We swear - this is not a recycled post

Now, about that unfolding, slow-motion disaster occurring on Obama's watch. No, silly, not the Gulf oil spill - we're talking ObamaCare.

Millions of patients face losing NHS care as bosses prepare to axe treatments to make £20billion of savings by 2014, a top doctor has warned.

Among procedures being targeted by health trusts are hernias, joint replacements, ear and nose procedures, varicose veins and cataract surgery.

Dr Mark Porter, chairman of the British Medical Association's consultants committee, warned NHS bosses wanted 'wholesale reductions in budgets'.

He said primary care trusts - which commission care - are already compiling lists of 'low value' operations that would no longer be provided.

These include hip replacements for obese patients and some operations for hernias and gallstones. Procedures for varicose veins, ear and nose problems including grommets in children are also not funded in some areas.

Dr Porter said it was wrong to impose blanket bans on such procedures when some patients might benefit.

Of course, "wrong" is subject to interpretation when you bow before the false god of "controlling costs". And how is that working, by the way?

Patients could find it harder to get into hospital under plans from the National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence, which advises on drugs and procedures to be funded.

Chief executive Andrew Dillon said a review of clinical guidelines will be finished by the end of the year, which will include 'evidence of overuse' of treatments to 'see what the prospects (for savings) might be'.

Nice will also push through 150 changes to medical practice aimed at saving money, from reducing prescribing of antibiotics by GPs to delaying some prostate cancer tests.

A Department of Health spokesman said: 'Savings will be implemented in a way that does not affect the quality of services and all savings will be reinvested back in the NHS.'

Saving implemented by cutting back on services, ostensibly "quality of life" services to be reinvested back into the NHS... to improve quality.

This is the sort of illogical tail-chasing one has to buy into with fanatical and religious fervor when one attempts to defend socialized medicine.

To not see "rationing" as determined by others, is to be completely delusional.

The post title refers to the near-daily drum beat we read of the sky-rocketing costs of "free" socialized medicine and the resulting imposition of mandatory cuts in services as determined by "others", aka, not "you".

Cash for Clunkers FAIL

Because of the complexities of large economies, it's difficult to determine the effects of stimulus efforts by the government on those economies. Cash for Clunkers, however, was short enough in duration and concentrated on one particular area of the economy so that its effect could more accurately be gaged.

Below is the US Census data for auto dealer sales.

(please click to enlarge)



The dotted line represents the averages for the sales during the month of CfC and the month after.

As we predicted, all CfC did was spike the demand to the left with no overall net effect on auto sales as the areas under the two spikes above and below the dotted line (during and immediately after CfC) reveal.

$3 billion for absolutely nothing. Yet another refutation of demand-side Keynesian gimmickry upon which our recovery efforts have been modeled.

H/T: Coyote Blog

Curious reporting

Those arbiters of mainstream America, musicians and artists, are at it by speaking out against Arizona's illegal immigrant law and organizing boycotts of Arizona while some are refusing to perform there.

Check out this paragraph from the L.A. Times regarding this activism and ask yourself if the author just beamed down from another planet.

While opinion polls indicate that most voters in the U.S., including California, are deeply deeply divided over the Arizona law, it's doubtful that groups like Ozomatli and Rage Against the Machine need worry about alienating members of their multicultural, politically left-leaning fan bases. In a statement released this week, De la Rocha expressed concern that Arizona's SB 1070 could lead to fans of the group being "pulled over and harassed … because they are brown or black, or for the way they speak, or for the music they listen to."

(italics, ours)

If by deeply divided over Arizona's law, they mean that 69% of Americans favor it, then by all means this country is deeply divided.

And about those boycotts? Rasmussen found that 68% don't like the idea of boycotting Arizona while only 14% (which most likely accounts for the fan base of the bands/artists either calling for a boycott and/or refusing to play in Arizona) are in favor of it.

Do you think that perhaps reporting like this is the reason why the future of newsies is on the ropes? Don't sweat it, L.A. Times... help is on the way.

You can take the candidate out of Chicago...

... but you can't take Chicago out of the President.

