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!

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…

Yes, the show routinely poked gentle fun at small-town America, allowing us to laugh at ourselves and not take ourselves too seriously. And who could forget what a great parent Sheriff Taylor was, often disciplining young Opie for mistakes made by sending him to his room so he could “think about that thar thing.” Oh, yes. A great show, especially for someone growing up in the South.

Heck, we joke even now that we live in Mayberry since we are on an island with not even ONE stoplight. I kid you not. The UPS man’s sister-in-law was my physical therapist, and the postal carrier who retired to rescue animals, would tell me about her vacations. People talk to one another here. Just like Mayberry.

So, imagine my disappointment when I saw the following ad put out by the Obama White House:

As Aunt Bea would say, “Oh, Andy, how could you?”

She’s not the only one. FactCheck.Org also has a problem with it, as this article by Brooks Jackson indicates, “Mayberry Misleads On Medicare.” It’s a sad day for Mayberry, and the country, when the straight-shooting, plain talking “sheriff” is neither one. “Oh, Andy” indeed.

You can read it all here, but here are some of the salient points:

[snip] So how can the Obama administration claim that “guaranteed Medicare benefits will remain the same”? The answer is that the term “guaranteed” is a weasel word — a qualifier that sucks the meaning out of a phrase in the way that weasels supposedly suck the contents out of an egg. It may sound to the casual listener as though this ad is saying that the benefits of all Medicare recipients are guaranteed to stay the same — and that may well be the way the ad’s sponsors wish listeners to hear it. But what the administration is really saying is that only those benefits that are guaranteed in law will remain the same.

There’s even a section in the new law (section 3601) that says: “Nothing in the provisions of, or amendments made by, this Act shall result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits under title XVIII of the Social Security Act” (the title that establishes the Medicare program). Section 3602 says even Medicare Advantage recipients won’t suffer any reduction of “any benefits guaranteed by law.”

But here’s the catch: The extra benefits generally offered by Medicare Advantage plans aren’t guaranteed by law. They are offered by private insurance companies as inducements. The companies have been able to offer somewhat more generous packages than traditional, fee-for-service Medicare because the system pays them as much as 40 percent more per patient than it pays for traditional Medicare, according to the chief actuary. The average in 2009 was about 14 percent more, according to the most recent analysis by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, issued in February. But the new law generally eliminates the extra payments in the coming years. Foster, the chief actuary, estimates that federal spending for Medicare Advantage will be reduced by $145 billion over the law’s first decade.[snip]

Wow. So, it seems ol’ Andy wasn’t quite telling the truth after all, especially when you add in this Wall Street Journal article referenced by Brooks Jackson, “Health Law Augurs Transfer of Funds From Old To Young,” by Janet Adamy. Check out this particular tidbit:

[snip] “I’m sure that some of those additional benefits have been nice,” Nancy-Ann DeParle, who runs the White House’s Office of Health Reform, says of Medicare Advantage plans. “But I think what we have to look at here is what’s fair and what’s important for the strength of the Medicare program long term.”

Stuart Butler, a vice president at the conservative Heritage Foundation, says the White House is misrepresenting the benefits that accrue from Medicare payment cuts. “It uses it to create a new entitlement for a separate group of people rather than strengthening” the program, he says. Moreover, such cuts alone don’t pay for the law.

The law will spend $938 billion over a decade, mostly to expand coverage to lower-income Americans. To finance that, there will be $455 billion coming from cuts in government payments to health-care providers that serve patients on Medicare and two other federal programs. The hardest hit—to the tune of $136 billion—will be private insurance companies that run Medicare Advantage plans. [snip]

Oh, you won’t believe what all is in that article. I suggest you read the rest. It ain’t pretty, but I think the headline already made that point clear. Especially if you are older, that is.

As for the new ad, I’d say that Andy has some “‘splaining to do,” as Ricky Ricardo used to say. After lying to his fellow senior citizens, he needs to go to his room and “think about that thar thing,” and not come down until he understands how wrong lying is. Don’t you think?

I’d like to address the objections.

Protest is the American way. The health care bill, a massive piece of legislation, had many elements which some could find objectionable. Mandates are worrying, as is the fear that premiums could go up. There are genuine concerns that the “reform” could turn out to be a souped-up version of COBRA, making insurance obligatory but unaffordable, ultimately benefitting only the insurance companies. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably. That’s one of the great aspects of living in a democracy.

What is not reasonable, however, is circulating pictures of the President disguised as a witch doctor, or spitting on and hurling racial and other epithets at Congressmen (or anyone else), or sending images of nooses, or issuing death threats. This form of “protest” has nothing to do with TARP or health care or anything else. Anyone who defends such behavior should hang their head in shame. Indeed, such acts should be vehemently discouraged and the perpetrators shunned from civilized society.

The Tea Party’s message of smaller government and fiscal responsibility is being drowned out by the movement’s most extreme elements. In this the movement is comparable to A.N.S.W.E.R, a group begun to oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which then degraded into an umbrella group for every embittered leftist with an ax to grind, from PETA to the Free Mumia crowd to the pro-Palestinian folks. Ultimately the anti-war message was diluted and A.N.S.W.E.R turned into a joke.

Another group that found itself in the trashbin of history was the loosely formed anti-World Bank/WTO/IMF crowd, whose members had no problem protesting the worthy cause of international debt reduction by rampaging in the streets and committing acts of vandalism while filming all the exciting anti-globalist fervor with video cameras and cell phones imported from Asia. Any sympathy they may have generated went up in smoke as the public watched the violence and mayhem.

During campaign 2008, left-wing blogs turned into cesspools of misinformation and ad hominem attacks on the Clintons, going so far as to resurrect the “Vince Foster Was Murdered” canard. The outrageous sexism of the blogosphere and the media was harshly and justifiably criticized on this blog. To ignore the extreme elements of the Tea Party is to do an injustice to those decent people who want to have their voices heard, but do not want to be associated with the ugliness of the extremes.

Now, it seems, not only is the White House threatening Democrats who didn’t toe the Party Line, but a number of unions, including SEIU, are threatening, too:

Senior White House and organized labor officials are warning the handful of House Democrats who supported health care legislation last year only to oppose the final measure on Sunday that they shouldn’t expect assistance for their reelection campaigns this fall.

