Bloodthirsty Liberal

Offered w/o comment:

A recent announcement by the U.S. Preventative Health Service can rather simply be summed up: Most men eventually get prostate cancer, but most don’t die from it; those who do are mostly over 75 years of age, so that ends their continuing burden on the public purse. Further, early and prolonged testing is expensive, and can lead to medical complications from biopsy examination.

Happily I can report that I have successfully completed my 80th trip around the sun. A few years ago prostrate cancer was detected by my annual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test; it was of a particularly aggressive type, as revealed by a routine biopsy.

That test led to surgery, radiation and hormone therapy.

Unfortunately, the cancer returned, and for the last couple of years I have been undergoing both routine and quite advanced experimental therapies, and everything has been monitored and controlled by PSA tests. Happily, the cancer has been knocked off its feet, and though not eliminated, it is controlled to the point that I am writing this from Fiji where I am actively scuba diving every day. (Fiji is a marvelous place for that sport, my favorite.)

Life is full of ironies. The PSA test was developed by a Kleiner & Perkins company, Hybritech, in the mid 1970s. How happy I am that Eugene Kleiner and I backed that effort so long ago; the partnership no longer has the remotest financial interest in the field, so these thoughts are not motivated by any residual economic involvement.

It’s hard to avoid a political aside, so I won’t try. A healthy market-driven free economy leads to innovation and the development of breakthroughs, like the PSA test. A highly taxed and highly regulated economy leads to “Death Panels,” like the U.S. Preventative Health Service.

Mr. Perkins is the founding partner of Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers, a prominent Silicon Valley venture capital partnership. He is also a retired director of The News Corporation.

Tempted though I am to comment, I said I wouldn’t. You, however, should feel no such constraint!

PS: Oh, just one, er, observation. And people say capitalism is heartless and cruel. Ha!

The Supreme Court hotline is temporarily experiencing heavier than usual call activity. Please wait on the line, and a Justice will be with you shortly. Your Constitutional challenge to the cluster-Fluke known as ObamaCare is important to us. Thank you for your patience:

Catholic archdioceses and institutions filed suit in federal district courts across the country Monday against the so-called contraception mandate, claiming their “fundamental rights hang in the balance.”

The plaintiffs include a host of schools and organizations, including the University of Notre Dame and the Archdiocese of New York. The lawsuits, though related, were filed individually.

The schools are objecting to the requirement from the federal health care overhaul that employers provide access to contraceptive care. The Obama administration several months back softened its position on the mandate, but some religious organizations complained the administration did not go far enough to ensure the rule would not compel them to violate their religious beliefs.

…

We have tried negotiation with the Administration and legislation with the Congress – and we’ll keep at it – but there’s still no fix. Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now. … It is also a compelling display of the unity of the Church in defense of religious liberty. It’s also a great show of the diversity of the Church’s ministries that serve the common good and that are jeopardized by the mandate – ministries to the poor, the sick, and the uneducated, to people of any faith or no faith at all.

…

This lawsuit is about one of America’s most cherished freedoms: the freedom to practice one’s religion without government interference. It is not about whether people have a right to abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. Those services are, and will continue to be, freely available in the United States, and nothing prevents the Government itself from making them more widely available. But the right to such services does not authorize the Government to force the University of Notre Dame (“Notre Dame”) to violate its own conscience by making it provide, pay for, and/or facilitate those services to others, contrary to itssincerely held religious beliefs. …

If the Government can force religious institutions to violate their beliefs in such a manner, there is no apparent limit to the Government’s power. Such an oppression of religious freedom violates Notre Dame’s clearly established constitutional and statutory rights.

The First Amendment also prohibits the Government from becoming excessively entangled in religious affairs and from interfering with a religious institution’s internal decisions concerning the organization’s religious structure, ministers, or doctrine. The U.S. Government Mandate tramples all of these rights.

…

[I]f one Presidential Administration can override our religious purpose and use religious organizations to advance policies that undercut our values, then surely another Administration will do the same for another very different set of policies, each time invoking some concept of popular will or the public good, with the result these religious organizations become mere tools for the exercise of government power, morally subservient to the state, and not free from its infringements. If that happens, it will be the end of genuinely religious organizations in all but name.

The Church has the force of the Constitution behind it, for all that matters. Because, as Professor Obama—sorry, Senior Lecturer Obama—told us: many believe the Constitution is a document of “negative liberties” that is silent on what the government “must do on your behalf”. If a bunch of dead white men didn’t think to order the Roman Catholic Church to sanction and provide for abortions, that’s their problem, not Sandra Fluke’s.

Anyhow, “Obamacare: The Court Case” sounds like it will run longer than Cats!

Except Capone was born in America.

