Rush Limbaugh on healthcare

FactCheck: No, ObamaCare has no effect on capital in economy

"Health care, that's 1/6--1/6!--of the US economy, 1/6 of our GDP," he declared in July 2009. "You take that out of the private sector. That means the private sector has shrunk by 1/6. That means there's less capital for people to compete for and earn, and there's less opportunity for that remaining 5/6 (and it's going to be less than that because all this other stuff's going to take even more of the private sector) to grow." First of all, the Obama plan maintains the private health insurance system and private health care providers. Second, even if the private health care sector magically ceased to exist, it would not reduce the amount of capital available in the rest of the economy for investment and opportunity.
Source: The Most Dangerous Man in America, by J.K.Wilson, p.128-129 , Mar 1, 2011

FactCheck: No, end-of life counseling isn't a "death panel"

One of his most outrageous lies about health care spread the myth that "death panels" were part of Obama's plan. Limbaugh claimed, "Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment. Government dictates how your life ends." Absolutely nothing on page 427 (or anywhere else in the bill) says government will dictate how a person's life ends; in fact, it explicitly protects "enabling orders for life sustaining treatment." After a conservative doctor called into the show supporting the plan to have end-of-life discussions with patients, Limbaugh continued, "That's what the counselors are preparing these people for: end of care, 'cause they're getting old and it isn't going to be worthy of investment. It's right in the House bill!" Once again there was nothing about hiring counselors in the House bill. There was nothing about imposing "end of care." Yet Limbaugh persisted with the fake story of death panels.
Source: The Most Dangerous Man in America, by J.K.Wilson, p.180-181 , Mar 1, 2011

1994: Whitewater is about health care

Rush Limbaugh routinely told his 20 million radio listeners that "Whitewater is about health care." I finally understood that, yes, it was. The ongoing Whitewater investigation was about undermining the progressive agenda by any means.One afternoon in Seattle at the end of July 1994, I pulled into town as part of the Health Security Express. Inspired by the Freedom Riders who traveled by bus across the South in the early sixties to spread the message of desegregation, health reform advocates organized this nationwide but tour in the summer of 1994.
Local and national radio hosts had been inciting protestors all week. One of them had urged listeners to come down and "show Hillary" what they thought of me. At least half of the 4,500 people who came to my speech in Seattle were protesters.
The protests were openly sponsored by a group called Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE). Reporters eventually discovered and disclosed the fact that CSE worked in concert with Newt Gingrich's office.
Source: Living History, by Hillary Rodham Clinton, p.245 , Nov 1, 2003

Health care has problems, but no crisis for drastic change

Hillary Clinton is attempting to solve a phony crisis-health care. Yes, we’ve got a problem, but it is not a crisis, and its solution should not be concocted in a crisis atmosphere. It’s the usual liberal modus operandi. They overstate a problem and work society into a frenzied state in order to justify their invariable, big-government solution. What Hillary and Bill are about to do is undermine the best health-care system in the world in the name of fairness and equity. The Clintons stirred up passions and fear by citing the misleading statistic that 37 million Americans are without health-insurance coverage. A CBO study, however, shows that 51% of those were uninsured for less than four months. Many others choose not to be covered.
There was no health-care crisis in this country, at least not until Hillary got her mitts on it. And the problems we have-like escalating costs-were caused primarily by the very kinds of liberal interventionist programs Hillary is now proposing.
Source: See, I Told You So, p.167-69 , Jul 2, 1993

Deregulate health care; government is the problem

Government intervention-specifically the Medicaid and Medicare programs-is the biggest reason costs are escalating in health care today. When Medicare began in 1965, it cost taxpayers about $3 billion per year. It was projected back them that by 1990 the price would rise to $9 billion per year. The 1990 bill was actually $67 billion per year. The pointy-headed theoreticians who devised this program made the mistake of assuming they were operating in a zero-sum game. They never imagined that the very creation of their program would increase demand for medical services. What happens when the government pays for all medical care is that limits must be placed on the amount of care that can be offered. Thus, with Rodhamized medicine, you will always have rationing of care in one form or another. Government is not the solution, Ronald Reagan used to say. Government is the problem. Further intrusion is not the answer. Competition is. We need deregulation, not more government control.
Source: See, I Told You So, p.170-72 , Jul 2, 1993

