That's my take. See if you don't agree.

The FDA is not supposed to consider costs of treatment. Their mandate is to determine if a drug is "safe and effective," period. If it's safe and effective, it gets approved. Period. That's their job. Officials there recently re-iterated that cost considerations are not part of their mandate.

Medicare and Medicaid, on the other hand, approve treatments according to whether they are "reasonable and necessary." Note that cost is implicated in that mandate. They can take notice of costs.

But this means, then, that some drugs approved by the FDA as "safe and effective" might also be ruled as non-reimbursable by Medicare/Medicaid as not "reasonable and necessary." This is an implicit thing, and no one's fault, really: Some drugs may be available, and "safe and effective" according to the FDA, and yet no reimbursable as "reasonable and necessary" by Medicare and Medicaid.

This presents a political problem for Obama in the case of anti-breast-cancer drug Avastin. Apparently it's quite expensive. His new head of Medicaid and Medicare, Berwick, who makes a point of talking up controlling costs by denying some treatments, is going to deny reimbursement for an anti-prostate-cancer drug, Provenge. Or, well, they're still mulling it over, which means they're considering not covering it.

And now there is the anti-breast-cancer drug Avastin. Like Provenge, it has already been approved by the FDA. But that creates a political problem -- how can Obama control costs and reassure the public that he's not, as maintained by his critics, denying useful and effective drugs to seniors in order to free up money for ObamaCare?

Oh -- here's a great idea! We'll just get the FDA to rescind its previous approval of the drug so that Medicare and Medicaid don't even have to consider reimbursing for it, thus sparing Obama a political headache, and merely at the cost of taking off the market, from anyone suffering from breast cancer, a drug already deemed "safe and effective" by the FDA.

Federal regulators are considering taking the highly unusual step of rescinding approval of a drug that patients with advanced breast cancer turn to as a last-ditch hope.

The debate over Avastin, prescribed to about 17,500 women with breast cancer a year, has become entangled in the politically explosive struggle over medical spending and effectiveness that flared during the battle over health-care reform: How should the government balance protecting patients and controlling costs without restricting access to cutting-edge, and often costly, treatments? Â…

The FDA is not supposed to consider costs in its decisions, but if the agency rescinds approval, insurers are likely to stop paying for treatment.

“It’s hard to talk about Avastin without talking about costs,” said Eric P. Winer, director of the Breast Oncology Center at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. “For better or worse, Avastin has become in many ways the poster child of high-priced anti-cancer drugs.”

This is criminal. To avoid a difficult political debate -- and the honest confession that "bending the curve" of Medicare costs to free up money for ObamaCare is going to require a lesser standard of treatment -- the FDA is killing a safe and effective drug and thereby outlawing for anyone, including those who can be helped by this drug and no other, and who are paying for the drug with their own private insurance or own out-of-pocket money.

In other words: He is doing exactly what he vowed he would not. He is "equalizing" health access not by bringing up care for those who have little, but by reducing care by full might of federal legal power for those who have "too much."

We'll all meet in the middle, I guess. Or somewhere a few rungs down from the middle.

There will be casualties.

“I’m very upset,” said Leslie Twohig, 48, of Lothian, Md., who has been taking Avastin for eight months and credits the drug with helping her survive. “How long will I be able to stay on Avastin? Are they going to take it away? I know it’s working for me. Right now I am able to enjoy my life. Every morning I wake up and wonder how long it’s going to go on.”

But these are Little People, Little People. Sometimes they will have to be sacrificed for the greater good.

But you know who will have access to Avastin and Provenge and similarly expensive and therefore outlawed drugs?

You know who.

The rules are different for the ruling class. Some lives are simply too precious to sacrifice for a broader principle.

There are people who count, and then there are people who count only as regards their presence in great numbers -- i.e., statistics.

You are a statistic. Know your place.

Posted by: Ace at 08:44 AM | Comments (325)
Post contains 819 words, total size 6 kb.

How many jobs were saved or created here?

Well, at least one. You'll be delighted to find out what that job is.

One of the more shocking abuses listed in the report is the Department of JusticeÂ’s hiring of a liberal blogger, apparently with the express intention of attacking conservative bloggers.

Tiffany Russo, former campaign blogger for John Edwards, was hired by the DOJ’s Office of Public Affairs (OPA) to direct its “new media efforts.” The report notes that these efforts include Russo searching online for news items and blog entries critical of the president’s agenda, and then attacking the author or contents either anonymously or through a pseudonym. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Issa and House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith sent a letter in October of 2009 to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder calling for an investigation of Russo’s apparently unlawful actions. Neither Holder nor the Department of Justice has responded to the congressional inquiry. Russo continues to post on the DOJ’s official blog. It is not known if she still continues to anonymously “troll” blogs and articles critical of the administration on the taxpayers’ payroll.

There's a lot more than that, but I can't quote it all. The specifics start on the second page. Much of it is stuff that's been well-covered (like shanghaing the NEA to become an official taxpayer-funded propaganda arm of Organizing for America) or hiring Andy Griffith at taxpayer expense to reassure critical older voters, but taken together it demonstrates a clear pattern of using tax dollars for partisan -- personal partisan -- ends.

