Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, July 31, 2013


Finally getting around to newsbiting...

Posted by at

14 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/30/homeland-security-loses-track-of-1-million-foreign/

The Homeland Security Department has lost track of more than 1 million people who it knows arrived in the U.S. but who it cannot prove left the country, according to an audit Tuesday that also found the department probably won’t meet its own goals for deploying an entry-exit system.

* SHOULD I EVEN BOTHER GOING ON...?

* NAH... YOU HAVE THE LINK.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

July 31, 2013 at 5:50 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130731/DA7SG7EO0.html

U.S. economic growth accelerated in the April-June quarter to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.7%...

* TWO POINTS: 1) 1.7% IS ANEMIC; 2) AS YOU'LL SEE IN A MOMEMENT... (*SNICKER*)... THERE'S LITTLE REASON TO TAKE EVEN THIS SUPPOSED 1.7% "GROWTH" FIGURE AT FACE VALUE. (READ ON!)

The Commerce Department says growth improved from a sluggish 1.1% rate in the January-March quarter, which was revised from an initial 1.8% rate.

* DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU JUST READ?

(*GUFFAW*)

* WHAT THEY'RE "REPORTING" HERE IS THAT BACK AT THE END OF THE JANUARY-MARCH QUARTER THEY TOLD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT GROWTH WAS PEGGED AT 1.8%... ONLY TO LATER ADMIT THAT THERE WAS NO 1.8% GROWTH, BUT RATHER ONLY 1.1% GROWTH.

(*SNORT*)

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

July 31, 2013 at 5:58 PM
William R. Barker said...

* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-new-gdp-methodology-what-you-need-to-know-2013-07-31?siteid=bnbh

* OK, FOLKS... ON THIS ONE I ADVISE YOU TO GO TO THE SOURCE - THERE ARE CHARTS!

The Commerce Department has made changes to how it calculates gross domestic product, designed to have the data better reflect the so-called knowledge economy.

* IN OTHER WORDS THEY'RE COOKING THE BOOKS RIGHT IN PLAIN SIGHT...

The U.S. government adjusted data all the way back to 1929, and other countries have or are about to make similar changes to their data.

At the same time, the government also went back and revised data for the past five years, to reflect more complete as well as additional statistics from a variety of sources, such as the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

* UH-HUH... (WHY AM I NOT COMFORTED?)

What’s the upshot?

The rate of growth hasn’t changed all that much...

* "ALL THAT MUCH." UH-HUH.

...though there are big shifts in a few time periods. But the level of output is higher — $559.8 billion larger, with $526 billion of that amount due to definitional changes.

* HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS... SIMPLY CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR VIA "DEFINITIONAL CHANGES." WOO-HOO! LET'S PARTY!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

July 31, 2013 at 6:56 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)

Companies treat research-and-development as an investment, not just an expense — and now so do the U.S. national accounts.

* DO THEY COUNT IT TWICE...? (THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN KNOWN TO DO THIS - MOST FAMOUSLY WITH SOCIAL SECURITY "CONTRIBUTIONS" THAT THEY'VE "INVESTED" IN SPECIAL GOVERNMENT BONDS.)

Allowing for the capitalization of R&D contributed an additional $396.7 billion to the U.S. economy in 2012.

* FOLKS... THE MORE THEY CONFUSE YOU... THE MORE MALLAGABLE YOU BECOME.

The capitalization of entertainment originals added $74.3 billion to U.S. GDP in 2012. The way the government figures, if a movie or a popular television series is created that is going to generate royalties in the future, then it should be reflected as an investment.

* I DON'T CARE IF YOU CALL IT AN "INVESTMENT" OR AN "EXPENSE" OR BOTH AT THE SAME TIME; THE POINT THAT MATTERS IS THE EVENTUAL REAL PROFIT - THE ROYALTIES IN THIS CASE - AND ROYALTIES ARE "INCOME" - ARE THEY NOT? (HAVEN'T THEY ALWAYS BEEN TREATED AS INCOME...???) (PROFIT ON THE OTHER HAND ONLY COMES ABOUT AFTER ALL INITIAL EXPENSES - AND TAXES - ARE SATISFIED.)

That makes sense when you think about it — “Friends” is still on TV, while the nightly news from Jan. 23, 1993 is not, so the former is a productive asset.