Drug abuse & unsafe sex cause AIDS, not homophobia

Ever since the AIDS crisis became politicized I have been leery of those who claimed that their primary purpose was to find a cure for the disease. My doubts were confirmed in January 1990. AIDS activists had begun to employ a strategy of confrontation, accusing various government agencies for the spread of the disease. This was a transparent attempt to deflect attention away from the drug abuse and unsafe sex, which are responsible for the spread of over 90% of all cases of AIDS, & focus blame for the disease on so-called homophobes who opposed sufficient funding for research and a cure. As a result, the notion evolved that money-and only money-could rid us of the horrors of the HIV virus.[Because some organizations won’t accept help or money from conservatives], there’s good money and bad money in the fight against AIDS. This established that there were some things more important than a cure; that ideology mattered as well! If you were a conservative you had no place in the fight against AIDS.
Source: The Way Things Ought To Be, p. 79-81 , Jul 2, 1992

Rush Limbaugh on war

Claimed WMDs in Iraq even after Bush admitted no WMDs

After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Limbaugh trumpeted Iraq's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction: "We're discovering WMDs all over Iraq."Long after the Bush administration had admitted that there were no WMDs in Iraq, Limbaugh in 2006 announced his plan to "get out the truth on weapons of mass destruction," blaming "the obdurate stubbornness and blindness of the Democrats and the drive-by media" for the failure to promote what Limbaugh claimed was "the discovered news of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." He said, "We've had a 3-year propaganda program and 'no weapons of mass destruction, none have been found.' The facts are coming out, and there's probably a lot more to be unclassified if somebody will just do it." The facts did come out, and Limbaugh was wrong once again. By 2009 he eventually admitted the truth when it no longer mattered: "No weapons of mass destruction of significance were found."
Source: The Most Dangerous Man in America, by J.K.Wilson, p.161-162 , Mar 1, 2011

Democrats want war in Iraq to fail

Did the Democrats want the war on Iraq to fail? They certainly did. They not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail, they proclaimed it a failure. There's Dingy Harry Reid waved a white flag. They called General Petraeus a liar before he even testified. Mrs. Clinton said she had to willingly suspend disbelief in order to listen to Patraeus. We're in the process of winning the war. The last thing they wanted was to win. They hoped George Bush failed. Source: Speech to 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference , Feb 28, 2009

