November 19, 2009
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Michael Hammond
RE: The Reid Bill: The Mandates, Public Option,
Regulation, Rationing, and Taxes

EDITORS NOTE

Harry Reid’s objective has been to secret the provisions of the most important piece of legislation in our lifetimes until he could cram it down Americans’ throats because there was insufficient time to analyze and mobilize against it. To some extent, he has succeeded. I have done what I could, given the need to disseminate this at least a day before the Senate moved to cloture on the motion to proceed. I have therefore focused on the mandates, the public option, regulation, rationing, and taxes.

THE NUMBERS

-Cost:

-Reid’s phony number: $847 billion

-Including $247 billion in costs passed in separate legislation or achieved in phony regulatory fixes: $1.094 trillion

-Including both the $247 billion “doc fix” and $465 billion in phony Medicare cuts which no one believes will be made: $1.569 trillion

-For the first ten years when the bill actually goes into effect: about $2.5 trillion

-Deficit:

-Reid’s phony number: -$127 billion

-Including $247 billion in costs passed in separate legislation or achieved in phony regulatory fixes: +$120 billion

-Including both the $247 billion “doc fix” and the $465 billion in phony Medicare cuts which no one believes will be made: +$585 billion

-Medicare Cuts: $465 billion

-Tax Increases: $376 billion+++

SUMMARY

-This bill would require virtually every American to have –- not just insurance -– but the type of insurance approved by the Obama administration. The cost of this insurance is projected by PriceWaterhouse to be $25,900 for a family policy by 2019. This is dramatically more than the premiums if Congress did nothing, with the only difference being that you would be required to pay the inflated premiums, under penalty of fine and, ultimately, imprisonment.

-You would almost certainly not be allowed to keep the insurance and providers you currently have. Virtually all of the 10.2 million seniors on Medicare Advantage would lose care. Virtually all non- unionized employers would find it in their economic interest to dump their employees onto the exchange. States would have a strong economic incentive to dump Medicare recipients onto the exchange. And the individual and employer “grandfather” clauses are full of holes.

SPECIFICS

IMMEDIATE CHANGES: Section 1001 would prohibit giving different types of benefits, based on the ability of employees to afford them and therefore would make it illegal for more highly compensated employees to opt for premium plans (section 1001, as inserted into section 2716 of the Public Health Service Act (hereafter “PHSA”)).

Section 1001 also bans lifetime limits on coverage or annual limits on coverage exceeding statutory limits, thereby outlawing the cheap plans which many young, healthy Americans prefer.

Every customer who does not get a summary of benefits which precisely complies with section 1001 could result in a fine of up to $1,000 per customer.

Section 1001 (section 2717 of the PHSA) requires the HHS Secretary to set “reporting” standards dealing with “health care provider reimbursement structures” which would —

-“improve health outcomes through implementation of activities such as quality reporting, effective case management, care coordination, chronic disease management, and medication and care compliance initiatives…”

“implement activities to prevent hospital re-admissions through a comprehensive program for hospital discharge that includes patient-centered education and counseling, comprehensive discharge planning, and post discharge reinforcement by an appropriate health care professional…”

-“implement activities to improve patient safety and reduce medical errors through the appropriate use of best clinical practices, evidence based medicine, and health information technology…”

All of these provisions seem to be a wide-open invitation to regulations implementing health care rationing, in the guise of reporting requirements.

Section 1201 (inserting section 2705 into the PHSA) and 1001 (section 2717(a)(1)(D) and (b) of the PHSA) create wellness programs which allow consideration of behavioral issues in setting premiums and, presumably, determining activities which are so dangerous that coverage might be suspended. The definition of “wellness” includes same very broad issues, including obesity and “lifestyle.” But even these broad categories are not exclusive and do not prohibit, for example, the consideration of firearms ownership. Section 1201 specifically prevents consideration of the health of a person for purposes of setting rates, but, for any other “health status factor,” premiums can vary by up to 30%, which may be increased to 50% under the discretion of the HHS Secretary. A “reward may be in the form of a discount or rebate of a premium or contribution, a waiver of all or part of a cost-sharing mechanism (such as deductibles, copayments, or coinsurance), the absence of a surcharge, or the value of a benefit that would otherwise not be provided under the plan.” The “wellness” program qualifies under this section if it “has a reasonable chance of improving the health of … participating individuals.”

