Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Folks... make sure you've re-checked the comments sections of not only today's stand-alone posts but yesterday's also.
I've been adding newsbites from today to last night's "post-debate" stand-alone post.
Oh... and of course read the "stand-alones" themselves!
As to today's newsbites... check out number one.
Not good, folks... not good...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/video-shows-drunk-stoned-us-security-contractors/story?id=17493189#.UH76_q6z7Hs
Cellphone video recorded earlier this year at an operations center of a U.S. security contractor in Kabul, Afghanistan appears to show key personnel staggeringly drunk or high on narcotics, in what former employees say was a pattern of outrageous behavior that put American lives at risk and went undetected by U.S. military officials who are supposed to oversee such contractors.
* ONCE OBAMA'S SECRET SERVICE AGENTS GET DONE SCREWING THEIR HOOKERS PERHAPS THEY CAN BE DISPATCHED TO INVESTIGATE THIS ONE...
* FOLKS... SERIOUSLY... IT'S NOT FUCKING FUNNY. THERE'S A CLEAR PATTERN HERE. NO ONE IS MINDING THE STORE. THERE'S NO ADULT SUPERVISION.
Questions posed by ABC News to the Pentagon have sparked a criminal investigation by the U.S. Army, a spokesman says.
* SHOULDN'T THE PENTAGON - OR AT LEAST OUR SECURITY SERVICES - HAVE BEEN AWARE OF SUCH BEHAVIOR PRIOR TO BEING NOTIFIED BY... er... ABC NEWS?
The contractor, Virginia-based Jorge Scientific, has won almost $1 billion in U.S. government contracts.
(*SARCASTIC CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)
Asked if a response to an attack by terrorists would have been possible during the events seen on the video, one of the former employees, Kenny Smith, told ABC News Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross, "No, sir."
* WOULDN'T IT BE NICE IF OBAMA AND HRC WERE HALF AS HONEST! (NOT TO MENTION ERIC HOLDER!)
[T]he former employees told ABC News they saw no evidence of oversight of the company by American military officials and that at least one U.S. Army major, a female, was a regular visitor to drunken parties at the facility, often using a room for sexual encounters.
(*SILENCE*)
* FOLKS... AGAIN... THE SECRET SERVICE HAS BEEN CORRUPTED... OUR MILITARY...
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
* FOLKS... READ THE FULL THREE-PAGE ARTICLE. YOU'LL BE DISGUSTED.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/more-evidence-of-deception/2012/10/17/2a4a26c6-1870-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html
* SOME GOOD QUESTIONS BROUGHT UP BY JENNIFER RUBIN IN TODAY'S WASHINGTON POST:
Recall this part of [President Obama's] answer [regarding the Libya question]: “So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi Consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and — and — and procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again. And number three, we are going to find out who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I’ve said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them.”
* OK. GOT THAT? (RE-READ IF NECESSARY.)
So there was no actual meeting of the National Security Council at which everyone could share information and get on the same page?
* GET WHAT SHE'S NOTING...? OBAMA "PHONED" HIS NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM? MEANING A CONFERENCE CALL...? SEPARATE CALLS...?
(David Axelrod has refused to say.)
[Y]ou know Obama was busy that day — flying to Las Vegas for a campaign event.
Moreover, if he actually did instruct his team to "heighten protection" for the Libya Consulate, why was the consulate left unsecured so that CNN could waltz in to grab Ambassador Chris Stevens’s diary?
* ER... YEAH... NOW THAT SHE MENTIONS THIS... THIS DOES KINDA CONTRADICT OBAMA'S STORY...
Did Obama not make himself clear, or were his instructions not followed?
(*SHRUG*)
The more we learn the more we see how both dishonest and incompetent has been the handling of this entire incident.
And finally, this Reuters report suggests the administration was entirely unprepared for the 9-11 attacks:
In the months before the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, U.S. and allied intelligence agencies warned the White House and State Department repeatedly that the region was becoming an increasingly dangerous vortex for jihadist groups loosely linked or sympathetic to al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials. Despite those warnings, and bold public displays by Islamist militants around Benghazi, embassies in the region were advised to project a sense of calm and normalcy in the run-up to the anniversary of the September 11 attacks in the United States."