The five who switched from yes to no — Reps. Michael Arcuri of New York, Marion Berry of Arkansas, Daniel Lipinski of Illinois, Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts and Zack Space of Ohio — have so annoyed top Democrats that there is also open talk of finding opponents to ensure they pay a steep political price for changing their vote.

“We’re looking at candidates we can trust to run against them, either through a primary or in the general election,” said Service Employees International Union Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger, noting that recruitment conversations were already under way.

Of the five who switched, Burger said flatly, “They should not expect help from us.”

Karen Ackerman, political director of the AFL-CIO, said local union members were deeply disappointed in the vote-switchers — and that the locals will determine whether to endorse the incumbents.

“There are no guarantees, and they have a lot of work to do to attempt to repair that relationship. It may be repaired or it may not be repaired,” Ackerman said.

Top aides to President Barack Obama also made clear that they’ll prioritize their political time and resources this year with an eye on those who did or did not stand with them on the toughest vote of the election cycle.

“There is not a whole lot of Barack Obama and Joe Biden to spare on a good day,” said one senior White House official. “We’re going to have to focus on our friends.”

Another top Obama aide, asked about the group of five, responded simply: “We appreciate the people who hung with us.”

Yikes. Yep, those sound like threats to me. And that’s not all:

In the West Wing, where aides spent hours pleading with the members to stick to their original votes, there is a feeling that the group unnecessarily imperiled passage of the bill for reasons that defy political logic.

White House officials and other party leaders say that, having already supported health care once, the members will still be attacked by Republicans for the original vote and will now face additional anger from their own political base for opposing the final version of the historic bill that is now law.

“They have the vote, but now they lack the accomplishment,” said a senior Obama aide, adding that the group’s members have endangered their own prospects at the polls because the so-called “surge voters” who came out to back the president in 2008 will be tougher to motivate.

“The prescription for winning tough races is to generate turnout from many of the folks that came out in 2008,” the aide said. “I would think this would make it harder to do that.”

Another White House official made the case that “the public is not going to make the distinction [between the two votes], and they’re going to get hammered.”

On Capitol Hill, there is a sense of puzzlement mixed with frustration among colleagues of the five.

One senior Democratic House member was withering: “They were without backbone.”

I’m sorry, WHO was “without backbone”?? The people who were bought by the White House? The ones who bucked the will of their constituents? Or the ones who did as their constituents wanted? Perhaps this is the problem with many in DC – they do not understand basic English. Maybe they just don’t know what the term means. That might explain it. There’s more:

And, this member said, the group made an already difficult election cycle for House Democrats that much more difficult.

“That group that said ‘yes’ and then ‘no’ are the most challenging members now for us [to defend in November],” the member said.

Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, didn’t defend the political calculus of those in the group but said that his focus was solely on keeping the seats in Democratic hands and that he’d stand by the incumbents.

“We will help all our guys,” said Van Hollen. “If others want to pick and choose, that’s up to them. Our job is to make sure that we remain in the majority.”

Of the five, Berry, who is retiring after this term, is the only one who will definitely not be on the ballot in November — and seemingly the one with the least to lose by staying in the “yea” column.

But the strong suspicion among top Democrats is that Berry switched his vote as a favor to his chief of staff, Chad Causey, who is running to succeed him and has indicated that he would have opposed the legislation.

Yeah, okay, that makes sense – not.

Now the unions start weighing in:

Alan Hughes, president of the Arkansas AFL-CIO, said his organization was “highly disappointed in [Berry’s] vote” and noted that Causey and the other Democrats running for the seat Berry is vacating would be sitting for interviews at the state federation’s convention this weekend in Hot Springs.

“We’re going to drill the hell out of them,” Hughes said, alluding to their positions on health care and other issues important to labor.

Arcuri and Space, both second-term members from districts previously held by Republicans, are widely viewed as having switched for the most purely political reasons.

“Fear in politics is a very powerful thing, and these guys were just fearful of losing their seats,” a top White House aide said.

In New York, liberals have already begun wooing one of Arcuri’s former primary opponents to run against him.

Les Roberts, a Columbia University professor, has said that he’s considering running in the Democratic primary as well as on the Working Families Party ballot line.

In the run-up to the vote, Arcuri said he was unhappy that Medicare was still not allowed to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry and had worries that taxes on medical devices may have an adverse impact on his district.

Well, those sound like good reasons to me. Taxes ARE going to go up, as are insurance premiums, and drug prices. All thanks to Obama pandering to Big Pharma. But hey – why let some facts interfere with threats, right? Right:

In Ohio, local chapters of SEIU and UFCW announced Monday that they would no longer support Space, who already faced a difficult reelection in his rural eastern-Ohio-based district after he supported the energy bill last year.

Space indicated he was concerned that the final version of the bill might tax the health care benefits of his middle-class constituents.

Lipinski and Lynch are the most puzzling switchers in the group — both hail from heavily Democratic, big-city districts.

Lipinski cited concerns about abortion, but his position was undercut when Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and other anti-abortion Democrats still voted for final passage of the bill after Obama issued an executive order reiterating the ban on federal money being used on the procedure.

What angers Democrats about Lipinski is that he suffers from diabetes, and it has long been thought in Chicago political circles that he is in Congress in part to have access to a gold-plated congressional health care plan.

The view among party officials is that Lipinski’s father, a conservative-leaning Democrat who previously held his son’s seat and engineered the succession, thought it would be good politics to oppose the bill.

“He could not articulate to us why he was doing this,” a senior White House official said of Lipinski.

While the Illinois primary has already taken place, an independent could still file to run against Lipinski this fall.

As for Lynch, Democrats believe he’s still bitter over the lack of support he received when he considered running in the special Senate race for the seat of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy and thought that, by changing his vote, he could separate himself from other 2012 primary hopefuls vying for the seat now held by GOP Sen. Scott Brown.

But it’s difficult to see how such a position could be advantageous in a Democratic primary in a state such as Massachusetts.

“John Kerry tried to disabuse him of that notion but could not,” said a senior White House official, referring to the Bay State’s senior senator.

“Everyone I talk to is baffled by Lynch’s votes,” said the AFL-CIO’s Ackerman, noting that the congressman, a former ironworker, comes out of the labor movement.

Lynch, for his part, said he opposed the bill because it didn’t do enough to crack down on insurance companies.

