Whoops: Double-post. Let's just say it's twice as important as a normal item.

...

He corruptly promised the drug companies he would't force their prices down, in exchange for an illegal campaign contribution to the tune of $150 million.

His supposed efforts to "bend the curve" don't.

And now his silly claim that just by running some more tests on people, he'll save us all oodles of money.

In yet more disappointing news for Democrats pushing for health care reform, Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, offered a skeptical view Friday of the cost savings that could result from preventive care -- an area that President Obama and congressional Democrats repeatedly had emphasized as a way health care reform would be less expensive in the long term.

Obviously successful preventive care can make Americans healthier and save lives. But, Elmendorf wrote, it may not save money as Democrats had been arguing.

"Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall," Elmendorf wrote. "That result may seem counterintuitive.

"For example, many observers point to cases in which a simple medical test, if given early enough, can reveal a condition that is treatable at a fraction of the cost of treating that same illness after it has progressed. In such cases, an ounce of prevention improves health and reduces spending — for that individual," Elmendorf wrote. "But when analyzing the effects of preventive care on total spending for health care, it is important to recognize that doctors do not know beforehand which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway. ... Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."

By the way, he also seeks to cut such tests as "unnecessary" and therefore wasteful. Just another example, after all, of doctors trying to trick you out of your tonsils and/or gold.

So these tests save us money two ways -- first, we don't run them at all, thus saving lots of money, then we run them like crazy, detecting diseases earlier and therefore saving lots of money.

We're going to be saving money by both not running them on anybody and running them on practically everybody. It's win-win!

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Posted by: Ace at 11:25 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.

Dear Mr. Flag@whitehouse.gov.....You may want to have a chat with the gang over at CBO and the New England Journal of Medicine.

In yet more disappointing news for Democrats pushing for health care reform, Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, offered a skeptical view Friday of the cost savings that could result from preventive care -- an area that President Obama and congressional Democrats repeatedly had emphasized as a way health care reform would be less expensive in the long term.

Obviously successful preventive care can make Americans healthier and save lives. But, Elmendorf wrote, it may not save money as Democrats had been arguing.

"Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall," Elmendorf wrote. "That result may seem counterintuitive.

As the story goes on to point out (there's lots of good stuff there), only a fraction of people will contract a given disease. By testing a lot more people who were never going to get it, you are creating a lot more costs and you will still have to cost of treating those who were going to get it anyway.

Also, and I'm guessing a bit here, if you find certain things early you will run up a lot more cost in treatment, you will just start earlier but the result will often be the same (everyone is going to die at some point).

Yes, some people will be saved or lead improved lives because of early detection and that's a good thing. That's just not a cost savings argument which is the case Obama and the Democrats are making for all this new testing they want to do.

Eventually the money to pay for all of this will have to come from somewhere or costs will have to be cut. And we're right back where we started from except...the government is in charge of that decision, not individuals.

It's almost as if, despite what Obama and the left want people to think, there are no free lunches. This is especially true with something as expensive and personally valuable as heath care.

Gabe had this in the headlines but I think it's worth noting. We're getting caught up and rightly so, in the fight, it's important to remember the reason we are fighting is that Obama's plan is crap. Very dangerous crap at that.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:35 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.

Ed notes that George Soros is spending $5 million to buy more Astroturfers, but at least that's legal.

But a direct quid pro quo to the tune of $150 million?

What?

The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President ObamaÂ’s health care overhaul, beginning over the August Congressional recess, people briefed on the plans said Saturday.

The unusually large scale of the industryÂ’s commitment to the cause helps explain some of a contentious back-and-forth playing out in recent days between the odd-couple allies over a deal that the White House struck with the industry in June to secure its support. The terms of the deal were not fully disclosed. Both sides had announced that the drug industry would contribute $80 billion over 10 years to the cost of the health care overhaul without spelling out the details.

With House Democrats moving to extract more than that just as the drug makers finalized their advertising plans, the industry lobbyists pressed the Obama administration for public reassurances that it had agreed to cap the industryÂ’s additional costs at $80 billion. The White House, meanwhile, has struggled to mollify its most pivotal health industry ally without alienating Congressional Democrats who want to demand far more of the drug makers. White House officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

Are you kidding me?

Bonus: The Democrats' supporters are 100% real citizens expressing
genuine grassroots fervor.

For $11-16 per hour.

Thanks to Nice Deb.

Lefty Dwarf Robert Reich Slams Obama's Corrupt Deal with Big Pharma, Calling It a "Precarious Road" Away from Democracy: He's right.