In short, it appears that the Obama administration didn’t take 9-11 all that seriously, and when tragedy hit, it went into spin mode.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/16/us-usa-libya-alqaeda-idUSBRE89F1SL20121016
In the months before the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, U.S. and allied intelligence agencies warned the White House and State Department repeatedly that the region was becoming an increasingly dangerous vortex for jihadist groups loosely linked or sympathetic to al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials.
* I'D LIKE TO HAVE HAVE NAMES AND TITLES BACKING THIS, BUT I DON'T DOUBT IT'S TRUE. NOTE... THIS IS A REUTERS REPORT. IT IS IN LINE WITH ALL WE NOW KNOW.
Despite those warnings, and bold public displays by Islamist militants around Benghazi, embassies in the region were advised to project a sense of calm and normalcy in the run-up to the anniversary of the September 11 attacks in the United States.
* THIS I DIDN'T KNOW. THIS SOUNDS... IRRESPONSIBLE.
So brazen was the Islamist presence in the Benghazi area that militants convened what they billed as the "First Annual Conference of Supporters of Shariah (Islamic law)" in the city in early June, promoting the event on Islamist websites.
Pictures from the conference posted on various Internet forums featured convoys flying al Qaeda banners, said Josh Lefkowitz of Flashpoint-Intel.com, a firm that monitors militant websites. Video clips showed vehicles with mounted artillery pieces, he added.
* AGAIN... IF REUTERS DIDN'T HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THIS SOURCE...
(*SHRUG*)
President Barack Obama's administration has repeatedly said it had no specific advance warning of an attack like the one that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi on the night of September 11.
* AND YET... (KEEP READING!)
A research report prepared for a Pentagon counter-terrorism unit in August said the Benghazi conference brought together representatives of at least 15 Islamist militias. Among the paper's conclusions: these groups "probably make up the bulk of al Qaeda's network in Libya." Drawing on multiple public sources, the Library of Congress researchers who drafted the paper also concluded that al Qaeda had used the "lack of security" in Libya to establish training camps there. It also reported that "hundreds of Islamic militants are in and around Derna," where special camps provided recruits with "weapons and physical training."
* AND OUR AMBASSADOR TO THIS COUNTRY HAD NO OFFICIAL PROTECTION DETAIL... THERE WERE NO MARINES GUARDING THE CONSULATE...?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&
* AND, NOW... FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES...
Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster...
* HIL-LAR-Y! HIL-LAR-Y! HIL-LAR-Y!
* WHAT WAS IT THE PRESIDENT WAS SAYING ABOUT HIS SYRIAN POLICY LAST NIGHT...???
(*SNORT*)
That conclusion, of which President Obama and other senior officials are aware from classified assessments of the Syrian conflict that has now claimed more than 25,000 lives, casts into doubt whether the White House’s strategy of minimal and indirect intervention in the Syrian conflict is accomplishing its intended purpose of helping a democratic-minded opposition topple an oppressive government, or is instead sowing the seeds of future insurgencies hostile to the United States.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
“The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it,” said one American official familiar with the outlines of those findings, commenting on an operation that in American eyes has increasingly gone awry.
* GONE... AWRY...
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
American officials worry that, should Mr. Assad be ousted, Syria could erupt afterward into a new conflict over control of the country, in which the more hard-line Islamic groups would be the best armed.
* YA THINK...?!?!
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/101612-629552-obama-bans-drilling-in-national-petroleum-reserve.htm?p=full
Few Americans have heard of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA), and those who have might get it confused with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or even the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to the east.
The NPRA, 23 million acres of North Slope wilderness, was established in 1923 by President Harding to ensure a reserve of oil for the U.S. Navy.
In 1976 Congress [re-]designated the NPRA as a strategic oil and natural gas stockpile to meet the "energy needs of the nation."
Obama has cited it as an example of areas where the oil companies could drill "but are reluctant to," knowing full well his administration has walled off preferred areas on the Outer Continental Shelf, on protected federal lands and in ANWR.
* HUH? REALLY...?
