And that would be Obamacare. Specifically, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a major part of the unread-before-passed-bill. You might know it better as the “Death Panels.” From The Daily Caller:

[snip]Frank, who announced Monday that he would retire at the end of his current term in office, became the 12th Democrat, and the 212th member of the House, to co-sponsor Tennessee Republican Rep. Phil Roe’s bill aimed at repealing the IPAB.

[...]

IPAB is a 15-member board, appointed by the president, scheduled to convene in 2014. In order to reduce per capita Medicare spending, the board will recommend levels at which Medicare recipients, including seniors, can be reimbursed for health care expenses.

In March, Roe told The Daily Caller the IPAB is the “real death panel” in the health care law, as compared to “end-of-life counseling” Obamacare provisions which former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin once deemed “death panels.”

“This one is the real baby right here — and most people missed this,” Roe told TheDC then. “What everybody was talking about, when you saw Sarah Palin and so forth, what they were talking about these advanced directives where you sit down and there’s sort of mandatory counseling — and Medicare paid for it. This IPAB got missed — and it’s the real death panel.”

Isn’t that pretty much what we had been saying? But wait, there is more:

“Basically, there’s a certain amount of money that’s allocated for Medicare spending each year,” Roe said in March. “Once you hit that amount that’s been appropriated, this board, this bureaucratically appointed board, can then decide, not based on quality or need, but based on strictly cost.”

According to Diane Cohen, the conservative Goldwater Institute’s lead attorney covering Obamacare, IPAB is the “most notorious” of all the bureaucracies the health care law created because it hands Medicare payment decisions over to an unelected board. (Click here to read the rest.)

Isn’t this incredible? I guess it should be no surprise given the numerous czars Obama has put in place making major decisions for us. They aren’t elected, either. Hell, they aren’t even vetted by anyone! But that the Democrats, and it was SOLELY the Democrats, voted to make this the law of the land is telling indeed.

Too bad Rep. Frank didn’t make this decision two years, and maybe states wouldn’t be saddled with fighting the Constitutionality of Obamacare. They wouldn’t have to be spending so much time and treasure trying to protect their citizens from the unilateral move of one party against all of the objections of its citizenry. Party Before Country rules the day far too often, as I have said, and this was no exemption. But maybe, just MAYBE, these people will finally start caring more about the country than whatever perks they might get for selling their souls for the benefit of the Party leaders.

And speaking of money, given all of the brouhaha paid to mere whispers of allegations over Herman Cain 24/7, you may be surprised to learn that former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton backstabbing opportunist, is under investigation for a regarding allegations of paying off his mistress. Oh, yes, and it was not a small sum of money, either, as the Wall Street Journal reports:

A federal grand jury is investigating former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson over possible campaign-finance violations stemming from his 2008 presidential run, including allegations that he arranged for supporters to pay off a woman who planned to say they had engaged in an extramarital affair, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

Several of Mr. Richardson’s close associates have been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony before the panel in Albuquerque, the people said. The panel is one of several grand juries in recent years to examine aspects of Mr. Richardson’s administration and campaigns.

[...]

The investigation comes at a difficult time for New Mexico Democrats, who are struggling to regroup after losing the governor’s mansion—Mr. Richardson couldn’t run again because of term limits—and a number of state legislative seats in 2010. The state is considered a key battleground in the 2012 presidential election and also may be crucial to control of the U.S. Senate, as both parties fight for a vacant seat now held by retiring Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman.

New Mexico Republicans benefited in the last election from grand-jury investigations related to the departing Richardson administration, said Brian Sanderoff, president of an independent polling firm in Albuquerque. If an indictment rekindles memories of alleged Democratic corruption, “it sure won’t help” Democrats in 2012, he said.

Uh, yeah – I imagine that won’t be too helpful to the Democrats in New Mexico. And now for that number:

[snip]The most explosive matter under investigation involves allegations by a former member of Mr. Richardson’s inner circle. That individual said Mr. Richardson’s political allies gave $250,000 to placate a woman who was considering suing the governor in 2007, exposing their alleged extramarital affair, according to people familiar with the federal probe. They said the woman was a state employee at the time that she allegedly became romantically involved with Mr. Richardson around 2004. The woman’s identity has not been disclosed, and the type of suit considered has not been confirmed. (Click here to read the rest.)

The article goes on, and I recommend you read the rest. You may recall, as I mentioned above, that Richardson threw Hillary Clinton under the bus so fast when he thought he was going to get some plumb assignment in Obama’s Circle that the bus didn’t even have a chance to leave skid marks (Commerce Secretary was the post for which he was being considered). So, if you wondered why he never showed up with all of Obama’s Chicago Thugs Cronies, it was a question related to contributions for his presidential run, and the possibility of links to some contracts he made. You know, just like Obama has done with our money to places like Solyndra, and a whole HOST of jobs in his Administration.

Doesn’t that kind of beg the question of if it kept Richardson OUT of Obama’s Administration to have even the question of a possible link between donors and contracts, why is it okay for Obama to have filled his White House with donors, or give our money to companies owned by his donors? Doesn’t make any sense to me. Maybe someone out there can fill me in.

Well, I will sure be interested to see how things shake out now that Barney has joined in to fight against the IPAB. Perhaps this is just the push we need to get this horrible law off the books, and do it RIGHT the next time, with thoughtful consideration, no handouts to Big Pharma, and the support of the majority of the people.

As for Richardson, couldn’t happen to a more deserving person, if you ask me. Sure would be nice if the media bothered to report on this the way they couldn’t WAIT to throw out mere rumors around Herman Cain, but I guess that is just too much to ask these days. Kinda like how they are gleeful over the new Unemployment numbers, until you read further down and find out WHY the numbers are lower. Even The Hill is guilty of that (and Eric Bolling said this morning that the new number is TOO low considering jobs created and files for unemployment, which I thought, too. It should be closer to 8.9%, not 8.6%.). Oh,and in case you missed why, it is because a big bunch of people just dropped out. They gave up. They just gave up trying to find work. THAT should be the headline, IMHO.

Wouldn’t it be nice if our politicians stopped playing politics with people’s lives? Yeah, though I am not going to hold my breath for that day. Anyway, consider this an Open Thread. What’s on your minds?

Peter Schweizer has written a new book, Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison (available soon through Amazon). In it, he details some mighty interesting observations about how much Obama’s cronies have benefited since he took office. The Daily Beast had an excerpt, some of which I will share with you here, beginning with this:

When President-elect Obama came to Washington in late 2008, he was outspoken about the need for an economic stimulus to revive a struggling economy. He wanted billions of dollars spent on “shovel-ready projects” to build roads; billions more for developing alternative-energy projects; and additional billions for expanding broadband Internet access and creating a “smart grid” for energy consumption. After he was sworn in as president, he proclaimed that taxpayer money would assuredly not be doled out to political friends. “Decisions about how Recovery Act dollars are spent will be based on the merits,” he said, referring to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. “Let me repeat that: decisions about how recovery money will be spent will be based on the merits. They will not be made as a way of doing favors for lobbyists.”

Really?

[...]

Nevertheless, a large proportion of the winners were companies with Obama-campaign connections. Indeed, at least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold by launching alternative-energy companies and obtaining grants. How much did they get? According to the Department of Energy’s own numbers … a lot. In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party. The grant and guaranteed-loan recipients were early backers of Obama before he ran for president, people who continued to give to his campaigns and exclusively to the Democratic Party in the years leading up to 2008. Their political largesse is probably the best investment they ever made in alternative energy. It brought them returns many times over.

Shocking, isn’t it? I know none of us should really be surprised. There is so, so much more, even to this excerpt, which I encourage you to read in its entirety.

But I have just one more, pertinent to this whole issue of “green” technology companies: [snip]

One might think that the Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office, which has doled out billions in taxpayer-guaranteed loans, would be directed by a dedicated scientist or engineer. Or perhaps a civil servant with considerable financial knowledge. Instead, the department’s loan and grant programs are run by partisans who were responsible for raising money during the Obama campaign from the same people who later came to seek government loans and grants. Steve Spinner, who served on the Obama campaign’s National Finance Committee and was a bundler himself, was the campaign’s “liaison to Silicon Valley.” His responsibilities included fundraising, recruiting more bundlers, and managing Obama’s relationship with a cadre of very wealthy donors. After the 2008 campaign, Spinner joined the Department of Energy as the “chief strategic operations officer” for the loan programs. A lot of the money he helped hand out went to that same cadre of wealthy Silicon Valley campaign donors. He also sat on the White House Business Council, which is made up of Obama-supporting corporate executives.

Again, Mr. Schweizer’s book will be out Nov. 15, from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. It would make a great stocking stuffer.

But it is not just green companies which are benefiting from Obama’s largesse at our expense. Over the weekend, news broke that the Obama Administration has spent $443 MILLION of our taxpaying dollars to purchase a smallpox vaccine. You read that right – SMALLPOX vaccine. If you are thinking, “I thought that had been essentially eradicated,” you would be right. What is worse, though, is that this particular vaccine has not even been tested yet, and might not even work. Why, then would our government be spending so much money? You know the answer. From the LA Times:

[snip] Senior officials have taken unusual steps to secure the contract for New York-based Siga Technologies Inc., whose controlling shareholder is billionaire Ronald O. Perelman, one of the world’s richest men and a longtime Democratic Party donor.

When Siga complained that contracting specialists at the Department of Health and Human Services were resisting the company’s financial demands, senior officials replaced the government’s lead negotiator for the deal, interviews and documents show.

But wait – it gets worse:

When Siga was in danger of losing its grip on the contract a year ago, the officials blocked other firms from competing.

That’s right – it was a NO-BID contract:

Siga was awarded the final contract in May through a “sole-source” procurement in which it was the only company asked to submit a proposal. The contract calls for Siga to deliver 1.7 million doses of the drug for the nation’s biodefense stockpile. The price of approximately $255 per dose is well above what the government’s specialists had earlier said was reasonable, according to internal documents and interviews. (Click here to read the rest of this excellent article.)

Are you freakin’ kidding me?? Never mind that the nation already has enough smallpox vaccine to vaccinate every man, women, and child should it ever rear its ugly head again ($1 billion worth, according to the LA Times article), but they don’t even know if this new one even WORKS!

Wow. So glad Obama feels free to let our money run through his fingers like water. I am glad, though, that there are intrepid reporters out there ferreting out this information, from Peter Schweizer to David Willman at the LA Times, at least some people will not let this go under the radar. Nor should it – this is OUR money, and our nation is in a terrible economic fix. For Obama to act as if there is an unending pot of our money to pay back his donors is simply wrong, and must be stopped.