But progressives in Massachusetts are already courting a potential primary opponent, Harmony Wu, to run against Lynch.

Well, considering by some estimations premiums are going to go UP $2,100 not DOWN $2,500, as Obama claimed they would, I can see why these representatives are concerned. Heck, taxes ARE going to go UP to, exposing another Obama lie. There is GREAT concern about the cost of this bill for New York City, for example. Why? Because NYC will have to pay $6.5 BILLION a year to DC in taxes as a result of this bill:

That figure is JUST for the city, not including the rest of the state. Holy moley. That’s a big chunk of change. $200,000, as Megyn Kelly pointed out, is NOT a lot in the city. No kidding. Oh, what a great bill this is.

So, yes, these folks are indeed being threatened. By their own party members, I might add. Just more of the Obama Hope-y, Change-y Unicorn Rainbow – Chicago style. I can’t wait to see what’s next…

You tell ‘em, Senator Graham!! I admit, even when I was a far lefty Democrat (now Independent), I couldn’t help but be impressed by Senator Graham.

I may not agree with him on everything, but I sure as hell agree with his interpretation above. I also agree with his call for a Constitutional review by the SC Attorney General regarding the Nebraska Buy-off:

This article found in my local newspaper provides a more comprehensive explanation of Graham’s request:

Graham Wants Investigation

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday that he wants South Carolina’s top prosecutor to investigate a deal that helped secure the 60th vote needed to pass a Democratic health care bill through the Senate.

Blasting Senate Democrats for what he called “backroom deals that amount to bribes,” Graham found much to complain about in their health care bill. He was particularly irked that the senator who provided that final vote to head off a Republican filibuster, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, cut a deal in which the federal government pays his state’s share of the cost for new Medicaid recipients.

Graham, a South Carolina Republican, called on state Attorney General Henry McMaster to review the constitutionality of the deal, and a McMaster spokesman said he looks forward to meeting with Graham to discuss it.

“There is one state in the union where new enrollees for Medicaid will be signed up and it won’t cost anybody in that state money,” Graham said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“A lot of people, Republicans and Democrats, are upset by this,” Graham said. “Is it constitutional? I want the attorney general of South Carolina to look at this.”

Nelson, who skirted the issue in a news conference Saturday, confirmed the deal in a CNN interview Sunday. But he said he didn’t ask for special favors…

Click HERE if you wish to read the rest of the article.

Senator Graham is by no means alone in his disgust for the way this Health “Care” bill has come about, and its resemblance to “Chicago-style politics.” This article by the Chicago Tribune (!) certainly supports that supposition: How Health Lobbyists Influenced Reform Bill; Former staffers of lawmakers from Harry Reid to Mitch McConnell push clients’ agenda. Uh huh. What a big ol’ surprise – that this bill being shoved down our throats was crafted by LOBBYISTS:

David Nexon had a big problem. An early version of national health care legislation contained a $40 billion tax aimed squarely at members of the medical device trade association he represents.

Nexon, a former adviser to the late Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, went to work. He marshaled 14 people like himself — lobbyists who were once congressional aides, many of them from staffs of congressional leaders or committees that had a hand in crafting the health care overhaul.

When Senate Democrats unveiled their bill in mid-November, Nexon’s handiwork was evident. The tax on device-makers was still large — $20 billion — but only half what it might have been without the efforts of Nexon and his fellow lobbyists.

Nexon’s team is an illustration of how deeply the health care industry has embedded itself on Capitol Hill, using former aides of lawmakers and ex-lawmakers themselves.

An analysis of public documents by Northwestern University’s Medill News Service in partnership with the Tribune Newspapers Washington Bureau and the Center for Responsive Politics found a revolving door between Capitol Hill staffers and lobbying jobs for companies with a stake in health care legislation.

At least 166 former aides from the nine congressional leadership offices and five committees involved in shaping health overhaul legislation — along with at least 13 former lawmakers — registered to represent at least 338 health care clients since the beginning of last year, according to the analysis.

Their health care clients spent $635 million on lobbying over the past two years, the study shows.

The total of insider lobbyists jumps to 278 when non-health-care firms that reported lobbying on health issues are added in, the analysis found.

My blood is boiling now; how about yours? Better take your high blood pressure medication, then:

Part of the lobbying pressure on current members of Congress and staffers comes from the powerful lure of post-congressional job possibilities.

“There’s always a worry they may be thinking about their future employment opportunities when dealing with these issues, particularly with health care, because the stakes are so high and the breadth of the issues — pharmacies, hospitals, doctors,” said Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz.

Lobbyists’ earnings can dwarf congressional salaries, which currently top out at $174,000 annually for lawmakers and $156,000 for aides, though committee staff members can earn slightly more.

In the health care showdown, insider lobbying influence has magnified the clout of corporate interests and helped steer the debate away from a public insurance option, despite many polls indicating majority support from Americans, according to Rutgers University political scientist Ross Baker.

“It imposes a kind of conservative bias on the discussion,” said Baker, himself a former Senate staffer.

The lineup of insiders working for clients with health care interests includes at least 14 former aides to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and at least 13 former aides to Montana Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee and a key overseer of the health care overhaul.

This is just shocking on its face, isn’t it? I gues I shouldn’t be at all surprised that a bunch of these people worked for the same ones trying to ram this through before anyone has had a chance to read the damn thing in its entirety:

Nexon, who is now senior executive vice president of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, is among at least a half-dozen former Kennedy aides lobbying on health care.

Nexon acknowledged the value of congressional connections, “but in the end, it’s not who I know, it’s what I know.”

It makes sense to hire former staffers for the health care showdown because they tend to be “more generalists, dealing with a broad range of issues,” something that is in demand for legislation that sprawls across at least a half-dozen federal agencies and encompasses issues ranging from tax policy to hospital reimbursement rates, according to Nexon. But specific issues also get specialized help. Earlier this year, the Christian Science Church hired a former Kennedy staffer, Carolyn Osolinik, and three of her colleagues at the Mayer Brown law firm, all veterans of Capitol Hill. The firm has been paid at least $110,000 so far to push a provision requiring insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments.

Phil Davis, a senior official of the church, said the church wanted access to decision makers. “The noise level goes sky high. It’s hard to get in to talk to people,” he said.

