The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth. Challenges are invited.
The day’s top political news:
S.C. Atty Gen. Henry McMaster, 7 others to probe health care bill
South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and top lawyers from seven other states said Tuesday they are looking into whether the federal health care reform bill is unconstitutional.
The move comes a day after U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint, both South Carolina Republicans, asked McMaster, to look into whether a no-cost Medicaid deal given to Nebraska is legal.
U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, got a concession that will give his state a 100 percent federal reimbursement for Nebraska's Medicaid spending. The federal government will reimburse other states at 91 percent under the proposed bill. Graham, DeMint and other Republicans argue South Carolina and other states should not be on the hook to pay for Nebraska's Medicaid patients.
http://www.thestate.com/politics/story/1081583.html?RSS=general_news
White House Pressuring Stupak to Keep Quiet on Abortion Language in Senate Health Bill
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) reveals the White House and Democrat leadership in the House of Representatives are strong arming him to not speak out on the "compromise" abortion language in the Senate version of the health care bill.
The Michigan Democrat succeeded last month in getting 64 House Democrats to join him in attaching his pro-life amendment to the House version of the health-care bill. The “Stupak amendment,” as the provision is known, prohibits the federal government from using taxpayer money to pay for any part of health insurance that covers abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger.
In a major demonstration of hypocrisy, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised her far left supporters, that she will strip the anti abortion provision from the final version of the bill.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/58921
Climate change alliance crumbling
Cracks are emerging in the “alliance” on Al Gore’s mythical climate change that was formed at the Copenhagen conference last week, with leading developing countries criticizing the resulting accord.
The so-called Basic countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – backed the accord in a meeting with the US on Friday night, and it was also supported by almost all other nations at the talks, including all of the biggest emitters. But on Tuesday the Brazilian government labeled the accord “disappointing” and complained that the financial assistance it contained from rich to poor countries was insufficient.
South Africa also raised objections: Buyelwa Sonjica,The environment minister of South Africa, called the failure to produce a legally binding agreement “unacceptable”. She says her government considered leaving the meeting.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c9453654-ef2d-11de-86c4-00144feab49a.html
Opinion:
Problems with Reid’s health care conspiracy -- as seen from the side of politicians even farther to the left.
It’s always interesting, and usually quite instructive, to see an issue from the vantage point of the enemy. Moveon.org -- among the more extreme political cabals, and one underwritten by the infamous George Soros – is not happy with Reid’s health care bill any more than normal Americans – but from entirely different positions..
The extreme left voiced it’s displeasure in emails to Moveon.Org’s radical membership just yesterday:
“Five Critical Flaws in the Senate Health Care Bill
The Senate bill would:
#1—Deny Americans the choice of a public option. In contrast, the House bill contains a national public option, the key to real competition, greater choice, and lower costs.
#2—Leave insurance unaffordable for some lower income and working people. Both bills require virtually all Americans to buy insurance. But even with the subsidies provided, some families could have to pay up to 20% of their income on health care expenses.
#3—Impse dangerous restrictions on women's reproductive health care. Unfortunately, both bills do this and the House provision is worse. Both versions would be a dangerous step and neither should be in the final bill.
#4—Tax American workers' health coverage to pay for reform. The Senate would pay for part of reform by taxing the hard-won benefits packages of some working Americans. The House, on the other hand, pays for reform with a small surcharge on only the wealthiest Americans—a far better approach.
#5—Allow insurance companies to remain exempt from anti-trust laws. Under current law, insurance companies are actually exempt from laws designed to prevent monopolies and price-gouging. The House bill would fix this, but the Senate bill leaves it in place.
Of course, these aren't the only problems with the bill. Most glaringly, both the Senate and House bill would leave millions uninsured, a far cry from the vision of universal coverage so many of us have fought for. That remains a long-term goal. “
Make no mistake about it – the dominating Democrat majorities in both Houses will succeed in passing this legislation. They will do so almost immediately. Health care for Americans will never be the same again.
Of course, the trial lawyers who are major contributors to candidates and extremis causes on the left, remain untouched by any reform. The lawyers will continue to rape the system and the American public – providing a major dynamic in rising costs of health care.
Look for more and more physicians to leave the profession, creating a growing short fall in health care providers. Also look for Pelosi and her co-conspirators to strip the barrier to federal funding of abortion from the final bill. Abortion on demand – and at federal expense, is just a matter of time.
As long as Democrats can maintain their dominating numbers on Capitol Hill.