It figures the Mafia was once known as “The Black Hand”:

Three years ago, President Obama cut a secret deal with pharmaceutical company lobbyists to secure the industry’s support for his national health care law. Despite Obama’s promises during his campaign to run a transparent administration, the deal has been shrouded in mystery ever since. But internal emails obtained by House Republicans now provide evidence that a deal was struck and GOP investigators are promising to release more details in the coming weeks.

“What the hell?” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, who is now Obama’s campaign manager, complained to a lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) in January 15, 2010 email. “This wasn’t part of our deal.”

This reference to “our deal” came two months before the final passage of Obamacare in an email with the subject line, “FW: TAUZIN EMAIL.” At the time, Billy Tauzin was president and CEO of PhRMA.

The email was uncovered as part of investigation into Obama’s closed-door health care negotiations launched by the House Energy and Commerce committee’s oversight panel.

“In the coming weeks the Committee intends to show what the White House agreed to do as part of its deal with the pharmaceutical industry and how the full details of this agreement were kept from both the public and the House of Representatives,” the committee’s Republican members wrote in a memo today.

You scratch my back, I don’t shoot you in yours.

“The investigation has determined that the White House, primarily through Office of Health Reform Director Nancy Ann DeParle and Messina, with involvement from Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, was actively engaged in these negotiations while the role of Congress was limited,” the committee members wrote. “For example, three days before the June 20 statement, the head of PhRMA promised Messina, ‘we will deliver a final yes to you by morning.’ Meanwhile, Ms. DeParle all but confirmed that half of the Legislative Branch was shut out in an email to a PhRMA representative: ‘I think we should have included the House in the discussions, but maybe we never would have gotten anywhere if we had.’”

Oh, I know! Four hundred and thirty five members with four hundred and thirty six opinions! You’re better off doing it yourself.

You know, just a couple more thousand pages of legislation, and we may just get this health care thingy solved. (Lord knows, we don’t have to read it.)

Like countless rulers before and since, Diocletian discovered the hard way that price controls don’t work. They worsen the problem they are intended to solve, leading to shortages, rationing, and even higher prices.

Yet the belief that government can control inflation by fiat never seems to lose its allure.

Which brings us to the “Health Care Quality Improvement and Cost Reduction Act of 2012,” a 178-page bill introduced in the Massachusetts House this month amid jaunty predictions of cheaper insurance premiums for Bay State families and tens of billions of dollars in medical savings over the next 15 years. An even longer bill — 235 pages — has been introduced in the state Senate.

Remind me to write a bill called “The Tasty Sh*t Sandwich Act”. It will make more sense and be more achievable than this idiocy.

These bills aren’t written in Latin and they don’t impose the death penalty, but their core principle is not much different from Diocletian’s: The state knows best. What fraction of the local economy should health care consume? How fast should medical spending rise? On what business model should provider networks be organized? How should hospital and doctors fees be calculated? Where should consumers get information on quality and cost of care? When are a provider’s high rates justified? What penalty should it bear when they aren’t? In the world these plans envision, decision after decision comes not through the voluntary interplay of doctors, patients, hospitals, and insurers, but from government agents who impose them from above.

Adding up the “dizzying and expansive” array of decrees in the House legislation, health care analyst Joshua Archambault of the Pioneer Institute finds 941 instances in which the bill mandates that something “shall” be done. Among these are more than 25 kinds of penalties, fines, and surcharges, for price control and punishment always go hand in hand.

Looming over all would be a new Division of Health Care Cost and Quality, a command-and-control behemoth that would dominate the state’s medical and health-insurance landscapes, with the power to affect billions of dollars and millions of lives.

And what checks and balances would restrain this behemoth? In the language of the House bill, it “shall be an independent public entity not subject to the supervision and control of any other executive office, department, commission, board, bureau, agency or political subdivision.” Throw in a toga, and Diocletian would feel right at home.

It is a hallmark of liberalism that democracy must be legislated out of existence. The state will decide for you, and you’ll like it.

PS: Romney’s fault wasn’t to author such an abortion of a law that bears his name: he didn’t; the Democrat-dominated state legislature did. But he signed it, lent his name to it, and left Democrats in charge of implementing it. He deserves his share of blame.

Who says Michelle didn’t do anything in that no-show hospital job she had in Chicago?

There’s no better investment, apparently, than in the wife of a on-the-come hustling Chicago politician:

The Department of Health and Human Services last week announced it had awarded a $5.9 million grant to a University of Chicago Medical Center program tied to Michelle Obama and run by Eric Whitaker, one of President Obama’s closest friends.

