I-P-A-B spells “Death Panel”

Sarah Palin’s reportedly ignorant belief that Obamacare cuts cost by way of a “death panel” of bureaucrats passing down coverage decrees is nearly as notorious as Palin herself. Mind you, Palin was being ridiculed for this long before The Krugman, a bearded novelty act who does a traveling show for The New York Times, sung the praises of government-rationed care in an ABC appearance:

Here’s the infamous paragraph from Palin’s 08/07/2009 Facebook post:

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Palin was responding, in part, to a statement by Rep. Michelle Bachmann, another crazed right-wing nut. If you have a memory or possess the power of Google, it’s not hard to recall the dinosaur media’s response. Smarmy leftists at The New York Times and MSNBC ranted and raved about lies and incited mobs, while slightly-better-hinged commentators settled for dismissing Palin’s thoughts as partisan nonsense.

Conservative pundits continue working to inform the public that Obamacare – sorry, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – relies exclusively on rationed care for the only cost savings that aren’t fabrications. As George Will details in a Washington Post op-ed, death panels by any other name are still terrible policy:

The point of PPACA is cost containment. This supposedly depends on the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB, which is a perfect expression of the progressive mind, is to be composed of 15 presidential appointees empowered to reduce Medicare spending – which is 13 percent of federal spending – to certain stipulated targets. IPAB is to do this by making “proposals” or “recommendations” to limit costs by limiting reimbursements to doctors. This, inevitably, will limit available treatments – and access to care when physicians leave the Medicare system.

Will’s closing line is brilliant:

The essence of progressivism, and of the administrative state that is progressivism’s project, is this doctrine: Modern society is too complex for popular sovereignty, so government of, by and for supposedly disinterested experts must not perish from the earth.

So, Ohioans – have you signed a petition supporting the Health Care Freedom Amendment yet?

Cross-posted at Third Base Politics and Columbus Tea Party.

Post to Twitter

Obamacare Still an Awful Idea

If you’ve not read about the recent McKinsey & Company study investigating the likelihood of businesses dropping employee health coverage due to Obamacare, The Weekly Standard has all the gory details.

The study finds that, “Overall, 30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering ESI [employer-sponsored insurance] in the years after 2014… Among employers with a high awareness of reform, this proportion increases to more than 50 percent.”

You didn’t actually believe President Obama when he promised you could keep your current coverage, did you? This particular mandate, of course, isn’t mandatory for government medicine’s loudest proponents, as summarized fiendishly by Karl Rove’s minions at Crossroads GPS -

Cato Institute writer Michael F. Cannon opines about one of Obamacare’s central cost-saving schemes, and why it’s destined for failure:

Inefficient providers have effectively killed nearly every pilot program that previous administrations promised would make Medicare more efficient. Suppliers of wheelchairs and other medical equipment have blocked efforts to reduce the inflated prices Medicare pays them. The industry has killed or sabotaged at least four federal agencies dedicated to researching which medical treatments don’t work.

Cutting costs is sort of a big deal, with unfunded Medicare obligations already totaling $24.8 trillion before Obamacare’s shady accounting and expanded entitlements kick in. Another Obamacare stick, Comparative Effectiveness Research, might reduce the cost of health care… while gravely damaging its effectiveness:

CER can be beneficial if used solely to inform doctors and patients to guide decision-making. However, the new law lays the groundwork for bureaucrats to use CER in Medicare to make coverage decisions and otherwise compel physicians to treat patients not according to what is best for the individual but according to what the evidence shows is best in most cases.

Back at The Weekly Standard, numbers from a Rasmussen poll of likely voters don’t look good for fans of socialized medicine.

By a margin of more than 2 to 1 (48 to 20 percent), likely voters think Obamacare would reduce, rather than improve, the quality of health care. By a margin of more than 3 to 1 (53 to 15 percent), they think it would raise, rather than lower, health costs. By a margin of 4 to 1 (56 to 14 percent), they think it would raise, rather than lower, deficits.

To paraphrase Nancy Pelosi’s immortal words: the more that we find out what’s in Obamacare, the more appalled we are that you passed it.

Bigger, more expensive, more intrusive government is not the answer to big government’s past and current failures in the health care industry. As responses to Paul Ryan’s budget remind us, Washington leftists have no connection to fiscal reality, no interest in personal freedom, and certainly no concern for the will of the voters.