The plot has already begun. GOP talkers are highlighting a Washington Post story that claims Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff said he was offered an administration job to drop out of the Senate primary. (The White House denies this.)

More fodder: The revelation in Jonathan Alter's "The Promise: President Obama, Year One" that Obama offered White House counsel Greg Craig a federal judgeship on the DC Circuit in an effort to ease him out of the White House.

Washington insiders are incredulous that any of this could ever matter, viewing it (correctly) as typical politics that happen all the time. But that's the point.

Obama promised to change Washington's culture. Instead, his White House counsel justified the White House move by pointing out that past White Houses have done Sestak-type deals, though he offered no examples.

Change indeed.

Charlie Cook, analyzing the current political environment, pointed out in a recent report that, "long-serving Democratic members of Congress identified as having 'gone Washington' are especially under threat." Presumably, the same holds for short-serving Democratic presidents.

If you are an Obama supporter and you are being completely honest with yourself, whether or not any illegalities have taken place are immaterial. Things were supposed to be different under Obama, correct? HopenChange and no more business as usual, right? And despite that, Team O's deck is stacked with old school, brass knuckle, Chi-town pols. And now, with respect to the Sestak dust-up, who is the other principle figure? None other than Himself - a person whose reputation is synonymous with sleaze.

How fitting. Half of America would believe anything Himself would say and the other half wouldn't bat an eye that he was involved with this.

Business as usual or business as usual on HGH?


H/T: Dennis Miller

Shameless

Technical (Blogger?) difficulties prevented us from leaving a comment on KT's post regarding the creepy situation where Sarah Palin's "biographer" Joe McGinniss has decided to move in to the place next door to the Palins for the summer to umm.... we're not exactly sure.

Anyway, since we were unable to comment, this ordeal got us to thinking even more, as in: how does this happen?

Let us try to explain. Todd Palin seems like the kind of guy who can take care of himself and his family, if you follow what we mean. Now, don't get your shorts in a bind over what you think we are suggesting. We are in no way advocating any confrontation that may have any unseemly consequences - we're fully aware this creep McGinniss can live anywhere he wants... but right next door?

It just seems there was a time in this country, maybe 30, 40 or 50 years ago, where this sort of thing would not have happened because the mere threat of an ass-kicking would have been incentive enough for McGinniss to think twice about pulling a stunt like this.

And let us pause for a moment to recognize that perhaps 30, 40, or 50 years ago confrontations did occur because people of the "wrong" skin color or religion moved into certain neighborhoods. So, are we possibly guilty of inconsistencies in what specific respects we are taking umbrage with the form/fit/function of our neighbor? Sue us.

Are we wrong to think, then, this situation is symptomatic of an American society that has lost a sense of shame and the notions of Burkean conservatism of shared values and community bonds? Perhaps think of it this way: WWJWD?... What Would John Wayne Do? Do you think John Wayne lets McGinniss move in next door? (Great, now you all are rationalizing through archetypes... Look, American culture and thus its values and traditions are chock full of archetypes be they real or fictional. Be it the strength and heroism of Paul Bunyan, Davy Crockett and General George Patton to the all-around bad-assery of Stagger Lee or Robert Johnson down at the Crossroads selling his soul to ol' Scratch, these larger-than-life figures help define who it is that we are as Americans).

We leave you with a homily that hung on the wall of our old boss's office and that we saw nearly every day for 13 years and which we could nearly recite word for word because of it:

Bene Dictum, Benedicte!

If any pilgrim monk come from distant parts, if with wish as a guest to dwell in the monastery, and will be content with the customs which he finds in the place, & do not perchance by his lavishness disturb the monastery, but is simply content with what he finds, he shall be received, for as long a time as he desires. If indeed, he find fault with anything, or expose it, reasonably, and with the humility of charity, the Abbot shall discuss it prudently, lest perchance God has sent him for this very thing. But, if he have been found gossipy and contumacious in the time of his sojurn as guest, not only ought he not to be joined to the body of the monastery, but also it shall be said to him, honestly, that he must depart. If he does not go, let two stout monks, in the name of God, explain the matter to him.