Do you want Issa to have the power of subpoena to put these people under oath and ask them pointed questions?

Well you know what to do. I hate hearing from some that I'm just pro-GOP, as if there is some better leash to bring this very misbehaving hound to heel.

Posted by: Ace at 08:00 AM | Comments (104)
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

Seriously, watch it.

This comes from the Republican Study Committee, which is headed, if I have the information right, by Rep. Tom Price of Georgia.

So now you can't say the GOP isn't doing anything to advance the message.

I wrote to congratulate them and ask if they'd be doing a sequel -- Reagan asking "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

Posted by: Ace at 07:40 AM | Comments (230)
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

A new imperial class needs a new Praetorian.

More at Dan Riehl.

Posted by: Ace at 07:28 AM | Comments (75)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, they did endorse Obama during his campaign so it's nice to see there's one group not regretting their support.

A leader of the Hamas terror group yesterday jumped into the emotional debate on the plan to construct a mosque near Ground Zero -- insisting Muslims "have to build" it there.

"We have to build everywhere," said Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas and the organization's chief on the Gaza Strip.

"In every area we have, [as] Muslim[s], we have to pray, and this mosque is the only site of prayer," he said on "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on WABC.

"We have to build the mosque, as you are allowed to build the church and Israelis are building their holy places."

No word yet on whether or not they support Gutfeld's gay bar next door.

I don't know about you but I'm pretty sick and tired of being lectured about religious freedom from a religion that won't let non-believers enter the city limits of their holiest sites. No, I don't think we should let their stone age thinking drive our laws but when it comes to tolerance and good will, it seems Muslims might want to take a look in the mirror before lecturing to others.

In case you missed it last night, Ace had a great take on why the elites are going all in on this issue when it's so clearly a no-brainer the other way.

Added: This is unbelievable. Mark Halperin says the GOP should join with Obama because their opposition to the Ground Zero victory mosque is hurting Democrats and helping the terrorists.

If you go full force on the offensive, every Democratic candidate in every competitive race in the country will have three choices, none of them good, when asked about the Islamic center: side with Obama and against public opinion; oppose Obama and deal with the consequences of intraparty disunity; or refuse to take a position, waffling impotently and unattractively at a crucial time.

Say what you will about the wisdom of Obama's policies overall, but his belated commentary on religious freedoms clearly was not done for political gain. Quite the contrary. the President knew that he and his party would almost certainly pay a political price for taking a stand, especially this close to the election, and with few prominent leaders, other than New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, on the White House's side. The reaction since the President spoke has been vitriolic and unvarying from leading voices on the right, painting Obama as weak, naive, out of touch and obtuse (not to mention flip-flopping, after his confusing follow-up comments Saturday suggested to some that he might be hedging his position).

Yes, Republicans, you can take advantage of this heated circumstance, backed by the families of the 9/11 victims, in their most emotional return to the public stage since 2001.

But please don't do it. There are a handful of good reasons to oppose allowing the Islamic center to be built so close to Ground Zero, particularly the family opposition and the availability of other, less raw locations. But what is happening now — the misinformation about the center and its supporters; the open declarations of war on Islam on talk radio, the Internet and other forums; the painful divisions propelled by all the overheated rhetoric — is not worth whatever political gain your party might achieve.

It isn't clear how the battle over the proposed center should or will end. But two things are profoundly clear: Republicans have a strong chance to win the midterm elections without picking a fight over President Obama's measured words. And a national political fight conducted on the terms we have seen in the past few days will lead to a chain reaction at home and abroad that will have one winner — the very extreme and violent jihadists we all can claim as our true enemy.

Oh noes! Democrats will have 3 choices if Republicans force the issue and all of them are bad! That's so mean and unfair. How could they? Bastards!

I wonder if Halperin wrote any columns in say 2004, 2006, or 2008 imploring Democrats not to attack Bush over Iraq, Afghanistan or anti-terror programs out of fear it might have given comfort to the insurgents in Iraq or terrorists around the world? I doubt it.

On the upside, it's nice to see a guy like Halperin not even pretending to be anything but a Democratic partisan. I salute the honesty involved.

One problem I think liberals have in dealing with the reaction to their support of the mosque is that they think the GOP is just pandering to the rubes with this. Personally, I doubt it. I think on this issue most people are genuinely offended. When 60+ percent of the country is on the same page, it's not simply a partisan wedge issue, it's something that most people get on a gut level.

It's the reason they have to resort to the strawman of 'religious freedom'. As I keep saying, this is simply a smear tactic, not an argument.

The fact that liberals like Halperin are pleading for mercy show they know they are getting killed on this.

Halperin article via Ben Smith.

Even More: Jim Geraghty mocks the hell out of Halperin's column.

Via Dave in Texas in the comments, even an idiot like Roger Ebert knows having Hamas on your side isn't helpful.

Thanks, Hamas, for supporting the mosque. That's really helpful.

It's simply the logical extension of the choices liberals have made in this debate.

Posted by: DrewM at 05:50 AM | Comments (222)
Post contains 976 words, total size 6 kb.