* BUT SO WAS THE LATTER IF MORE REVENUE WAS GAINED VIA COMMERCIAL BREAKS THAN WAS SPENT ON PRODUCING THE NEWS! (FOLKS... MAYBE I'M JUST CYNICAL... BUT REMEMBER... WE NO LONGER HEAR ABOUT "THE MISERY INDEX" BECAUSE AFTER THE CARTER YEARS GOVERNMENT "FIXED THE BOOKS" TO DELIBERATELY UNDERSTATE INFLATION. BOTTOM LINE: THEY SIMPLY CAN'T BE TRUSTED.)

The government is now capitalizing more of the ownership transfer costs associated with buying a home: instead of just broker commissions, now other costs including title insurance, attorney fees and engineering services will be factored in.

* FOLKS... ARE THEY TRYING TO TELL US THAT PRVIOUSLY THE INCOME OF INDIVIDUALS IN THESE FIELDS NEVER "COUNTED?" (SOMEBODY BETTER NOTIFY THE IRS!) (*SNORT*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

July 31, 2013 at 6:56 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)

Also, these costs are now being depreciated over the average ownership of a home, rather than the home’s lifetime.

* Er... WHY...?!?! THE FORMER IS NOT REAL... IT'S AN AVERAGE... WHEREAS THE LATTER IS REAL... HOUSE BY HOUSE!

Combined, these add $42.3 billion to the U.S. economy for 2012.

* NONSENSE! THEY'RE SIMPLY COOKING THE BOOKS TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THINGS WERE NEVER AS BAD AS WE KNOW THEY WERE WHILE TRYING TO CONVINCE US THAT THINGS ARE NOW BETTER THAN WE KNOW THEY ARE! FOLKS... FRAUD AND DECEPTION IS ALL YOU'RE GONNA GET FROM OBAMA. (LIKE IT OR NOT, HE IS "THE GOVERNMENT" WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THESE "REFORMS.")

Moving to accrual accounting for defined benefit pension programs adds another $12.6 billion. Put another way — the interest from the unfunded part of pensions is now being included in national accounts. Whatever doubts about, say, Detroit paying these obligations, they are legally owed to employees.

* SO... WE'RE PUTTING ON OUR HAPPY FACES...??? IGNORE THE REALITY AND STICK TO WHAT "SHOULD" BE? NICE... WONDERFUL... GREAT...

This move also is why the personal savings rate saw a big upward adjustment, to 5.6% from 4.1%, in 2012.

* IN OTHER WORDS... WHAT I WROTE UP ABOVE... AGAIN.

As far as the revisions go, the big move came in the most recent year, 2012, which now goes in the books as having 2.8% growth instead of the previously estimated 2.2% rise.

(*SNORT*)

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

The upward revision is mostly based on better data on consumption, farm inventories and government spending.

* HOW'BOUT GOVERNMENT DEBT... GOVERNMENT DEFICITS...?

(*SNORT*)

The Great Recession was a touch less bad, and the current recovery is a slight bit better.

* YEAH... WHAT A SHOCKER THAT THIS IS THE RESULT OF THE "REFORM."

* FOLKS... "WE THE SHEEPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERIKA" DESERVE EVERYTHING WE'RE GETTING. AT LEAST... MOST OF MY FELLOW CITIZENS DO.

July 31, 2013 at 6:57 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://freebeacon.com/pentagon-insider-attacks-in-afghanistan-on-coalition-forces-spiking/

So-called “insider attacks” on coalition forces in Afghanistan have sharply increased and become more coordinated as America pulls out of the country, jumping by 120% from 2011 to 2012 alone, according to Pentagon report released Tuesday.

Afghans with ties to terrorists continue to infiltrate the security forces and carry out planned attacks against U.S. soldiers and other forces, according to an unclassified Pentagon report.

* "INFILTRATE." UH-HUH. APPARENTLY PRETTY MUCH ANYONE CAN "INFILTRATE" AT WILL.

These deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers have only increased and become more sophisticated as the Obama administration continues its exit from the war-torn nation, the Pentagon reported.

“There was a 120% increase in insider attacks from 2011 to 2012, rising from 22 to 48 incidents,” the report states.

* "INCIDENTS."

(*PURSED LIPS*)

“Additionally, 29% - fourteen - of the insider attacks in 2012 were executed by more than one person. Prior to 2012, only two attacks had been executed by more than one individual.”

There have been 172 “insider attacks” on U.S., Afghan, and coalition military forces from Jan. 1, 2007 to March 31, 2013, according to the report. More than 100 of these attacks were carried out against the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which includes U.S. forces. Seventy attacks were launched directly on U.S. personnel, the report states.

