and it pains me as a Texan to say it…

Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.

The resolution’s language, in part, reads: “Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’; and Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and Whereas, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. … Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 2nd session of the 51st Oklahoma Legislature: that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

HOLY COW! Finally, a state has the political will to come out and tell Washington, D.C., that federal does not mean NATIONAL, and that they’ve (the feds) have overstepped their jurisdiction under the Constitution. Ofcourse we learn that this bill has hit a bottle neck in the Oklahoma Senate, so it hasn’t passed out of the state congress to be signed by the governor. But wouldn’t it be nice if the rest of the states came out in a similar manner and took a stand FOR the Constitution?

And why hasn’t it passed in the Senate (which is split 24-24 Repubs/Dems), because the Dems have refused to even HEAR it and it was stuck in committee until they recessed. Standard Dems, don’t put it on the floor for a vote…

Here is a direct link to the bill.

H-tip to Bill Whittle’s E-3 Gazette.

I haven’t written lately about the shop everyone loves to hate- Wal Mart. I guess I stopped writing because the “issue” hasn’t been news in the past year or so. Of all the bad press, Wal Mart still out performs every other retailer 10:1…and people like to spend less money on items they want and need. Working class peons such as myself depend upon Wal Mart’s low prices to keep us afloat. I believe people are simply stupid to not shop at Wal Mart.

This lady writes of being forced to shop at the big evil retailer, and discovers its not all that bad after all.

It’s a long story — one that involves a darling family of ducks, a semitrailer and me — but the upshot is that for the first time in three years, I have a car payment.

And in order to make those payments and fill my car with gas — I almost wept when I paid $4.29 a gallon the other day — and have enough left over for my ever-increasing bills and save some for emergencies, I’ve had to make some changes.

I’ve begun shopping at Wal-Mart.

She says with some shame, I suspect. NOT ME. I proudly admit I shop at the Wal Mart supercenter up the road, every week, for groceries and other stuff. Always have, since the place opened up over 10 years ago.

The lady whines-

For a long time, my biggest complaint about Wal-Mart was its vibe. Nothing about the store makes me feel special — though I suppose the greeter tries — and whether you admit it or not, most of us want to feel special when we buy something new.

Uuhh….special? Feeling special is how we’re supposed to feel when we shop or buy something? This is a big problem with people: This over dependence of shopping as a form of therapy. Fertheloveofhawd. You don’t shop to feel good. You shop to get the stuff you need.

The checkout lines tend to be long. There’s too much chatter over the public address system. I think the store is poorly organized. And it felt oddly behind the times, its 1970s-esque yellow smiley face sincere, rather than retro, the way it might be at the hipper Target.

I’ve been to the local Target as well and I don’t like the place. There aren’t a lot of choices; everything looks the same - a couple months ago I noticed how the women and men clothing sections had all the same color themes; even the handbags and jewlery echoed the colors (brown, red, beige, yellow…eeeck!) As we wandered thru the store we noticed, ammusingly how the candles and linens all matched the clothes. Hmm. Hipper? I don’t think so.

A couple weeks ago I spent $2.50 on a Wal-Mart plant that was $4.99 at the nursery up the street.

I stumbled upon DVDs for $5 and I’ve stashed away the fairly new releases to give as Christmas presents.

And my favorite fat-free sugar-free Jell-O instant pudding mix is 25 cents cheaper than at my regular grocery.

And the selection!

At Wal-Mart, I can buy a bag of red lentils, hummus in a can, lint screens for the hose on my washing machine, and, should I ever feel the need, scrapbooking materials from the store’s new Martha Stewart crafts line.

Yep…one can buy almost everything they need in one stop…saves time, gas, money. Selection is great if not superior to any other retailer in the world.

Suddenly, shopping at Wal-Mart makes me feel smart.

Well you should feel smart..cause you are. Now.

Shopping at Wal Mart is not only smart, it’s an investment. Into one’s own bank account of savings.

About the two big F’s.

