The Goat Pen

We're in trouble either way. More one way than the other though.

Crowley was...scratch that...is...an abomination.

I'm curious what you all think of the IPAB board that now requires a super-majority in the Senate to over rule etc.....Pretty sure knowledge of this kind of crap would have doomed it from the start. More of the have to pass to know whats in it bullshit...

Obamacare's Rationing by Another Name

Shikha Dalmia|Oct. 16, 2012 7:00 am

The stunning post-debate reversal in Mitt Romney’s fortunes may not last through the elections. But win or lose, he’ll do the country a big favor if he continues to expose the Independent Payment Advisory Board—the beloved center-piece of Obamacare—for what it is: An effort to give an unelected and unconstitutional board of bureaucrats sweeping powers to determine whether grandma gets her bypass surgery from Medicare, or a boot off the cliff.

Liberal fact-checkers have been working overtime to discredit Romney’s claim that this board will “ultimately tell patients what treatments they can receive.” PolitiFact, one self-appointed guardian of truth, rated Romney’s statement as “mostly false.” The board, it insisted, “can’t deny treatment” or “ration care” or “make health care decisions for individual Americans.” Rather it can only determine what doctors and hospitals are paid. Likewise, The Los Angeles Times maintained that the board could merely “recommend ways to reduce Medicare spending”—not cut benefits.

But the whole point of the board is to use price controls to discourage expensive treatments. Yes, it is possible that some good doctor will be willing to perform bypass surgeries for Medicare patients even when the board only allows, say, payment for aspirin. It’s also very unlikely. If the board decides to set payment for state-of-the-art dialysis at below cost, reasoning that the benefits of the procedure aren’t commensurate with the added expense, it isn’t rationing care directly. But it is indeed rationing care, because this would effectively consign patients to older treatments.

Before the recession, Medicare spending had been growing 2.6 percentage points faster than GDP. The program already pays out roughly $290 billion more in benefits than it receives in taxes, and it constitutes somewhere between $38.6 to $90 trillion in unfunded liabilities for the federal government.

The main reason for the government’s out-of-control Medicare spending is that Uncle Sam picks up most of the tab for seniors’ health care, giving them little incentive to curb consumption or shop for better prices. Instead of restoring this incentive, Congress has historically tried to curb spending by cutting reimbursement rates for providers. But this has repeatedly failed because providers are politically powerful. Every time automatic cuts have loomed, Congress has undone them by passing the so-called “doc fix.” But instead of solving this problem by exposing doctors to market accountability, Obamacare tries to solve it by shielding the IPAB bureaucracy from political accountability.

Here is how it would work: When ever Medicare inflation threatens to exceed GDP growth plus 0.5 percent—by historical standards, that’s probably every year there isn’t a recession—the 15-member board would develop a “detailed and specific” “legislative proposal” laying out which treatments Medicare would cover and at what rate. President Obama describes this as “institutionalizing best practices.” In plain English, it means determining whose ox gets gored.

What distinguishes the IPAB from the Environmental Protection Agency or the Federal Drug Administration is that those agencies give affected parties opportunities to weigh in before issuing their rules. This board would not be required to offer any avenue for patients and providers to air their concerns, nor could its decisions be challenged in court. Coaxing coverage out of heartless private insurers will seem like a piece of cake compared to confronting this all-powerful bureaucracy, which allows neither access nor appeal.

The IPAB’s proposals would automatically become law unless Congress came up with its own equivalent spending cuts—or both houses, including a three-fifths majority in the Senate, waived it and the president signed the waiver. This is an exceedingly high hurdle that would effectively turn the IPAB into a super legislature.

But the most troubling thing about the board is this: Under the constitution, the legislative power—the supreme power—is lodged in Congress along with a democratic check. Courts avoid the democratic check but forego legislative powers. But no government entity, not even the Federal Reserve, gets unchecked legislative powers. This is what the IPAB will have, contravening the core of the Constitution’s scheme of checks and balances.

Medicare spending is a pressing problem, no doubt. But the IPAB is a cure worse than the disease. It thwarts seniors’ treatment options, providers’ independence, and the constitutional balance of powers. The more Romney makes it an issue during his campaign, the more likely that the IPAB itself will be thwarted, whether he ends up in White House or not.

This column originally appeared in the Washington Examiner.

So really? This chick was an "un-decided" voter? REALLY....

Party Girl Debate Questioner Loves Joose, Hates Cops and Women Who Watch Sports

[img2]http://s4.freebeacon.com/up/2012/10/Kat ... ton-SS.png[/img2]

Katherine Fenton / Screen Shot

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
October 17, 2012 2:18 pm

During last night’s debate, Katherine Fenton asked President Barack Obama, “In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?” She appeared to be unaware that Obama has a history of paying women less than men.