Have you signed a petition supporting the Health Care Freedom Amendment yet?

Post to Twitter

The Narrative in NY-26

The Post-Standard in Syracuse reports on a special election result that will warm liberal hearts:

The Democrat rode a wave of voter discontent over the national GOP’s plan to change Medicare and overcame decades of GOP dominance here to capture Tuesday’s special election in New York’s 26th Congressional District.

Well, that settles it – the American people want limitless entitlement spending and are willing to accept the necessary punishing tax increases. At least, that’s the narrative donkey Democrats will ride to next November.

Don’t read past the second paragraph, and the NY-26 special election paints a dire picture for the GOP. As sometimes happens, though, all the good news for the left is loaded into the first few sentences…

Hochul defeated Republican state Assemblywoman Jane Corwin on Tuesday night, capturing 47 percent of the vote to 43 percent for Corwin, to win the seat vacated by disgraced Republican Chris Lee. A wealthy tea party candidate, Jack Davis, took 9 percent.

Democrat Kathy Hochul “rode a wave of voter discontent” over GOP budget proposals… to a 4 percent victory with a conservative* third-party candidate taking 9 percent. In a special election necessitated by an outrageous sex scandal involving the previous GOP congressman. But we know Medicare is the reason, because the Democrat’s supporters say so!

The special election that became a referendum on the health care plan for the nation’s seniors may serve as a warning shot to further GOP efforts to cut popular entitlement programs.

“The three reasons a Democrat was elected to Congress in the district were Medicare, Medicare and Medicare,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel, D-N.Y., said in an interview.

This stuff goes both ways. When Scott Brown won in Kennedyland, conservatives made a fuss about what it meant for the future. In that case, the GOP victory was surprising. In this case, the Democrat’s victory is surprising. In neither case does a single issue tell the whole story – though it’s worth noting that Scott Brown took the seat of America’s most beloved leftist dynasty, didn’t have a tabloid scandal on his side, and didn’t have a third-party candidate pulling 9 percent of his opponent’s likely voters.

At least Hochul has some bold ideas for New York’s future!

“How about ending big handouts for Big Oil?” she said. “How about making millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share? We can do all that and not decimate Medicare.”

The victory of another Democrat who’s wrong about nearly everything isn’t good news, but the only tragedy here for conservatives would be accepting the left’s hollow rhetoric.

* Update – Apparently the “tea party” candidate was a Democrat? Stay classy, New York.

Post to Twitter

History’s Most Powerful Whiner?

Since I disagree with basically everything the man does, there’s a lot about President Obama that I find annoying. One of the president’s worst attributes – maybe even worse than the way he views himself as God’s gift to a horribly flawed America – is the fact that he’s a giant whiny baby:

“It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, they feel more responsible,” he is quoted saying in the Sunday edition of The New York Times Magazine, “either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them, or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.”

Waaaah – I’m the most powerful man on earth, and people don’t love me enough for spending billions of their dollars on things they’re too stupid to know they need! Republicans don’t hang on my every word like mommy said everyone’s supposed to!

President Obama gave the GOP leadership a ton of opportunities to work with him on the health care bill. Remember? That 2,000-page piece of legislation that totally wasn’t crafted in the dark by a handful of leftier-than-left Democrats and their favorite lobbyists? Right.

At least there was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. President Obama was a bipartisan superstar on that one:

Among the regrets the president said he felt during the 111th Congress is letting Republicans make him out to be “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.”

Obama said he also realized too late that “there is no such thing as shovel-ready projects,” a familiar refrain made by the president when he was trying to sell the stimulus package.

“There are almost 100 shovel-ready transportation projects already approved,” he said in August 2009. As recently as July of this year, he said, “Shovels will soon be moving earth and trucks will soon be pouring concrete.”

Let’s say government spending creates jobs in a way that is worth the investment and not just a temporary, politically beneficial boost to employment while the market corrects. Let’s say that. Assuming improvements to highways, the electrical grid, and other genuinely important infrastructure are worth hundreds of billions in “emergency” spending, one wonders how our unfairly-characterized president justifies:

“Dance Draw” – Interactive Dance Software Development (Charlotte, NC) – $762,372 [...]

Monkey and Chimpanzee Responses to Inequity (Atlanta, GA) – $677,462 [...]