More than 140 ISAF personnel were killed during these attacks, while another 208 were wounded.

U.S. forces suffered 92 casualties from these insider attacks, while another 134 were wounded, according to the report.

* ONE MORE TIME...

U.S. forces suffered 92 casualties from these insider attacks, while another 134 were wounded, according to the report.

* SO WHEN THEY SAY "CASUALTIES" WHAT THEY MEAN IS "DEATHS."

The United States has spent $54 billion in total to arm, train, and sustain Afghanistan’s security forces, including purchasing more than $1 billion in bullets for the Afghan National Army (ANA.)

* RATHER THAN WORRY ABOUT ARREST... I'VE JUST ERASED THE COMMENT THAT MY FINGERS FIRST TYPED AFTER READING THE ABOVE...

(*PURSED LIPS*)

The Pentagon also found that the ISAF had incorrectly tallied past attacks, leading officials to underreport the number of dead and injured.

* WHAT A SURPRISE...

(*SPITTING ON THE GROUND*)

“ISAF reassessed its historical attack database, looking for incidents that were actually insider attacks but had been incorrectly categorized,” the report says. This resulted in “an increase of the previously reported total number of insider attacks over the 2007-2012 period.”

* YEAH... I JUST BET IT DID.

July 31, 2013 at 7:06 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://nationalreview.com/corner/354801/e-mails-suggest-collusion-between-fec-irs-target-conservative-groups-eliana-johnson

Embattled Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner and an attorney in the Federal Election Commission’s general counsel’s office appear to have twice colluded to influence the record before the FEC’s vote in the case of a conservative non-profit organization, according to e-mails unearthed by the House Ways and Means Committee and obtained exclusively by National Review Online.

The correspondence suggests the discrimination of conservative groups extended beyond the IRS and into the FEC, where an attorney from the agency’s enforcement division in at least one case sought and received tax information about the status of a conservative group, the American Future Fund, before recommending that the commission prosecute it for violations of campaign-finance law.

Lerner, the former head of the IRS’s exempt-organizations division, worked at the FEC from 1986 to 1995, and was known for aggressive investigation of conservative groups during her tenure there, too.

“Several months ago . . . I spoke with you about the American Future Fund, a 501(c)(4) organization that had submitted an exemption application the IRS [sic],” the FEC attorney wrote Lerner in February 2009. “When we spoke last July, you had told us that the American Future Fund had not received an exemption letter from the IRS,” the FEC attorney wrote.

(The FEC, which polices violations of campaign-finance laws, is not exempted under Rule 6103, which prohibits the IRS from sharing confidential taxpayer information, but the e-mail indicates Lerner may have provided that information nonetheless.)

The timing of the correspondence between Lerner and the FEC suggests the FEC attorney sought information from the IRS in order to influence an upcoming vote by the six FEC commissioners.

The FEC received a complaint in March 2008 from the Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party alleging that the American Future Fund had violated campaign-finance law by engaging in political advocacy without registering as a political-action committee. The American Future Fund responded to that complaint in June 2008, telling the commission that it had applied for tax exemption in March of that year and was a “501(c)(4) social-welfare organization that was organized to provide Americans with a conservative and free-market viewpoint and mechanism to communicate and advocate on the issues that most interest and concern them.” According to the e-mail correspondence, a month after receiving the American Future Fund’s response, the FEC general counsel’s office — which is prohibited under law from conducting an investigation into an organization before the FEC’s six commissioners have voted to do so — contacted Lerner to investigate the agency’s tax-exempt status.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

July 31, 2013 at 7:16 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

The FEC general counsel’s office, in its recommendation on the case, apparently didn’t tell the agency’s commissioners about how it had obtained the information about the group’s tax-exempt status. Recommending that the commissioners prosecute the American Future Fund, the general counsel’s office wrote, “According to its response, AFF submitted an application for tax-exempt status to the Internal Revenue Service . . . on March 18, 2008.” The footnote to that sentence reads, “The IRS has not yet issued a determination letter regarding AFF’s application for exempt status. Based on the information from the response and the IRS website, it is likely that the application is still under review.”

(In fact, an FEC lawyer knew that the organization had yet to obtain tax-exempt status because Lerner provided the confidential information.)

Despite the recommendations of the general counsel’s office, the six FEC commissioners split on whether to pursue the American Future Fund’s case and voted six-to-zero to close the case.