A Washington Free Beacon study of Fenton’s Twitter profile, @Misskf, reveals that she has launched her own war on women, specifically women who like sports. Fenton tweeted the following public service announcement to her followers:

[img2]http://s3.freebeacon.com/up/2012/10/Fenton1.png[/img2]

According to Forbes, women make up more than a third of the 14 million-plus people who watch major sporting events including the NBA Finals, World Series, Daytona 500, and Stanley Cup Finals. Nearly half, 46 percent, of the 111 million people who watch the Super Bowl are women.

Fenton’s Twitter feed also reveals that purple Joose is her choice to get blackout drunk and she has a history of getting wet at happy hour.


[img2]http://s3.freebeacon.com/up/2012/10/Fenton2.png[/img2]

[img2]http://s3.freebeacon.com/up/2012/10/Fenton3.png[/img2]

Fenton demonstrates a fondness for authority figures (dad probably forgives you).

[img2]http://s3.freebeacon.com/up/2012/10/Fenton4.png[/img2]

She also suggested that @diDoggo and @KackRose refrain from jerking guys off in meadows. WFB fact-checkers deem this good advice.

[img2]http://s3.freebeacon.com/up/2012/10/Fenton5.png[/img2]

It remains unclear if Fenton would marry Whoopi Goldberg, Condoleezza Rice, or Rev. Al Sharpton.

[img2]http://s3.freebeacon.com/up/2012/10/Fenton6.png[/img2]

Fenton demonstrates a very sophisticated sense of humor on her Twitter page.

[img2]http://s3.freebeacon.com/up/2012/10/Fenton7.png[/img2]

[img2]http://s4.freebeacon.com/up/2012/10/Fenton8.png[/img2]

Fenton has officially been inducted into the Washington Free Beacon‘s binder of women.

IPAB was created as a strengthened version of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), a body with no regulatory power that solely advises Congress, but cannot enact regulations in and of itself. Since 1997, MedPAC had recommended cuts totaling hundreds of billions of dollars to Medicare that were ignored by Congress. Also, Congress has pressured Medicare administrators to cover "ineffective or needlessly costly methods of care", while Medicare's founding legislation says "Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any Federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine". The Brookings Institute opines that some in Congress are "in thrall to campaign contributors and producers and suppliers of medical services" and most are not well enough informed to wisely use Medicare's buying power to reform health care. The idea behind the IPAB was to take power away from Congress and special interests in order to give it to those knowledgeable in health care policy.

Basically a majority of Congress set up this empowered committee so they could turn to the lobbyists and special interests and say "sorry, out of our hands." That was the only way Medicare was going to be saved, and people of character knew it. The ones crying the loudest and demanding a return to the old setup are the dirty pols unhappy about giving up their payola. Their names are familiar...up their ass with a concertina dildo, I say.

DSL,

BTW history channel is running a series of two hour shows on the Men who built America. I think you've probably read some stuff on Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc but I found it to be interesting.

I wasn't aware of the interactions many of them had with each other.

bluetick wrote:IPAB was created as a strengthened version of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), a body with no regulatory power that solely advises Congress, but cannot enact regulations in and of itself. Since 1997, MedPAC had recommended cuts totaling hundreds of billions of dollars to Medicare that were ignored by Congress. Also, Congress has pressured Medicare administrators to cover "ineffective or needlessly costly methods of care", while Medicare's founding legislation says "Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any Federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine". The Brookings Institute opines that some in Congress are "in thrall to campaign contributors and producers and suppliers of medical services" and most are not well enough informed to wisely use Medicare's buying power to reform health care. The idea behind the IPAB was to take power away from Congress and special interests in order to give it to those knowledgeable in health care policy.

Basically a majority of Congress set up this empowered committee so they could turn to the lobbyists and special interests and say "sorry, out of our hands." That was the only way Medicare was going to be saved, and people of character knew it. The ones crying the loudest and demanding a return to the old setup are the dirty pols unhappy about giving up their payola. Their names are familiar...up their ass with a concertina dildo, I say.

But did that board become more powerful in Opramacare? They way the article reads is unless congress votes to not endorse their rulings that they do go into effect. And the Senate requires 60 votes to over rule. At least according to the article.

BTW when will Chris wallace, Brett Baier, Britt Hume etc get picked for a debate moderator

THE_WIZARD_ wrote:Crowley was...scratch that...is...an abomination.