Two Riders an Hour Get Brand New Buses (Winter Haven, FL) – $2.4 million [...]

Studying the Effect of Local Populations on the Environment…in the Himalayas (Ann Arbor,
MI) – $529,648 [...]

Scientist Attempts to Create Joke Machine (Evanston, IL) – $712,883

These are five examples from a list of 100 wasteful stimulus-funded programs, and they aren’t the most expensive ones. Alas, President Obama doesn’t justify anything, because he’s too busy making ridiculous promises, blaming the GOP for his failure to keep them, and talking down at the boobs who expected him to.

President Obama does everything exactly how “the same old tax-and-spend Democrat” would, complains any time someone – congressmen, businesses, voters – refuses to go along, and complains some more when people call him out on it. Get your chin up, Barack! If nothing else, we know you’re capable of that.

Post to Twitter

Valuable Government Services

If you’re wondering what sort of valuable services the Senate health care bill could be providing this time next decade, see the future in the leftist bastion that is California’s state government:

The six-member California Division of Occupational Safety and Health standards board voted unanimously on the advice of staff to create an advisory committee to report back on whether to change state law to require safe-sex protections for adult-film actors and actresses.

This is an article from the LA Times, not The Onion. I’m sure. I double-checked.

Should porn “actors” use protection when “performing” their “acts?” Probably, unless they’re in the mood for some sexually transmitted diseases. This is obvious even to a science-hatin’ Christian with a running total of zero “partners.” But, the sort of thing that’s clear to a loser in Ohio is cause for a new advisory committee in California, where unionized state workers have run the government into the ground even without a committee to study whether it’s wise to have copious amounts of unprotected sex.

“We believe the state of California has a responsibility to regulate these workplaces as they do every other workplace,” AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein told the board.

The state of California has a responsibility to regulate everything, as far as the state of California is concerned. Small wonder the vote to form a committee was unanimous. Imagine being asked this question: Should we form a new committee that will help justify the existence of your cushy job? Not many people would answer “No,” which is why the size of government trends in only one direction.

A former porn star points out that they don’t go into this business due to an abundance of brains:

“You think you’re safe but you’re not; in between scenes, you don’t know what other actors are doing,” James told the board.

While filming a porno, it’s difficult to be sure whether the people you’re having promiscuous sex with for money might be making unhealthy decisions off camera. The nanny-staters want you to know your concerns will be tended to, and as they venture into uncharted regulatory waters it’s clear that even a stupid law like mandated STD testing for the porn industry means a convoluted, money-burning process.

The Senate health bill creates dozens of federal boards, councils, and committees. Think these will be staffed entirely by health care and insurance professionals who know what’s best? Certainly only rational, fiscally sound decisions will be made by these new government employees. Decisions like the rational, fiscally sound decisions Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid make on a daily basis.

Congressman Boehner shared a graph last November displaying the mess of bureaucracy created by the House version of the bill as it stood at the time. Add one, subtract one, change a name here and there – this is what the leftist elites running Washington want. Countless new boards with the power to form committees with the power to impose regulations. All of their salaries coming out of our paychecks. Few of them producing anything of value.

Call. Your. Representatives.

Post to Twitter

Skeptics Convinced

The Washington Post engages in a bit of light cheerleading for President Obama’s speech south of Cleveland this week:

It is difficult to judge, amid one of the most intense political battles in recent memory, whether Obama is moving the needle toward greater acceptance of his health-care ambitions. But his reassurances about Medicare and other issues found support among skeptics in Strongsville.

“I was against it. I feel more positive for it now. Hopeful,” said Mary Jo O’Toole, another local retiree, after Obama spoke at a community center here.

Forgive me if I suggest the possibility that the sort of Ohioan who attends an Obama rally and believes his platitudes after more than a year of audaciously broken campaign promises was never much of a skeptic.

Still, not everyone has a firm opinion, and many admit they have a limited understanding of the details. Voters often say they are not sure whom to believe, offering a version of a comment by Patrick O’Toole, Mary Jo’s husband: “You hear this from one side and that from the other side, and you don’t know what’s right.”

We cannot afford the Democrats’ health care plan. We can’t. If you’re an optimist or have had few interactions with elected officials, I can understand leftist policies sounding good. Until you compare them to existing entitlements (bankrupt) or ask how we’re going to pay for them (taxes, taxes, and more taxes). President Obama saying we can get something for nothing doesn’t suddenly make it possible to get something for nothing.