The federal government is one of limited powers. It may only constitutionally engage in behavior that is specifically authorized in the Constitution. The Constitution’s General Welfare Clause requires that all the federal government’s expenditures be for the general welfare, such as a highway, or a national park, or a military installation; something from which everyone can directly benefit. Shareholders of Freddie, Fannie, and Bear Stearns are a small limited class of persons whose well-being hardly enhances the general welfare.

How can we be a nation of laws when our government constantly violates it’s own set of rules? Sure, the homeowners might be called the “general” here, but they are not. The reason, and never forget this, for this bail out was to protect the investors. At tax payers expense.

Can we learn anything from this?

General Motors established its pension in the “treaty of Detroit,” the five-year contract that it signed with the United Automobile Workers in 1950 that also provided health insurance and other benefits for the company’s workers. Walter Reuther, the union’s captain, would have preferred that the government provide pensions and health care to all citizens. He urged the automakers to “go down to Washington and fight with us” for federal benefits.

But the automakers wanted no part of socialized care. They seemed not to notice, as a union expert wrote, that if Washington didn’t provide social insurance it would be “sought from employers across the collective bargaining table.”

Detroit was too flush to envision that it would ever face a financial strain. Ford and Chrysler signed identical pacts with labor, so all three automakers were able to pass on their costs to customers. Besides, the industry’s work force was so young that few workers would be collecting a pension any time soon.

Nice attempt to blow snow on the issue here. Once again we see how unions take down entire industries by inflating costs and taking away the ability to compete. Good job, UAW and the other unions. You’ve succeeded in killing the tit that feeds you.

Lesson? Think of this Op/Ed as being written about the US instead of the automakers. Years down the road, after the US agrees to insure and benefit and provide retirement to all it’s citizens, the system cracks because some people were not able to envision all the possible future problems…this is the hallmark of Democrat’s failed policies through the years.

Ooy. Ain’t this the cold painful damn truth?

The company hyped its sofa-stuffed lounges as a new, American “third place,” an alternative to work and home. I’m always amazed at the high-class hobos who clutter up Starbucks, the MacBook “novelists,” and the Bluetooth-enabled “consultants,” nursing their lattes and milking the Internet. The Dunkin’ Donuts outlets in my neighborhood offer a glaring contrast. I hit Dunkin’ a few mornings each week after exercising. It’s the only time of day when I interact with men and women who actually work for a living.

Starbucks. The coffee sucks. It’s as simple as that…yes, yes- I know many people who believe the coffee is excellent and worth it’s over inflated price. I say BS..coffee was never meant to be a rich man’s drink. Like beer, coffee is everyman’s drink- and Starbucks tried to create a “classy” brand. It’s pretty obvious the business model here isn’t working out quite the way Starbucks intended. Dunkies doesn’t cater to a higher (lazier) class of peasant. It simply serves up coffee- fast and cheap, without all the drama. That model works. Every time.

All’s not well in Google Land.

Two months ago, Google held a series of secret focus groups with employees who have children in Google’s day care facilities. The purpose was to gauge their reaction to the company’s plan to raise the amount it charged for in-house day care by 75 percent.
[...]
As word leaked out about the company’s plan, the Google parents began to fight back. They came up with ideas to save money, used the company’s T.G.I.F. sessions — a weekly meeting for anyone who wanted to ask questions of Google’s top executives — to plead their case, and conducted surveys showing that most parents with children in Google day care would have to leave Google’s facilities and find less expensive child care.
[...]
Do you think you know how this story ends? You’re probably guessing that because it involves “do no evil” Google, Fortune magazine’s “Best Company to Work For” the past two years, this is a heart-warming tale of a good company reversing a dumb decision.

If only.

So Google is finally growing up perhaps? And realizing how the real world works, and how in order to stay competitive it must cut back on some of it’s benefits. This is an interesting article and I have to wonder if soon, Google as an employer might rank down there with, say, Wal Mart?