The Reid bill (section 2718(b) of the PHSA) requires a rebate if, in any given year, private premiums exceed medical payments by a given percentage.

Under section 2794 of the PHSA, the HHS Secretary would review “unreasonable” insurance premiums and can require insurers to “justif[y]” their rates.

By prohibiting the consideration of preexisting conditions (section 1101) and severely limiting the ability of Americans to buy cheap policies with high deductibles and copayments, the bill insures that the cost of insurance will go through the roof. This is particularly ironic because the ostensible reason for the bill is the escalating health care premiums -– and the effect of the premium increases on small business.

Section 1101 of the bill sets up “high risk pools.” The initial “high risk pools” will supposedly cost $5 billion. But, in an unusual provision, the Secretary is authorized to somehow “make adjustments” “for any fiscal year [in which there are insufficient funds].”

Section 1102 would spend $5 billion on reinsurance for employment-based plans for people who are part of one of those plans and who retire prior to 55 –- a provision which, I’m guessing, was a payoff to labor unions.

Section 1104 gives the HHS Secretary the authority to promulgate broad rules with respect to “electronic standards.” Subsection (b)(2), for example, amends the Social Security Act to require the Secretary to “adopt a single set of operating rules … with the goal of creating as much uniformity in the implementation of the electronic standards as possible.” The same section goes on to require health plans to certify, in writing, “that the data and information systems for such plan are in compliance with any applicable standards…” It goes on to provide that a health plan is not in compliance unless it “demonstrates to the Secretary that the plan conducts the electronic transactions … in a manner that fully complies with the regulations of the Secretary…” Furthermore, anyone who provides services to a provider must comply as well. Again, the section requires health plans to certify to the Secretary “in such form as the Secretary may require, … that the data and information systems for such plan are in compliance with any applicable revised standards and associated operating rules…” The Secretary is authorized to conduct “periodic audits” to insure this is so, and substantial penalties are provided for.

GRANDFATHER CLAUSE: The language of the grandfather clause is interesting: Section 151(a)(1) provides: “Nothing in this Act … shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage…” Not to quibble, but this is different from saying that the grandfathered plan satisfies the mandate. Furthermore, grandfathered plans are exempted from Subtitles A and C, but neither contains the mandate.

Section 1251(d) specifically grandfathers health benefits offered pursuant to collective bargaining agreements.

MANDATED COVERAGE: Subtitle D defines the “qualified health plan” which Americans must have, under penalty of law. It must have “in effect a certification … that such plan meets the criteria for certification described in section 1311(c).” (Section 1311(c) says: “The Secretary shall, by regulation, establish criteria for the certification of health plans as qualified health plans.”) The mandated plan must also include statutorily mandated benefits [section 1302(a)], including mental health parity, “behavioral health treatment,” preventive care (including gym memberships), and pediatric dental care. And these statutory requirements are not exclusive, and section 1302(b)(4)(G) lays out a variety of generalized considerations which the HHS Secretary would use to set and revise benefits which Americans would be required to payt for. Subsection 1302(c) would limit deductibles and copayments. Subsection 1302(d) would set “levels of coverage,” but the levels would be based wholly on financial issues such as the levels of deductibles. With the exception of a young person under 30 who obtained a hardship certification from the government or who could not buy “affordable” coverage (section 1302(e)), a healthy person could not buy catastrophic coverage, or coverage that forced him to pay for “services” (such as maternity services) that he did not need or want, or coverage that forced him to subsidize persons whose lifestyle choices had made them very sick.

ABORTION: Section 1303 sets out the rules for funding abortion. The public option would be required to fund abortions for any abortion which was allowed by the Hyde amendment, as it existed for the six previous months. Thus, if the Hyde amendment were amended to provide abortions in “health of the mother” cases (i.e., abortion-on-demand), the public option would have to provide abortions in those cases without any accounting artifices whatsoever. However, by segregating private and public funds, the HHS Secretary can allow the public option to immediately fund all abortions, including third trimester and partial birth abortions. We have seen, in connection with section 1008 of the Public Health Services Act, that Planned Parenthood is experienced in setting aside one room for abortions and another room in the same building for condoms –- and claiming that the condom money is not being used for abortions. In addition, for the first time in American history, under section 1303(a)(1)(D), the federal government will become a guarantor that abortion coverage is available to everyone in the country. Persons receiving subsidies would be subject to the same phony segregation rules. There is “non-state-and-federal preemption” language in section 1303(b) which is of dubious value. State parental consent laws could not be overturned, but state laws requiring abortion coverage also could not be preempted. Current conscience protection would not be affected, but it is far from clear that it would be extended in the way that would be required to cover the new applications created by this law. Finally, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act would be explicitly grandfathered. Liberals have argued for some time that failure to provide abortions in cases where other medical services are funded constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex under that statute.