And these companies can start paying us back any ol’ time. What do you think?

Wow. Don’t you just love it when the president is all kumbaya and stuff? Doesn’t it make you all warm and fuzzy when he is so bipartisan? Uh huh, sure. Here he is, in his own words (or whoever writes this crap and slaps it on TOTUS):

President Obama launched a three-day bus tour through two states critical to his 2012 reelection campaign by kicking Senate Republicans for blocking his jobs bill, saying he is breaking up his plan because “maybe they just couldn’t understand the whole thing at once.”

Right. That’s the problem with it. Not that the plan sucks, or is yet another stimulus bill, like the other one worked Oh-so-well.

He wasn’t done yet:

“I need you to give Congress a piece of your mind,” Obama said. “These members of Congress work for you. If they’re not delivering, it’s time to let them know.”

Obama also discussed the Republican jobs plan, called the “Real American Jobs Act,” saying it “boils down to a few basic ideas: they want to gut regulations, they want to let Wall Street do whatever it wants, they want to drill more and they want to repeal healthcare reform.”

The president said that the Republican plan means “dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance.”

“So far, at least, I feel better about my plan,” Obama said. (Click here to read the rest.)

Here’s the thing, Mr. Obama. The Senate is actually controlled by the Democrats (as one astute commenter noted). You are aware of that, aren’t you? If not, maybe you shouldn’t be casting stones about who isn’t the brightest bulb in the pack. Just sayin’.

In another classic Obama flip flop, the president is now claiming he is all for the long term care provision in his terrible Obamacare law (pushed through solely by Democrats, just to remind everyone, against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans – and he is saying the Republicans don’t get it? Gotcha). Yes, just last week, his Administration acknowledged this about the “CLASS Act”:

The administration announced late Friday it did not see a way to make the long-term care CLASS Act, which was crafted by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), pay for itself. But perhaps even more damning is how the White House mishandled the controversy; consumer advocates accused the administration of being disingenuous and gutless.

But that was then, this is now:

“We do not support repeal,” said White House spokesman Nick Papas. “Repealing the CLASS Act isn’t necessary or productive. What we should be doing is working together to address the long-term care challenges we face in this country.”

Huh? Which one is it, exactly? Repeal it or leave it?

Senator John Thune had this to say about the initial admission that this was a terribly flawed plan:

After ignoring repeated warnings from my Republican colleagues and me about the fiscal solvency of the CLASS Act, the Obama Administration jammed Obamacare through Congress in order to score a political win. Now, over a year later, the administration is finally admitting the CLASS Act entitlement is unsustainable and cannot be implemented. Simply setting aside the program for the near-term is not enough. Repeal is the only solution to ensuring American taxpayers will not be on the hook in the future for this disastrous entitlement.

And before Obama opened his big mouth to say he DOESN’T want the CLASS Act removed, there was this acknowledgment from the White House (according to The New Republic) about the repeal:

It’s worth noting that, behind the scenes, the administration was never wild about CLASS. Internally several officials argued against including it, precisely because they were worried about the finances and sustainability. But some supported it, partly because the case for action was so unambiguous. Harold Pollack, the University of Chicago professor and regular TNR contributor, put it well when he said “CLASS seeks to address a huge need – helping disabled men and women live with dignity in their own homes.”

And skeptical administration officials took solace in the fact that, thanks to a provision inserted by Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the Secretary of Health and Human Services had discretion to modify the program if, upon further consideration, it appeared unlikely to remain stable. It’s precisely that authority that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius exercised last week. (For more details on the administration’s thinking, see Sarah Kliff‘s account in the Washington Post.)

I see. They didn’t really like it, but figured they would shove it through anyway, and muck around with it if they took too much heat for the expense of it. I see. Oh, wait – no, I don’t. Again, I guess this is what happens when they shove a law down our throats without truly considering the implications or the real costs.

As for where Obama stands now, which one is it? Obama wants it, he doesn’t want it, he wants it, he doesn’t want it. I guess it depends on the day and which way the wind is blowing, or how many petals the daisy has.

What I do know is that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, and that is precisely what Obama is doing. He can’t even decide within a couple of days where he and his Administration stand, and he is attacking other people’s intelligence? Please.

I guess I should not be surprised at Obama’s massive flip flop on this. The initial reaction about how crappy an expensive a plan this was was probably one of the more honest things that came out of this White House, so naturally, Obama had to try and walk it back. Ahem. Thank heavens for TOTUS, huh?

And speaking of TOTUS, isn’t it great that Obama had some spares since the truck full of the podiums and stuff got stolen in Virginia? I am not kidding, and no, this isn’t from The Onion. They really did get stolen. It does beg the question, though – just how many of these things does this guy have? The truck the thieves made off with had about $200,000 worth of equipment in it. Just remember, folks, all these TOTI (I assume that is the proper Latin plural form) are YOUR tax dollars at work. He had MORE than the $200,000 worth of audio and TOTUS equipment in that truck. Good grief, how many does he really need?? And, how the hell was the truck stolen in the first place???

One thing all of this highlights is just how free and easy Obama is with OUR money. Frankly, I am pretty sick of it, and pretty sick of the disparaging remarks directed at anyone who doesn’t toe the Obama line. That’s no way to lead, and no way to govern. Enough of the badgering and bad mouthing, Mr. President. Try a little civility and honesty for a change. I suppose I can count on that happening about the same time I get my unicorn, right?

Uh, yeah. That sounds about right.

Here’s something I don’t get. President Obama is trying to paint the Republicans as the ones who are trying to kick the can down the road. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t they just come to power THIS YEAR? Wasn’t it under Nancy Pelosi’s rule that they decided to not even make a budget because of the soaring debt?? Wasn’t it the Democrats solely in power for a while there, and over the entire Congress even before Obama’s ascension? So, how is this all the Republicans’ fault? That doesn’t make sense to me.

As reported in the Washington Post (and mentioned here), First Lady Betty Ford lamented the days gone by when Republicans and Democrats were friends, when, even if they didn’t see eye to eye, they were able to look past those differences.

Just this morning, I saw Governor John Kasich of Ohio, and he said much the same thing. He served in the U.S. House of Representatives back in the ’90′s. Gov. Kasich offered some advice to his former colleagues about how to deal with this whole budget/debt issue, and had something to say about civility near the end:

I think that sums it up nicely, on both fronts.

What I don’t get is, when did this polarization happen? WHY did it happen? How can we change it back to a more civil discourse, not just in Congress, but among us all? Is it just a lack of impulse control? Sense of entitlement that we can say or do whatever the hell we please? I just don’t get how our discourse has so deteriorated. Something’s gotta give. Maybe a national Miss Manners class is in order…

There’s something else I don’t get about how we treat one another. How is it, in the 21st century, we still have 2 million women battered by their partners each year, and 10 million children at risk because of domestic violence? How is it that we have not dealt with this issue, worked to change attitudes about women to the extent that their partner would never even DREAM of hitting them (or psychologically abuse them)? Or that, at least, these numbers would be greatly decreased?

I raise this because Dr. Phil, at the invitation of Senator Patrick Leahy, will be testifying on Capitol Hill today to request that an Act passed in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act, providing funds for prosecution, requiring restitution, and other issues, be re-authorized (which it was in 2000). Isn’t it sad that in this day and age, the following holds true:

[snip] # According to the U.S. Surgeon General, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women in the United States.
# The American Medical Association estimates that their male partners assault 2 million American women each year.
# The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that 95% of the victims of domestic violence are women.
# A woman is beaten every 15 seconds in the United States. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Report to the nation on Crime and Justice. The Data. Washington DC Office of Justice Program, US Dept. of Justice. Oct 1983)
# 35% of all emergency room calls are a result of domestic violence.
# Of those who abuse their partner, well over 65% also physically and/or sexually abuse the children.
# Each day …..4 women die as a result of abuse.
# Each day …..3 children die as a result of abuse.
# The Federal Bureau of Investigation reports that 32% of female homicide victims are killed by their intimate partners. (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States 1999.2000)
# Anywhere from 1-3 million women are battered each year by their intimate partner. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Intimate Partner Violence. Washington DC, 2000.)
# In the United States, a woman is more likely to be assaulted, raped, or killed by an intimate partner than by any other type of assailant. (ibid.) [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Here’s the truly tragic aspect of the list above – that is less than a THIRD of all of the issues of violence facing women in this country. Holy shit.

And one more thing I don’t get. How is it that Quinnipiac Poll finds that Obama still holds 50% over Republican challengers? How can that possibly be? After the Stimulus that wasn’t anywhere close to one, the Obamacare Debacle that will cost us big time, Unemployment going up, housing values going down while foreclosures are going up, the number of golf trips of Obamas going up, along with the number of Executive Orders to circumvent that pesky Congress(about which we screamed bloody murder when Bush did it), and the number of lies he tells daily, including about his own mother’s insurance coverage while he was campaigning in 2008 (that one was a DOOZY – using his dying mother for political gain, and lying about it – wow, that speaks VOLUMES about the kind of person he is), and I could go on, and on, and on.

I just don’t get it. Do you?

Heck, I think you could say the Republicans were being just plain hateful toward seniors, especially considering the comments by DNC Chair, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

[snip] “This Republican path to poverty passes like a tornado through seniors’ nursing homes.” [snip]

Not to be outdone is Rep. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.):

[snip]“Make no mistake about it, the Ryan budget is a war on seniors,” she said in a press conference organized by the Congressional Task Force on Seniors. “Newt Gingrich has said Medicare should wither on the vine. Well, this Republican budget would chop it down.” The new civility didn’t stop there: “Republicans are literally trying to kill Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Democrats will stand of the way of their war on seniors.” [snip]

Holy shit, grab the dog, Martha, and hide under the bed! Ahem.

Imagine my surprise, then, while reading my daily paper to discover the following article, “Seniors Face Medicare Cost Barrier For Cancer Drugs.” Huh? Wait – how can that be? Isn’t the President a Democrat? And the Senate is headed up by Democrats? How can this possibly be?

Oh, wait – I know – because the “health care” plan shoved down our throats by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, cut boatloads of money from Medicare. Not that you’d know it from the way the Democrats are screaming and carrying on now.

But I am getting ahead of myself and this AP article:

Chemotherapy is now available in a pill, but if you have Medicare, you may not be able to afford it.

That’s what happened to Rita Moore when she took her prescription for a medication to treat kidney cancer to her local drugstore. She was stunned when the pharmacist told her a month’s supply of the pills would cost $2,400, more than she makes.
Medicare prescription plans that cover seniors like Moore are allowed to charge steep copayments for the latest cancer drugs, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year. About 1 in 6 beneficiaries are not filling their prescriptions, according to recent research that suggests a worrisome trend.