…Obama’s task is tough. After Patrick O’Toole thought about it overnight, he had second thoughts. “He’s a great salesman, but I still would’ve walked out of the showroom without a car,” he said.

I think the car salesman analogy is appropriate – unfortunately, not all Americans are as reasonable as Mr. O’Toole. When Rep. Pelosi, Senator Reid, and President Obama sell a car, they go right to the flagship model; and don’t worry about the price! They’ll arrange for the fat cats in the corporate office to foot your bill.

Mary Jo O’Toole summarizes the problem for small-government proponents:

He sounded convincing.”

Post to Twitter

Persistent Little Buggers

The New York Times confirms that, after President Obama’s Thursday Theater proved a helpful showcase for ideas Republicans have been touting since last summer, Nancy Pelosi is readying spoonfuls of sugar:

Seeing no prospect of a bipartisan agreement on health care, Congressional Democrats said Friday that they would make another effort to pass sweeping health care legislation on their own.

The Grand Old “Party of No” came prepared to a production that Obama’s people thought would make the same idiotic scam look less idiotic (or at least new), but don’t expect the left to retreat from their weak rhetorical position! It’s interesting that the Republican ideas which burst from the ether yesterday have already been deemed incompatible with the Pelosi & Reid definition of bipartisanship. Almost… almost as if the outcome was predetermined.

Throughout 2009 voters grew increasingly disgusted by the dishonest accounting and shameless favoritism Republicans criticized in the House and Senate bills… and Democrats, naturally, blamed the Republicans. Since Boehner et al didn’t have union-boss level access to the legislative process, the only way to do this was by drawing attention away from the awful legislation and towards the angry old white guys fighting ProgressTM.

Then Scott Brown took their seat in Massachusetts, and the leftists in control of Congress were suddenly not so in control. It was time for Obama to dust off a few old saws about bipartisanship, repeat them each a thousand times, and schedule a TV appearance wherein his rapier wit would disarm Republican opposition. That sounded like a good idea to someone, I guess?

Since that didn’t buy them any credibility, it’s RAMMIN’ TIME!

Ms. Pelosi described the steps she had in mind, saying: “What is the substance? That’s what we will be putting together, and we didn’t want to do that before we could hear from our Republican colleagues yesterday. Secondly, what is the Senate able to do with a simple majority? And then we will act upon that.

“I believe that we have good prospects for passing legislation,” said Ms. Pelosi, of California.

I believe you have got to lay off the recreational drugs, Nancy. With all the sugar in the world, it’d take far smoother operators than yourself and Harry Reid to make this medicine go down.

Post to Twitter

Hooray for… Massachusetts!?

Good news for conservatives from an unlikely locale, as Scott Brown wins the Senate seat vacated at death by Ted Kennedy! This is something few could have predicted as recently as several weeks ago, but it turns out even Massachusetts voters have their limits where big government is concerned. The great thing about Brown’s victory, of course, is the Democrats’ loss of a guaranteed vote for Obamacare. The aftershocks should also be positive, as squishy Dems in states far less blue than Massachusetts pause to reflect on their political mortality.

Hot Air has some thoughts on a Politico story wherein the White House tacks a characteristically arrogant course. If there were any chance the national implications of Brown’s victory could have been overlooked, Obama went ahead and thrashed those over the weekend with a halfhearted last-minute speech. What now for the left’s health care, cap & tax, open borders, and more-rights-for-terrorists endeavors? Nancy Pelosi isn’t worried about the current project:

“Let’s remove all doubt,” Ms. Pelosi said. “We will have health care one way or another.”

“One way or another” is a reassuring promise (threat?), coming from the most transparent Congress in history. While the White House gets serious about digging themselves deeper and Nancy Pelosi talks like the Cheshire Cat on crystal meth, prominent lefty Arianna Huffington mopes about Obama’s failures:

On the eve of the first anniversary of President Obama’s inauguration, it’s become painfully obvious that elected officials are not going to save us. The 2008 election was all about “Hope.” But Hope is simply not cutting it.

No kidding. See, I have never bothered to read anything from the Huffington Post before, so at this point I was optimistic that Arianna might come to a sane conclusion, if not one I’d agree with. Hah!