From Slublog.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:58 AM | Comments (133)
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

It's on Comedy Central now. I usually like these things.

Oh: The Top Shot finale's on too, but don't post about that, because of, you know, spoilers. Anyone who's been watching it all season doesn't want to see the winner revealed in a comment.

Posted by: Ace at 06:01 PM | Comments (89)
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Okay, I used to just put up a title and three words like "go at it," and now it's like some kind of entertainment shmorgastbord. But I'll try.

A lot of these may either be old or posted in prior ONTs.

I'm doing my best. Be gentle.

Guy with seriously big mouth:

Posted by: Ace at 05:06 PM | Comments (706)
Post contains 278 words, total size 6 kb.

Candidate John Gomez wants to know if his opponent, Steve Israel, continues his lockstep support of Obama.

Dan Riehl writes:

He thinks he is setting an example, providing us a teachable moment, while at the same time, doing everything he can to convey to Muslims that he is tolerant of them. I agree with Melissa Clouthier and also agree with Sissy Willis, America is mostly tolerant of Muslims and Islam, but what they want, is some tolerance and respect in return. [Hit link for those good pieces.]

Obama and the Democrats don't see it that way. Their world view dictates that Muslims must be seen as an aggrieved party by the West and need to be accommodated whenever possible to improve any relationship. Their disconnect with the American people and victim mentality here is a disaster coming at the end of non-recovery summer as it has.

I was having a debate with steve_in_hb yesterday. Steve proffered his boring, conventional, dumb opinion that the supposed elites are drawn to this position because they are compelled to take a position that finds America to be the Great Satan at every turn.

I agreed with Steve's stupid civilian poorly-thought-out opinion, but opined that I thought it wasn't as simple as his low-functioning unenlightened moron-brain conceived it; my belief is that these people take a psychological comfort, a psychological delight, in taking positions that the majority of their fellow countrymen find repugnant, because this affords them what they really want: A method of differentiating themselves from the common and thereby elevating themselves to ranks of elite.

And note this is quite necessary: The "elite" are not made up of the rich. Sure, there are many rich in the elite, but that's not what makes them elite. There are many poor "elite" who claim to be elite not due to their salary or position but due to thinking what the other elites think only.

Similarly with education -- yes, the elite contains many educated people (many overeducated people, who proclaim things so stupid only an intellectual could believe them) but, again, this "elite" is not just comprised of those who hold post-graduate degrees. Or college degrees. Or high school degrees. Or even GEDs, for that matter. No, once again, "elitehood" is conferred not by any extrinsic indicator like level of education but by proud proclamation of agreement with others presumed to be in the "elite" class.

It is based on this phenomenon, of course, that trolls who clearly do not have a high school education to their credit come on to this blog and tell us how dumb we are.

So my brilliant observation, as opposed to Steve's pedestrian, sloven-brained one, is that these positions largely proceed not by mere happenstance to dispute the commoners' opinions, but indeed wind up in that conflict by design.

They must take a position opposite the common people, otherwise, how could they be elite? One cannot be elite if one holds common positions, can one?

No, I think there is something more to this, a subterranean need to differentiate themselves from the common, and signal themselves to other supposed elites, to define their tribe not by what it is, as a primary matter, but by what it is not, and what it is not, and can never lapse into being, is so regrettably, unfortunately common.

And this allows them to put themselves, of course, where they always seek to be: In a position where they can preen and posture and deign to lecture their fellow Americans about how unenlightened us lot are.

Now that I have exposed Steve for the blundering imbecile he is, I'm feelin' pretty good about myself.

Try it -- isn't Steve an idiot? Don't you agree with intelligent, insightful me over common, knot-witted Steve? Wouldn't you like to be on the elite team on this one?

Now let's make fun of him behind his back. No, even better: Let's condescend to him right into his drooling prole-face.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:27 PM | Comments (391)
Post contains 692 words, total size 5 kb.

Alternate Headline: Presidential Puppeteer Pans "Purely" Personal Poor Presidential Performance

I get the feeling this guy is miffed that the President disobeyed orders to stay out of the victory mosque business:

President Barack Obama’s decision to make public comments Friday that further stoked an already brewing controversy over the construction of a mosque near ground zero was “purely” his own, an administration official said Saturday.

Obama did not reach out to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who, like Obama, supports the rights of the group to build the religious facility, nor did he delve deeply into the details of the plans for the site, the official said.

Rather, the president made a personal decision to wade into a cultural debate that was consuming the nation. He waited to speak out about his views until after a Manhattan boardÂ’s decision on whether to let the project move forward, the official said, because he did not want to influence that process.

The White House position on the mosque, via Gibbs last week, was that it was a local issue. That's tied with the other 886 stupidest things he's ever said, but it kept the President out of the line of fire and the Democrats on message, so far as they had a message other than "Bush is teh suxxor."

President Obama, on the other hand, couldn't leave it alone. He wanted to make another historic speech -- this time on Freedom of Religion. Unfortunately for him, few Americans saw it that way and it's turned out to be a PR disaster.

Mr. Unnamed White House Official won't let him forget it.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:01 PM | Comments (169)
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.