The largest insider lobbying cadre belongs to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, which employs at least 26 former congressional members and staffers, according to Medill/CRP research.

Two other drug interests, biotech firm Amgen Inc. and the Biotechnology Industry Organization trade group, with at least 24 and 16 insiders respectively, ranked second and fourth among reported hiring over the past two years of lawmakers’ former staffers and members of committees considered in the analysis.

“The numbers shouldn’t surprise anyone,” said Ken Johnson, a PhRMA senior vice president. “Former staffers have a unique understanding of how the legislative process works. And when you are trying to advocate on behalf of smart public policies, you want smart people on your team.”

But Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, a nonpartisan, nonprofit watchdog group, had a harsher assessment, blaming “a toxic cocktail of insiders and money” for short-circuiting a government-run plan that would have competed with private insurers.

“We’ll get a bill. And the president will sign it. But it’ll be less than the country deserves,” said Edgar, a former six-term member of the House.

Health care lobbyists increase their effectiveness by strategically targeting their campaign contributions or the donations of the interests they represent, Edgar said.

But, but, but – I thought lobbyists were going to have no part in an Obama Administration!! Ahahahahaha – and if anyone actually bought THAT line of crapola from Obama, I have some waterfront property in Wyoming to sell you because there is more:

Health industry contributions to congressional candidates have more than doubled so far this decade, rising to $127 million in the 2008 election cycle from $56 million in the 2000 election, with disproportionate sums going to the party in power and to members of committees that oversee health care, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

But lobbyist and former Kennedy staffer Andrew Rosenberg said political conditions, not big money or the predispositions of lobbyists sidelined a public option.

“You could see this coming from a long way off. The Democratic Party is now the big tent party. They have to get to 60 votes. That is the reality,” Rosenberg said. “It was going to have to be something that appeals to moderates” opposed to expanding government-run health insurance. (Tribune Newspapers’ Tom Hamburger and Joe Markman contributed to this report.)

So now you know – Senator Lindsey Graham has it exactly right – this policy was not crafted with US in mind. It was crafted by and for the health care insurers and those who are connected to them. They wrote this thing that the Democrats are hell-bent on getting through this year. They, and the Democrats who are getting money from them, are the ones who will most definitely benefit most. Because from everything I have heard and read, WE will be the ones who lose the most while paying the most.

And if all of these shenanigans to buy votes aren’t unConstitutional, they are most definitely unethical. Seems like the only change that has come to Washington is bolder cheating. Yep, sounds like “Chicago-style politics” to me!

Ironic that yesterday, NY Times columnist Charles Blow, certainly an Obama cheerleader from way back, penned a column entitled Obama’s to Fix, in which he cautions the President to stop blaming George Bush for the “mess” he inherited. Clearly, our President, far from undoing such a mess, is daily making a bigger one of his own. Mr. Blow begins with this ominous phrase:

What a difference a year makes.

In October 2008, the candidate Barack Obama delivered a major economic speech in Toledo, Ohio. In it he said: “Right now, we face an immediate economic emergency, and that requires urgent action. We can’t wait to help workers and families and communities who are struggling right now — who don’t know if their job or their retirement will be there tomorrow; who don’t know if next week’s paycheck will cover this month’s bills. … We need to pass an economic rescue plan for the middle-class, and we need to do it not five years from now, not next year, we need to do it right now.

“So today I’m proposing a number of steps that we should take immediately to stabilize our financial system, provide relief to families and communities and help struggling homeowners. It’s a plan that begins with one word that’s on everybody’s mind, and it’s easy to spell: J-O-B-S.”

“Right now,” “immediate economic emergency,” “requires urgent action,” “can’t wait.” Wow! He gave the impression that job creation would be his top priority, that action would be swift and effective, that his solutions would not only stanch the hemorrhaging, but reverse the trend.

He has not made jobs his top priority. This health care debacle, bailing out Wall Street, getting into the car business and generally putting money into the pockets of everyone except those who need it have all taken priority over putting Americans back to work. And, no, putting an extra $13 a week into people’s paychecks is not going to do the trick when as Mr. Blow points out the new official labor statistics have us at 10.2 unemployment, which is an increase of “more than 50 percent from the time Obama gave that speech.”

“(By the way, the underemployment rate, which includes part-time workers who want to work full time and those who’ve given up searching, is a staggering 17.5 percent.)”

I am still at a loss to understand why there was such a great urgency to pass health care legislation that is not supposed to go into effect for more than three years. Someone on another blog made the observation that Obama and Pelosi et al are using the economic crisis and joblessness as a weapon to pass their agenda. As people are panicked at losing their jobs and their healthcare, they are more likely to look to government to bail them out – and more amenable. As Rahm Emanuel said, “never waste a good crisis.” What better time to ram this through. Mr. Blow continues:

Job creation has dropped from top priority to one of many, and President Obama has been remanded to pandering for patience and offering excuses. On the one hand, he argues the tortured rationale that there is good news in the awful numbers: Things are still getting worse but at a slower pace. On the other, he incessantly reminds us that he inherited the crisis. The implication: Don’t blame me, blame Bush.

But this president can’t keep deflecting to the last one. Pain is presently felt. The crisis that took form on Bush’s watch is being experienced on Obama’s. Fair or not, finger-pointing is not effective policy.

This is now Obama’s crisis, and it carries political consequences. During Tuesday’s gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, nearly 9 in 10 voters said that they were worried about the direction of the nation’s economy in the next year. And the majority of those who held that view voted for the Republican candidates. This could portend a flashback to 1994.

It isn’t President Obama’s fault that he inherited this mess, but it is his to fix, and he must make haste. To paraphrase his Toledo prelection: you need to do it not five years from now, not next year, you need to do it right now. J-O-B-S.

There were many options to put people back to work this year if that was really the priority. Clearly it was not. This President spent almost a billion dollars to get his job. I don’t want to hear complaints now. Obviously, he inherited a mess, which he has made worse with reckless spending. No one expects him to fix everything in the space of a year, but I thought his “good judgment” meant he knew how to prioritize. We need leadership and part of that involves sacrificing one’s ego to help those who need it most. That is far more important than pushing legislation just for the purpose of putting a check mark next to one’s name. You don’t not spend billions, even trillions, you don’t have at a time like this. Since this bunch so miscalculated on their $787 billion stimulus package, I am not inclined to trust them now by handing over 1/6 of the economy to their stewardship.