The Urban Health Initiative, which received the award, was originally based on a smaller program launched during the last decade by Michelle Obama, who was an executive at the University of Chicago Medical Center before she departed to become first lady. The UHI is headed up by Obama basketball and golf buddy Whitaker, who has known the president since Obama’s days in law school and who also vacations with the first family.

Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett also has ties to the UHI. Until resigning to go work at the White House, Jarrett was Chairman of the University of Chicago Medical Center Board of Trustees. And in 2007, a PR firm run by former senior White House adviser and Obama political guru David Axelrod provided provided public relations strategy advice to the UHI, according to the Washington Post.

There is no specific evidence that any of those linked to the Obamas, or the Obamas themselves, influenced the HHS decision to grant the funding to the UHI. BUT the large award raises questions about appearance, given the number of Obama associates connected to the program and the involvement of the first lady with its founding.

I like big buts, I can’t deny.

The UHI won out over lots of competition. According to HHS, some 3,000 applications were received for a share on the $1 billion in 3-year grants available. Only 26 programs were included in the first batch of awards doled out.

An HHS spokesperson said that while “final determinations” were made by the HHS’s CMS Innovation Center Director, objective standards were used in selecting the awards and the White House was not “in any way” involved in the selection of grantees.

…

The awards have been politicized by the administration, which is touting them as part of its “We Can’t Wait” initiative to create jobs by executive action while the White House “waits” for the Republican-led House to act. The Innovation Center was established under Obamacare.

…

Last week’s award is not the first time money directed toward the UHI has raised red flags. In September, The Daily Caller reported that the private philanthropy of billionaire Obama supporter and donor George Kaiser had donated $10,000 to the UHI during 2009, the same year Kaiser secured the now-infamous $535 million government loan guarantee to failed solar panel maker Solyndra.

What’d Michelle pull down in that, ahem, job (which went unfilled after Obama won the nomination)? Wikipedia says $273k in 2006, and she started in 2005. At most, therefore, they might have been into her for a million. I’d say $5.9 million is a pretty decent payoff. Heck, Warren Buffett might even volunteer to pay more tax (including his back taxes) with a payoff like that.

PS: I will stipulate that the University of Chicago Medical School is probably pretty good. But as Ed Morrissey point out, what are the odds that theirs was one of 26 winners out of 3,000 application? Less than 100 to one is the answer. It’s like when mobster Whitey Bulger “won” the state lottery here years ago: some people have all the “luck”.

To our America readers: want to feel proud?

Medical device manufacturing is one of the nation’s most dynamic and vibrant industries. The United States is the global leader in medical technology innovation, and it is one of the few major industries with a net trade surplus. This industry is responsible for more than 400,000 American jobs—and is indirectly responsible for almost two million more that supply and support this highly skilled workforce. Most important, its products are essential elements of modern medical care. They include everything from CT scanners and pacemakers to blood pressure cuffs and robots used by surgeons.

As the old joke goes: coffee break’s over; everyone back on their heads.

Yet instead of protecting this paragon of American ingenuity and innovation, the Obama administration and Congress have viewed the industry as a cash cow from which they could milk profits to help pay for the president’s health law. So they added to the Affordable Care Act a 2.3% excise tax on medical devices that will take effect at the beginning of 2013.

This tax is especially pernicious because it is assessed on sales, not profits. To put this in perspective, imagine that you’ve manufactured medical devices and had sales of $1 million, after all your costs and expenses—everything from materials and labor to research and development—your profit was $100,000. The excise tax would be $23,000, wiping out almost 25% of your profits.

Many medical device companies have to ramp up sales before they become profitable. Due to the long, draconian and sometimes unpredictable regulatory process that must be negotiated before a product can be sold, it can take from $70 million to $100 million in total sales before these businesses make their first cent of profits. Nevertheless, they would have to pay the excise tax on their revenue.

The nation’s medical device industry is vulnerable. It is not comprised of behemoths: 80% of its companies have 50 or fewer employees, the very businesses we are relying on to turn the U.S. economy around. The new excise tax comes when regulatory delays and uncertainty are increasing, and as many device firms are shutting down or moving abroad to take advantage of the more favorable tax and regulatory climate in Europe. The tax will force companies to lay off employees, cut back on research and development, or diminish capital investment.

Another symbolic news story (see below): government can encourage private industry (often best by leaving it the hell alone), or it can prey on it. I’ll give you one guess.

I’m reminded of an episode of The Sopranos.

At the brokerage, Christopher is apologizing for the Monkey Boys’ behavior. Then he calls them into the office for a stern dressing-down…. They explain the concept of “pump-and-dump,” and how they’re pawning all the stock off on old ladies. It’s up to eighty, though, and they want to sell. Christopher teaches a little Racketeering 101, laying down the primary rule: “When you’re bleeding a guy, you don’t bleed him dry right away. You wait, so you can bleed him next week, and the week after.”… Christopher goes on to tell them, “If any more Porsches disappear, make it two towns over, and I want a taste.”