Officials at Medicare say they’re not sure what happens to those patients — whether they get less expensive older drugs that sometimes work as well, or they just give up. Traditionally, chemotherapy has been administered intravenously at a clinic or doctor’s office. Pills are a relatively new option that may represent the future of cancer care. [snip]

Good grief, how could this possibly happen? Oh, wait – I know that, too – because Obama met with Big Pharma before doing ANYTHING else on the “Health Care” bill. And it makes this even more aggravating:

[snip] Private insurance companies that deliver the Medicare prescription benefit say the problem is that drug makers charge too much for the medications, some of which were developed from taxpayer-funded research. The pharmaceutical industry faults insurers, saying copayments on drugs are higher than cost-sharing for other medical services, such as hospital care.

Some experts blame the design of the Medicare prescription benefit itself, because it allows insurers to put expensive drugs on a so-called “specialty tier” with copayments equivalent to 25 percent or more of the cost of the medication.
Drugs for multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and hepatitis C also wind up on specialty tiers, along with the new anti-cancer pills. Medicare supplemental insurance — Medigap — doesn’t cover those copayments.

“This is a benefit design issue,” said Dan Mendelson, president of Avalere Health, a research firm that collaborated in a recent medical journal study on the consequences of high copayments for the new cancer drugs. [snip]

Yep – we helped these companies design these drugs, and now some of the very people who did so cannot afford these drugs to save their lives.

There is more to this article, including the response by Medicare, and how Obama’s Health Care Law factors in, but this is the result for Rita Moore:

[snip] Rita Moore had to try to find her own way out of the dilemma.

She decided to apply to Pfizer’s prescription assistance program for patients who can’t afford Sutent and other drugs the company makes. Pfizer approved a year’s worth of free medication, but it took about two months to collect and review all the medical and financial paperwork.

“They were very helpful, but it wasn’t a fast process,” said Moore, who is still working as the manager of an apartment building for seniors. In the meantime, she wasn’t being treated. The cancer spread and is now close to her spine and her body’s main artery. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, dear – that is just dreadful. I am sure Rita Moore is more the rule than the exception, especially considering this article from The Daily Caller, “Obamacare Doesn’t Stop Medigap Providers, AARP Partners From Discriminating Against Seniors.” Say what? But wait, I thought it was supposed to be REPUBLICANS who hated seniors. Nope, apparently it is Democrats. Oh no they didn’t:

The Daily Caller has learned that Democratic lawmakers omitted a section of Obamacare in the summer of 2009 that would have stopped Medigap plan providers, including American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) partners, from discriminating against seniors with pre-existing conditions.

Democrats removed a section that would have required “guaranteed issue,” or coverage regardless of preexisting conditions, for Medigap plans from an early version of the Obamacare bill.

Medigap plans are supplemental coverage that Medicare recipients may purchase. They insure seniors a step further than the basic Medicare coverage.

TheDC has obtained an early copy of the Obamacare bill, dated June 19, 2009, which shows the bill’s original authors had intended to stop AARP partners and other Medigap providers from discriminating against seniors. But, at some point between then and early fall 2009 when Democrats introduced the bill into the House, that provision was removed.

A House Democratic aide told Kaiser Health News (KHN) earlier this year that the Medigap provision was removed from the bill because it cost too much. [snip]

Oh, yes, they did.

Well, wait – what’s the deal with AARP? Doesn’t their very name imply they are supposed to stand with senior citizens? So one would think:

[snip] The AARP said numerous times throughout the Obamacare debate that it would forgo profits to cover costs of improved health insurance for seniors. “To suggest there is a commercial conspiracy is ludicrous,” AARP’s chief lobbyist David Sloane told the Tacoma News-Tribune in October 2009, referencing charges that the AARP was supporting Obamacare in order to bolster its partners’ Medigap programs and, thereby, making profit. “As we have said, we would gladly forgo every dime of revenue to fix the health care system.”

The AARP generated more than $675 million in 2010 “royalty revenue,” or “kickbacks” as some of its members refer to them as. More than $440 million of that came from AARP’s partnership with United Health Group, a Medigap provider AARP lends its brand to in exchange for royalties.

Jim Martin of 60 Plus, the conservative version of the AARP, told TheDC that this new revelation shows what he thinks the AARP really is: “The Association Against Retired Persons.”

“They’re betraying seniors while going after the almighty dollar,” Martin said. “I don’t mind them making a profit if they use their own dime to do it. But, as you well know, they’ve received well over a billion dollars in tax dollars throughout the years now.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

And the argument can be made that one would be wrong to think AARP has the best interests of its members in mind. (And this is why I deep six every AARP membership card I receive.)

Well, this does thicken the plot, doesn’t it? Seems to me that the Democrats are crying foul lest the focused light is shone on them. Of course, that would mean the MSM would have to actually look at these issues more. As others have said, would that the NY Times and Washington Post spent as much time and energy on the Obama Health Care Plan as they have the Sarah Palin Emails. Then we would not have had to wait for the bill to be passed into law to find out just what the hell was in there.

Hey, better late than never – now that they have all of these volunteers, perhaps they could ask them to take a little look see at the Health Care Law. Just a thought.

Tuesday is Flag Day – Fly it high and proud, friends!

Bear in mind, first and foremost, that the Obamacare program, voted into law SOLELY by Democrats, contains MASSIVE cuts to Medicare. Doctors are now limiting Medicare patients as a result. But that doesn’t stop the Democrats from railing at Ryan’s plan, acting as if he is going to unplug machines or something.

Don’t take it from me, though. FactCheck.org, a division of the Annenberg Foundation, just came out with an article highlighting the new DNC Chair, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s lies about this very program.

But first, astute readers may recall that the Annenberg Challenge is where Barack Obama and his good buddy, domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, served on the board together. This is no conservative organization coming out with this information, but one with a liberal past.

So, what did the DNC Chair say exactly? This, according to the FactCheck article, “DNC Chair Throws Truth To The Wolves,” the headline of which says it all:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz falsely claimed that seniors with preexisting medical conditions would be denied Medicare coverage under the GOP’s plan. The House GOP plan specifically says insurance companies “must agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries.”

She also repeated a false Democratic talking point that future beneficiaries — those who are now younger than 55 — would be left on their own to buy insurance in the private market. The GOP plan, as we have written before, would provide subsidies for future beneficiaries to buy private insurance from a Medicare exchange set up by the government.

Wasserman Schultz, the new chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, made her comments May 29 on “Face the Nation.”

Wasserman Schultz, May 29: What they would do is they would take the people who are younger than 55 years old today and tell them, “You know what? You’re on your own. Go and find private health insurance in the — in the health care insurance market. We’re going to throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for preexisting conditions. We’re going to give you ‘x’ amount of dollars and you figure it out.”

She is simply wrong to say that the GOP plan would allow insurance companies to “throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for preexisting conditions.” [snip]

Not that you would know it from the attacks from Obama and his minions, but the Ryan Plan is not as Draconian as they want people to think. They are just blowing smoke to make sure no one pays attention to the cuts THEY made, which are affecting people on Medicare. But hey, why let the truth stand in your way? The Dems aren’t, that’s for sure:

The Republican plan — dubbed “Path to Prosperity” by its chief architect, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin — would make no changes in Medicare for those 55 and older. But it would make significant changes to Medicare for those younger than 55 — just not as described by the Florida Democrat. The plan would provide future beneficiaries with government subsidies to purchase health insurance through a Medicare exchange set up by the government.

Path to Prosperity: Health plans that choose to participate in the Medicare exchange must agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.
DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan said “we stand by the statement” that the GOP plan would deny coverage to future beneficiaries with preexisting conditions. (Emphasis mine.) Sevugan provided excerpts of testimony given April 5 by Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian CATO Institute, at a hearing of a House oversight subcommittee. But in that testimony, Cannon said that “all seniors under the chairman’s proposal, as I understand it, will be able to obtain health insurance coverage.” And those with preexisting conditions “will get larger vouchers” because payments will be “risk-adjusted so that people with severe illnesses will get larger vouchers.”

Sevugan made the point that the government subsidies — or “vouchers,” as Cannon calls them — won’t keep up with insurance premiums and, as a result, seniors would be forced to go without coverage. But that’s not what the DNC chairwoman said. She said the GOP plan would allow private insurers to “drop you for preexisting conditions,” and that’s just not true. [snip]

Lies, lies, and more lies. But what I love is that the DNC spokesman, in the face of facts to the contrary, claims that they “stand by their statements.” They are misrepresenting a plan to the American people to cast Ryan’s plan in as negative a light as possible, even if what they say is not true. Wow. That takes some chutzpah. Or complete and utter lack of ethics. You decide.

The conclusion of this article (and there is more to it, so I urge you to click here to read the rest), is this:

[snip ]It’s fair game to debate whether the subsidies are adequate to cover insurance costs. But it’s wrong to say that the GOP plan would “throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage.”

When FactCheck.org is telling you you’re lying, and you keep doing it, that is disingenuous at best, and deplorable at worst. They are simply trying to gin up votes, and just like 2008, they don’t care how much they lie to do it.

Of course, Rep. Wasserman Schultz is just following Obama’s lead. He is the one who started this BS back in April, lying through his teeth, as FactCheck.org made clear. I think Rep. Paul Ryan is a bit over it, this Hill article makes clear from the meeting between Republicans and Obama on Wednesday,
“Ryan to Obama: ‘Leadership Should Come From The Top‘”. Why, yes, it should, Rep. Ryan. Yes, leadership should come from the top. But Obama isn’t a leader, he is a liar, which he has demonstrated time and time again. Why would you expect anything less than that from him, or his hand picked DNC chair?

Ahem. To his credit, Ryan stood firm:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) confronted President Obama over his attack on the Republican budget plan in the most dramatic moment of a White House meeting with the House GOP conference.

Saying he wanted to “clear the air” amid a deficit debate marred by partisan rancor, Ryan, the author of the House GOP budget, told the president he was wrong to characterize Republicans as turning their backs on children and senior citizens.

“Leadership should come from the top,” Ryan said to Obama, according to Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), who described the exchange to The Hill.

Ryan also called out the president for his speech at George Washington University in April, where Obama castigated the Republican budget in harsh terms while Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, sat just a few feet away.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Ah, yes – Obama the picture of decorum and good manners. Not.

Both Rep. Ryan and FactCheck.org have tried to set the record straight about Ryan’s Budget plan. The Democrats will have none of it. Better to stick with the lie than the truth, especially if it will score a bunch of points, right? They are intentionally manipulating people, scaring some, and pissing off others as a result of their continued false meme. That is reprehensible.