One year later, wracked with conflict and discord, and battered by petty grievances, false promises, and worn out dogmas, we stand on the verge of passing a giant boon to health insurance companies and calling it “reform.”

The reason we are given? What else: the votes just aren’t there for a real reform bill.

That’s where Hope 2.0 comes in. If the votes aren’t there, the people need to create them. Just like King did. They need to build a movement. And to make that happen, we need to adopt another of the great lessons of Dr. King’s life: elevating the role empathy must play in our society.

Arianna Huffington is sad that the Progressives in Congress are ruining her government health care dreams by catering to special interests (e.g., groups lobbying furiously to secure their place in a rigged system). Somehow she thinks a majority of Americans agree that unaffordable state-run health care is a right we must force down Washington’s throat, which indicates she doesn’t talk to many people who live outside her head. Even among public option supporters, how many would be cheering for government intervention if Congress were remotely honest about the costs?

Here’s hoping the John McCains and Lindsey Grahams of the GOP don’t swoop in on gilded bipartisan unicorns to help the leftists salvage their shell game. Congratulations to Senator Brown (R-MA)! “R-MA” – now there’s something new.

Post to Twitter

Message to Senator Brown

Let your senators know exactly how you feel about Reid’s health care bill! I sent the following to Sherrod Brown, Ohio’s first term Progressive who continues to support support the Reid bill despite its heap of federal programs being less heap-ish than he would like. You can send a message to Senator Brown via the form at http://brown.senate.gov/contact

How do you feel, Senator, about the fact that Nelson’s support for the health care bill is being purchased at cost to Ohio taxpayers? Will you ask Senator Reid to also dedicate federal funds to the cost of Ohio’s increased Medicaid rolls?

I’m a conservative from rural Ohio, and I’m sure there are few policy positions you and I would agree on. But let’s be frank, there are a lot of Ohioans between us on the political spectrum who will wonder why you’ve supported a massive expansion of D.C.’s power that demolishes the state budget. Why commit political suicide for something voters oppose that also compromises your own wishes? Ask Senator Reid to give you all a Christmas break, and see what Ohioans have to say about this bill.

You won’t have Bob Taft and George Bush to whack around like pinatas in the next election, Senator. This is something you really ought to keep in mind unless you’d like to serve just one term.

I noticed the Senator’s office is in the Hart Senate Office Building… no relation. T-minus 10 days before an aide sends some boilerplate response thanking me for my stupid opinion.

Post to Twitter

Bought and Paid For

Senator Nelson, the last neanderthal holdout preventing a floor vote on The Reid Plan for Progressive Paradise, has a price. You wouldn’t know this if you read the LA Times story, but The New York Times at least mentions in passing that our tax dollars will be devoted to Senator Nelson’s constituents:

The amendment also includes a special extension solely for Nebraska: increased federal contributions to the cost of an expansion of Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for the poor.

You know Medicaid. Medicaid is that program whose cost to the state of Ohio went from $2.6 billion in 1997 to $4.8 billion in 2006. Medicaid is that program the Democrats in both the House and Senate have chosen to model their horrendous legislation after. Medicaid is one of the several ways President Obama, Senator Reid, and Representative Pelosi have tried to hide the real costs of Obamacare.

But, I’m a conservative. I love war and hate poor people, so I can’t be trusted when I say a new or expanded entitlement program costs too much. How about The Columbus Dispatch?

As Ohio officials try to close an $850 million budget hole, the key U.S. Senate health-care overhaul package could cost Ohio $922 million in additional Medicaid spending in the plan’s first five years.

A shame for the states, but this is about centralizing control in Washington. A bill opposed by the public has to be jammed through before senators are exposed to the disgust of their subjects – and if it takes a little more of our money to get the 60th vote on board, that money is gone. The Washington Post has a quote from Senator Nelson that could easily be applied to the entire health “reform” debacle and attributed to Harry Reid…

“I know this is hard for some of my colleagues to accept and I appreciate their right to disagree,” Nelson told reporters at the Capitol, of the many changes made at his behest. “But I would not have voted for this bill without these provisions.”

My fellow Americans: you don’t want these things, but I do. You can disagree, but you might as well get used to footing the bill. If Harry Reid can’t even cobble together a bill 58 Democrats and 2 Independents will vote to the floor without blatant payoffs, what does that say about his ability to regulate the health insurance and care of 308 million people?

Post to Twitter