What is she suing for? Damages? Explain them to me. Did he have a disability due to the fall- (which is highly unlikely medically speaking)?

HAGERSTOWN, Md. — A Hagerstown woman who filed suit against Wal-Mart is asking for damages for herself and her son, who, she says, was born prematurely after she fell in a store.

Radhia Haj-Mabrouk contends in the suit filed Tuesday in Washington County Circuit Court that she slipped on water on the floor in the Wal-Mart on Garden Groh Boulevard in August 2005, fell and was hurt.

Haj-Mabrouk was pregnant then and her son was delivered by emergency C-section later that day, the suit says.Haj-Mabrouk is seeking $1 million on her behalf and $2 million on behalf of her son, Lofti Haj-Mabrouk, according to the lawsuit.

A Wal-Mart spokeswoman said Friday that Wal-Mart had not yet been served with the lawsuit.

Hmm. I am pretty skeptical on this, simply because of the lack of details. Just because someone falls in a store, doesn’t mean they have a right to sue. ACTUAL HARM must have occurred in order to take legal action. Now, seeking legal remedy for the costs of the emergency delivery might be in order here. The article states “she was hurt”- one would think when it comes to the anti Wal Mart crowds of this country, the gory bloody details would be well known. Then again the Wal Mart haters seem to have disappeared- I wonder if they’re all working for Obama with his campaign.

Drug stores are slowly standing up for the rights of pharmacists and others who are pro life…who object to filling prescriptions for drugs that terminate pregnancies, and even birth control. This is surely going to be controversial.

When DMC Pharmacy opens this summer on Route 50 in Chantilly, the shelves will be stocked with allergy remedies, pain relievers, antiseptic ointments and almost everything else sold in any drugstore. But anyone who wants condoms, birth control pills or the Plan B emergency contraceptive will be turned away.

Can we hear the Women’s Rights’ groups screaming already? Using the false idea of such pharmacies denying women their right…to…health…care….

That’s because the drugstore, located in a typical shopping plaza featuring a Ruby Tuesday, a Papa John’s and a Kmart, will be a “pro-life pharmacy” — meaning, among other things, that it will eschew all contraceptives.

The pharmacy is one of a small but growing number of drugstores around the country that have become the latest front in a conflict pitting patients’ rights against those of health-care workers who assert a “right of conscience” to refuse to provide care or products that they find objectionable.

Medical people have rights. Pharmacists are no exception. We don’t hear women demanding their primary care doctors perform abortions, right? So why should we demand our pharmacist provide drugs that they object to?

But critics say the stores could create dangerous obstacles for women seeking legal, safe and widely used birth control methods.

“I’m very, very troubled by this,” said Marcia Greenberger of the National Women’s Law Center, a Washington advocacy group. “Contraception is essential for women’s health. A pharmacy like this is walling off an essential part of health care. That could endanger women’s health.”

Choice my dear. Women have choices. There’s always another drug store in the region, often right up the road, that will sell the drugs wanted. SO get off your bullshit claims here, that women’s health is at risk.

The free markets allow this to happen. Businesses should not be forced to sell products they do not wish to be associated with. Drug stores, pharmacies, are businesses, that sell drugs and many other items. It is all about choice. I don’t agree with these drug stores- I think birth control is a good thing. I have choices as to where I can purchase my medications though. There is no danger to women’s health.

Todays Wall Street Journal features a fascinating article by Mary Anastasia O’Grady that brought to my attention for the first time the two-faced game that government plays with environmentalism with regards to natural resources development.

In her article, titled Why Brazil Isn’t Ashamed to Exploit Its Oil, the author provides a number of examples to defend the following thesis:

I have another theory. And mine fits the pattern of resource development – or lack thereof – all over the Western Hemisphere. It comes down to this: Where government has the property right, restrictions on development tend to be low. But when the private sector is the owner, environmental concerns blossom.

Or to put it another way, when natural resources are in the hands of private companies, the national government teams with environmental organizations and local governmental agencies to block development of the resources.