Videogame Platformers like Legend of Zelda and Super Mario raises IQ

Puzzle/Platformers Improves: Brain function, IQ These brainteaser games are meant to give your mind a workout. Puzzle games like Brain Age or Angry Birds — which use problem-solving, memory, spatial reasoning, and attention to detail — can boost brain function and IQ, as well as slow down the brain’s aging process. But some games don’t make it quite so obvious that players are flexing those skills. The Legend of Zelda and Mario Bros. franchises are both well-known for challenging puzzles that you’re required to figure out in order to advance to the next area or unlock some special item. Additionally, the platforming aspects (jumping from place to place, avoiding projectiles, moving around obstacles, etc.) of some games can also improve motor skills and reaction time. Role-Playing Games (RPGs) Improves: Problem-solving, strategy, logic, reasoning Mass Effect, the Elder Scrolls, and Final Fantasy are just a few famous franchises that are RPGs — games in which the player assumes the role of a character. Typically, RPGs focus on player-driven choices, dialogue options, and the consequences of player actions. In essence, RPGs are much more customizable than other games, which leads to unique experiences and no two games being quite the same. Though many cognitive elements are utilized while playing these games, the most prevalent ones are problem-solving, strategy, and reasoning. Socially, players can exercise their empathy and ethics, as they’re often faced with morally difficult choices that can have lingering consequences — skills you can take back to the “real world.” Real Time Strategy (RTS): Improves: Planning, Multitasking, Prioritization Flickr user Jeff Nelson Flickr user Jeff Nelson Sometimes you have to think on your feet, a useful lifelong skill that can be developed and exercised in RTS games. As the name suggests, these games use strategic planning in order to accomplish a task, defeat an enemy, or work with other players (known as a co-op) to win. Games like StarCraft, Age of Empires, or World of Warcraft all challenge a player to think ahead, think smart, and think together (if it’s co-op). And since it’s in real-time, things can go wrong. While players increase their multitasking ability and prioritizing skills, they also learn to adapt to changing situations. Others game types There are countless other genres in the gaming sphere, each of which has their own benefits. For example, researchers are looking into how playing horror and action games can help players control emotions like anger and fear in their everyday lives. Although there is some research suggesting there are negative effects to playing violent video games, even games like Call of Duty or Halo have been linked to improved vision (to the point of preventing or curing cataracts!) and building on multitasking, attention, and accuracy. Co-op games can improve teamwork, communication skills, and planning/strategic abilities. Video games in the classroom How can players harness their gaming skills and apply them to schoolwork? Well, if your memory is sharper thanks to picking out patterns while treasure-hunting in Uncharted, put it to work memorizing word definitions. If your attention to detail has been boosted by solving crimes in Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, you can work to see how a small pieces can have large effects on the whole in chemistry or biology. Odds are, most of the gaming effects will be subconscious, but in the long run they can show in your grades. In fact, with all the research done linking video games to being positive for academics, some people are going as far as rearranging the traditional school set-up in favor of a game-based approach. At New York’s Quest to Learn middle school, often just called Quest, specialized games are brought into the classroom in order to teach students varying lessons while keeping them engaged. In addition to the digital learning style, Quest switched up the grading scale, swapping out the typical As, Bs, and Cs, with titles like expert, apprentice, and novice. With tests known as Boss Battles, kids are more focused and eager to learn. Students at the game-style school have actually outperformed their traditional-school peers in English and Math scores. Flickr user Michael Huang Even at more standard schools across the country, teachers are implementing gaming in their lesson plans. Minecraft is a particular favorite among educators, who say that the game teaches young students reading skills, the importance of cooperation, how to problem solve, and stretches their critical thinking. Additionally, video games can be a great help to those who have a more difficult time in school. Therapists can use games to help students with ADHD, depression, or anxiety manage their symptoms and perform better in the classroom. With all the benefits we’ve seen, we still ought to mention the negatives that can come with gaming. As with any activity, if too much time is spent on it rather than studying, it can be detrimental to both school and social life. But if the right balance is struck between play and work, video games can have positive effects on academics and everyday life. So go out and save galaxies, slay dragons, and capture digital flags — you’re learning a lot more than you think. Bonus tip: Want to boost your focus while studying? Listen to video game soundtracks; they’re designed to keep you engaged. (I’m listening to the Skyrim soundtrack while writing and researching this piece — I highly recommend it!)