Now his administration has walled off the most productive areas of NPRA in a little-noticed Interior Department decision in August - closing off drilling on nearly half of NPRA's 23.5 million acres of desolate, frozen wilderness.
* WOW...
Alaska's entire congressional delegation — Sens. Mark Begich and Lisa Murkowski and Rep. Don Young...call [the Obama policy] "the largest wholesale land withdrawal and blocking of access to an energy resource by the federal government in decades."
They also say the ruling "will significantly limit options for a pipeline" through the reserve long sought to transport oil and gas from the Chukchi Sea, the North Slope and future Arctic drilling.
(Like the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, it will likely not be completed if the Obama administration stays in power.)
At least one oil company, Conoco Phillips, has said it would go after the oil and gas in NPRA, estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey to hold 2.7 billion barrels of oil and 114.36 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. But to get it out, Conoco Phillips wants to build a road bridge and pipeline over the Colville River on the edge of NPRA to get drilling supplies in and the oil and gas out. The Army Corps of Engineers, backed by the usual environmental suspects, says no.
* SAYS... NO...?!?!
This move is typical Obama sleight of hand: Take credit for increased oil production on public lands that you had nothing to do with, lock up resources on federal lands with the exception of places the oil companies find unprofitable or unpromising, then blame them, not your administration, for driving up prices, all the time claiming you have an "all of the above" energy strategy.
* YEP. THAT'S OBAMA'S SOP TO A TEE!
Meanwhile, the Interior Department has set aside about 285,000 acres for commercial-scale solar in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. The federal government is fast-tracking the process, offering incentives for development...
* TRANSLATION: CORPORATE WELFARE AT BEST; CRONY CAPITALISM AT WORST.
...helping facilitate access to existing or planned electric infrastructure and easing the permitting process, something oil drillers along the Gulf Coast could use.
The price of gasoline, which was $1.84 a gallon the day President Obama took office, has more than doubled since, willfully aided and abetted by an administration that claims "we can't drill our way to energy independence" as we ignore vast reserves of North American energy that dwarf OPEC's and we sit on 100 years' supply of petroleum.
So the next time you fill up your car, just remember there's a piece of frozen tundra that appreciates the sacrifice your president has forced you to make.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/330799/planned-parenthood-staff-president-wrong-we-dont-provide-mammograms-eliana-johnson
In last night’s debate, President Obama said the following: "When Governor Romney says that we should eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, there are millions of women all across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for not just contraceptive care; they rely on it for mammograms, for cervical-cancer screenings. That’s a pocketbook issue for women and families all across the country, and it makes a difference in terms of how well and effectively women are able to work."
But Planned Parenthood, with few exceptions, does not provide mammograms.
To test the president’s statement in the real world, I called several Planned Parenthood offices in the New York City area today to ask about scheduling a mammogram.
“We actually don’t offer that here,” one office told me. “You might want to call 311, they actually have lists of places you could go to.” When I asked, “You don’t provide them like the president said?,” I was told “No.”
Another office told me the following: “We don’t do mammograms, but I could definitely give you other places you could call.” When I mentioned the president’s statement, the woman said, “I’m not even sure because we’ve never offered mammograms.”
Of the five offices I called, only the Hempstead, N.Y., location said it offered the service — on Fridays - and not by an in-house technician.
* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)
http://lewrockwell.com/schiff/schiff183.html
* BY PETER SCHIFF
Journalists, politicians and economists all seem to agree that the biggest economic issue currently worrying voters is unemployment. It follows then that most believe that the deciding factor in the presidential race will be the ability of each candidate to convince the public that his policies will create jobs. It seems that everyone got this memo... except the voters.
According to the results of a Fox News poll released last week (a random telephone sample of more than 1,200 registered voters), 41% identified "inflation" as "the biggest economic problem they faced." A full 44% of women, who often do more of the household shopping and would therefore be more sensitive to prices changes, identified rising prices as their primary concern.
* IT NEVER CEASES TO AMAZE ME HOW THE REPUBLICANS - HOW THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN - CAN BE SO STUPID AS TO LARGELY IGNORE THE INFLATION ISSUE ASIDE FROM OIL PRICES.