Incredibly, Democrats say they will run on this health care bill and predict it will be a winning issue for them. More sagacious analysts believe Democrats are whistling past the grave yard. Democrats fail to understand or accurately read the dynamics of the tea party movement as well.
A new campaign season begins as soon as the bowl games are over and count on massive swarms of TV commercials attacking all who vote for Health care in either house. Look for many Democrats to follow the lead of Alabama Congressman Parker Griffith and try running for the hills by switching parties.
Of course, whether they admit it or not, the tea party movement is huge and threatens Democrat incumbents nationwide. That movement may also prune the GOP tree of incumbents who are not viewed as conservative, and primary candidates who cant stand muster on issues.
This will not be a year for “moderates”. But, after all, moderates cannot provide dynamic leadership – these are days in this country that demands such.
Politics serves a god that can be quite shifty, of course, and the days between now and the general election next November are many. However, the atmosphere these days continues running against Obama and his people. Beginning today, we will start seeing how the general public views Reid’s scheme and those who support it – especially those who smile at the public, speak of lofty ideals, then sell out to the highest bidder. Too bad Ben Nelson is not up this year.
Count on an atmosphere in which having supported the health care bill will not be seen as an act of statesmanship – but one leading voters to wonder and even question supporters about what they “got” in order to sell their votes. The burden of proof will be squarely on Democrat health care supporters to convince voters they are not crooked.
First, we get beyond the bowl season. Let the games begin.
Buddy
The day’s top blogs:
1.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704304504574610660008372886.html
The Real Rules of War
Sometimes the good guys do commit 'war crimes.'
WARREN KOZAK
Five years ago, a particularly gruesome image made its way to our television screens from the war in Iraq. Four U.S. civilian contractors working in Fallujah were ambushed and killed by al Qaeda. Their bodies were burned, then dragged through the streets. Two of the charred bodies were hung from the Euphrates Bridge and left dangling.
This barbaric act left an impression that our military did not forget: In a special operation earlier this year, Navy SEALs captured the mastermind of that attack, Ahmed Hashim Abed. But after he was taken into custody in September, Abed claimed he was punched by his captors. He showed a fat lip to prove it. Three of the SEALS are now awaiting a courts-martial on charges ranging from assault to dereliction of duty and making false statements.
This incident and its twisted irony takes me back to an oddly serene setting many years ago. When I was in college, I joined my parents on a trip to retrace my father's wartime experience in Europe. We drove from France, through Holland and Belgium and on to Germany—the same route he had taken with the U.S. Army in 1944-45. At a field outside the Belgian town of Malmedy, we got out of our rented car where my father described something I had never heard before.
During the Battle of the Bulge, in the bleak December of 1944, the Germans had quickly overrun the American lines. They took thousands of prisoners as they pushed through in a last chance gamble to turn the war around. One unit, part of the First SS Panzer Division, had captured over a hundred GIs. They were moving fast, and they didn't care to be burdened by prisoners. So the SS troops put the American soldiers in that field and mowed them down with machine guns.
Around 90 Americans were killed in that barrage. The Germans then walked through the tangle of bodies, shooting those who were still alive in the back of the head. The few that survived were brought to where my father was located in the nearby town of Liege where word of the massacre quickly spread.
My father was never a talker. And in spite of the fact that we were on a trip to look at his past, he didn't open up much, or couldn't. When I asked him what the reaction was among the U.S. troops, he answered without emotion: "We didn't take prisoners for two weeks." I immediately understood what he meant, and had the sense not to press the issue any further. I just looked out at the field, now green and peaceful on a beautiful summer day, and realized he was looking at the same field and seeing something quite different.
In the weeks following the Malmedy massacre, U.S. troops clearly broke the rules of the Geneva Conventions. Justified or not, they were technically guilty of war crimes.
My guess is that the American correspondents imbedded with those troops knew all about this and chose not to report it. So did their officers. They understood the gravity of the war, as well as the absolute importance of its outcome. And they understood that disclosing this information might ultimately help the enemy. In other words, they used common sense. Was the U.S. a lesser country because these GIs weren't arrested? Was the Constitution jeopardized? Somehow it survived.