Why Generation IV nuclear power plants take so long to build

Fusion energy, simply, is the exact opposite of fission energy, which comes from splitting an atom and is widely used to power nuclear plants and weapons. Fusion occurs constantly on our sun, which produces most of its energy via the nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium. When nuclei fuse, they create a heavier nucleus and produce a little leftover energy in the process. Fusion doesn't produce runaway chain reactions the way fission can, so there's no need to worry about meltdowns. Nor do fusion reactions produce the large amounts of dangerous radioactive waste that fission reactions do. That's why it's such a dreamy source of energy. So why do we have fission power, but not fusion power? The answer is pretty simple, and very frustrating to a lot of physicists out there: For fusion to occur on Earth, you need a temperature of at least 100 million degrees Celsius—six times hotter than the core of the sun. The sun is a natural fusion reactor which makes up for its measly 15 million degrees with the intense pressure created by its core's gravity. Currently, here on Earth the amount of energy you'd need to put in to produce that kind of heat or pressure is much, much higher than what you get out in usable energy. That's where the term cold fusion, the hope that fusion reactions can occur at relatively low temperatures, comes in. Once a promising theoretical goal, the field was largely written off as pseudoscience the late 1980s, when electrochemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann reported that their room-temperature electrolysis experiment had produced so much excess heat—as well as nuclear by-products like tritium—that only a nuclear reaction could be blamed. The attention led to a massive wave of cold-fusion experimenting, but no one was able to replicate their heat anomaly. A Department of Energy review panel debunked the evidence, and met again in 2004 to draw the same conclusion. That doesn't mean scientists aren't still working on making (hot) fusion a viable energy source. In a New York Times op-ed in November, Stewart C. Prager of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory called the process of creating viable energy from fusion "a grand scientific challenge." Today, fusion reactions occur in tokamaks—doughnut-shaped chambers where gas is pumped into a vacuum chamber and electricity flows through the center (the doughnut's hole). The gas becomes charged, forming plasma that's then locked inside the vacuum chamber by magnetic fields (which are created by massive magnetic coils), mimicking the pressure of the sun's core. Radio and microwaves are fired into the plasma to raise its temperature, and at around 100 million degrees fusion can occur. The main barrier to a sustained reaction, other than the high cost of the electricity needed to heat the chamber, is finding a material that can withstand that much heat for more than a few seconds. Prager points out that reaction outputs have come a long way in the past few decades—from milliwatts in the 1970s to 16 megawatts today, though the current record (at 65 percent output) was made in 1997. He believes that more time and support are all scientists need to make this "nearly ideal energy source" a reality. Then again, claims that net fusion power is just around the corner have been made for decades. Still, Steve Cowley, director of the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, tells PM that the main barrier is getting government funding. "It's expensive research that can only be done at large scales," he says, "and nobody sees the need right now. Every time there's talk about climate change, funding goes up for awhile." But not enough to get the first power plants built. "For $20 billion in cash," he says, "I could build you a working reactor. It would be big, and maybe not very reliable, but 25 years ago we didn't even know if we'd be able to make fusion work. Now, the only question is whether we'll be able to make it affordable."