You know, I still cannot believe that this is how the DNC has always operated, and I was just too blind to see it. But if the past 3 years is any indication, that is exactly what they were doing, I am ashamed to admit. Is it really so hard for Democrats and Republicans to work together on the behalf of ALL AMERICANS? To not worry about who gets the most points for it? Is it really so hard to put the country first, and our worsening economic situation, over partisan sides?

Evidently. And that just makes me mad. How about you?

Ah Bejaysus and Begorrah! Oi’ll be swearin’ boi the auld shrine to the Vorgin with the shamrocks growin’ round it next to the hill where Cuchullain slew the Great Leprechaun of Kildare on St Patrick’s Day that Barack Seamus O’Toole Flaherty Joyce O’Bama is the most Irish US president that ever set foot on the Emerald Oisle, so he is, so he is.

Except, when he’s in Africa, of course, when he disappears into the dry ice and re-emerges with a grass skirt and a bone through his nose and declares himself to be Mandingo, Prince of the Bloodline of the Bonga People, Drinker of Cattle Urine, Father of A Thousand Warrior Sons, Keeper of King Solomon’s Mines, Barehanded Slayer of Lions, Undaunted Victim of the Evil Colonial British Empire.

[...]

Tony Blair used to do this trick too, his accent mutating from broad Glaswegian to genteel Edinburgh to Mummerset to Estuary to Richard E Grant to Sarf London Grime – often in the course of one Downing Street reception – the better to persuade his target audience that he was their kind of guy. And it is, of course, the hallmark of an unutterable charlatan.

I’ve argued before that Tony Blair and Barack Obama have an awful lot in common. Both are lawyers; both are snake-oil-salesman; both claim to be post-partisan, and Third Way and consensual; both play the acceptable, moderate-seeming public face of a regime chock full of Communists, class warriors, single issue rabble rousers, malcontents, communitarians and eco-loons hell bent on destroying every last vestige of what once made their country great. And both do (or did) the things dodgy political leaders always do when the going gets tough at home and their domestic audience finally wises up to how totally useless they are: they hop on the plane and pose as international statesman instead.

No kidding. Is it any surprise that Obama went abroad given the very, very brief bump in his poll numbers, and the continued Spring of Discontent in this country? I am only surprised he didn’t go to the West Bank after his disastrous speech about Israel.

Perhaps he knew that Netanyahu’s speech to Congress was going to be better received than Obama’s was from the State Department. And that Netanyahu would get more standing ovations than Obama did for his State of the Union address. Ahem. Perhaps that is why he felt compelled to get the hell out of Dodge and to get some of that adoration he thrives on so much…

It is all about the spin, isn’t it? Like the spin the MSM is putting on the special election up in NY State. They are making it sound like the Democrat, Kathy Hochul, won by a landslide, and that it is a HUGE referendum on The Republicans’ position on Medicare.

There are two problems with this logic: 1. Hochul had all of 4% more votes than the Republican, Jane Corwin; and 2. the alleged Tea Party candidate, Jack Davis, siphoned off 9% of the votes. Do the math.

And about Davis, I think it is safe to say that Davis, who has run a number of times as a Democrat in that region, was a spoiler, and a successful one at that.

The major spin here, though, as Dana Perino pointed out, is that The DEMOCRATS cut $500 million to Medicare in the DEMOCRATIC passage of Obamacare. How is it that they are now going to be the ones to save it from those evil Republicans? Good grief.

It is clear, though, that this is how the MSM is going to spin it – it is the primary headline for a number of outlets. Wow.

This kind of hoodwinking and bamboozling seems to be the stock and trade these days, and is certainly a hallmark of Obama’s. Along those lines, I will leave the conclusion to Mr. Delingpole, who sums up Obama’s trip to the UK, and his presidency in general, beautifully:

[snip] Obama can’t stand Britain (his wife likes us even less): he made that clear enough when he sent back Winston Churchill’s bust and dissed our Prime Minister with those dodgy DVDS. He blames us for what happened to his grandfather during Mau Mau. He doesn’t believe in the Special Relationship. Are we honestly supposed to believe in that during the subsequent year in office, Obama has since acquired such wisdom and insight that he suddenly realises how special we are?

Of course he hasn’t. Obama is just doing now what all bullies and losers start doing when they realise how unpopular they are and that everyone is abandoning them. They suck up to anybody and everybody. They whore themselves piteously before enemies they once considered beneath their contempt. Fain will they fill their bellies with husks that swine eat – but which no man will give them: and serve them jolly well right, too!

By all means let us enjoy watching Obama smarm and grovel and ingratiate himself like seome presidential Uriah Heep. But for heaven’s sake let us never give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s a cold fish and would certainly never show any mercy towards us were the roles to be reversed.

Amen to that…

I am sure this will be a shock to you, but fully 20% of Obamacare waivers are in Nancy Pelosi’s district. (Okay, I cannot restrain myself – how much does it look like Obama is telling Nancy, “don’t you worry, sweetie, I will always love you” or something along those lines? Feel free to add your own caption below.)

You are just not going to believe this. Well, maybe you would, but it is just a tad aggravating, as The Daily Caller reports:

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

[...]

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.

Gee, aren’t you also surprised to learn that union chapters were also getting waivers? Oh, I am so sure.

But allow me to give you a glimpse into the kinds of restaurants these are in Former Speaker Pelosi’s district getting waivers:

For instance, Boboquivari’s restaurant in Pelosi’s district in San Francisco got a waiver from Obamacare. Boboquivari’s advertises $59 porterhouse steaks, $39 filet mignons and $35 crab dinners.

Then, there’s Café des Amis, which describes its eating experience as “a timeless Parisian style brasserie” which is “located on one of San Francisco’s premier shopping and strolling boulevards, Union Street,” according to the restaurant’s Web site.

“Bacchus Management Group, in partnership with Perry Butler, is bringing you that same warm, inviting feeling, with a distinctive San Francisco spin,” the Web site reads. Somehow, though, the San Francisco upper class eatery earned itself a waiver from Obamacare because it apparently cost them too much to meet the law’s first year requirements.

The reason the Obama administration says it has given out waivers is to exempt certain companies or policyholders from “annual limit requirements.” The applications for the waivers are “reviewed on a case by case basis by department officials who look at a series of factors including whether or not a premium increase is large or if a significant number of enrollees would lose access to their current plan because the coverage would not be offered in the absence of a waiver.” The waivers don’t allow a company to permanently refrain from implementing Obamacare’s stipulations, but companies can reapply for waivers annually through 2014. [snip] (Click here to read the rest of this story.)

Not to be too cynical or anything (!), but sure seems like a bit of a payback for Pelosi shoving through this monstrosity of a bill. But that’s just a guess on my part.

And if THESE companies are struggling to pay for Obamacare with their high dollar menu, what does this administration think is going to happen with small business owners who AREN’T charging comparable rates for comparable services? Will they, too, get waivers? I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one, if I were them. Well, unless they happen to be in Nancy’s district, and likely a place she frequents (okay, I made that up, but c’mon, it’s pretty likely, isn’t it, that she patronizes the restaurants mentioned above? I think so.), otherwise,t hey are just SOL.

Just like the rest of us are.

Once again, this is a glaring example of just how much this is less about the people of this country, and more about political payback. All I can say is I hope the courts do the right thing for US and rule this new law un-Constitutional.

Caption time – what is Obama saying to Pelosi? And consider this an Open Thread. Feel free to talk abt the Govinator’s love child, why this IMF chairman, Dominque Strauss-Kahn still has his job after raping someone but Wolfowitz lost his for a consensual relationship, or Trump, Obama’s bin Laden bounce already bouncing away, or whoever/whatever is on your mind…

UPDATE: I advise you to not be drinking anything when you read this. Ready? Okay – so, HHS is claiming that Pelosi had NOTHING to do with the 20% of waivers granted in April going to HER district. Nope, zippo, zilch, nada, the big donut hole. Huh uh, nothing at all. Oh, you believe them, don’t you? After all, they’re the government – they wouldn’t lie to you, would they?! Wow…

But apparently, “Big Pharma” was just the beginning of the companies getting their hands into the Obamacare Pie. And how, as this headline attests, “Upton Expands Investigation Into ’Secret’ Obamacare Meetings.” Indeed, this confirms what many of us suspected to be true – Obamacare was not written with the American people in mind, but as paybacks, if you will, to certain groups. I guarantee you, you will not be surprised by some of the groups mentioned below:

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton is expanding his investigation into the meetings between special interest groups and the Obama White House that set the stage for the passage of Obamacare, sending document requests to 12 industry groups and unions that played a key role in the negotiations.

In April 18 letters to the groups, Upton asks for extensive details and documents about each organization’s interactions with the White House in regards to the health care law.

The requests come as the Obama White House has so far declined to provide its documents about the meetings.

At issue are special deals struck between interest groups and President Obama to either garner the support of major industry sectors or soften their criticism of the health care law.

Oh, what a surprise, huh? Yeah, I know – I was being snarky. But what I particularly love is how the White House is refusing to cooperate with this investigation. Oh, yes, “Mr. Transparency” has proven to be even more secretive than Bush. Oh, but you don’t hear the same hue and cry over that, not by a long shot. Hey, you know the rules, “they apply to thee, not to me…”
In one major instance, the pharmaceutical drug sector agreed to back the legislation as long as the costs to that sector did not exceed $80 billion. The drug sector eventually spent over $100 million on television advertisements touting the law.

Now to the groups involved in this behemoth law affecting the entire country, and not in a good way:

The industry groups and unions subject to Upton’s request are AARP, AFL-CIO, AdvaMed, AFSCME, American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Business Roundtable, Federation of American Hospitals, PHRMA, and SEIU.

Wow. That is quite a roll call. Is anyone surprised to see the AFL/CIO and SEIU listed above? I wasn’t either, but I have to wonder just what their medical expertise is that their opinions were even solicited. I guess they were making sure there were sufficient loopholes that they would never have to be a part of this. And they were successful in that regard. Unbelievable.

Now that we have this law, and the funding thereof, looming over our heads, investigating what is in it, and WHO helped craft it, seems a bit overdue, but I guess better late than never, right? Right. The investigation actually began two months ago:

Feb. 18, Upton wrote to Nancy-Ann DeParle, who served as Obama’s health care reform “czar” during the period during which Obamacare was considered in Congress and has since been promoted to the president’s deputy chief of staff, requesting a range of documents relating to meetings and negotiations over the health care law.

The letter requested a list of staff working for the White House Office of Health Reform, a list of their meetings on health care with special interest groups, notes or minutes from those meetings and all written communications between the White House and outside groups on changes to the health care system.