You don't have to dig too deep to understand that war brings out behavior in people that they would never demonstrate in normal life. In Paul Fussell's moving memoir, "The Boys' Crusade," the former infantryman relates a story about the liberation of Dachau. There were about 120 SS guards who had been captured by the Americans. Even though the Germans were being held at gunpoint, they still had the arrogance—or epic stupidity—to continue to heap verbal abuse and threats on the inmates. Their American guards, thoroughly disgusted by what they had already witnessed in the camp, had seen enough and opened fire on the SS. Some of the remaining SS guards were handed over to the inmates who tore them limb from limb. Another war crime? No doubt. Justified? It depends on your point of view. But before you weigh in, realize that you didn't walk through the camp. You didn't smell it. You didn't witness the obscene horror of the Nazis.
Rules of war are important. They are something to strive for as they separate us from our distant ancestors. But when only one side follows these rules, they no longer elevate us. They create a very unlevel field and more than a little frustration. It is equally bizarre for any of us to judge someone's behavior in war by the rules we follow in our very peaceful universe. We sit in homes that are air-conditioned in the summer and warmed in the winter. We have more than enough food in our bellies and we get enough sleep. The stress in our lives won't ever match the stress of battle. Can we honestly begin to decide if a soldier acted in compliance with rules that work perfectly well on Main Street but not, say, in Malmedy or Fallujah?
In his book, Mr. Fussell probably sums up the feelings of many soldiers when he quotes a British captain, John Tonkin, who experienced a great deal of the war. "I have always felt," Capt. Tonkin said, "that the Geneva Convention is a dangerous piece of stupidity, because it leads people to believe that war can be civilized. It can't."
Mr. Kozak is the author of "LeMay: The Life and Wars of General Curtis LeMay" (Regnery, 2009).
2.
2010: The year of bankrupt governments
RALPH PETERS
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. But he only comes for kids -- not for governments that have bragged, borrowed and spent their way into bankruptcy. Two Thousand Ten is going to belong to the Grinch.
For spendthrift governments around the world, the new year's going to bring massive defaults. The new globalization may be the globalization of a second wave of financial crises.
The world economy is not convalescing. It's just been pumped full of unaffordable medicines. Borrowing madly, countries as diverse as Greece and Dubai have been buying time, not fiscal health.
Built on financial quicksand, Dubai (an Arab Las-Vegas-without-the-fun) is in collapse (predicted by this column years ago). Quasi-governmental corporations backed by the ruling family are at least $80 billion in the hole. The recent transfusion of 10 billion bucks from Abu Dhabi merely applied a Band-Aid to a hemorrhage. Dubai can't pay.
Eighty billion in bad debts may not sound high in President Obama's Washington, but Dubai's just a city pretending to be a country. It produces nothing. There's no inherent wealth. It Madoff-ed the world with extravagant brochures and nutty projects.
Speculators went nuts, proclaiming Dubai the city of the future, where wealth could only beget more wealth. The frenzy produced the craziest real-estate bubble in the world, as gullible investors mistook a couple of shopping malls for a civilization.
Dubai's approach to development mirrored that of much of the Arab world, expecting money to do all of the work. But Dubai's ambitions weren't backed by oil wealth, only vast development schemes that never should have fooled a single investor. But investors wanted to be fooled.
Speculation hasn't been the only villain generating financial ruin around the world. Another villain has been exploding entitlements. Several European states (plus my favorite foreign country, California) have been downed by a self-inflicted one-two punch.
In Ireland and Spain, housing bubbles created the illusion of roaring economies -- and pandering governments inflated already generous social programs. In Italy and Greece, state giveaways, bubble economies and rabid corruption created national debts in excess of GDP.
Even in this age of globalization and complex financial instruments, one law of the financial jungle remains brutally true: The bills come due eventually.
Dubai's bankrupt, but frightened investors pretend otherwise. Greece is bankrupt, and the other Euro-currency states don't know what to do: The strict fiscal-policy rules for the Euro-zone are crumbling.
Will EU governments -- each with its own problems -- cobble together a rescue package? Greece's socialist government certainly isn't going to embrace painful austerity measures -- and the population, conditioned to an entitlement mentality, would tear Athens apart.
And after Greece, what about Spain? With 20 percent unemployment and an economy strangled by disincentives to job creation, Spain counts on being considered too big to fail.
The Baltic states' economies are tubercular. Central Europe's headed for the post-modern equivalent of debtors' prison. And even Britain (and the global bankers' fortress, the City of London) is still in deep treacle.
Then there's California (and New York).
Taken in isolation, any of these problems could be managed. But these "local" crises refuse to be isolated. Toss in suspect statistics from other troubled states and hollow economies from Argentina to Russia, and 2010 looks unpredictable, to put it gently.
