative Fuel News
- Student's Guide to Alternative Fuel (California Energy Commission)
- Sustainable Green Fleets, an EU-sponsored dissemination project for alternatively fuels for fleets
- Pop. Mechanics: Crunching the numbers on alternative fuels
- Global list of Alternative Fuels related Organizations on WiserEarth
- Alternative Fuels portal on WiserEarth
http://www.politifact.com/
this iz our sista how can you not vote for mitt look whos on obama side they all submit to allah ask your president for reperation
Racist package containing images of KKK and aborted fetuses sent to surging black Mormon Republican candidate Mia Love
By Toby Harnden
PUBLISHED: 12:44 EST, 26 September 2012 | UPDATED: 15:45 EST, 26 September 2012
Comments (23)
Share
Republican congressional candidate Mayor Mia Love, a star of the party's recent convention, has been sent a 'disturbing' package that included a picture of her and her husband with a hooded Ku Klux Klan figure.
The package arrived at her mayoral office in Saratoga Springs, Utah as an internal poll released by her campaign purportedly showed her surging into a 15-point lead over her Democratic opponent - an apparent dramatic turnaround after a public poll in June found her trailing by the same margin.
Mark Christensen, city manager of Saratoga Springs, described the contents of the thick envelope to the Deseret News as 'pretty creepy stuff' and 'disturbing' and 'pretty creepy stuff'.
Scroll down for video
By Toby Harnden
PUBLISHED: 12:44 EST, 26 September 2012 | UPDATED: 15:45 EST, 26 September 2012
Comments (23)
Share
Republican congressional candidate Mayor Mia Love, a star of the party's recent convention, has been sent a 'disturbing' package that included a picture of her and her husband with a hooded Ku Klux Klan figure.
The package arrived at her mayoral office in Saratoga Springs, Utah as an internal poll released by her campaign purportedly showed her surging into a 15-point lead over her Democratic opponent - an apparent dramatic turnaround after a public poll in June found her trailing by the same margin.
Mark Christensen, city manager of Saratoga Springs, described the contents of the thick envelope to the Deseret News as 'pretty creepy stuff' and 'disturbing' and 'pretty creepy stuff'.
Scroll down for video