When governmental agencies hold a controlling financial interest, or at least a substantial financial interest, then they override environmental concerns in favor of aggressively developing the resource.

In other words, no surprise - give government a big enough piece of the revenue pie for its own purposes, then blocks to development on environmental grounds conveniently disappear.

Read the rest of this entry »

A lot of people cite the “universal” health care mandate in the state of Massachusetts as being revolutionary; it’s being viewed as a model for other states. Businesses don’t view it as anything but a burden and the state wants to increase this.

The state’s bill for providing healthcare to employees of large companies increased 14 percent in the last fiscal year, to $636 million, according to a report released yesterday.

The state report shows that while healthcare reform has extended coverage to thousands of people in Massachusetts, many employers still rely on state programs to provide healthcare benefits for their workers. The findings also underscore what is likely to become the next battle in the ongoing implementation of healthcare reform: getting employers to contribute more toward health insurance, even for part timers and seasonal help.

“There are a lot of companies that have set up their employment-benefit systems so the state pays for their workers’ healthcare,” said Brian Rosman, research director for Health Care for All, an advocacy group that helped establish the healthcare reform law. “They ought to pay some of the freight.”

Pay more? Gee whiz. What do we suppose can happen here with all this? What happens when these companies close shop and move out of MA (to NH as many are doing every single week)…

…the law also established a minimum standard under which a company would be deemed to provide a “reasonable” contribution to healthcare coverage - if 25 percent of a company’s employees enrolled in a company plan or if the firm paid 35 percent of the premiums. Those that didn’t meet that threshold must pay $295 per employee into a pool for the uninsured.

Yesterday, some advocates said the Patrick administration should raise those levels, so companies have to contribute more or pay the annual fee.

Massachusetts is learning, quickly, that $295.00 is not sufficient. A lot of people TOLD them this ahead of time but did they listen? NO.

“The administration has to raise the threshold,” said the Rev. Hurmon Hamilton, president of the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization and pastor of Roxbury Presbyterian Church. “It is socially offensive for Wal-Mart to be making millions of dollars in Massachusetts and have employees who facilitate that profit be kept healthy by the state. That’s what I call freeloading.”

Socially offensive? Go bite yourself Reverend. YOU’RE socially offensive for even suggesting this. Does this idiOt consider the amount of money Wal Mart pays in ALL the other taxes- to the local communities, the state? I would venture to guess he has no damn clue. As for freeloading? Bullfucking shit.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world’s largest retailer, is the top company on the list. The state found 5,021 Wal-Mart employees used state health coverage at a cost of nearly $14 million in the 12 months ended June 30, 2007. That includes care provided to dependents of employees, but does not count employees without Social Security numbers.

Now who do we suppose has no SS number? Hmm. Every baby born in the US must get their SS numbers before they reach age 1; parents of newborns are sent home from every hospital with the required paperwork to start the application process for the number. Do we have to SPELL this out? Are we talking about forcing businesses to provide health insurance for….illegal immigrants?? I think so. That’s what this is all about. Let’s talk about freeloaders, Reverend. He, and others like him, want us to
consider health care as a service owed to citizens without regard to their ability to pay for it. Instead, charging businesses and others the costs is preferred. They’re going to push companies right out of the state if they keep this up. Then who pays???

Evil Wal Mart. It’s going to destroy the working classes of America.

GREENSBORO, N.C. - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. expanded its drug offerings yesterday with three-month prescriptions for $10, stepping up the fight to attract US consumers seeking cheaper medicines amid economic woes.

The new offering also adds more than 1,000 over-the-counter drugs for $4 or less, the company said. The world’s largest retailer says it has saved consumers $1.16 billion since starting a $4 generic-drug program in 2006.

Where are the WM haters on this? How can they convince me that bargains such as this are bad for Americans?

The silence says a lot.

As many are whining about the costs of being insured, they pander to the Democrats universal health care promise.