This is nearly double the 24% that named "unemployment" as their chief concern.
* MAKES SENSE! UNLESS YOU'RE UNEMPLOYED OR FEAR YOU OR YOUR SPOUSE WILL SOON FACE UNEMPLOYMENT, THEN INFLATION IS GONNA BE YOUR BIGGEST FEAR - THE BIGGEST THREAT TO YOUR LIFESTYLE.
For further comparison, 19% identified "taxes" and 7% "the housing market" as their primary concern.
While these statistics do not surprise me, they should shock the hell out of the establishment. According to the Federal Reserve, inflation is not a concern at all.
(*SNORT*)
Time after time, in front of Congress and the press, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has said that inflation is contained and that it is below the Fed's "mandated" rate of inflation (whatever that may be) . The Bureau of Labor Statistics is saying the same thing. The measures they use to monitor inflation, such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE), show annual inflation well below 2%. In fact, the GDP price deflator used by the Commerce Department to calculate the second quarter's 1.3% annual growth rate assumed annual inflation was running at just 1.6%.
* ALL BULLSHIT OF COURSE. DELIBERATELY SO. (WE'VE GONE OVER THIS AD NAUSEUM, FOLKS!)
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)
In fact, Bernanke thinks inflation is so low that he is actually worried about deflation, which he believes is a more dangerous issue.
* BECAUSE HE'S A MORON!
As a result, he is recommending policies that look to raise the inflation rate, not just to combat the phantom menace of deflation but to boost the housing market and reduce unemployment. He mistakenly believes these problems are the ones that concern Americans the most.
* NO. IT'S NOT THAT. IT'S THAT INFLATION IS GOOD FOR BANKERS AND WALL STREET. FOLKS... IT'S TIME TO FACE THE TRUTH.
If inflation really is as subdued as the government claims, how is it that so many people are concerned?
It's not as if the media or political candidates are fanning the fears of rising prices.
* NOPE! HAVEN'T HEARD ABOUT THE MISERY INDEX SICE THE EARLY 1980's!
In fact, given the media's preoccupation with the housing market, the fact that nearly seven times as many Americans worry more about rising food prices than falling home prices shows just how large the inflation problem must be.
* ONE... WOULD... THINK...
Yet most economic observers continue to swallow the government's inflation propaganda hook, line and sinker.
* THAT’S BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE ARE EITHER STUPID, UNINFORMED, CORRUPT, OR HARBOR A MIXTURE OF TWO OR MORE OF THESE QUALITIES.
In fact, although the Fox poll came out last week, I did not read or hear a single story on this topic, even from Fox news itself, which appears to not have noticed the significance of its own data.
(*SNORT*)
* FOLKS... SERIOUSLY... FOX NEWS ARE ONLY "THE GOOD GUYS" IN COMPARISON TO THE TOTALLY IN THE TANK MSM.
For years my critics have always attempted to discredit my inflation fears by pointing to government statistics showing low rates. However, I have long maintained that such statistics under-report inflation, and the results of this poll seem to confirm my suspicion. There are only two possible ways to explain the disconnect. Either the government is correct and consumers are worried about a non-existent problem, or the consumers' concerns are real and the government's statistics are not.
(*SMILE*)
* WELL...?
(*GRIN*)
If annual inflation is actually higher than 3%, which would certainly be the case if consumers are so worried about it, then we are already in recession.
* WE'VE NEVER BEEN OUT OF RECESSION SINCE THE CRASH! WE'VE BEEN IN RECESSION SINCE 2008!
Had government used a 3% inflation deflator (rather than the 1.6% that they actually used) to calculate 2nd quarter GDP, then growth would have been reported at negative .1% rather than the positive 1.3%.
* FOLKS... IN ALL SERIOUSNESS... THEY KNOW THIS. AS I KEEP NOTING... ALL THESE GAMES THEY PLAY ARE DELIBERATE.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)
I believe that if the government used more accurate inflation data over the past several years, it is possible that we would have seen no statistical recovery from the recession that began in the fourth quarter of 2007.
* OK! I STAND CORRECTED! WE'VE BEEN IN RECESSION SINCE THE FORTH QUARTER OF 2007... NOT THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2008.