Playstation VR to have quiet midnight launch next week

In a week's time, what is arguably the first truly great commercial experiment of the new VR age will begin. For the first time, consumers will be able to go out and buy a VR headset that's (relatively) inexpensive, that doesn't require a costly hobbyist PC to operate, and that provides a "good enough" VR experience for gaming and other applications. If there's to be a sweet spot in the virtual reality market, Sony will be planting its flag firmly in it next Thursday. Reviews of the device have started to appear and are pretty much what you'd expect. It's good; we've known that from the countless demos and trade show appearances PSVR has made this year. It's not as technically accomplished as the HTC Vive or the Oculus Rift, but it's a far more comfortable, well-designed piece of hardware, and its technical shortfalls are far fewer and less noticeable than you'd expect from such a cheap device running on such comparatively low-powered hardware. It's certainly an entirely different class of experience than any of the "toy" VR experiences currently offered by mobile tech like Samsung's Gear VR, a situation which Google's newly announced Daydream headset seems unlikely to change. So yes, this is the sweet spot, if such a thing exists. Good enough to actually want to use, unlike current mobile VR devices, cheap enough to be accessible to a wider audience of gamers and enthusiasts, and with common sense (if occasionally frustrating) trade offs between complexity of setup and physical arrangement, and accuracy of control. If a VR headset is to rescue this putative Year of VR from the somewhat disappointing launches of HTC and Oculus' consumer devices - both of which saw interest plateau in the post-launch period - then it's going to be PlayStation VR. Is that what Sony has in mind, though? One peculiarity of the PSVR launch is that beyond the specialist press, it's something of a non-event. Marketing support for the launch is minimal; there's far less hype and visibility around the product than there would be around, for example, the launch of a major game. Here in Japan, PSVR barely warrants a mention in Sony's current barrage of advertising, which is promoting PlayStation 4 with TV and streaming site commercials that highlight the launch of games like Persona 5 and Yakuza 6, the arrival of new console hardware, and oh yeah, PSVR is a thing too. One could argue that Sony would be foolish to push PSVR too hard given that pretty much the entirety of its early shipments are spoken for by pre-orders. We still don't know how many units of PSVR will ship for launch, or how many are projected to ship by year-end, but every indication is that the numbers are relatively small, at least by comparison with the PS4's installed base. It's not unreasonable to expect that PSVR will be for all intents and purposes supply-constrained through into early 2017, making it comfortably the most commercially successful of the tethered VR platforms - regardless of whether the company spends a single cent on further marketing. However, the slightest glance back over the history of hardware launches in the games business and beyond would demonstrate that companies generally do not row back their marketing budgets just because of being supply-constrained; if anything, this encourages them to redouble their efforts. That's because supply constraints act as a multiplier on marketing budgets. When demand is outstripping supply, every extra notch that you can ratchet up that demand through your marketing efforts guarantees more media coverage, more word of mouth and more visibility for your product, creating a halo of desirability around the platform which can give a long-term boost to sales that lasts for months or even years after the initial supply constraints are lifted. That Sony has seemingly decided to eschew that strategy for PSVR is interesting, but probably speaks to a confluence of a number of different factors. For a start, it's rare for a platform holder to be putting not one but two major new pieces of hardware on the market at once, which is what Sony is doing with PSVR in October and PS4 Pro in November. A huge marketing push, widespread coverage of shortages and the resulting desirability halo that would build around PSVR would be great for the VR headset, but might negatively impact the now overshadowed PS4 Pro. That would hurt all the more if, as is likely, PS4 Pro is not supply constrained while PSVR is. That's definitely a factor playing into Sony's decision making here. There's something else in play too, though. Lots of software is on the way for PSVR, and there's actually a pretty respectable line-up at the outset - but reviews of the system are fairly blunt about the extent to which much of it feels more like it's demoing the hardware, and the concept of VR itself, rather than being a proper, full-strength VR game experience. The games aren't just short, they expose kinks in the PS Move control system (which may be fixable or may be an innate problem PSVR just has to work around forever) and sidestep major issues instead of tackling them - for example, the Batman VR title's decision to make the player jump from location to location, rather than walking between them, to avoid motion sickness. In short, while there's interesting and even accomplished stuff in there, it all sounds rather like the kind of thing that you play to show off a new system's capabilities, rather than the kind of thing that makes you say, "you've got to go out and get PSVR so you can play this game". The enthusiasts and the VR faithful don't need a killer app - they just need enough of a taster to convince themselves that the killer apps will come, given time - but the general public absolutely does. It's easy for enthusiasts - a category which, if you're reading this, probably encompasses you - to underestimate the psychological barrier VR needs to overcome. For many consumers, the prospect of strapping on a headset that looks like a Daft Punk cosplay prop, isolating themselves from the world around them and potentially looking like a complete tool as they flail around with objects nobody else in the room can see is a pretty big ask. A great killer app game that gets the world gushing will overcome that barrier. That may be on the way; all eyes are on January's Resident Evil 7, which could potentially be VR's first truly huge AAA title. Until that kind of game is available, though, Sony may be well advised to focus on the VR faithful and keep its marketing powder dry. That's certainly what seems to have happened so far; this is entirely anecdotal, but I've been surprised at just how few people have asked whether I'm getting a PSVR (and if they can bring an offering of beer around in order to have a go on it). Far fewer people have asked me about PSVR than have asked about PS4 Pro, or even Xbox One S. Enthusiasts know about it; the average gamer simply doesn't seem to care yet. Given the hurdles facing mainstream VR adoption, that may be for the best. It's important that when the majority of consumers start to experience VR, their experience of it is fantastic, not just a demo or a proof of concept but a game that makes them want to own this technology right now. Saving the marketing blitz and letting PSVR's software library mature first could be the best way to prevent the so-called Year of VR from ending with the Winter of VR Discontent.