On Fox News Wednesday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, “If we don’t get universal health care, we will continue to bleed money.” Funny. The more Washington politicians promise to control health care costs, the higher they go. As humorist P.J. O’Rourke famously said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”

Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama both promise to provide access to health care for all Americans by mandating that employers provide or contribute to the cost of health plans for employees.

What’s with the glory of mandated employer provided health care insurance? There really is no glory; and what’s happening now should give warning to what would be happening if EVERYONE who works gets their insurance through government mandates.

The economic slowdown has swelled the ranks of people without health insurance. But now it is also threatening millions of people who have insurance but find that the coverage is too limited or that they cannot afford their own share of medical costs.

Many of the 158 million people covered by employer health insurance are struggling to meet medical expenses that are much higher than they used to be — often because of some combination of higher premiums, less extensive coverage, and bigger out-of-pocket deductibles and co-payments.

With medical costs soaring, the coverage many people have may not adequately protect them from the financial shock of an emergency room visit or a major surgery. For some, even routine doctor visits might now take a back seat to basic expenses like food and gasoline.

Let’s blame the economic slowdown? No. Let’s blame people who make poor financial choices. Who don’t plan and anticipate for their medical needs. Who think they are entitled to free, or very low costs health care.

Will we ask people to truly cut their budgets? Take classes in Economics 101? Or spread the burden across the tax payers’ shoulders and ask everyone to accept very high premiums, high deductables, little to no access to their own doctors and hospitals…and more.

Once again, people need to make choices: Health care costs or the cell phone; the medication co pay or the Internet access, and so on. Oh the choices they must make. Or not. Forcing businesses to provide insurance isn’t an answer. Health care is not a right. It’s not free. Even when the out of pocket costs are low, someone else is paying…and now that burden is coming down to average people. It can only get worse.

The bad news:

WASHINGTON - The government’s plan to crack down on illegal workers could cost employers more than $1 billion a year and legal workers billions in lost wages, a study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says.

Those costs are enough to trigger a federal law that would require the Homeland Security Department to analyze more thoroughly the effect of its proposal, said Richard Belzer, a consultant hired by the chamber to do the study. It was made available to The Associated Press on Thursday.

The department’s proposed “no match” rule would require employers to fire workers who can’t resolve mismatches between their name and Social Security number.

So what?

Where does the Chamber of Commerce stand on this issue?

The chamber opposes the proposal.

But of course.

So the new rules will cost employers billions of bucks. It’s far less than what WE ALL pay collectively each and every year by means of tax dollar subsidies going to the free/substantially reduced costs for welfare, day care, food, health care, education, housing and in some locations, vehicle costs. Let’s not even discuss the future costs of social security and retirement for these parasites hired by profit driven unAmerican businesses. Asking them to do a better job at screening who is legal and who is not isn’t THAT big a deal. The real issue here is pretty obvious: Businesses don’t want to fire those they know are illegal. Period.

The businesses need to pony up and do the right damn thing. For every penny they save in labor costs, we pay more than a dollar in maintenance tax for the illegals. DO the math and you decide what’s more economical. People are stupid to not get this.

There are MANY truths to this article, some of which will be denied to death.

For decades, social scientists, policy wonks, and politicians have studied and debated what’s come to be known as the “culture of poverty.” The consensus: A group of Americans is set apart from the mainstream by geography, class, and income. Its members adhere to norms that don’t apply to the rest of society and engage in self-destructive behavior that imposes significant costs on the nation at large.

I say BULLSHIT to all of it.

We don’t hear as much about the culture of poverty these days. Perhaps it’s because the market turmoil is making us all feel a little poorer. Or perhaps it’s because a highly visible group is now exhibiting all the outward appearances of the underclass: the overclass. Forget welfare queens and the culture of poverty. Think Wall Street kings and the culture of affluence.