House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp and oversight-subcommittee chairman Charles Boustany are calling on the IRS, in the wake of these revelations, to provide all communications between the agency and the FEC between 2008 and 2012. “The American public is entitled to know whether the IRS is inappropriately sharing their confidential tax information with other agencies,” Camp and Boustany write in a letter they will send to acting IRS administrator Danny Werfel on Wednesday.

The FEC enforcement attorney also inquired about the tax-exempt status of another conservative organization, the American Issues Project. “I was also wondering if you could tell me whether the IRS had issued an exemption letter to a group called the American Issues Project? The group also appears to be the successor of two other organizations, Citizens for the Republic and Avenger, Inc.” Also sought were “any information and documents that would be publicly available in relation to the American Issues Project, Citizens for the Republic, or Avenger, Inc.”

* YEP... SOUNDS LIKE COLLUSION TO ME.

Lerner was placed on paid administrative leave in late May after she revealed the IRS had inappropriately targeted conservative groups. The IRS has yet to respond to requests from lawmakers about her current employment status with the agency.

July 31, 2013 at 7:17 PM
William R. Barker said...

* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324110404578630522319113676.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

President Obama promised to mend the failings in the American health-care system, and yet for cancer treatment, ObamaCare is taking a rotten feature of the old system and making it worse.

The Affordable Care Act expands a program called 340B, which siphons money from drug makers and insurers to subsidize certain hospitals.

The program has been expanded as a way to offset some of the cuts that the law imposes on hospitals.

One significant side effect: 340B is increasing the cost of cancer care — and harming its quality.

When the program began in 1992, its aim was to support hospitals that cared for many uninsured, indigent patients. Over the years, the program was radically broadened, gradually morphing into a government cash cow that hospitals of every description have learned to exploit. Under 340B, eligible hospitals are allowed to buy drugs from drug companies at forced discounts of 25% to 50%.

* A*M*E*R*I*K*A...

The hospitals can then bill government and private insurers for the full cost of the drugs, pocketing the spread.

(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

The arrangement gives 340B-qualified hospitals a big incentive to search for patients... and prescribe lots of drugs.

(*SIGH*)

The costlier the drugs, the bigger the spread. So... expensive cancer drugs are especially appealing.

(*JUST THROWING MY ARMS UP*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

July 31, 2013 at 7:48 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)

The original legislation creating 340B envisioned that only about 90 hospitals that care for a "disproportionate share" of indigent patients would qualify. But remember, this is a well-intentioned government program handing out money - with the usual result: By 2011, 1,675 hospitals, or a third of all hospitals in the country, were 340B-qualified.

* GEEZUS...

Even flourishing hospitals like the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and Duke University Health System feed off the subsidies. In 2011, Duke bought $54.8 million in drugs from the discount program and sold them to patients for $131.8 million, for a profit of $76.9 million — a substantial portion of the health system's 2011 operating profit of $190 million. (Only one in 20 patients served by Duke's 340B pharmacy is uninsured. The rest have their prescription costs covered by Medicare, Medicaid or commercial insurers.)

* NICE...

Now ObamaCare is encouraging even wider 340B abuses.

The new health-care law expands 340B to cover cancer centers, new categories of hospitals, and rural health centers.

Since one of the ways that hospitals qualify for 340B turns on how many Medicaid patients they serve, ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion will also increase the number of 340B-eligible entities.

* IT'S LIKE BEING INVOLVED IN A ACCIDENT AT THAT VERY MOMENT WHERE EVERYTHING GOES INTO SLOW MOTION AND YOU SEE THE DISASTER THAT LAYS AHEAD BUT CAN DO NOTHING TO AVOID IT.

To goose the windfall, eligible hospitals are buying private oncology practices so they can book more of the expensive cancer drug purchases at the discount rates.

* MAKES SENSE... (IF THE SYSTEM IS GAMEABLE, THEN PEOPLE ARE GONNA GAME THE SYSTEM!)

More than 400 oncology practices have been acquired by hospitals since ObamaCare passed. Acquiring a single oncologist and moving the doctor's drug prescriptions under a hospital's 340B program can generate an additional profit of more than $1 million for a hospital.

* WHAT A FRIGGIN' SCAM, HUH?!

In the process, treatment of the doctor's patients is moved from an office setting to a hospital outpatient department.