It is interesting that Mr. Blow, who played the race card on Mr. Obama’s behalf last year, is now joining the ever increasing number of his pundit supporters who are having problems with his endless campaigning, blaming and wrongheaded focus.

As to the health care debate, I called my Congressman’s office Friday morning to complain about the bill and his assistant debated the merits with me. At least she took the time to do so. It was a shame she was wrong on the facts. I told her to go back and read the thing. Now we have a 2,000 page beast that the Senate must contend with and we are told it will never pass in its current form. So why the rush? Why wouldn’t this Administration be in the same kind of rush to help get people back to work?

There are 237 millionaires in Congress. Perhaps that explains why they have difficulty relating to the urgent need to put millions of Americans back of work, instead manufacturing an urgent need to pass labrynthian legislation for the mere purpose of saying “Mission Accomplished.”

Hmm. Where have we heard that phrase before?

But wait, it gets worse. The White House, through Health and Human Services, isn’t just telling them to STF up, they are THREATENING Humana and these insurance companies in general:

The government might take enforcement action against insurers that have tried to mobilize opposition to the legislation by sending their enrollees “misleading and confusing” messages, a senior official of the Department of Health and Human Services said in a memo Monday.

The mailings in question urge enrollees to contact their congressional representatives and protest the legislation, the memo said.

A spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s main lobbying group, issued a statement Tuesday criticizing what he described as the government’s “gag order.”

“Seniors have a right to know how the current reform proposals will affect the coverage they currently like and rely on,” AHIP spokesman Robert Zirkelbach said.

Now, all of us who said that Obama was simply going to take Chicago Politics national, raise your hand. Yep – we were all right. Honestly, though, I’d rather be wrong on this, but that ship has sailed. In essence, the White House is saying, “If we don’t like what you’re saying, we’ll come after you.” Nice. Really nice. And we thought Bush was bad. (Remember that? When we were so upset about his “propaganda” through the media? At least he wasn’t threatening private companies who didn’t agree with his proposed policies. Never thought I’d be defending Bush. See what Obama has done to me?!?!)

But I digress.

Remember when all of Obama’s supporters kept touting his legal expertise particularly in terms of the Constitution during the campaign? And I kept saying, “the better to tear it to shreds.” Sure seems to me that’s exactly what he is trying to do with the First Amendment:

Proposed health reform legislation would sharply reduce funding for Medicare Advantage plans, and the insurance industry has been battling to prevent that from happening. The bill unveiled last week by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, would directly cut payments to Medicare Advantage plans by an estimated $123 billion over 10 years, and it would indirectly reduce funding for those plans by another $15.6 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The big insurer Humana triggered the HHS crackdown with a letter to Medicare enrollees claiming that health reform proposals could hurt “millions of seniors and disabled individuals” who “could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage plans so valuable.” The letter was sent in envelopes marked “important information about your Medicare Advantage plan — open today!”

HHS wrote to Humana last week instructing it to stop the mailings, and it wrote to all Medicare Advantage plans Monday, saying “such communications are potentially contrary to . . . federal law.” The government regulates communications between the health plans and their members.

Baucus had urged HHS to crack down on the mailings. (Emphasis mine.)

“It is wholly unacceptable for insurance companies to mislead seniors,” he said in a Monday news release. “The health care reform bill we released last week strengthens Medicare and does not cut benefits under the Medicare program — and seniors need to know that,” he said.

The AHIP spokesman countered that if the proposed cuts are enacted, “seniors will face premium increases, reduced benefits, and, in some parts of the country, will lose access to their Medicare Advantage plan altogether.”

Humana spokesman Tom Noland said beneficiaries “deserve to know the impact that funding cuts of the magnitude being discussed would have on benefits and premiums.”

Peter Johnson provided a VERY good overview of the issue in the video below:

Here’s the question this just begs to be asked: If this plan is so great, why is it unable to withstand any real scrutiny without threats of retaliation for stating what is in it? That, to me, is a big, huge red flag that someone is lying here, and it does not seem to be Humana.

Oh, and since I’m on the topic of the Health Care Bill, here is a HUGE issue that may be facing us if this plan, as it is, goes through:

Holy toledo. So, a gag order to insurance companies for telling the truth, and another possible truth we’re not hearing enough about – there likely will not be enough doctors to care for us under this new plan. Yep, no more First Amendment, and not enough doctors willing to provide care under this plan.

Well,that’s just jake.

Um, aren’t these EXACTLY the same things OBAMA is planning on doing? Let’s see – he attacked Hillary Clinton during the Primaries by claiming she would fine people who didn’t have insurance. She never said that, but now Obama is. Obama claimed in the campaign that McCain was going to cut money from Medicare and tax people on their insurance, and now Obama is planning on doing both! WTF???

Oh, wait – Obama was emphatic with George Stephanopoulos that it is NOT a tax on insurance. Heck, no, no way, could this exchange make anyone think this is a tax:

OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

You can watch the exchange here to get the fuller picture, and new definition:

No disrespect or anything, President Obama, but you make shit up all the time! Jeezum crow! And you’re going to get all testy with George? I reckon you forgot that you are trying to WOO people over to your plan, not antagonize them. Oh, wait, I forgot – this is upside down world. A world in which people who have the audacity to actually question you are rude, but one in which you can flat out lie about people who disagree with you. I got it. New definition of rude – check!

Well, that was the whole tax issue. How about cutting Medicare? Uh huh:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s go to Medicare then…

OBAMA: Good.

STEPHANOPOULOS: …because you also said that no one will lose what they have. And Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat, says that the cuts you’re looking at in Medi — the Medicare Advantage program…

OBAMA: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: …are going to force people to lose coverage they now have.

OBAMA: No. Here — here’s what’s going to happen. These are essentially private HMOs who are getting, on average — and this is not my estimate, this is Democrats and Republicans, experts have said — they’re getting, on average, about 14 percent more over payments, basically subsidies from taxpayers for a program that ordinary Medicare does just as good, if not better, at keeping people healthy.

Now, they package these things in ways that, in some cases, may make it more convenient for some consumers, but they’re overcharging massively for it. There’s no competitive bidding under the process.