Wall Street types don’t live in ghettos, barrios, or the hollows of Appalachia, but they do inhabit environments that are sealed off socially from the rest of the world—the Hamptons on Long Island; Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue; Greenwich, Conn. Because they rarely interact with people of middle-class means (save the odd doctor, lawyer, or interior designer), they have become woefully out of touch with the solid bourgeois values that made America great.

Middle class? What about the steerage class? They keep America moving; its the lower classes that turn the gears and power the pulleys. Make no mistake about that. Office desk dwellers aren’t the heart and soul of this country. The widget makers and weary hands and feet of nurses and aides who are the soul of this country. It’s the donut bakers and cooks and pan washers…the trash collectors and construction workers and truck drivers who keep America’s heart beating. One class feeds the other…capitalism at work. It costs money to keep the classes separate and not equal- and this isn’t a bad thing.

Oh wait. I forgot I’m living in the past..these people who work those jobs Americans JUST won’t do anymore.

In the name of profit, and to enhance the wallets of the Wall St. types, illegal parasites immigrants are welcomed and encouraged to become the new steerage class. So it no longer cost a penny to keep the classes separate. For the Wall St. types that is. For the rest of us, we’re paying extremely high costs to keep these parasites on our payrolls. Not only are we subsidizing their existence in the US, we’re paying a huge price for those Americans who have lost their jobs and who now need government assistance to…exist. All to keep the rich from getting poorer by a few hundred million…

How damn ironic. Why do we allow this to continue? The culture of poverty is created by the Wall St. culture.

Solutions. To everyone else’s problems, brought on by themselves.

WASHINGTON — Fighting to stem a dangerous wave of home foreclosures, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke pledged Friday to do all that is possible to help struggling U.S. homeowners.

Yeah? Do all that’s possible? How about reigning in the dumb ass people who took these loans in the first place?

The Fed, for instance, has proposed a rule to protect homebuyers from some of the same dubious lending practices that contributed to the housing and credit debacles now shaking the country. Subprime borrowers — those with tarnished credit histories or low incomes — have been hurt the most, although problems have spread to more creditworthy borrowers.

“Far too much of the lending in recent years was neither responsible nor prudent,” Bernanke said. “The terms of some subprime mortgages permitted homebuyers and investors to purchase properties beyond their means, often with little or no equity,” he added. “In addition, abusive, unfair or deceptive lending practices led some borrowers into mortgages that they would not have chosen knowingly.”

Oh puleeze. They have no one to blame but their own damn selves…sure, we can harshly slap the lenders (and I would) but it is the person signing the dotted line who is ultimately accountable.

On this front, the Fed has a proposal that would restrict lenders from penalizing risky borrowers who pay loans off early, require lenders to make sure these borrowers set aside money to pay for taxes and insurance and bar lenders from making loans without proof of a borrower’s income. It also would prohibit lenders from engaging in a pattern or practice of lending without considering a borrower’s ability to repay a home loan from sources other than the home’s value. The proposal also would curtail misleading ads for many types of mortgages and bolster financial disclosures to borrowers.

All of these ideas are good…and should have been in place all along. These sub prime lenders DID engage in some questionable practices…but that does not relieve the consumer of responsibility here.

My thought is we have so many DUMBED down people now, who graduated from high school not knowing how to read or understanding basic math- this is the result. And, I will add that many of these loans went to illegal immigrants who don’t read, speak and understand ENGLISH. Getting into a house they cannot afford, then trying to sell it off to pay it off and have some cash leftover, isn’t happening. These people are asking for the American dream without working hard for it. The easy way out always cost more in the end.

The sneaky, behind the curtain antics of Congress are what piss people off…and once again, THEY’RE AT IT!

Some House Democrats are having behind-the-scenes discussions about creating a special visa for illegal aliens they believe will enjoy considerable Republican support. Under the plan, illegal aliens who can prove they have jobs, pay a fine, and pass a criminal background check will receive the gift of legal status for 5 years. The plan is designed to attract pro-business Republicans and those who backed the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill by also increasing the number of visas issued for technical, temporary and agricultural workers.