As a result, between 2005 and 2011 the amount of chemotherapy infused in doctors' offices fell to 67%, from 87%, according to a new analysis of Medicare billing data done for community oncology groups. The share of Medicare payments for chemotherapy administered in hospitals (as opposed to outpatient oncology practices) increased to 41% in 2011, from 16.2% in 2005. If these trends continue, the majority of cancer care will soon be delivered by hospitals. When the practice of oncology shifts to outpatient hospital clinics, the care is often less comfortable and convenient for cancer patients — and more costly.

July 31, 2013 at 7:49 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)

Because the overhead for a hospital is higher than for a doctor's office, a patient treated in a hospital clinic incurs $6,500 more in costs than the same person treated in a private medical office, according to data from the Community Oncology Alliance.

Patients who get chemotherapy at a hospital also face an additional $650 in co-pays and other out-of-pocket expenses.

The price for infusing the drugs alone rises by 55%, according to an analysis of Medicare data.

These inflated prices for cancer treatment inevitably drive up the cost of health insurance.

* FOR THOSE OF US WHO PAY...

The Obama team has used informal "subregulatory guidance" to expand the 340B program still further. One big change came in March 2010 "guidance" that allows hospitals to contract with an unlimited number of neighborhood pharmacies to dispense drugs through them. There is no requirement that these "satellite" pharmacies have any geographic tie to the hospital. This has created an industry of middlemen who build vast networks of pharmacies, all to expand the number of 340B prescriptions that a hospital can capture. There are now more than 25,000 arrangements between such satellite pharmacies and 340B-qualified treatment sites, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration.

The definition of a "covered patient" for 340B purposes is so murky under other guidance that hospitals are able to buy and bill discounted drugs for patients when the hospital merely serves as a conduit and doesn't give direct patient care. The regulatory loosening has led to a proliferation of abuse. The Health Resources and Services Administration, the federal agency that (nominally) oversees the program, recently audited 340B-eligible hospitals. The agency found "adverse findings" (like discounted drugs diverted or dispensed to ineligible patients) with almost half of the 34 institutions the agency examined. A separate report by the General Accountability Office shows that the money isn't being targeted for indigent patients, as required. As profits from the program rose, and oversight remained lax, more of the money has instead become a general revenue source for 340B-eligible hospitals.

(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

To combat this sort of gaming, drug makers are tightening how they distribute cancer drugs, to make improper diversion more difficult. This drug-company strategy may stem some of the most rampant abuses, but it adds to the cost and complexity of the pharmaceutical supply chain. It's another way that 340B increases costs.

The 340B program doesn't print free money. The cost of the discounts are foisted onto patients and insurers, who are forced to pay higher prices that drug makers establish to offset the cost of the forced discounts.

One of the rationales behind the Affordable Care Act was that the law would end the gimmicks that distort incentives and drive up costs. In the case of the 340B program and its effect on cancer treatment, the law has only further distorted an already expensive gimmick.

July 31, 2013 at 7:50 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354802/can-anyone-stop-john-mccain-jonathan-strong

Top Republicans woke up Tuesday morning to the news that President Obama was offering what he described as a “grand bargain,” offering lower tax rates in exchange for closing certain loopholes for big business.

* I'M GUESSING THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS - BECAUSE I CERTAINLY SUPPORT BOTH LOWERING TAX RATES AND GETTING RID OF LOOPHOLES!

GOP leaders view Obama’s proposal as a regression from previous negotiations, however, and are working to swat down early press reports that describe it as a significant conciliatory gesture. Throughout the day, congressional Republicans nearly universally panned Obama’s “offer.”

But it wasn’t impossible to find Republicans willing to praise the president.

* LET... ME... GUESS...

Senator John McCain of Arizona and his top ally, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, took a different tack from most of their colleagues.

(*SIGH*) (*ROLLING MY EYES*)

“It’s a good start,” McCain tells me. “Certainly we would not accept the president’s offer now. But we also want to continue the discussions we’re having, which we hope would lead to serious negotiations.”

Somewhat surprisingly, given that he faces reelection in 2014 in a conservative state, Graham was if anything to McCain’s left on the issue. Specifically, he praised the idea of new stimulus spending on infrastructure...

* I... HATE... LINDSEY... FRIGGIN'... GRAHAM...

...which McCain criticized.

* GOOD FOR MCCAIN!

Obama’s offer “is moving in the right direction,” Graham says. “The big challenge for us is, what do you do about long-term entitlements? That has to be addressed.”