In response, White House counsel Robert Bauer suggested the inquiry was too time consuming to comply with.

The request “would constitute a vast and expensive undertaking,” Bauer wrote in a March 4 letter. Instead, the White House sent Upton a series of public relations materials related to public events related to health care reform and a summary of the publicly available White House visitor logs.

Congressional Republicans say the administration has resisted complying with a series of inquiries such as the request for information on the Obamacare meetings.

This does not seem to be an unreasonable request to me. Isn’t this kind of information supposed to be available anyway? We’re not talking major secrets here, we are talking about how outside corporations and agencies influenced one of the costliest pieces of legislation ever. Show us the damn records already, and stop beating around the bush. Sheesh. That is, in essence, what the Republicans said, too, though a little nicer than that:

In a response to Bauer, Upton said in a March 10 letter Republicans were “concerned and disappointed,” and reiterated their request for the documents. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

I’ll say. I’m “disappointed,” too, that this Administration has made the Bush Administration look like an open book, but they surely have.

The Republicans are trying a different tack, though, to obtain the information they seek, “Faced With Obama ’Slow Walking’ Document Requests, GOP Aims At Outside Groups.”

Well, that’s one way to do it, though it is disturbing that a president, any president, would stonewall those who were elected to do the work of the people, in this case, protecting them from undue influence by certain groups:

[snip] “There is a coordinated effort, I assume being led by the White House, to, I would describe it as slow walking or slow rolling these things,” says an investigator on the Energy and Commerce Committee, “No one’s told us ‘no, we’re not gonna do that.’ They say they’ll do it every time. But they’re doing as much as they can to stall.”

The administration’s resistance to cooperate with requests that could expose damaging information about the president’s health care law and other issues is shaping the latest GOP salvo, aimed, not at the administration, but at a series of industry trade associations and unions. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

All I can do is just shake my head in disgust – at Obama, Pelosi, and those spineless cowards who passed this horrific, pork-laden, influence peddled, law. If they were capable of shame, they should surely feel it over this, this law that will increase our deficit higher and higher.

We knew this was happening – we knew it, they knew it, and they passed it anyway. Wow.

My eyes honed in like laser beams at the Breaking News.  President Obama’s advisor, and MIT economist, Jonathan Gruber was (via AP):

“…turning to comic books to help make the pitch for the administration’s embattled health care law.”

[snip]…”[with] a defensible text that is fact-based.”

Wow!  A comic book telling truths about healthcare.  Incredible!  Brilliant!!  Who would have thought…  I must let people know.  Even before I could start to write it up, a title for the post popped into my head.

Congressional Humors Reach Comic Proportions

Perfect.  Wow.  There goes my writers block, this post is going to write itself.  Then I read more (via AP):

Gruber concedes he’s on a rescue mission of sorts: defending the law from what he calls the “ugly, evil rhetoric” of critics.

“When people understand the bill, they like it,” he said.

And my heart started to pound in anticipation.  Where there are villains, there are heroes.  Wearing tights and a cape?  Please, oh, please let it be a woman this time.  We need another super-heroine saving the day with comic style adventures.  Will she be a CEO climbing up the side of tall insurance buildings or a nurse bounding down hospital hallways!  Who will play her in the movies?  And will they make a musical out of this?

Oh, the possibilities …  A new title popped into my head:

Congressional Humors Immortalized in Comics

And then my mind really started to race.  If they can rescue healthcare with comic adventures, the sky is the limit.  Just think of all the things the American people don’t like about their government and don’t understand about the way it works.  The never-ending big business bailouts, the failures of Katrina, the Gulf oil spill disaster, the Iraq war, the on going TSA gropes, the …

An even better title popped into my head:

Congressional Humors to Spawn Comic Cottage Industry

Wow.  This could be the key to America’s future.  Forget the infrastructure and energy independence meme.  This could be Obama’s WPA.  This could save the American economy.  Lift the American people out of poverty.  Restore the middle class.  There would be writers, artist, printers, multimedia consultants to hire.  I really must let people know.  (And maybe I should take a few drawing class.  You know, get the education and training necessary to get in on the ground floor of this.)

Then I realized commenters over at No Quarter were already hard at work writing their own congressional comic adventures in Larry Doyle’s excellent post on Obama’s Conundrum. From:

NOOGAN!!

New Car for Senator Reid

Sen. Harry Reid goes to a local GM dealer in Washington, D.C., with the intention of buying a brand new vehicle.

Harry looks around and finds one he likes.

After going back and forth with the salesman, Harry settles on a price of $45,000.

Harry and the salesman go back to the office to complete the paperwork.

Harry works out a 4-year payment plan, and signs on the bottom line.

The salesman shakes Harry’s hand and says, ”Thanks Senator Reid, the car will be ready for pickup in 4 years.”

Harry says, “What are you talking about?  Where are the keys to my new car?”

The salesman replies, “No, you don’t understand Senator.  You make payments for 4 years… THEN we give you the car.  You know, just like your health plan”.

Harry, with a choking voice, says to the salesman, “But that’s not fair!

And the salesman says, “No s—!”

There was this untitled, collaborative work by Carol haka, Matzo; AC; and Oowawa that I’ll call Bringing Spring Water to Congress.  A stimulus worthy effort if I ever saw one.

carol haka, Matzo

Just read we pay over $800k a year for Congress to have bottled water.

Why the hell are we paying for people to eat and drink in Congress?  How about vending machines and cafeterias with credit card machines and cash acceptance?

Enough!  

AC

I’ve seen some of that $$.

The “cafeteria” at The Library of Congress is more plush than a 5 star restaurant–and we pick up most of the tab.

oowawa

carol, you may not believe this, but when I’m thirsty, I turn on the water faucet in my kitchen, put a glass under it, and then drink it!  Actually, my family has been doing that for as long as I can remember.  I guess I come from hearty pioneer stock . . .

AC

**”when I’m thirsty, I turn on the water faucet in my kitchen, put a glass under it, and then drink it!”**

Oh come on oowawa you’re pulling my leg–I’ll have to try that myself but your kitchen may be quite a drive for me..

oowawa

LOL! Jeez–if we could only run a hose from my kitchen to Washington DC, we could save the treasury $800,000 a year!

AC

Yes, oowawa good idea, then I could sell it as “imported water” and send you royalties of course.

oowawa

Good idea, AC.  It’s “California Wine Country Spring Water”–springs right from the tap . . .

###

Then I found this over at  Running ‘Cause I Can’t Fly: Why the Government Is In Such Bad Shape – Author Unknown

A DC airline reservation agent offers some examples of why our country is in trouble:

1. I had a New Hampshire Congresswoman (Carol Shea-Porter) ask for an aisle seat so that her hair wouldn’t get messed up by being near the window. (On an airplane!)

[snip]

5. An aide for a cabinet member (Janet Napolitano) once called and asked if he could rent a car in Dallas. I pulled up the reservation and noticed he had only a 1-hour layover in Dallas. When I asked him why he wanted to rent a car, he said, ”I heard Dallas was a big airport, and we will need a car to drive between gates to save time.” (Aghhhh)

[snip]

12. A New Jersey Congressman (John Adler) called to make reservations, ”I want to go from Chicago to Rhino, New York.” I was at a loss for words. Finally, I said,  ”Are you sure that’s the name of the town?” “Yes, what flights do you have?” replied the man. After some searching, I came back  with, ”I’m sorry, sir, I’ve looked up every airport code in the country and can’t find a rhino anywhere.” The man retorted, ”Oh, don’t be silly! Everyone knows where it is. Check your map!” So I scoured a map of the state of New York and finally offered, ”You don’t mean Buffalo, do you?” The reply? ”Whatever! I knew it was a big  animal.”

Okay.  Looks like all we need now are some really great illustrators and cartoonists…Paging Pat Racimora!!!

The Washington Examiner had an editorial on this very issue, “Obama’s $5 A Gallon Gas Just Ahead.” The editorial reminded readers of one of Obama’s statements ignored by his supporters, though not by those of us who had our eyes wide open, and our ears, too. And that was this:

Most politicians play word games to cast themselves in the most favorable light, so perhaps it’s understandable that few people took it seriously when President Obama unaccountably said during his 2008 presidential campaign that energy prices would “necessarily skyrocket” under his program.

With gas steadily approaching $4 per gallon and projected by federal Energy Information Administration experts to hit $5 in 2012, it’s time to accept Obama at his word. The costs of heating and cooling our homes and offices, keeping gas in the cars and trucks that get us to work and the grocery store, and generating the electricity that keeps our laptops humming are heading skyward because Obama thinks that’s what is best for us. It’s a classic illustration of liberals using government to do to us what we would never do to ourselves. [snip]

Remember that pithy little statement by Obama? It should have cost him a few states, including Pennsylvania, but for reasons beyond me, it didn’t. Anyway, this is what Obama said about “Cap And Trade” back in the day:

Again, don’t know about where you live, but I can tell you, our electric costs have been on the rise since Obama took office, and I fear it will only get worse.

When prices escalate for products like gas, it necessarily changes how people live, what they can do, and where they drive. We are comfortable financially, but when prices were high not that long ago, it did change where we drove, how often I went to see my horse, Jordan (which is one of the highlights of my week), or up into Charleston, or any number of places. I just spent $38 filling up my tank on Thursday, and I still had between 1/4 – 1/2 of a tank left (I drive a Sienna, which gets decent gas mileage). When gas goes up like this, it means, for some people, the difference between being able to drive to work or not.

So what has Obama done to affect gas prices? This:

[snip] Here are just some of the ways Obama has constricted U.S. energy exploration and development, thereby forcing prices upward and making America more dependent on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and other costly, unreliable foreign oil sources who bear this country ill will:

»?Reimposed bans on oil and natural gas drilling in America’s outer continental shelf that were previously reversed by a Democratic-led Congress and a Republican president. Experts estimate there are at least 130 billion barrels of oil and trillions of feet of natural gas to be harvested from these areas, but Obama won’t allow it.

»?Even before the cause of the Deepwater Horizon disaster was known, Obama imposed a six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico that cost thousands of jobs and effectively ended drilling in both deep and shallow waters there. Although officially lifted, slow-walking federal bureaucrats have yet to approve new permits and are busily issuing costly new requirements that are certain to stifle most, if not all, drilling in the Gulf for years to come. A third of America’s oil production comes from wells in the Gulf.

»?Reversed a Bush administration decision that opened millions of acres of public lands in the western parts of the nation to careful oil and natural gas exploration and development, then invented an entirely new classification that puts those and millions more acres not previously covered off limits.

»?Appointed an energy secretary — Steven Chu — who said in December 2008 that Americans should pay the same prices as Europeans for gas. Gas in Europe then averaged around $8 per gallon.