Their plan appears to be to create a bi-partisan alternative to the bi-partisan
SAVE Act (Secure America with Verification Enforcement), which focuses on reducing illegal immigration instead of rewarding it.

Rep. Heath Shuler’s (D-N.C.) SAVE Act now has 144 bipartisan signers in the House and Senate.

Who signed onto this? 89 Republicans!

I’m contacting my elected RINOS and the others to let them know this is wrong. Let’s put Americans to work first. Not illegals immigrants.

So many of us have been saying exactly this, for a couple years now:

America’s needs have changed. We are no longer an expanding agrarian nation, so hungry for settlers we give away land. Nor do we require millions of unskilled laborers to fuel an industrial explosion. Immigration policies that fulfilled these needs benefited America in the past. Now they only benefit those who want cheap, taxpayer-subsidized labor, and harm American workers who’ve seen their wages and job opportunities plummet. It’s time to put American workers first. Presidential candidates who recognize immigration reform as a blue-collar economic issue will be a step ahead of the pack.

This is the last paragraph of an excellent editorial. Go read it all.

A funny thing is happening in the medical world. Those “Minute Clinics” are prospering better than anyone imagined. Of course liberal leaders and others are fighting these clinics; some doctors are going so far as to claim these places can be dangerous.

Yeah? Explain this then.

With CVS planning to open dozens of medical clinics in Massachusetts, Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston and other critics have warned of inferior care driven by an unquenchable profit motive. He and others predicted that in the name of convenience, patients would sacrifice an ongoing relationship with a doctor.

But interviews with a dozen independent researchers, insurers, and regulators in other states painted a far more positive portrait. Increasing evidence, they said, suggests that when patients are treated for sore throats and other minor illnesses at retail clinics, the care may actually be as good as - if not better than - in more traditional doctor offices. That is testament, in large measure, to an approach akin to a chef faithfully following a cookbook. Nurse-practitioners in the clinics use a computer-generated template that, for example, will not allow them to prescribe an antibiotic unless they first make sure the patient has no allergies to the drug.

“Frankly, from our perspective, there’s a lot of good stuff in the MinuteClinic model,” said Dr. Marcus Thygeson, vice president of HealthPartners, a major Minnesota medical plan whose patients have made 20,000 visits to the retail clinics in the past four years. “We like the convenience and ready access.”

No state has more experience with retail clinics than Minnesota, the birthplace nearly eight years ago of MinuteClinic, which still dominates the field even as competitors crowd in. An independent, nonprofit coalition of doctors, insurers, consumers, and employers called MN Community Measurement annually rates health clinics’ and doctors’ practices statewide.

“Lo and behold,” said Jim Chase, executive director of MN Community Measurement, “the MinuteClinic actually did very well.

Mayor Mumbles would be smart to embrace these new clinics. Giving consumers more choice is always a good thing. The clinics have an excellent record for providing a very needed service, at a reasonable rate. What is wrong with this Mayor Menino? Why are you threatened by this?

The most recent report card from the group, based on data from 2006, awarded MinuteClinic the highest marks in Minnesota for treating children 2 to 18 years old for sore throats, giving it a score of 99 percent. The lowest grade: 26 percent for a doctors’ group.

Says a lot….

“This is not a prescription mill,” said Michael Howe, the former Arby’s chief executive who now leads MinuteClinic, which has 475 outlets, up from 466 just a week ago. The CVS subsidiary has never been sued for malpractice, executives said.
more stories like this

The clinics, which do not require appointments and stay open on evenings and weekends, treat a limited number of ailments: minor illnesses such as ear infections, poison ivy, and bronchitis. In its name and advertising slogan (”You’re sick, we’re quick!”), the chain trumpets a promise of speed and efficiency.

The model is still new, but so far it’s been highly successful. Everyone wins: Patients (consumers); doctors, nurse practitioners and yes, the owners of the business. Oh my. I think THAT is the problem so many liberals have with this. The free market works…and that is the problem no?