And we all know what happens when Christopher doesn’t get his “taste”.

Your government at work.

Good, I’d like to add a few categories to the list myself:

A majority of [British] doctors support measures to deny treatment to smokers and the obese, according to a survey that has sparked a row over the NHS’s growing use of “lifestyle rationing”.

Some 54% of doctors who took part said the NHS should have the right to withhold non-emergency treatment from patients who do not lose weight or stop smoking. Some medics believe unhealthy behaviour can make procedures less likely to work, and that the service is not obliged to devote scarce resources to them.

However, senior doctors and patient groups have voiced alarm at what they call “blackmailing” of the sick, and denial of their human rights.

Ever the voice of reason, may I offer a compromise? Instead of allowing no denial of service, or only a limited, narrowly selected group, why not broaden it? If enough people are deemed to be a waste of resources, then the burden of premature death is spread fairly and evenly. Call it the “individual death-date”.

I’ve already selected my category: fanatic exercisers, whose obsession with heart rate and lung capacity leads to expensive knee and hip replacements and a host of other physical complaints. Tell them to take it easy, or they can just hobble home from the ER, discharged without being seen. It’s not just your ailments I can’t stand; it’s your sanctimony. Good bye!

But I’m sure my wacko environmentalist friends would add global warming skeptics to the queue. We’ve already been likened to Holocaust deniers; why waste even a penny on us? I would also add so the SOL-roster the cast of Jersey Shore, Lindsay Lohan, King Shabazz Shamir, and anyone who says “I” when they mean “me”. It’s an eclectic list, but you can make your own.

Who am I kidding? If the Supreme Court doesn’t shut this racket down, we’ll all be on someone’s list. I’ll flip you for the red pills, Aggie. Loser takes blue.

Check out this brief ad:

There’s a slightly longer version running on radio (which is where I heard it). Here’s what I want to know: isn’t this dolt costing us money? As much money as a lazy couch-potato working on a case of type-2 diabetes?

Why do we demonize addicts of Sprite and Doritos, but not manic exercisers whose accumulated injuries drive up the cost of health care? I exercise, I like it, it’s a tonic. But when something I’m doing leads to injury, I stop doing it, or lessen the intensity. This guy seems to think his maladies are noble. I say he’s a walking, jogging cost center.

You say “myth”, I say “lie”:

A persistent health-care myth is that the U.S. system is uniquely wasteful versus the European countries that spend far less per patient as a result of tight government control. Only the establishment experts who spread this myth will be surprised, but new research shows American patients are often getting more value—better outcomes and longer lives—in return for those extra dollars.

More remarkable still, the news arrives via the policy journal Health Affairs, in a symposium on the cost and quality of U.S. cancer care. This is like the Vatican saying go ahead, worship the graven images and false idols.

…

The U.S. system is relatively more expensive because diagnosis and treatment are much more intensive, and doctors tend to leverage the latest therapies and drugs against one of the world’s leading killers. While U.S. health care could obviously be far more efficient, most of its dysfunctions are the result of government’s perverse incentives.

The sophisticates who pine for the allegedly more enlightened forms of European rationing and price controls—for more perverse incentives—would do well to peruse the Health Affairs symposium. Mr. Philipson’s paper suggests those are good ways to stop anticancer progress in its tracks, or reverse it altogether.

The entire purpose of ObamaCare is to lessen the best care so that everyone may have mediocre care. It’s one thing to spread the wealth, but can you seriously spread the health?

Is it possible?

Not to worry. Obama says it’s all cool.

President Barack Obama’s healthcare law could sharply exceed its cost-savings targets and add up to $530 billion to the federal budget deficit, a leading authority on U.S. government benefit programs said on Tuesday.

A study by Charles Blahous, a George Mason University research fellow and the Republican trustee for the Medicare and Social Security entitlement programs for the elderly, challenges the administration’s contention that the 2010 law would better keep healthcare costs in line.

…

Obama and the Democrats believe the law will control skyrocketing costs and curtail government “red ink.”

But Blahous, a former economic adviser in the George W. Bush White House, said in his research that the law is expected to boost net federal spending by more than $1.15 trillion and add between $340 billion and $530 billion to deficits between 2012-21.

“Relative to previous law, the (healthcare law) both exacerbates projected federal deficits and increases an already unsustainable federal commitment to health care spending,” he concluded.

Here’s the Washington Post article, which is considerably more detailed.

Riffing on Nancy Pelosi, we have to implement the law before we learn what the law does to our pocketbooks.

- Aggie