Maybe now people will believe that Obama meant exactly what he said in 2008 about making us pay much more for energy. If they don’t, they surely will in coming months. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Maybe. One can only hope, though the blinders and earplugs seem to be in plenty for too many.

So, what are things like where you are? Are gas or other energy prices affecting your daily lives? Feel free to talk about this, or anything else going on (reading the Constitution in the House? Repealing Obamacare? Pelosi claiming that NOW House Democrats will focus on jobs though they did blessed little to address that issue while controlling all three houses? Obama calling the Eagles owner to thank him for giving Michael Vick, the dog torturer, a second chance?).

And TGIF…

As the video below (created by Gary Campbell, the actual CEO of Centura Health – Colorado’s largest hospital system) humorously points out, corporations don’t do hard.  They do outsourcing.

Management Problem: Health management seems really, really hard

Successful Solution: Create an organization (outsource) and hold meetings

Of course, the best kind of outsourcing is the kind that saves corporate profits.  And no “outsourcee” organization works harder or better for the bottom line of corporations than — our federal government.  Corporate welfare has become institutionalize in our government at great expense to American taxpayers.  And the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act(ObamaCare) is just the latest best example of legislation that is touted as helping average americans, but actually works better at helping corporation profits.

While it’s too early to proclaim the demise of job-based coverage, corporate number crunchers are looking at options that could lead to major changes.

–Richardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Employers looking at health insurance options, Associated Press Writer

Last month a group of restaurants, retailers, colleges and insurers demanded waivers from the new health care reform mandates for their “mini-med” plans.  The health insurance plans they offered to their low-wage, part-time or seasonal employees  (see McDonald’s May Drop Health Plan).

Employers and insurers were upset that the new mandated minimum annual dollar limit — $750,000 in 2011 – on essential benefits that health care plans must now provide is higher than current “mini-med” plan maximums.

Then there is the fact that current “mini-med” plans do not meet the new medical loss ratio requirements of 80% to 85% for insurers.  According to employers (and issurers) that MLR rate (the portion insurer must pay for actual medical care) is unrealistic for “mini-med plans since they have high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover and relatively low spending on claims.

Employer Problem: Increases in employee health insurance costs for low-wage, part-time or seasonal employees

Successful Solution: Seek waivers, then outsource to federal government in 2014 when medicaid expands and gives large subsidies to lower-income people to buy coverage

Apparently the Department of Health and Human Services finds this approach agreeable.  It went on a “mini-med” waiver spree, granting 30 one-year waivers for coverage of millions of employees in record time.

In nearly all cases, waiver applications have been approved within two weeks of their receipt. In some cases, HHS has approved waivers within days. [snip]

The waiver affecting the largest group of enrollees was granted to the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund in New York, whose mini-med plan has 351,000 enrollees, according to its filing. Other mini-med plan waivers were approved for CIGNA Healthcare for plans with 265,000 enrollees, Aetna Inc. for plans covering 209,423 enrollees and BCS Insurance Group for plans with 115,000 enrollees—including those provided to Oak Brook, Ill.-based fast-food restaurant chain McDonald’s Corp.

–Jerry Geisel, HHS swiftly OKs waivers for ‘mini-med’ sponsors, Business Insurance

Not that you can really blame employers.  These are tough economic times.  It is hard to justify paying more for anything, especially when there is a legal way to pay less.  But ObamaCare was suppose to be about expanding care and coverage.  Those 30 one-year waivers just ensured that neither happens for those employees.

And with the economy getting worse, not better is it any surprise that private employers as well as state and local governments are eyeing an increasingly attractive avenue to substantially cut employment expenses — by dropping their existing health insurance coverage and helping their employees get their health insurance though an “exchange”.

Employer Problem : Rising employee health insurance costs.

Successful Solution: Outsource employee health insurance to federal government “exchange”, pay a federal penalty of $2,000 for each employee without coverage.

…the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (President Obama’s health reform) created a system of extensive federal subsidies for the purchase of health insurance through new organizations called “exchanges.” [snip]

In 2014, when these exchanges come into operation, a typical family of four with an annual income of $90,000 and a 45-year-old policy holder qualifies for a federal subsidy of 40% of their health-insurance cost. For that same family with an income of $50,000 (close to the median family income in America), the subsidy is 76% of the cost. [snip]

The authors of health reform primarily targeted the uninsured and those now buying expensive individual policies. But there’s a very large third group that can also enter and that may have been grossly underestimated: the 170 million Americans who currently have employer-sponsored group insurance. Because of the magnitude of the new subsidies created by Congress, the economics become compelling for many employers to simply drop coverage and help their employees obtain replacement coverage through an exchange.[snip]

Local governments will find eliminating all coverage particularly attractive, as many of them are small and will thus incur minor or no penalties; many have health plans that will not meet the minimum benefit threshold, and so they’ll see a substantial and unavoidable increase in cost if they continue providing benefits under the new federal rules.

…By 2014, there will be a mini-industry of consultants knocking on employers’ doors to explain the new opportunity. And in the years after 2014, the economics just keep getting better.

– Philip Bredesen, ObamaCare’s Incentive to Drop Insurance, WSJ (h/t LisaB)

Given the well-known nature of corporations to seek ever higher profits and outsourcing as the behavior of choice to achieve those profits, it would seems reasonable to consider the overly endowed “exchange” incentives in ObamaCare as a plan feature and not a flaw.  A nice little backdoor path to taxpayer funded health insurance while boosting employer and insurer bottom lines in the process.

After all, if employers are not paying the true and full cost of employee coverage on the “exchange”, then employers are being subsidized by the government.  And that is welfare — for the employer.

But could all this outsourcing/employer welfare backfire?  What happens if it is too successful?

A new study by the Lewin Group estimates that 28.6 million Americans will be eligible for a federal subsidy to purchase health insurance beginning in 2014 at a projected cost to tax payers in excess of $110 billion. This estimate is dramatically higher (578%) than the cost of these subsidies forecast by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) prior to the bill’s enactment into law. If the new estimate is correct, it would mean that instead of lowering the deficit by $143 billion over ten years—a claim widely touted by proponents of the law— the legislation would begin adding to the deficit as early as 2015, only one year after major provisions of the law go into effect.

…The CBO’s final analysis of the bill enacted into law projected that only 7 million Americans would begin receiving these subsidies in 2014 at a total budgetary cost of $19 billion. This figure is $91 billion lower than the amount estimated by the Lewin Group.[snip]

…the Families USA report “looks exclusively at how many people will be eligible for the new premium tax credits, whereas CBO estimates how many people will actually enroll.”

The CBO projects a gradual increase in the number of individuals receiving subsidies between 2014 and 2019. Starting at 7 million people in 2014 and increasing to 19 million by 2019. The Lewin Group estimate that 28.6 million Americans will be eligible for this subsidy in 2014 is 50% higher than even the outer range of the CBO’s forecast. [snip]

– Morgen, Exclusive: New Study Says Cost of Health Reform Subsidies Could Far Exceed Previous Estimates, Verum Serum

How much can the government afford to take on?  Especially when millions of these enrollees will be merely changing the payee of their health insurance from their employer to American taxpayers.

Federal Government Problem : Too many “exchange” and Medicaid enrollees, too soon, adding to sky-rocketing federal deficits

Successful Solution: ah, ???

Don’t get me wrong, I want everyone to have healthcare.  I just can’t see how adding these twisted mutations to our already nightmarish employer sponsored, insurance based, healthcare system is going to do anything but grossly enhance the speed of our upwardly spiraling healthcare and health insurance costs as well as our downwardly spiraling quality of real healthcare.

And then there are our taxes …

***

Politics is clearly a contact sport. No doubt not all of the punches are above the belt.

I first referenced the Obama White House use of intimidation in the case of Tom Lauria, then lawyer for a group of Chrysler creditors. I wrote in early May 2009, Is Barack Obama Going Tony Soprano? How uncanny that the same reference is utilized today in an article centered on the impact of ObamaCare and the pending sale of three Scranton-area Catholic hospitals. American Spectator writes in regard to ObamaCare:

….the White House is confronted with a rapidly accelerating set of unintended consequences spreading across the country. As listed by theWall Street Journal, those unintended consequences included 2011 premium increases shooting up as high as 9%; “multibillion-dollar corporate writedowns by Verizon, AT&T, Caterpillar and others”; the disruption of insurance markets, a show-down with McDonald’s, the imposition of price controls on premiums, insurers withdrawing from Medicare Advantage.

In what appears to have become a pattern, the response from the Obama Administration has been repeatedly swift and harsh –compared by one critic as an episode straight out of the Sopranos, the famous HBO mobster series.

While the reference to intimidation tactics by the White House in a commentary may grab attention, the simple ‘sense on cents’ embodied in this story has to do with the implication of lessened revenues for hospitals as a result of Obamacare leading to their sale. That reality is absolutely referenced as a primary reason for the sale of three Mercy County, PA hospitals by CEO Kevin Cook.

While the attached story is lengthy, I strongly encourage people to read it because it has major implications for your health care going forward. It also shines a light into the rough and tumble world of national politics. I have no problem with playing hard. I have major problems with those who may look to stifle freedom of speech. This commentary may take ten minutes. Might a version soon be coming to a hospital near you? Read on as American Spectator writes, The President’s Nun: Obamacare Scranton Scandal Explodes:

Can you say “October Surprise”?

A mushrooming political battle over ObamaCare involving the White House, two incumbent Pennsylvania congressmen, three Catholic hospitals and a nun has just exploded in, of all places, Scranton, Pennsylvania. Charges from the Scranton medical community of intimidation by the Obama White House and its allies are filling the air.

All of this just as Vice President Joe Biden arrives in Scranton today to raise money for one of the participants.

There are two issues at the core of the controversy.

1. ObamaCare and the sale of three Scranton-area Catholic hospitals.

2. The re-election prospects of the two House members, Democrats Paul Kanjorski and Chris Carney, both of whom cast key votes to pass ObamaCare.

Here’s the list of players — major and minor — so far.
• The President of the United States.
• The Vice President of the United States.
• Three Scranton-area Catholic hospitals suddenly for sale.
• The CEO of the three Scranton-area Catholic hospitals for sale.
• ObamaCare, otherwise known as “health care reform” or the “Affordable Care Act.”
• A Catholic nun.
• Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak.
• A pen.
• Victoria Reggie Kennedy, widow of the late Senator Ted Kennedy.
• Time magazine.
• The Scranton Times
• The two Scranton-area House members Kanjorski and Carney, both losing in the polls.
• U.S. Senator Bob Casey, Jr., a native and resident of Scranton.
• Congressman Joe Sestak, the Democrats’ nominee for the Pennsylvania U.S. Senate seat.