Last week, after being reported in the Los Angeles Times, the White House confirmed it has promised Big Pharma that any healthcare legislation will bar the government from using its huge purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. ThatÂ’s basically the same deal George W. Bush struck in getting the Medicare drug benefit, and itÂ’s proven a bonanza for the drug industry. A continuation will be an even larger bonanza, given all the Boomers who will be enrolling in Medicare over the next decade. And it will be a gold mine if the deal extends to Medicaid, which will be expanded under most versions of the healthcare bills now emerging from Congress, and to any public option that might be included. (We donÂ’t know how far the deal extends beyond Medicare because its details havenÂ’t been made public.)

Let me remind you: Any bonanza for the drug industry means higher health-care costs for the rest of us, which is one reason why critics of the emerging healthcare plans, including the Congressional Budget Office, are so worried about their failure to adequately stem future healthcare costs.

...

In return, Big Pharma isnÂ’t just supporting universal health care. ItÂ’s also spending a lots of money on TV and radio advertising in support. SundayÂ’s New York Times reports that Big Pharma has budgeted $150 million for TV ads promoting universal health insurance, starting this August (thatÂ’s more money than John McCain spent on TV advertising in last yearÂ’s presidential campaign), after having already spent a bundle through advocacy groups like Healthy Economies Now and Families USA.

I want universal health insurance....

But I also care about democracy, and the deal between Big Pharma and the White House frankly worries me. ItÂ’s bad enough when industry lobbyists extract concessions from members of Congress, which happens all the time. But when an industry gets secret concessions out of the White House in return for a promise to lend the industryÂ’s support to a key piece of legislation, weÂ’re in big trouble. ThatÂ’s called extortion: An industry is using its capacity to threaten or prevent legislation as a means of altering that legislation for its own benefit. And itÂ’s doing so at the highest reaches of our government, in the office of the President.

No, that's called The Chicago Way.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Another Update: Those ads on Craigslist for dedicated, grassroots supporters to be paid $11-16 per hour to be all spontaneously supportive?

Verum Serum has traced the ads to a "partner" organization to HCAN, the supposedly "grassroots" organization pushing ObamaCare.

Posted by: Ace at 10:01 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 757 words, total size 5 kb.

Below the fold, the video that Swedes are afraid of: more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:40 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 2 kb.

On her FaceBook page:

"There are many disturbing details in the current bill that Washington is trying to rush through Congress, but we must stick to a discussion of the issues and not get sidetracked by tactics that can be accused of leading to intimidation or harassment," Palin wrote. "Such tactics diminish our nationÂ’s civil discourse which we need now more than ever because the fine print in this outrageous health care proposal must be understood clearly and not get lost in conscientious votersÂ’ passion to want to make elected officials hear what we are saying. LetÂ’s not give the proponents of nationalized health care any reason to criticize us."

Also anything keeping a Congressman from hanging himself with his own words.

Videos of angry protesters shouting are dime a dozen. Yes, people are angry. We know that. Adds very little to the debate, except the very incremental information that yes, these particular people are angry too.

On the other hand, catch an idiot melting down over a perfectly fair question from one of his constituents, and you've really got something. Priceless:

Posted by: Ace at 07:23 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 2 kb.

Just for fun, a few reminders of a more innocent time when Democrats were outraged. OUTRAGED! That someone might suggest dissent was unpatriotic.

First, Nancy was all worked up when Dick Cheney questioned her judgement. Typically, she decided to miscast it as an attack on her patriotism and she wasn't amused.

"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said.

Apparently tough you can be the President of the United States and say you welcome debate on health care while having the two top Democrats in the House question the patriotism of those who oppose your plans. Must be some of that 'nuance' Democrats are so proud of.

And via The Corner....Hillary! reminds us Democrats used to claim the right anyone could question an American administration. Change! indeed. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 06:36 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

From VerumSerum:

The compelling part of this, to me, isn't Obama's or Jan Shakowsky's statements that public option will lead to single payer. We've heard that. The compelling part is that Jacob Hacker, the man who "shopped" this plan to Congress (according to NPR), states unambiguously that his plan -- and he should know -- is expressly designed to displace private insurance.

"It's not a Trojan Horse," he says, "because it's right there!" I.e., it can't be a Trojan Horse if it's so obvious about its purpose.