* THIS DOUCHE-BAG HAS BEEN A WASHINGTON POLITICIAN SINCE 1995... AND BEFORE THAT HE WAS A STATE POLITICIAN. AND NOW HE'S INTERESTED IN LONG-TERM ENTITLEMENTS?

McCain and Graham are being hailed in certain quarters for providing a beleaguered president the newfound ability to pass meaningful legislation in the Senate, where the need for a 60-vote supermajority to overcome a filibuster affords the minority Republicans some leverage. The New York Times editorial board, for example, praised McCain and Graham’s efforts on immigration as “a welcome reacquaintance with reality” for the GOP. The Washington Post praised McCain for having the courage to work out a deal on nominations with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

* YEP. THAT'S WHAT AMERICA NEEDS... RINOs WHO ARE PRAISED BY THE NYT EDITORIAL BOARD AND THE WASHINGTON POST!

July 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

But many House Republicans view McCain as the most lethal threat to a significant victory on spending cuts in the budget battles this fall. The Right’s worst fear about McCain is that he and five or six of his allies could sign on to a Democratic bill at the height of a debt-ceiling showdown, giving Obama and Majority Leader Harry Reid the imprimatur of bipartisanship.

It’s a scenario that has occurred repeatedly since the GOP took control of the House, most recently on immigration. At times, as with the “fiscal cliff” and a fight over extending the payroll tax, a bipartisan Senate bill has completely destroyed the House’s standing in the fight.

The answer House Republicans give is that this time, they don’t care what the Senate does. “McCain can go hang out with the president all he wants — we’re focused on actually solving the problem,” says Republican Study Committee chairman Steve Scalise. Just because the Senate does something, that doesn’t mean the House will follow suit, Representative Tom Price of Georgia adds.

* YEAH... I'LL BELIEVE IT AS I SEE IT.

One factor that could ease worries in the House is that the ongoing budget negotiations between the White House, McCain, and a group of his fellow Senate Republicans are still largely focused on determining how big the deficit will be over the next 30 years, rather than on the achievable reforms that could rein it in.

* NO ONE ELECTED THESE BOZOS TO CONTINUE DESTROYING AMERICA FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS..

Still, McCain is embracing his latest contrariness so eagerly that it has colleagues on edge.

The anger — “does that guy have an opinion on everything?” asks one House Republican lawmaker — is punctuated by the fear that no one can do anything to stop McCain.

“Nobody’s telling John McCain anything,” says Price, lamenting the “very challenging” dynamic in the Senate.

McCain, who jokes openly that he is a “Senate snob,” certainly won’t listen to the House. But many Republicans are wondering whether anyone in the party can stop McCain from helping the Democrats in the fall.

July 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324110404578628542498014414.html

* BY "HE WHOSE NAME DARE NOT BE MENTIONED" FAV DR. HOWARD DEAN...

The administration's decision to delay implementation of the employer mandate until 2015 will help funnel individuals and families who do not get insurance through their employer into the exchanges. While this may benefit the participating insurers in the short term, this also accelerates the trend toward divorcing health care from employment.

* I'M IN FAVOR OF DIVORCING HEALTH CARE FROM EMPLOYMENT... BUT AN EASIER AND MORE DIRECT (AND FAIRER) METHOD WOULD BE TO SIMPLY TREAT HEALTH INSURANCE "CONTRIBUTIONS" BY EMPLOYERS TO EMPLOYEES AS TAXABLE INCOME.

One major problem is the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board.

* SARAH PALIN'S DEATH PANEL. (PAUL KRUGMAN LATER ADMITTED PALIN WAS CORRECT. INDEED, HE'S ENDORSED "DEATH PANELS." GOOGLE "KRUGMAN + DEATH PANELS" IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME.)

The IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body. By setting doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them.

(*SHRUG*)

There does have to be control of costs in our health-care system. However, rate setting — the essential mechanism of the IPAB — has a 40-year track record of failure. What ends up happening in these schemes (which many states including my home state of Vermont have implemented with virtually no long-term effect on costs) is that patients and physicians get aggravated because bureaucrats in either the private or public sector are making medical decisions without knowing the patients. Most important, once again, these kinds of schemes do not control costs. The medical system simply becomes more bureaucratic.

To date, 22 Democrats have joined Republicans in the House and Senate in support of legislation to do away with the IPAB. ... The IPAB will cause frustration to providers and patients alike, and it will fail to control costs. ... [G]etting rid of the IPAB is something Democrats and Republicans ought to agree on.

July 31, 2013 at 10:52 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)