(*SHRUG*)
[Accepting this reality explains] why the "recovery" has failed to create jobs or lift personal incomes.
* JUST THE OPPOSITE - WE'VE LOST EMPLOYMENT MEASURED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE WORKFORCE! INCOMES HAVE DECLINED!
The Fed's zero percent interest rate policy is predicated on the assumption that there is currently no inflation.
* NOPE. IT'S PREDICATED ON THE PERCEIVED SELF-INTERESTS OF WALL STREET AND THE BANKERS.
The Fed is easing when it should be tightening.
* DUH!
* BUT, AGAIN... FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF "OLIGARCHS FOR THE OLIGARCHY" THE EASING IS EXACTLY WHAT'S CALLED FOR!
[H]ow much tighter will future monetary policy have to be to put the inflation genie back in her bottle?
If inflation becomes so virulent before the Fed realizes its mistake, then it may be forced to raise interest rates significantly. U.S. national debt is projected to reach $20 trillion within a few years. As a result, a 10% interest rate (which would be needed to combat 1970's style inflation) will require the U.S. government to pay about $2 trillion per year in interest on the national debt. This will absolutely upend all economic projections.
(*GRABBING A BUGLE; PLAYING TAPS*)
Since 10% interest rates will likely crush the economy, not to mention the banks and the real estate market, tax revenues will plunge and non-interest government expenditures will go through the roof.
* YES...
Assuming we try to borrow the difference, annual budget deficits could go much, much higher from the already ridiculously high levels that they have reached during President Obama's term.
* BORROW FROM WHO...? BORROW WHAT...?!?! IF ALL THIS COMES TO PASS THEN HOW WILL THE U.S. DOLLAR RETAIN IT'S WORLD CURRENCY RESERVE STATUS? AND IF THE DOLLAR IS NO LONGER THE WORLD'S RESERVE CURRENCY...
(*SHRUG*)
* FOLKS... JEEZUS... DON'T YOU GET IT...?!?!
Annual deficits of $2 trillion, $3 trillion, or even $4 trillion, would result in a sovereign debt crisis that would force the Federal Government to either default on its obligations or inflate them away. Given the tendency for politicians to prefer the latter, voters who think rising prices are a problem now should just wait until they see what is waiting down the road!
* FOLKS... MASSIVE INFLATION WOULD TEAR THE CURTAIN FROM THE WELFARE STATE IN TERMS OF PROMISES. ONCE THAT HAPPENS... VIOLENCE WILL BREAK OUT... VIOLENCE ON A MASSIVE SCALE AS FOLKS PANIC BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO KEEP THEIR LIFESTYLES UP. (AND I'M NOT TALKING VACATIONS AND CHRISTMAS PRESENTS... I'M TALKING FOOD, FUEL, HOUSING, CLOTHING.)
* GOD HELP US...
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/16/obamacares-rationing-by-another-name
[Mitt Romney will] do the country a big favor if he continues to expose the Independent Payment Advisory Board — the beloved center-piece of ObamaCare — for what it is - an effort to give an unelected and unconstitutional board of bureaucrats sweeping powers to determine whether grandma gets her bypass surgery from Medicare, or a boot off the cliff.
(*NOD*)
* AND, FOLKS... WHEN YOU'RE TOLD YOU CAN'T GET THE TREATMENT YOU NEED TO SAVE YOUR LIFE... WELL... AT THAT POINT YOU'RE SURE AS HELL GONNA CALL IT A "DEATH PANEL."
(*PURSED LIPS*)
Liberal "fact-checkers" have been working overtime to discredit Romney’s claim that this board will “ultimately tell patients what treatments they can receive.”
PolitiFact, one self-appointed guardian of "truth," rated Romney’s statement as “mostly false.”
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
The board, it insisted, “can’t deny treatment” or “ration care” or “make health care decisions for individual Americans.” Rather it can only determine what doctors and hospitals are paid.
* THAT’S LIKE SAYING SUPERMARKETS DON'T RATION FOOD TO PAYING CUSTOMERS BECAUSE... WELL... IN THEORY THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO JUST GIVE THE FOOD AWAY TO WHOMEVER ASKS!