Pax

A funny thing happened on the way to Canada

Technically, this doesn't qualify for Nancy's Nuances: a journey of discovery as nothing specific to the ObamaCare legislation is revealed but as we travel down the road to socialized medicine this is certainly what we can expect.

From the Reuters article Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model:

Ontario, Canada's most populous province, kicked off a fierce battle with drug companies and pharmacies when it said earlier this year it would halve generic drug prices and eliminate "incentive fees" to generic drug manufacturers.

British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit -- an idea that critics say is an illegal user fee.

And a few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery.

It's likely just a start as the provinces, responsible for delivering healthcare, cope with the demands of a retiring baby-boom generation. Official figures show that senior citizens will make up 25 percent of the population by 2036.

"There's got to be some change to the status quo whether it happens in three years or 10 years," said Derek Burleton, senior economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank.

"We can't continually see health spending growing above and beyond the growth rate in the economy because, at some point, it means crowding out of all the other government services.

"At some stage we're going to hit a breaking point."

(italics, ours)
In a world where the government is not interfering with setting the price of goods and services, "incentive fees" would be known as "profits".

And the allegedly illegal user fees, "fee for procedure" and "payments on each medical visit" and "private funding" sound suspiciously like "paying for your own health care" a radical idea that is coming back into vogue with nations confronting the reality of unsustainable socialized medicine.

Brian Golden, a professor at University of Toronto's Rotman School of Business, said provinces are weighing new sources of funding, including "means-testing" and moving toward evidence-based and pay-for-performance models.

"Why are we paying more or the same for cataract surgery when it costs substantially less today than it did 10 years ago? There's going to be a finer look at what we're paying for and, more importantly, what we're getting for it," he said.

Why indeed?

The losers could be drug companies and pharmacies, both of which are getting increasingly nervous.

"Many of the advances in healthcare and life expectancy are due to the pharmaceutical industry so we should never demonize them," said U of T's Golden. "We need to ensure that they maintain a profitable business but our ability to make it very very profitable is constrained right now."

This represents a self-inflicted bind of socialized medicine: The government places itself in the position of determining how much profit can be generated by the pharmaceutical firms. By limiting the profit margin, however, the government is also limiting the incentive for the pharma firms to produce and to invest in research and development. It's effectively a price control that stunts service and innovation in the medical field.

Scotia Capital's Webb said one cost-saving idea may be to make patients aware of how much it costs each time they visit a healthcare professional. "(The public) will use the services more wisely if they know how much it's costing," she said.

"If it's absolutely free with no information on the cost and the information of an alternative that would be have been more practical, then how can we expect the public to wisely use the service?"

But change may come slowly. Universal healthcare is central to Canada's national identity, and decisions are made as much on politics as economics.

"It's an area that Canadians don't want to see touched," said TD's Burleton. "Essentially it boils down the wishes of the population. But I think, from an economist's standpoint, we point to the fact that sometimes Canadians in the short term may not realize the cost."

Since the cost of doctors visit are invisible to the consumer because it's all "free", there is simply no incentive for the consumer to self-ration, something that we all do every single day of our lives when making purchasing decisions.

The idea of socialized medicine simply wishes away the fundamental fact that the more frequently you pay for goods and services out of pocket, the more transparent the cost structures in an economy become and no amount of 5-color PSA brochures are going to change that fact.

The article seems unwilling to admit it but the overwhelming conclusion to be gained from the evidence presented is: Paying for your own health care represents the most efficient health care model.

Voter guide

We are a little embarrassed that we have not done the requisite homework to issue our own endorsements for the upcoming June 8th primary (we've gone over the ballot but not to the extent or depth we feel comfortable publishing our recommendations) so we are going to throw it over to a couple of people for whom we have great respect.

Leslie at Temple of Mut's voter guide is here.

And W.C. Varone's guide can be found here.


Also, as an added bonus, B-Daddy, admirably filling the role of citizen-journalist has an interview with San Diego city council District 6 candidate, Kim Tran, here.