They picked the wrong Crowley. They should have picked Monica.

puterbac wrote:Funny that the undecided on MSNBC and Luntz's group on Fox shifted heavily for Romney after the debate.

BTW when will Chris wallace, Brett Baier, Britt Hume etc get picked for a debate moderator?

Why is it always left leaning folks?

Krauthammer says a draw then its a draw. Crowley favored oprama and her fact check was incorrect. Romney left a lot on the table.

All in all it probably boosted both partisan sides and annoyed independents.

Where Oprama goes campaigning will tell the tale.

If Oprama is stuck in OH and is in WI/NV/IA and especially PA then he is in trouble.

If Romeny doesn't have to go to NC, VA, FL and spends his time in OH, WI, IA, NV, CO, and PA....if not then he is in trouble.

Puter

Luntz's focus groups seem like a sham. The one angry woman last night (the Ruth Bader Ginsberg lookalike) even admitted she wasn't undecided. She hated Obama and was only trying to decide if she'd vote Romney or not vote at all. I don't think that's the kind of "undecided" voters most pollsters are looking for.

What's bizarre is I saw his focus group after Debate 1 and THAT group thought Obama had won. Go figure.

So the moderator allows Obama to bald face lie, then lies herself to back it up and says Romney is wrong, when in reality Romney is right and we are supposed to believe she was somehow neutral?

Please.

I think the reason the undecides and focus groups even for BSNBC think Romney won is because they recognized the whopper Obama told in trying to deny covering up the terrorist attack and they also recognized the moderator trying to inappropriately prop him up.

Thank god for left-leaning debate moderators, they are dedicated to keeping Romney out of the white house.

On another note... Tennessee was robbed three times already this year by left-leaning officials who are dedicated to keeping the Vols out of the BCS.

Everything is a conspiracy by lefties against the good god-fearing folk of Tennessee.

Fulmer, Kiffen and Dooley are left leaning?

The most recent Rasmussens by state

Obama
Michigan +7 (10/11)
Pennsylvania +5 (10/9)
Nevada +3 (10/15)
Iowa +2 (10/7)
Wisconsin +2 (10/9)
Ohio +1 (10/10)
Colorado +1 (10/7)
New Hampshire +1 (10/15)

Romney
Virginia +2 (10/11)
Florida +4 (10/11)

Rasmussen tends to have the highest proportion of Republicans making up his polls.

If Romney holds on to Florida (which appears likely), he absolutely needs to win Ohio to still have a chance. If Romney loses Ohio, this election will be over before the polls close in the central time zone.

DSL, Obama lied. No way to spin that. It was a whopper.

Then Crowley lied with him. How do we know she lied intentionally? Because reports are she asked some lower levels in the administration last week why it took the administration 12 days to admit it was a terrorist attack.

The whle thain have even been coordinated between the two because we didn't need any transcript to see that he talked about the video for 12 days, even on The View and at the UN etc.

We needed to use the transcript to find out that yes, he did say the word terrorism, but it wasn't in regard to the attack and it certianly wasn't calling the attack an act of terrorism. It wasn't even close.

The transcript says what it says, it was a bald faced inexcusable lie and she lied with him.

The only question is did they discuss doing that together before the debate or was it spontaneous?

Here's a link to the CBS who very nicely calls Crowley a liar too (inaccurate heh) and it also has a link to the transcript.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575 ... orist-act/

Henninger at WSJ nails it!

For much of the American electorate, this began as an ideal presidency. But there is an institutional flaw at the center of Mr. Obama's understanding of the presidency. He accepts the best of it but not responsibility for the inevitable worst of it. It is making his incumbency smaller than he thinks it is. His misfortune is that in the election's last lap, the public has begun to notice.

Last week's favorable jobless claims is being corrected...Color me shocked.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49460659

sardis wrote:Last week's favorable jobless claims is being corrected...Color me shocked.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49460659

Many economists believe a reading below 400,000 points to an improving labor market. The 4-week moving average of new claims, which smoothes out volatility and is considered a better measure of labor market trends, rose just 750 last week to 365,500.

"Improvement in the labor market will continue to be fitful and slow'" said Joseph Trevisani, a market strategist at Worldwide Markets in Woodcliff Lakes, N.J.

Good find, Sardis. Keep it up.

Nice bump for Obama in todays Gallup Poll ,it went from 51-45 Romney yesterday , to 52-45 Romney today

From RCP today:

Rasmussen Ohio: Obama 49% Romney 48%
USA Survey Ohio: Obama 45% Romney 42%

o-h-i-o