Perhaps the world's financial wizards will head off this looming debacle, too -- but don't count on it. Chain reactions could devastate European banks and budgets .
The good news? Venezuela's also in serious economic trouble. The bad news? Venezuela's also in serious economic trouble.
Then there are the great unknowns, a Russian economy that may be far more fragile than anyone wants to admit, as well as China, opaque and insatiable.
One of the reasons China's desperate to keep expanding its trade is that its banking sector is flimsier than chopsticks -- plagued by uncollectible sweetheart loans made to favored firms and institutions. Perhaps Beijing will dominate the 21st century. But it's also possible that China's economy will turn out to be the biggest Ponzi scheme in history.
The best scenario we could see in the global economy in 2010? Rescue-package fire brigades rushing to deal with these crises individually. What's the worst? A chain reaction that leads to a rash of national defaults, followed by a world banking and liquidity crisis, Part II.
What of our own country, with its soaring debt, congressional irresponsibility and an administration whose No. 1 priority is expanding unaffordable entitlement programs? Draw your own conclusions.
3.
The list of payoffs that got Reid his cloture vote
Ed Morrissey
Recall the moments in 2008 when Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama campaigned on the platform of — must … control … gag … reflex — “Honest Leadership, Open Government”? This picture should jog your memories, and your own gag reflexes, especially that sanctimonious pose by Reid. The trio have managed to make themselves either satirists of the highest order or influence peddlers of the lowest while struggling to pass the second item on their legislative agenda. Politico’s Josh Gerstein reviews the ObamaCare compromise bill that Reid struggled to get past a wee-hours cloture vote in the middle of a blizzard in the Beltway. It’s an amazing list of pork and bribes, even for an old pro like Reid:
The multimillion-dollar deals cut with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and others to win the 60 votes needed for the historic health care reform bill gave President Barack Obama the margin he needed to fulfill a central campaign promise — but may also have upped the ante for future presidential horse trading.
With the bill hanging in the balance, Nelson won a provision exempting his state from paying the usual share of costs for new Medicaid patients. The deal critics have dubbed the Cornhusker Kickback is expected to cost the federal government $100 million over 10 years.
Before a close vote last month, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) won an even larger break for her state — an estimated $300 million in extra federal spending, in a move opponents derided as the Louisiana Purchase.
Some critics branded the special deals as functionally equivalent to the kind of earmarks Obama crusaded against as a senator — and a quantum leap from eleventh-hour deals Obama’s predecessors have cut.
Let’s take a look at the list itself, which goes far beyond Nelson and Landrieu, the pair that IBD Editorials calls “the Louisiana Purchase and Omaha Stakes”:
Ø The bill contains unfunded mandates to states through the expansion of Medicaid but this time with new special treatment for the states of Nebraska, Vermont, and Massachusetts. These states will receive Federal Matching Assistance Percentages (FMAP) bonuses such that:
1. Nebraska will receive 100% FMAP for newly eligibles indefinitely, making it the only state where the federal government will pay for all new enrollees. CBO estimated the cost to the federal government (additional funds to Nebraska) would be $100 million, which may look small compared to the other deals negotiated, yet over the long-term will cost far more, since funding continues indefinitely.
2. Vermont will receive a 2.2% FMAP increase for 6 years for their entire program, thus receiving an additional $600 million over ten years.
3. Massachusetts will receive a 0.5% FMAP increase for three years for the entire program, thus receiving an additional $500 million over ten years.
• Despite $120 billion in Medicare Advantage cuts, the Manager’s Amendment found a way for Florida residents, as well as some individuals in Pennsylvania and New York, and potentially Oregon, to be grandfathered out of receiving the cuts.
• Dorgan and Conrad’s “protections for frontier states” provision would, starting in 2011, establish a 1.0 hospital wage index and geographic practice expense floors for hospitals and physicians located in states where at least 50% of the counties in the state are “frontier”. Not surprisingly, states that qualify and benefit from the provision are Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
Of the many problems with these “sweetheart” deals, is the door it leaves wide open for more federal involvement and financing of state-based entitlement programs. Sen. Harkin said it best when he stated “In 2017, as you know, when we have to start phasing back from 100%, and going down to 98%, they are going to say, ’Wait, there is one state that stays at 100?’ And every governor in the country is going to say, ‘Why doesn’t our state stay there?’…When you look at it, I thought well, god, good, it is going to be the impetus for all the states to stay at 100%. So he [Nelson] might have done all of us a favor.”