And so what we’ve said is instead of spending $17 billion, $18 billion a year, $177 billion over 10 years on that, why wouldn’t we use that to close the donut hole so the people are actually getting better prescription drugs…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But Senator Nelson says it’s going to…

OBAMA: …Why don’t we make sure that we’re using some of that money to actually make people healthier?

STEPHANOPOULOS: But he said it’s going to cause beneficiaries right now to lose what they have.

OBAMA: Look, I understand that change is hard. If what you’re saying is that people who are currently signed up for Medicare advantage are going to have Medicare and the same level of benefits, but they may not be having their insurer get a 14 percent premium, that’s absolutely true and will the insurers squawk? You bet.

STEPHANOPOULOS: They may drop the coverage.

OBAMA: No, these folks are going to be able to get Medicare that is just as good, provides the same benefits, but we’re not subsidizing them for $18 billion a year.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So Senator Nelson, he wants to pass an amendment that shields anyone currently on Medicare advantage from any cuts. Do you support that?

OBAMA: George, I’m not going to be negotiating a particular provision of the bill, sitting (ph) down with you here right now. What I am going to say is this: the basic principle that is indisputable is that we are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare that is not making people healthier. I want to make sure that we’re using that money to actually make people healthier.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But if people lose their Medicare advantage?

OBAMA: What I have said is we’re not going to take a dollar out of the Medicare trust fund. We’re going to make sure that benefits are just as strong if not stronger. We’re not going to subsidize insurance companies in ways that end up creating a situation that Medicare is actually weaker and has a less financial foundation, because right now, we’ve got eight years from now potentially Medicare going into the red.

If you get a chance, go watch the video. It seems to me that Obama gets JUST a tad testy…

One itsy, bitsy problem. The Health Care bill does say tax. Page 29 of the bill:

Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax. If a taxpayer‘s MAGI is between 100-300 percent of FPL, the excise tax for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or an individual claimed as a dependent) is $750 per year. However, the maximum penalty for the taxpayer unit is $1,500. If a taxpayer‘s MAGI is above 300 percent of FPL the penalty for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or as an individual claimed as a dependent) is $950 year. However, the maximum penalty amount a family above 300 percent of FPL would pay is $3,800.

And here’s a little bit of advice for President Obama, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it’s a safe bet that it’s a duck. But when the duck is clearly labeled as a duck (or in your case, a tax, or a cut in services, or a lie) it is a duck. So stop pretending a tax is not a tax, especially when it is labeled a tax. Just as folks understood that fellatio was a sex act they also are able to figure out that having to give the Government more money out of their pockets is a tax no matter what it is called. You may not understand what an “excise tax” is but some of us are actually able to tell the difference. But thanks for playing.

It used to be, not so very long ago, that the first numbers assigned to each newborn were date and time of birth, weight, and Apgar test scores (ratings on muscle tone, respiration, reflex irritability, pulse, and skin color).

Now, the instant babies pop out their sweet heads (or butts, out of respect for those of us born breech), they are slapped with a bill. A really big bill.

Actually, $186,000 is what each and every one of us owe right now (add an extra 10 grand if you wait a year before paying) according to a new report out by Peter G. Peterson Foundation. The PGPF figures our debt a little differently by including projected governmental commitments, believing the actual total to be a mind-blowing $56.4 trillion.

We know that the federal government carries both publicly held debt and debt for money it has borrowed from itself. Together, these sums are closing in on $11 trillion. This is the figure most commonly cited as our “national debt,” but actually, that’s only the start of the REAL national debt.

How exactly does this $56.4 trillion bill add up? First, there are the federal government’s known liabilities that it is legally obliged to fulfill. These include publicly held debt, military and civilian pensions and retiree health benefits. As of September 30, 2008, these liabilities added up to $13.5 trillion.

Then there are various commitments and contingencies – i.e., contractual requirements that the government is expected to fulfill when, and if specified conditions are met. These include federal insurance payouts, loan guarantees, and leases. As of September 30, 2008, they added up to $1.4 trillion.

So where does the remaining $43 trillion or so come from? That’s what the government has promised to pay in Social Security and Medicare benefits in excess of related revenues. As of January 1, 2008, current and promised future Social Security benefits amounted to $6.6 trillion. And between Medicare’s three programs (hospital insurance, outpatient, and prescription drug), current and future promised Medicare benefits amounted to $36.3 trillion.

Unless we make major reforms soon, the PGPF reaches a sobering conclusion.

Making extraordinary commitments for the future before that future has arrived goes against the very nature of democracy. Each generation must have the flexibility to set their own priorities according to the opportunities and needs of their time.

What will this little baby’s life be like when she is my age? And yet how do we soften the future blow in a way that doesn’t starve us now or weaken our global position to the point where we will have little to offer our children and grandchildren?

Or is the Peterson Foundation messing unfairly with the numbers to further scare old people (or make them feel guilty)? For example, people will continually be paying into Social Security. And, Medicare is not free to its recipients. I’m not sure about the figures the foundation used, but I am pretty sure we are in a lot of trouble.

I am stunned that the Obama administration has the nerve to refuse to give senior and disabled citizens a cost-of-living increase for the first time in a generation.

This, coupled with the $500 billion cut to Medicare to finance Obama’s proposed health care plan, confirms my suspicions that Obama is creating his debt-riddled programs by squeezing the pittances given to seniors and disabled people.

I am a die-hard Democrat who votes a near-straight Democratic ticket, but I will not vote for Democrats any more if they do not stand up to Obama’s destructive measures to steal from those of us who’ve worked the longest and hardest to support this nation.

WHY — WHY??? — ISN’T THIS THE TOP STORY IN THE NEWS?

The woman who answered the phone at my friend’s representative’s office told him that they’d been inundated all day by calls from seniors who are frantic about the cancellation of the COLA (Cost of Living Allowance) that every Social Security check recipient depends on, every January, in order to keep up with increasing costs for groceries, drugs, insurance, and more.

By the time he’s done paying his rent, utilities, and car repairs/insurance, my friend can’t afford to buy anything else but groceries and laundry soap. Forget about buying new clothes! Forget about subscribing to magazines or buying books! Forget about going to the movies or even renting a movie! Forget about doing anything the least bit unconnected with his survival, literally. Every spare penny has to be used to buy items like Benadryl, which is one of many, many drugs not covered by Medicare Part D.