* FOLKS... YES... CHARITY EXISTS... BUT BY AND LARGE IF INSURANCE WON'T PAY AND YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO COME UP WITH A LOAD OF CASH, WELL, YOU'RE SHIT OUT OF LUCK IN TERMS OF GETTING "FREEBIES" BE THEY OPERATIONS OR "SIMPLY" DRUGS.
Likewise, The Los Angeles Times maintained that the board could merely “recommend ways to reduce Medicare spending” — not cut benefits.
* LIKE... er... MEDICARE RATES ONLY SERVE AS "RECOMMENDATIONS?" COM'ON, FOLKS... YA CAN'T HAVE A REASONABLE DEBATE UNLESS BOTH SIDES ARE WILLING TO DEBATE IN GOOD FAITH AND ACKNOWLEDGE LIKELY OUTCOMES BASED UPON PRIOR AND EXISTING EXPERIENCE.
But the whole point of the board is to use price controls to discourage expensive treatments.
* YES! LITERALLY!
Yes, it is possible that some good doctor will be willing to perform bypass surgeries for Medicare patients even when the board only allows, say, payment for aspirin.
* WHICH IS WHAT I WAS SAYING UP ABOVE...
It’s also very unlikely.
* WHICH IS ALSO WHAT I POINTED OUT...
If the board decides to set payment for state-of-the-art dialysis at below cost, reasoning that the benefits of the procedure aren’t commensurate with the added expense, it isn’t rationing care directly. But it is indeed rationing care, because this would effectively consign patients to older treatments.
(*SHRUG*)
Before the recession, Medicare spending had been growing 2.6% faster than GDP. The program already pays out roughly $290 billion more in benefits than it receives in taxes, and it constitutes somewhere between $38.6 to $90 trillion in unfunded liabilities for the federal government.
* FOLKS... DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'VE JUST READ...? DO YOU...? BECAUSE, FRANKLY, MOST FOLKS DON'T SEEM CAPABLE OF THE BASIC ARITHMATIC NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR NATION FACES!
The main reason for the government’s out-of-control Medicare spending is that Uncle Sam picks up most of the tab for seniors’ health care, giving them little incentive to curb consumption or shop for better prices.
* YEP!
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Instead of restoring this incentive, Congress has historically tried to curb spending by cutting reimbursement rates for providers.
* BUT AT A CERTAIN POINT DOCTORS JUST SAY "SCREW IT" AND DON'T ACCEPT NEW MEDICARE PATIENTS! FOLKS... UNLESS WE BRING BACK SLAVERY... ENSLAVE DOCTORS, NURSES, HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES...
(*SIGH*)
* FOLKS... PLEASE... UNDERSTAND THE MATH... AND UNDERSTAND HUMAN NATURE!
But this has repeatedly failed because providers are politically powerful. Every time automatic cuts have loomed, Congress has undone them by passing the so-called “doc fix.”
* REMEMBER HOW OBAMA AND THE DEMS LIED ABOUT THE DOC FIX NOT BEING ON THE TABLE SO THAT THEY COULD COUNT THE PHANTOM "SAVINGS" IN THEIR OBAMACARE COST ESTIMATES?
* FOLKS... THIS IS WHAT I'M SAYING! IGNORING THE TRUTH DOESN'T HELP IN THE LONG RUN! WE MUST RECOGNIZE REALITY AND PRESENT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CHOICES THAT ALIGN WITH REALITY!
But instead of solving this problem by exposing doctors to market accountability, ObamaCare tries to solve it by shielding the IPAB bureaucracy from political accountability. Here is how it would work: When ever Medicare inflation threatens to exceed GDP growth plus 0.5% — by historical standards, that’s probably every year there isn’t a recession — the 15-member board would develop a “detailed and specific” “legislative proposal” laying out which treatments Medicare would cover and at what rate. President Obama describes this as “institutionalizing best practices.” In plain English, it means determining whose ox gets gored.
* YES!