Changes for Sen. Ben Nelson (Nebraska)
• Nelson secured more than just 100% federal funding for Nebraska’s Medicaid expansion, the list of “sweeteners” (also called the “Cornhusker kickback” by Senate Republicans) includes:
o An exemption from the insurance tax for Nebraska non-profit insurers, with language written in a way that only applies to Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company and Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans (BCBS) of Nebraska (and Michigan). According to news reports, Nelson’s office states that BCBS “would pay between $15 million and $20 million less in fees under the Senate bill than it would have without a change.”
o An exemption from taxes for Medicare supplemental (“Medigap”) insurance providers. Specifically, Mutual of Omaha, will not have to pay taxes on Medigap insurance, while reports also indicate that this tax break will be extended to other companies.
o Some changes requested by Nelson would benefit people across the country, such as the inflation adjustment to the $2,500 cap on tax-exempt contributions to Flexible Savings Accounts (FSAs) and exemptions for nearly 55 physician-owned hospitals that have a provider agreement to participate in Medicare by August 1, 2010 (pushed back from February 1, 2010).
Changes for Sen. Levin (Michigan)
• According to reports, Like Nelson, Levin sought an exemption from the $6 billion annual fee for non-profits, as non-profit insurers make up 76% of industry profits, but drew opposition from liberals. Ultimately, Levin got an exemption from the insurance tax for Michigan non-profit insurers, with language written in a way that applies to Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans (BCBS) of Michigan (and Nebraska).
• Furthermore, the amendment changes the extension of section 508 hospital provisions so that hospitals in Michigan (as well as Connecticut) have the option to benefit under them if it means higher payments.
Changes for Sen. Landrieu (Louisiana):
• Landrieu was one of the first Senators to secure a sweetheart deal, aptly nicknamed the “Louisiana Purchase”; she traded her support for bringing the bill to the floor for a $300 million increase in Medicaid funding for Louisiana. The underlying bill was cryptically written to increase federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster” during the past 7 years that have been declared a “major disaster area” — and is meant to replenish the decrease in federal money resulting from an “abnormally inflated” per capita income in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina. This was due to an influx of insurance dollars, federal grants and increased labor wages.
Changes for Sen. Sanders (Vermont):
• In addition the Vermont FMAP increase, the amendment includes a provision pushed by Sanders to provide an additional $10 billion in funding for community health centers and the National Health Services Corps which he argues would provide primary care to 25 million more people.
Changes for Sen. Bill Nelson (Florida)
Ø As noted above, Nelson was able to secure a deal to keep Medicare Advantage plans enrollees in Florida grandfathered in. Notably, when McCain tried to offer an amendment to allow all enrollees to be grandfathered in, 57 Democrats voted against it.
Changes for Hawaii: The Manager’s Amendment singles out Hawaii as the only state to receive a Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) extension.
Changes for Sen. Lieberman (Connecticut): It amends the extension of section 508 hospital provisions so that hospitals in Connecticut (as well as Michigan) have the option to benefit under them if it means higher payments.
Changes for Sen. Dodd (Connecticut): It was a mystery until just revealed that Chris Dodd’s state will benefit from a cryptically awarded $100 million for a “Health Care Facility” at a public research university that contains a state’s sole public academic medical and dental school—criteria designed to apply to the University of Connecticut.
Changes for Sen. Baucus (Montana):
Ø Baucus secured a pilot program in the amendment to “provide innovative approaches to furnishing comprehensive, coordinated, and cost-effective care” to certain qualified individuals. A qualified individual “is an environmental exposure affected individual…who resides in or around the geographic area subject to an emergency declaration made as of June 17, 2009.” And who might these select few individuals be? Well, according to EPA, “On June 17, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson issued a Public Health Emergency (PHE) finding at the Libby Asbestos Superfund site in northwest Montana.” This provision would help residents of Libby by allowing them to sign up for Medicare benefits.
It seems to me that if ObamaCare really reformed the process, we wouldn’t need all of these exceptions to its rules. After all, it’s supposed to “bend the cost curve downward” for everyone. If it does that, then why does Hawaii need a DSH extension? Why does Connecticut need exemptions for its hospitals and a $100 million grant, if we’re leveling the playing field?
This list shows why Congress wants to pass this overhaul. They want the ability to demand these favors not just now, but forever. When government controls the system, then the politicians control the spoils. This list is just the appetizers. They’ll be chowing down on pork banquets for decades if this passes into law, and doing it just as dishonestly as this process has been handled all along.
Comments