Then there are drugs like Nexium, which Roger must have because he has GERD (Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease) due to his hiatal hernia, and Roger “upchucks” for hours after every meal, no matter how small the meal. The cheaper drugs for GERD, like Prilosec, do not work for Roger. Nexium is the one drug that works perfectly, but Nexium’s co-pay cost is nearly $70 per month.

Roger also has severe anxiety attacks and not one single Plan D insurance plan — Roger checked every plan available — covers the medicines he must take to treat his anxiety. There’s not even a co-pay. Roger has to pay the full price for the two anxiety drugs, which cost him $40-65 per month, depending on the dosage and number prescribed.

Because of the costs of his anxiety medications and the many other medication co-pays for additional conditions which include high blood pressure and arthritis — plus his $45 monthly premium to the Plan D insurance company — Roger cannot afford to take Nexium at all. So Roger endures constant “upchucking” and heartburn all day, every day, and he faces the danger that his GERD will lead to esophageal cancer.

Then there’s what Roger pays for Medicare. He pays $95+ for Part B. He pays $149/month for Part C. He pays $140-200 for Part D (drugs), which includes the monthly premium and co-pays and the drugs that not one drug insurance plan covers.

Let’s be clear about one thing for all of the folks who keep equating Medicare with Universal Health Care: Medicare is NOT free. Roger pays at least $400 per month for the supplemental policies, procedures and drugs to make up for everything that basic Medicare does not cover. It is not the perfect coverage everyone is now depicting it to be. There are many problems with it, not the least of which is the issue that spurred Roger’s calls and emails.

My friend remembers his younger years, when he used to dread the month of January since it’s one of the coldest months of the year and it’s a time of post-holiday letdown.

But the last few years, he has waited with great excitement for January to arrive because it meant that his check from Social Security would arrive with a small increase that would let him buy 4 apples per month instead of 2 apples per month. And January’s check meant that he could buy a chicken breast once a month instead of just chicken backs and wings.

But January 2010 will be the most depressing month he’s suffered. He won’t buy those 2 extra apples, and he will buy beans instead of chicken.

Those precious treats — those 2 apples and that piece of chicken — won’t brighten his meals.

He’ll add more water to the bean soup to make it last longer — he’d like to add a can of broth but that’s too expensive, so the extra water will have to do.

And he’ll wonder why there’s any point in going on when he won’t even be able to afford the most modest treats.

It is hard to fathom having to watch one’s pennies so closely – not in a metaphorical sense, but in an honest-to-goodness reality of not being able to buy but the barest necessities.

My friend used to joke with me about the “death panels” and he suspected that Sarah Palin was exaggerating the problem. He doesn’t laugh anymore. He is certain that Barack Obama does not care about people his age and that Obama wishes that people as old as he would just die sooner because keeping them alive costs too much.

I wish you could see his face like I can. His mouth is tight, his lips fixed in a grim downturn. His cheeks are pale and drawn. His eyes have lost their sparkle. His forehead is wrinkled more than ever before. He is too young to look like that.

Worst of all, his spirit is broken. He knows that Obama’s plan to cut $500 billion from Medicare means that everyone who depends on Medicare will get less care and will wait much longer for appointments and tests.

He expects that his Medicare supplemental insurance premiums will go up, even though he will get no more money from his Social Security check. And he has no idea how he will pay for those necessary supplemental premiums, so he has plans to cancel them all. Which means that he is gambling that he will not need hospitalization, let alone blood tests, for the next year. A dangerous game of roulette, to be sure.

And he knows that January 2011 will be just as bad since the Obama administration has announced that there will be no cost-of-living increase in 2011 either.

He’ll have to add more and more water to his bean soup. It won’t nourish him but he hopes it will make him feel full and that the hunger pangs won’t be too painful. He has no choice.

I don’t know what to say to him. When going to the food bank is mentioned, he has his pride, but even more than that, he knows the food banks in his area have less food to give out now and are all overwhelmed by mothers with children to feed. Those children, he believes, have more right to that dwindling amount of food than he does. And he believes that Obama feels that way too.

Roger confessed to me that he hopes that the “Death Panels” are indeed part of Obama’s health care legislation because he expects that death will be a welcome relief from a life that doesn’t permit him the simplest joys like an apple or a piece of meat.

He knows that his president considers him the unworthy, and he wonders if the president is right, this president whose stepfather was an oil man, who went to the most exclusive private school in all of Hawaii, and who went to an Ivy League university. Is that man right? If so, he hopes that the least the president can do is to provide him with an “exit plan.”

I still don’t know what to say to him. But I do know that this president promised him hope. Instead, he has given him despair…

Postscript: I bet some of you think that Roger should swallow his pride and apply for Medicaid. He can’t. He gets $50 too much per month from Social Security to qualify for Medicaid. Fifty dollars. Even though his medical costs make quick work of that additional money, it doesn’t matter. Once again, this is not a perfect system, no matter how much the new party line wants to push that it is. Reading the fine print — reading the print at ALL — exposes a lot of those lines to be just that, lines.

H/T to Hot Air for this video. It is very short, so please stay with it.

Obama attempts to reassure “folks” at a town hall that health care reform does not mean long lines, nor does it mean the private insurers will be run out of business. How does he do it? He states that Fed Ex and UPS are still doing fine – it’s the post office that’s having problems.

Um. Isn’t the post office government run?

Does his “example” reassure you? Inquiring minds want to know.

Chat away.

My recent toon, Are Grandma and Grandpa the Target? presented the full text of what will be in store for those over 65 years of age. You won’t hear much about this in the MSM, of course.

HARP made a quick comment to that toon: The reaper is cheaper. An image sprang into my mind, and I wanted to create it and share it. (Thanks, HARP, for the inspiration.)

Before you suggest that I am a scare-mongering right-wingnut plant, please read the full text for yourself. (That will be more than many members of the House are apparently willing to do.) If you can’t fully understand it, you are not alone. It reads as ominous and intrusive in a muddled, sneaky sort of way, and it scares the shit out of me!

Quick Update: I am listening to Obama’s virtual Town Hall meeting as I write, and he is assuring everyone that Medicare benefits will not be cut (even though he has said that billions will be cut over the next 10 years). But the question I am asking did come up. His answer was vague–he THINKS that the death counseling is meant to be available only for those who ask for it (the current House draft says no such thing) and adds that if people are worried, it could be changed. Time to write your congressional rep, and at least ask that this section be clarified. It is incomprehensible as it stands.