Michael Barrone discusses the vid:

Hacker (formerly at Yale, now at Berkeley) sounds friendly and cheerful in appearances recorded in January 2007 and July 2008. With a government-option plan, he says in 2007, “You can at least make the claim that there’s a competitive system between the public and the private sector,” but he predicts that the government option “would eliminate the small group insurance.” [emphasis added]

Speaking of the government option in 2008, he says, “Someone told me this was a Trojan horse for single-payer. Well, it’s not a Trojan horse, right? It’s just right there. I’m telling you. We’re going to get there, over time, slowly, but we’ll move away from reliance on employer-based health insurance as we should, but we’ll do it in a way that we’re not going to frighten people into thinking they’re going to lose their private insurance. We’re going to give them a choice of public and private insurance when they’re in the pool, and we’re going to let them keep their private employer-based insurance if their employer continues to provide it.”

If the designer of the plan states that it's perfectly obvious to anyone that this is intended to take us to single-payer, and the plan's proponents claim the same, how on earth can Obama deny it? He himself has endorsed the idea of using this too-obvious-to-be-a-Trojan-Horse scheme to "eliminate" employer coverage.

Why does no one in the media ask a very obvious question: If Obama has no intention on taking us (without our consent) to single-payer, why is he insistent on a plan designed utterly for that single purpose?

And if he's changed his opinion or something on single payer, isn't it funny that he's pushing a plan expressly designed to get us to single payer without an actual vote or citizen consent on the plan.

Isn't. That. Funny.

"Let's have an honest debate," Obama says. "We can at least agree on that."

Well, some of us agree on that. How about you, Sport?
more...

Posted by: Ace at 06:21 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 4 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:14 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Un-American?

Their complaint is supposedly about protesters drowning out speakers. That is kinda-sorta un-American. (But not, apparently, when the left does it, constantly, with every speaker they don't like.)

But this is a phony complaint, because we haven't seen many (any, actually, though maybe I missed some) drown-outs on video. What we've seen is back-talk and hard questions, which is what Madame Pelosi really objects to. It's not that Democratic speakers aren't being heard. It's that they're not being heard unchallenged. Confronting them with hard questions and disputing their made-up fakey facts undermines their spin and talking points, and they can't have that.

And Steny Hoyer, too.

However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion.

These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.

Health care is complex. It touches every American life. It drives our economy. People must be allowed to learn the facts.

The facts are being obscured by politicians selling a con-job, and they get pissy when their nonsense is not accepted uncritically by their inferiors.

Voters should be seen and not heard, I guess.

Posted by: Ace at 05:05 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

IÂ’m tired of real news. So are you. Because I said you are, thatÂ’s why. You can haz real nooz tomorrow. Tonight you get more from the bookmark dustbin (who knows how many, if any, have been posted before).

Item #1:If youÂ’ve never been to How Stuff Works.com itÂ’s a pretty helpful site. Mainly because it explains how stuff works. Such as aircraft carriers. You never know, the information could come in handy some time. For example, letÂ’s say youÂ’re out at a bar some night with the entire crew of the U.S.S. Lincoln and itÂ’s your turn to be designated driver. IÂ’ll bet youÂ’ll be glad you read this article then, wonÂ’t you? The clutch can be a real bitch to work on those things. While there you can also learn how an FA-18 works. Trust me, you will need to know this at some point. Or at least where the ejection seat handle is.

Item #2: But if you’re out with the entire crew of the Lincoln and it’s not your turn to be designated driver, Oddee.com has some suggestions about where you might buy them all a round rather than at the local dive with $3.00 PBR pitchers you usually take them to. Presenting The 10 Strangest Bars. I’m sure there are probably stranger ones out there which you’re more than welcome to tell us about in the thread (and no, the bar from Star Wars is not on the list). By the way, considering all the armed forces do for you, seems like you could buy ‘em rounds at a slightly classier joint than you usually do. Plus at a place that has more than a single pool table. Given the crew size of a carrier, it gets a little confusing when there’s 5,000 quarters stacked on the table.

Item #3:Finally (and mercifully), looking for a new I-Phone app? Me either, but apparently thereÂ’s one for every occasion, including if youÂ’re looking to commit adultery. Hmmm. Maybe that stance should be rethought. The article has links to sites to still your cheating heart, so let us all know how it works out. And since we live in an age where everything is done at hyperspeed, you may be able to satisfy your wanderlust while this thread is still active. If so, weÂ’d all be interested in reading your review when finished. After, not during and please wash your hands before commenting.

Thanks to Phil the News Junkie for this and many more links that are gonnaÂ’ eventually get me booted off this blog.

TonightÂ’s sponsor below the fold.
more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:36 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 594 words, total size 4 kb.