Where to start? That would be….

March 22, 2010: President Obama signs the Affordable Care Act (aka “ObamaCare”) into law in front of live television cameras and a packed East Room of the White House. According to news accounts, the President uses 21 different pens to sign his name, the highly prized souvenirs of the historic moment given to Vice President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Victoria Reggie Kennedy, the wife of the late Senator Ted Kennedy along with a very select handful of others.

The President, after being introduced by an exuberant Vice President Biden (who whispers “this is a big f…g deal” into the President’s ear and is picked up by a live microphone) says:

“I heard one of the Republican leaders say this was going to be Armageddon. Well, two months from now, six months from now, you can check it out. We’ll look around and we’ll see.”

Almost immediately — it didn’t take two months much less six — the White House is confronted with a rapidly accelerating set of unintended consequences spreading across the country. As listed by theWall Street Journal, those unintended consequences included 2011 premium increases shooting up as high as 9%; “multibillion-dollar corporate writedowns by Verizon, AT&T, Caterpillar and others”; the disruption of insurance markets, a show-down with McDonald’s, the imposition of price controls on premiums, insurers withdrawing from Medicare Advantage.

In what appears to have become a pattern, the response from the Obama Administration has been repeatedly swift and harsh –compared by one critic as an episode straight out of the Sopranos, the famous HBO mobster series.

The corporate writedowns — done in compliance with federal law — resulted in angry phone calls from then-Obama White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and colleague Valerie Jarrett to corporate CEO’s and the heads of the Washington corporate offices of those involved. Congressman Henry Waxman threatened a congressional investigation into those companies whose obedience to the law put them at odds with the actual results of ObamaCare. Notification by insurers that rates were being forced up by ObamaCare resulted in a threatening letter from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to insurers warning that such candor would not be tolerated — at risk of not being allowed to participate in a future government-run health care exchange for insurers.

Then, suddenly, on October 6 — five days ago — the fuse to what is becoming a huge political explosion was lit.

In the unlikely location of Scranton, Pennsylvania.

IN THE MIDDLE OF THESE two hotly contested re-election races for a pair of Pennsylvania Democratic congressmen, the controversy first erupted over the suddenly announced sale of three Catholic Hospitals spread out between Paul Kanjorski’s and Chris Carney’s two adjoining congressional districts.

The initial announcement was made by Mercy Health Partners CEO Kevin Cook.

Cook is based in Scranton, while Mercy Partners and the three hospitals up for sale are in fact a subsidiary of the larger Catholic Healthcare Partners (CHP) based in Cincinnati, Ohio.

The three Catholic hospitals involved are: Mercy Hospital in Scranton; Mercy Special Care Hospital in Nanticoke, both in Kanjorski’s 11th District. And the Mercy Tyler Hospital in Tunkhannock, located in Carney’s adjacent 10th District.

The Cook announcement was big news in Northeastern Pennsylvania. The Sisters of Mercy had opened Mercy Hospital in Scranton, a major facility for the city, in 1917 — 93 years earlier. Inevitably it drew media attention. Which is where the plot thickens.

WNEP TV (Channel 16) reporter Jon Meyer filed a story about the sale at 4:40 pm. that afternoon. WNEP TV anchor Paula Giangiacomo led the story on the air by saying that “one big” reason for the sale “is the health care reform bill signed into law this year.” Mercy Health Partners CEO Cook was interviewed on camera along with Sister Marie Parker. When Meyer asked Cook if ObamaCare had anything at all to do with the sale, the CEO replied:

“Health care reform is absolutely playing a role. Was it the precipitating factor in this decision? No, but was it a factor in our planning over the next five years? Absolutely.”

Notice the use — twice — of the word “absolutely” by Cook, leaving no doubt with viewers that while ObamaCare wasn’t the “precipitating factor” it was “absolutely playing a role…Absolutely” in the decision by Mercy Health Care Partners to put the three hospitals up for sale.

Then, on Friday October 8, only 48 hours after the story hit the local news on WNEP, the executive changed his story. Sort of. A second statement came out over Mr. Cook’s name as CEO. Headlined on the PR Newswire-US Newswire services, the statement was headed: “Mercy Reiterates Rationale for Sale Exploration.”

Gone was any reference to the subject discussed in the WNEP-TV story. ObamaCare playing a role in the sale of the three hospitals? Where would an idea like that ever come from? Not from this second statement. There is not a word of Cook’s videotaped certainty that ObamaCare is responsible in some measure for this proposed sale. Yet curiously, there is no out-and-out retraction of Cook’s comments to WNEP either. The subject of ObamaCare bearing responsibility for this sale in any fashion is disappeared. Completely missing. The second statement just has Mr. Cook saying that sale discussions were being conducted “long before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The decision was due to many factors.”

But there appears to have been something else at work here behind the scenes that necessitated this second statement from Cook.

Mysteriously, the very same day, came this statement, also released on the PR Newswire services. Out of the blue, suddenly released by Sr. Carol Keehan, DC, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association (CHA), the headline was sharp and pointed. The headline?

Alarmist News Reports About Catholic Hospitals Are False; CHA Supports Difficult Decision by Mercy Health Partners.

In a fury that fairly leaps from the page, Sister Carol says immediately that “false motives” have been assigned to the proposed sale of the three Mercy hospitals. Says the good Sister: “Reports that health reform is the primary motive behind the sale are completely false, misleading and politically motivated. Deliberations to sell the facilities began well before the Affordable Care Act became law and did not hinge on enactment of the legislation.”

In other words, Mr. Cook — he the CEO of the hospitals who said flatly that ObamaCare was in fact “absolutely” and yet again “absolutely” playing a role in the sale of the three hospitals — was, in the polite language of a Catholic nun, in essence being called a liar.

By Sunday, there was a third Cook statement, this one posted on the website of Mercy Health Partners. Cook statement # 3 was no longer as benign as statement # 2. The third Cook statement used some of the original language from statement #2, but its lead paragraph was now saying something else entirely. I have marked the change in bold print:

Mercy Health Partners recently announced our intention to explore the sale of our facilities in Northeastern Pennsylvania.The rationale for our initiative has been mischaracterized by certain politicized media outlets and severely distorted by some special interest groups.

In other words, Cook statement #3 has picked up a flavor of the statement from Sister Carol. Now saying without saying it that Cook’s original WNEP answer about the role ObamaCare “absolutely…absolutely” played in the decision to sell the hospitals has been “severely distorted.”

Curious, no? Very.

WHY IN THE WORLD would a Catholic nun be so revved up as to denounce in such strong language what Mr. Cook insisted was a fact — that ObamaCare was “absolutely” and yet again “absolutely” playing a role in the hospital sale? Why the hair-trigger fire-breathing response. From a simple Catholic nun named Sister Carol?

And why in the world would Mr. Cook feel compelled to issue not one but two re-statements of the rationale behind the sale of the three Mercy hospitals?

One doctor in Scranton — who was deeply disturbed by the announcement — is certain he knows the answer. That answer? Mr. Cook was absolutely right the very first time he spoke to WNEP on camera. Hospitals, said this doctor — frequently run a debt. “What’s different? Why now?” he said in terms of the rationale for selling the Mercy hospitals. The reason is exactly as CEO Cook originally said it was. ObamaCare cuts in Medicare reimbursement have changed the rules so drastically for hospitals “you [Mercy Health Partners] are in an untenable situation,” said this physician. Most hospitals have accumulating debt because of capital investments, says the doctor. But they can’t deal with that debt if in fact their ability to earn money is cut off or drastically reduced over time.

Alarmingly, the doctor, with a lifetime of practice in hand, says that “hospitals close in clusters where there is decreased income in terms of relatively low Medicare reimbursement…because they are the most vulnerable.” He adds that what is happening in Scranton, Nanticoke, and Tunkhannock with the Mercy hospitals “is just the beginning. It will happen everywhere because reimbursements will be reduced” under ObamaCare. Particularly, he adds, in areas where you have a high elderly population.

If the doctor is right, and he is not alone in saying this, the proposed sale of the three Mercy hospitals becomes a harbinger of what will happen nationally as a result of ObamaCare slowly tightening its government tentacles over the private health care system. Which means the sale of the three Mercy hospitals has added Scranton to what the Wall Street Journal has already called ObamaCare’s “trail of destruction.”

Ahhhh. But who is Sister Carol Keehan? What’s the big deal here with her? Why would a statement from simple Catholic nun appear to cause so much consternation with Mercy Health Partner CEO Kevin Cook in Scranton, Pennsylvania?

LET’S GO BACK to that presidential signing of the health care reform law. There were 21 very powerful people in that little group who received signing pens from the President. As mentioned that included the Vice President, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy’s widow Victoria Reggie Kennedy. And someone else.

That would be Sister Carol Keehan.

Impressive, no? The Catholic News Agency thought so, and prominently noted the story here. It also noted that Sister Carol was receiving her presidential pen from the President himself because she had been “supporting health care despite bishops’ objections.” The story even pictured the pen itself alongside the presidential seal on the box in which it came, with “Barack Obama” clearly visible scrawled along the side. Meaning, Sister Carol had enough clout to take on the Catholic Bishops on the President’s behalf — and win.

Does the name Bart Stupak ring a bell? The much ballyhooed pro-life Democrat Congressman from Michigan? The Catholic Congressman Bart Stupak who was said to be such a sturdy obstacle to passage of ObamaCare because it would allow abortions? In the aftermath of the ObamaCare passage, Slate came forward to note that a letter signed by “representatives” of Catholic nuns finally swayed Stupak to break his staunch anti-abortion pledge and sign on for ObamaCare with a simple promise of an executive order on abortion, executive orders being overturned by successor presidents with the rapidity of rabbits doing the breeding thing. Wait! Stupak was persuaded by Catholic nuns? Isn’t Sister Carol a …nun? How about that? What a coincidence? Yes indeed, the letter in question was signed — solo — by Sister Carol.

In other words, Sister Carol is not just some kindly nun who reminds you of the nun whacking your knuckles in grade school for this or that offense. No, in the world of Washington Sister Carol is a powerhouse lobbyist — make that a liberal social justice lobbyist — with a clear set of political skills and a very, very high-powered set of very elite friends. She is quite decidedly not just the neighborhood nun. Sister Carol is the Washington voice of the Catholic Health Association, once called the Catholic Hospital Association, which means her clout with Catholic hospitals around America — like the Mercy Hospital in Scranton and its siblings in Nanticoke and Tunkhannock, all run by CEO Cook — is considerable. Not to mention her clout with the parent company located in Cincinnati — and not to mention with Congressman Bart Stupak.