Reporting from Washington — Invoking an argument used by President George W. Bush, the Obama administration has turned down a request from a watchdog group for a list of health industry executives who have visited the White House to discuss the massive healthcare overhaul.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the Secret Service asking about visits from 18 executives representing health insurers, drug makers, doctors and other players in the debate. The group wants the material in order to gauge the influence of those executives in crafting a new healthcare policy.

The Secret Service sent a reply stating that documents revealing the frequency of such visits were considered presidential records exempt from public disclosure laws. The agency also said it was advised by the Justice Department that the Secret Service was within its rights to withhold the information because of the “presidential communications privilege.”

Mr. Nicholas tells us the “Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics said it would file suit against the Obama administration as early as today.”

As a candidate, President Obama vowed that in devising a healthcare bill he would invite in TV cameras — specifically C-SPAN — so that Americans could have a window into negotiations that normally play out behind closed doors.

Having promised transparency, the administration should be willing to disclose who it is consulting in shaping healthcare policy, said an attorney for the citizens’ group. …

I guess President Bush’s policies and conduct in the White House are looking more and more inviting to our current President, since he is employing so much of the same behavior. It is fascinating to me that his supporters, who were so virulently opposed to George Bush see nothing wrong with this when their guy does it.

In its letter requesting the records, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics asked about visits from Billy Tauzin, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans; William Weldon, chairman and CEO of Johnson & Johnson; and J. James Rohack, president of the American Medical Assn., among others.

“It’s extremely disappointing,” said Anne Weismann, the group’s chief counsel. Obama is relying on a legal argument that “continues one of the bad, anti-transparency, pro-secrecy approaches that the Bush administration had taken. And it seems completely at odds with the president’s commitment . . . to bring a new level of transparency to his government.”

Well, yeah. What is also disappointing is that as usual the inside the beltway folk are formulating policy by giving face time to the big moneymakers on health care. Somehow I doubt that will result in a win-win for those most in need of assistance.

PhRMA, which represents the nation’s drug companies, said it had taken part in two meetings with senior White House officials in the Roosevelt Room. Participants, according to Tauzin, included White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, along with the CEOs of some major drug companies. Both meetings were closed to the public.

Closed to the public? Transparency all the way. What would be the problem with our knowing what is being discussed? There is certainly widespread agreement that health care reform is needed. But that is where the agreement ends. The current legislation is over 1,000 pages – a labyrinth-like tome that is so confusing, those voting on it neither know how it works or how to explain it.

Distinguished newsman Sam Donaldson penned an article in the Daily Beast today, Obama’s Misguided Media Blitz, which reminds us that while Obama intends to stage another press conference tonight to sell his health care plans to the American people, his time would be better spent actually working on the proposals that are in massive need of a fix before they go to the floor in either the House or the Senate.

Unfortunately, the salesman-in-chief is far too invested selling the sizzle, while masking the deadly details of his proposals. Since he is also supposed to be the chief executive, if he manages health care reform the same way he “managed” the stimulus package — by outsourcing it to the likes of Pelosi et al — we may be in for a world of hurt.

President Obama’s ‘media blitz’ is yet another way to distract from the very information the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington are trying to determine – who wields the influence here and what will that mean for the American taxpayer.

The pharmaceutical industry is having a half-off sale! President Obama just couldn’t gush over it enough.

Soon, seniors trapped in the so-called Medicare drug coverage donut hole will be able to purchase their medications for 50% off the usual outrageous rate. As of now, Medicare helps pay for seniors’ medications (75%) up to $2,700 and picks up again after $6,100. In between—that pesky $3,400– seniors are on their own. While jammed in that hole, some seniors on tight incomes probably cost the government more in the long run because they get really sick from taking only a fraction of their prescribed meds.

But, is this really a generous deal or a sneaky PR campaign with an intent to lull seniors into believing that the Obama administration and Big Pharma give a damn about them? (Hint: That my donut looks a little like a salty pretzel is no accident.)

First off, the pharmaceutical industry is not sacrificing here. Because we pay dollars for each little pill, we tend to forget that they cost only pennies to produce. So despite the fact that medications will be somewhat more affordable during the donut hole period, at 50% the profits will still be coming in. Known for their aggressive marketing techniques, the pharmaceuticals will also get more PR mileage from this half-off sale than any TV advertising featuring animated bees promising allergy relief, a butterfly in your face while you are trying to go to sleep, or a couple in individual bathtubs up on a cliff who are somehow going to now have sex.

Seniors may be so grateful to drug companies that they could become momentarily distracted from the real problems that are coming down the pike. Medicare does help those with a covered diagnosis (Alzheimer’s and dementia are not among them), but too many learn way too late that if they need assisted living or require skilled nursing for an extended period of time, Medicare does not help. Coming up with an average $4,000 a month for basic assisted living expenses or the $6,000 plus for nursing home care is not something most seniors can manage, even with Social Security benefits. Long term care insurance would be helpful, but it is very expensive.

Seniors should also be worrying far more about what else is in the health news that affects them directly. In 2008 President Bush proposed slowing down Medicare spending, and that notion was quickly shot down. President Obama, in yet another Bush II move, is now asking for the same thing and it’s still flying. Obama’s proposals:

Spending on Medicare prescription drugs would fall by $75 billion over a decade. And slowing projected increases in Medicare payments to hospitals and other providers – but not doctors – would save $110 billion over 10 years, the president said.

Obama called them “commonsense changes,” although he acknowledged that many details must be resolved. Some powerful industry groups called the proposals unwise and unfair.

So, in the larger context, donut hole relief looks more like a pinhole. The government saves nothing because it was spending nothing. And this fire sale fails to address the much larger problem of skyrocketing medication costs to all of us.

Sometimes I wonder if we could be headed towards becoming a “duty to die” society. Short of that might be the admonition that old people will just have to live with whatever ails them while younger people will have access to treatments for the same problems. There won’t be enough primary care treatment to go around if everyone who is not currently insured comes on board, so some form of rationing is looming.

Bottom line: Tough times ahead for Mom, Dad, Grandma, and Grandpa.