You Lie! (Revisited)

Steve Rattner, the man tabbed to head up the Obama regime's automotive task force, ostensibly an oversight committee for government-owned and operated General Motors and Chrysler, has been making the rounds of late trying to convince everyone of how swell the government take-over of the two aforementioned companies is coming along.

With great interest we read the article to see if he would get around to addressing the lie peddled by GM CEO, Ed Whitacre, that claimed on nationally-televised commercials no less, that GM had paid off its TARP loan. We covered this in You Lie!, where the reality of the situation is that they used a separate TARP fund to pay off the original. Rattner does indeed address the issue in about the only fashion you can when you've been caught red-handed making completely bogus claims. Here are the two money paragraphs (with intermittent commentary):

Consequently, the U.S. Treasury is well on its way to recovering most of the $81 billion that the government invested in the auto sector to prevent its collapse. (That includes money for other auto-related entities, such as the finance companies. Chrysler itself got around $8 billion from the Obama administration and $4 billion from the Bush administration.) Not surprisingly, partisans on both sides have elasticized the facts: GM has been proclaiming in ads that it has paid back the government loans "in full." While literally correct, this statement omits the fact that most of the government's investment in GM is in stock that it still holds.

(italics, ours)

Classic deflection. Belittle the argument because you were getting it from both sides. And in "literally correct", we suppose he's owning up to being a straight up liar because we don't know what stake the government still has in GM has to do with using your Visa card to pay off you MasterCard.

More:

Meanwhile, conservatives such as Sen. Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, maintain that GM has paid back the government with government money. That's true, but only technically. We provided GM with a cash reserve -- to protect taxpayers' investment in the case of a prolonged auto recession -- that has now proved unneeded. The fact remains that the nation's largest automaker has outperformed our expectations -- increasing the amount of money that the government is likely to recover.

(italics, ours)

Translation: The charge that we used separate TARP money to pay off the original TARP loan is true only if you believe that we set up, in case of a prolonged recession and in order to protect the taxpayer, a cash reserve consisting of... taxpayer money.

Unreal.

From our original post which was later updated:

We originally posted this over the weekend, when readership is down a bit but we wanted to resurrect it during the week to highlight the sheer audacity of General Motors. The federal government is entirely complicit in what we can only tag as gangster capitalism. The government takeover and bankruptcy proceedings that screwed over the secured creditors in favor of the labor unions was executed in a thuggish manner and now the GM/federal government partnership openly displays their contempt for the American public by running an ad during the NBA playoffs patting itself on the back for a job well done.

And Rattner only continues flipping the bird at the American public with these sort of articles.

Sarah sez

One in an occasional series highlighting some of the zany and madcap things to be said by Sarah Palin:

“They ask me all the time, ‘What is your favorite this? What is your favorite that? What is your favorite that?’ And one time, ‘What is your favorite word?’ And I said, ‘My favorite word? That is really easy. My favorite word is the Word, is the Word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the biblical reference, you know the Gospel reference of the Word.”

“And that Word," Pelosi said, "is, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word. The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word.

“Fill it in with anything you want. But, of course, we know it means: ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.’ And that’s the great mystery of our faith. He will come again. He will come again. So, we have to make sure we’re prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up.”

Dude.

We always knew Palin to be a religious zealot but this just proves the nation was right (and fortunate!) to elect Obama/Biden as this nation's laws are far too valuable to be exposed to the influence of someone who holds such radical and out-of-the-mainstream views regarding separation of church and state.

And furthermore, what's that...? That wasn't Sarah Palin but rather Nancy Pelosi? Oh. OK, well never mind then.

Inevitable

Former theater critic and current fringe journalist, Frank Rich: Yeah, things are pretty bad down in the Gulf right now... but let's talk about Bush and Katrina.

Not so random thought of the day

Only a short while back, we would get rankled whenever lectured by the liberal-Left on extreme rhetoric and the possible violence it could incur.

But when we saw photos of the purple people-beaters of the SEIU terrorizing a lone 14 yr.-old boy at the residence of a Bank of America executive, it dawned on us: Of course, who better than members of the liberal-Left to preach on about the possible dangerous results of overheated rhetoric?

H/T: Pajamas Media