What distinguishes the IPAB from the Environmental Protection Agency or the Federal Drug Administration is that those agencies give affected parties opportunities to weigh in before issuing their rules. This board would not be required to offer any avenue for patients and providers to air their concerns, nor could its decisions be challenged in court.
* WHICH IS ITSELF SEEMINGLY A VIOLATION OF BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW!
Coaxing coverage out of heartless private insurers will seem like a piece of cake compared to confronting this all-powerful bureaucracy, which allows neither access nor appeal.
The IPAB’s proposals would automatically become law unless Congress came up with its own equivalent spending cuts — or both houses, including a three-fifths majority in the Senate, waived it and the president signed the waiver. This is an exceedingly high hurdle that would effectively turn the IPAB into a super legislature.
* EXACTLY! COM'ON... AGAIN... WE'RE TALKING REAL WORLD...
But the most troubling thing about the board is this: Under the constitution, the legislative power — the supreme power — is lodged in Congress along with a democratic check.
Courts avoid the democratic check but forego legislative powers. But no government entity, not even the Federal Reserve, gets unchecked legislative powers. This is what the IPAB will have, contravening the core of the Constitution’s scheme of checks and balances[!]
Medicare spending is a pressing problem, no doubt. But the IPAB is a cure worse than the disease. It thwarts seniors’ treatment options, providers’ independence, and the constitutional balance of powers. The more Romney makes it an issue during his campaign, the more likely that the IPAB itself will be thwarted, whether he ends up in White House or not.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/17/victims-report-violent-crime/1638895/
The violent crime rate went up 17% last year, ending a general decline in violence that began nearly 20 years ago, according to a new federal survey of crime victims.
The Justice Department's National Crime Victimization Survey also found an 11% increase in the rate of property crimes, including household burglaries and car theft.
The victimization survey attributed the entire increase in 2011 to a 22% jump in the number of serious and simple assaults, according to the review.
Criminal justice analysts, while noting a substantial increase in assaults, said it was too early to determine whether the 2011 jump represented an anomaly or signaled a turnaround in the sustained decline in violent crime.
* INTERESTING STORY. I'D SUGGEST READING THE FULL PAGE.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/17/yes-they-played-politics-on-libya-obama-terror/
* BY JONATHAN TOBIN
The whole point about the administration spending more than two weeks trying to claim that the assassination of the U.S. ambassador to Libya was merely the result of an overheated reaction to an offensive film is that it dovetails with the political needs of the Obama re-election campaign.
We have yet to discover exactly what President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice knew about Libya and when they knew it as well as why the consulate’s requests for security were denied and who made that decision.
(The president was asked a direct question about that at Hofstra and chose not to answer it.)
Though this issue was diverted into one largely about whether the president called the incident a terror attack the next day, what is being ignored is the fact that even though Obama uttered the word “terror” the following day, his administration spent the following days and weeks shouting down those who spoke of it as terrorism. Their motivation wasn’t just the product of confusion about the available intelligence. It was the product of a desire to silence any speculation about the revival of al-Qaeda affiliates in Libya.
In the aftermath of the 9/11 anniversary, U.S. diplomatic facilities were attacked throughout the Middle East with American flags being torn down and replaced by al-Qaeda banners.
Throughout the region, Islamist terrorism continues to fester and even gain strength in certain countries.
That’s a grim fact that not only needs to be acknowledged but understood as a major cause of the Libya disaster. But it is not something that the administration is comfortable saying because the keynote to the president’s foreign policy and security re-election platform is the notion that al-Qaeda is as dead as Osama bin Laden.
Having staked so much on the “bin Laden is dead” theme, the administration dragged its feet when it came to telling the truth about Islamist terrorism in Libya.
They repeatedly claimed that the ambassador died as the result of film criticism run amuck.
While they claim this was the result of faulty intelligence, there’s no mystery about why they embraced this false narrative so enthusiastically. Talking about an offensive anti-Muslim video (albeit one that virtually no one has actually seen) allowed the president’s foreign policy team to avoid saying the words “terror” and “al-Qaeda.” Instead, they talked about a movie for which they endlessly apologized.
The president’s faux outrage notwithstanding, if that isn’t playing politics with security issues and misleading the American public, I don’t know what is.
Post a Comment