Selected as one of Time magazine’s “2010 Time 100″ most influential people, Sister Carol’s social justice passions were written up glowingly for Time by one of the other Obama 21 pen-receivers at the health care signing: Victoria Reggie Kennedy. AKA, Mrs. Ted Kennedy. Sister Carol, as demonstrated by her status as the receiver of a presidential signing pen, is clearly the President’s favorite nun.

Thus her abilities to whack Mercy CEO Kevin Cook’s knuckles for speaking out of turn on what in fact he “absolutely” and “absolutely” saw a mere two days earlier as the impact of ObamaCare on his hospitals were considerable. And when the Cook statement #2 didn’t pass muster, he apparently was whacked again. After reining in a sitting Congressman Stupak and getting him to, in the yes of many pro-lifers, abandon his anti-abortion stance and pass ObamaCare, what’s a mere hospital executive like Kevin Cook to Sister Carol? It is safe to say that there are doctors in Scranton, furious at what they are seeing as happening to the local health care system, who believe Sister Carol — or someone else connected to the Obama White House if not the someone inside the White House itself — was behind the knuckle rapping of Kevin Cook.

With the White House already on record for having senior staff making angry phone calls to CEO’s over corporate writedowns, having the Secretary of HHS send threatening Soprano-style letters to insurers not to blame ObamaCare for premium increases — the question in Scranton is why wouldn’t the same White House enlist the President’s favorite nun to intimidate Mr. Cook and the company he represents?

Protecting ObamaCare turns out to be but one reason — albeit that alone is a big one with national consequences for this White House.

THE OTHER REVOLVES around the struggling campaigns of Representatives Kanjorski and Carney. And the larger political picture in Pennsylvania. U.S. Senator Robert P. Casey Jr. is a Scranton resident. Indeed, one Scranton source pointed out that the Casey home is within walking distance of Mercy Hospital in Scranton. Casey and his father before him have succeeded in part by creating the image of the old-fashioned FDR-JFK working class Democrat whose values are revered in Scranton. This is the city that is the hometown of Vice President Biden. For Scrantonians and their fellow Pennsylvanians in neighboring communities to suddenly see a Catholic hospital that has been a mainstay for 93 years suddenly slip away has caused considerable upset.

And notably, in a town that is heavily Catholic, the realization that three hospitals that did not perform abortions could be sold to owners who would allow the procedure is infuriating.

Both Kanjorski and Carney have been under fire for their ObamaCare votes from GOP opponents Lou Barletta and Tom Marino respectively. The startling news of the Mercy sale was barely 24 hours old when State Republican Chairman Robert P. Gleason picked up on it, issuing statements tying the ObamaCare votes of the pair to the prospective loss of Mercy.

And at that, Sister Carol, presumably not having the comings and goings of Pennsylvania politics on her mind, suddenly launched herself into the Scranton hospital debacle, presumably finally forcing a tougher stance from Mercy’s CEO Cook in statement #3.

The explosion, all recent with its implications of White House pressure and lost Catholic hospitals, is about to bring in media ads from CatholicVote.org. Says Communications Director Joshua Mercer: “Paul Kanjorski and Chris Carney are Catholic and they both voted for ObamaCare.” Citing the sale of the three Mercy hospitals, Mercer says that the pro-ObamaCare votes of the two “has had a real impact on the community.” Mercer added a sentiment voiced as well by the Scranton doctor: “There are a lot of Kevin Cooks across the country…the CEO’s of small Catholic hospitals are all facing the same realities of more [ObamaCare] mandates and regulations.”

Interestingly, a Scranton medical source notes the lack of coverage of the growing Mercy hospital sales controversy in the local Scranton Times. “It’s a Democratic paper,” the source said, mentioning that he listens to talk radio to get a better picture of the news. “I listen to Rush, to Sean, Fox News and local talk radio. But with a Democratic paper you have to listen to national talk radio to get another perspective.”

Today, Vice President Biden arrives in Scranton to campaign for Congressman Carney.

A Capitol Hill aide to a Republican U.S. Senator says of the Scranton controversy the Obama White House is terrified the Mercy Hospital sales story will “get legs” as a national story — further intensifying the anti-Obama vote pollsters are recording in potentially record numbers. And leading to the defeat of not only Kanjorski and Carney but another Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman who voted for ObamaCare: U.S. Senate nominee Joe Sestak. Sestak is trailing his own opponent, conservative anti-ObamaCare GOP nominee Pat Toomey.

With less than a month to go until election day, one thing is certain.

The story of the President’s nun and charges of possible intimidation of a hospital executive over ObamaCare will ensure the Scranton hospital sale isn’t going away anytime soon.

Growing up in an Irish Catholic household and attending a local Catholic school, I am very familiar with getting knuckles rapped. A few of my brothers were even more familiar with that reality than I. That said, we probably deserved it. In fact, we definitely deserved it. Speaking your mind and freedom of speech in America is a prized virtue. That freedom is critically important for the pursuit of real truth, total transparency, and unbridled integrity. I say we absolutely stand up for it. Who’s absolutely with me?

Larry Doyle

Please subscribe to all my work via e-mail, an RSS feed, on Twitter or Facebook.

I have no affiliation or business interest with any entity referenced in this commentary. As President of Greenwich Investment Management, an SEC regulated privately held registered investment adviser, I am merely a proponent of real transparency within our markets so that investor confidence and investor protection can be achieved.

The worst perils are twofold. First, it is not the caregivers, lab techs, nurses and other support staff who are at fault, but rather a system and society that prejudges an older person by cookie cutter parameters. The skyrocketing costs of care, and those looking to protect their profit margins, create the need to rush someone out of a hospital bed before they are sufficiently healed. This act of “turfing” a patient out early creates the second and most dangerous peril, which can only lead to relapse stemming from a ridiculous but all too common penny wise and pound foolish mentality.

After a fall last year, my mom was badly shaken, disoriented and barely able to walk. I knew this to be a temporary condition but could barely convince any and all caregivers at both the hospital and skilled nursing facility that my mother did not belong in a wheel chair. She had been living independently prior to this incident – a vital, independent woman. They made an assumption based upon age and did not want to be talked out of their mistaken thinking. These “healthcare professionals” were ready to dump her into a sort of nursing home, otherwise known as a “board and care,” saying that she had progressed as far as they could take her – in two days…

Her medical group, a Medicare HMO, was unwilling to offer even half the time her coverage entitled her to so that she might obtain the proper therapy and be healed.

Needless to say, after much pounding on the desk and winning two appeals against her medical group, I was able to change minds, secure her bed a while longer and obtain more therapy for her. Two weeks later, the result was a woman able to return to her home, ambulatory and self-sufficient once again.

I have spent several years writing about the damaging effects of sexism and misogyny on this board. Ageism is no less a sin. No emergency room doctor or admitting physician can look at an elderly person who has just experienced a trauma and have any understanding of that person’s abilities going forward or their lifestyle two days before the intervening incident. Yet, all too often we allow doctors – authority figures – to set false limits, showing their bias, lack of caring and no matter how unintentional, their disrespect.

My mother’s experience in the health care system led her on one occasion to be administered too much medication that almost led to a stroke. On another occasion she got too little of her prescribed medication and what was administered was offered at the wrong time of day, despite the fact that the staff had been given precise details about her regimen on several occasions. As a result of their mistakes, her condition led to a dangerous misdiagnosis by an attending physician too lazy to look at my mother’s medical history.

It was horrifying to imagine what might happen to some elder patients who did not have a responsible advocate showing up daily to monitor and double check those ministering to them. I am sure the few examples I have offered merely scratch the surface of health care nightmares of so many others.

Medical professionals are overtaxed as it is. Making matters worse, they have to follow the orders and arbitrary protocols of bureaucrats who often have no knowledge of patient care. With half a trillion dollars to be cut from Medicare in the coming years and millions more added to the patient rolls, this situation can only get worse.

80% of healthcare costs in our country go toward elder care. Deservedly so. In my mother’s case, for example, how is it possible that a vital member of society who has paid taxes and injected money into the system for 50 years should get such short shrift on her medical care when she needs it the most?

Our mothers, fathers and grandparents deserve our respect for all the caring, contributions and wisdom they have offered us. They, and we, deserve better than someone sitting behind a desk reading from a dispassionate and disconnected list of diagnostic protocols that condemns the patient to less than adequate care, or decides that our elders are now of less value and therefore, can be easily cast aside without a backward glance.

Proposition C:

Shall the Missouri Statutes be amended to:
• Deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services?
• Modify laws regarding the liquidation of certain domestic insurance companies?
It is estimated this proposal will have no immediate costs or savings to state or local governmental entities. However, because of the uncertain interaction of the proposal with implementation of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, future costs to state governmental entities are unknown.

It was a Yes Or No option. And it was one the people of Missouri voted to pass in a big way as this piece by Tony Messenger of the STLToday.com reported in “Prop C Passes Overwhelmingly“:

Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a federal mandate to purchase health insurance, rebuking President Barack Obama’s administration and giving Republicans their first political victory in a national campaign to overturn the controversial health care law passed by Congress in March.

“The citizens of the Show-Me State don’t want Washington involved in their health care decisions,” said Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, one of the sponsors of the legislation that put Proposition C on the August ballot. She credited a grass-roots campaign involving Tea Party and patriot groups with building support for the anti-Washington proposition.

With most of the vote counted, Proposition C was winning by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1. The measure, which seeks to exempt Missouri from the insurance mandate in the new health care law, includes a provision that would change how insurance companies that go out of business in Missouri liquidate their assets.

Uh, yeah – I’d say the people had spoken. Go here to read the rest.

Below, Peter Johnson, Jr. goes into more detail about what the overwhelming support of Proposition C can mean down the road, as well as why the MSM is so dismissive of this proposition:

Indeed, as Mr. Johnson says, this is reflecting the will of the people, reflecting what the people were telling their elected officials before they voted to pass this far-reaching, Big Pharma giveaway, gold coin taxing (not kidding – it’s in there), IRS-increasing, exceedingly expensive to the tax payers, law that they didn’t even bother to read first. Yep, I reckon they have made their voices clear now, don’t you think?

You know, this has not been a good week for the Birthday Boy. First a federal judge in Virginia, U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson, rules that the lawsuit filed by Virginia’s Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli II, against the Healthcare Law could proceed, and now this. I’d say this one will open some doors for the other 19 states which have filed similar suits.

And now Missouri has spoken out loud and clear. Check out what Lt. Gov. Kinder has to say (he has a great expression in there):

Well, I reckon those elected officials might be listening now. If not, the people will have another chance to make their voices heard come November.