MEDICAID: Would be expanded to cover those earning up to 133% of the federal poverty level.

RATIONING: The central mechanism for rationing medical care among non-Medicare-covered individuals is section 1311(c), which says: “The Secretary shall, by regulation, establish criteria for the certification of health plans as qualified health plans.” This open-ended grant of authority would allow the Secretary to write into “certified” policies a limitation on benefits in cases where treatment is not regarded as complying with “best practices.” Other sections are even more explicit: Section 1311(g) sets up a “strategy” to save money through, inter alia, “the implementation of activities to improve patient safety and reduce medical errors through the appropriate use of best clinical practices.” Finally, there are the $465 billion in Medicare cuts. Although the bill pretends that reductions in benefits and eligibility will be prohibited, it is unrealistic to assume that a Congress which cannot carry through with a 1997 commitment to cut the increase in doctors’ reimbursements by $247 billion will be able to comply with $465 billion in cuts. The result will be “rationing by under pricing.” The chief actuary for Medicare and Medicaid predicts that hospitals and providers will not treat persons at the levels of reimbursement which will result from this bill.

Sections 1321 et seq. provide various mechanisms for state “flexibility,” but, by and large, apply only to states that are willing to throw even more money away than the statute requires.

Section 1331 would give the states “flexibility” to establish basic health programs for low-income individuals not eligible for Medicaid because they earn between 133% and 200% of the poverty level. On a related issue, one conservative think tank has found that virtually all 50 states would find it to their financial benefit to dump all of their Medicaid beneficiaries into the exchange. Although the CBO has not scored this eventuality, estimates are that it would increase costs of the program by $2 trillion.

Section 1333 is a nod to GOP calls for interstate sales of insurance, but it applies only in accordance with open-ended HHS regulatory authority to limit it and only if licensed in each state.

Section 1401 sets up a “refundable” health tax credit (which means that the government sends a check to people who otherwise have no tax liability). The credit equals “the excess … of the adjusted monthly premium … over 1/12 of the product of the applicable percentage and the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year.” The applicable percentage is “2.8 percent, increased by the number of percentage points (not greater than 7) which bears the same ratio to 7 percentage points as the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year in excess of 100 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved, bear to an amount equal to 200 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved.” This is the easy part. The credit, which is supposedly intended for low-income, relatively uneducated Americans, goes on with 26 more pages of special rules and definitions.

Section 1402 reduces copayments, deductibles, etc., for persons earning less than 400% of the poverty level, in accordance with a sliding scale.

Section 1421 et seq. create s “small business tax credit” for employers with fewer than 25 employees. Under these provisions, a small business can supposedly deduct 50% of the exorbitant forced premiums required by this bill. If the average annual wage is over $40,000, the employer could not benefit from this section. If the average annual salary is below $40,000 (and the average cost of a family policy is, as PriceWaterhouse estimates, $25,900 by 2019), this would still mean that the cost of the bill to small employers would be over 1/3 of the employees’ gross pay.

Section 1501 would require virtually everyone in the country to have –- not just insurance –- but government-approved insurance. The statute justifies this by a 1944 case [U.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association] holding that “insurance is interstate commerce subject to Federal regulation.” Of course, the question of whether “insurance” is interstate commerce is different from the question of whether not buying insurance (i.e., not doing anything) is interstate commerce. Furthermore, there is the question of whether a legally forced payment which is used to provide for the health care of others is a tax –- a tax not imposed by Congress, as required by Article I, Section 8, but imposed by bureaucrats and private parties — and whether, furthermore, it is a capitation tax not commensurate with the census and not authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment. If the individual fails to comply, he will be subject to an IRS-administered fine, which, by 2017, will be $1,500 for a married couple, indexed for inflation ($2,250 for a married couple with a dependent 19 year-old). And, if the individual fails to pay the fine, because, for example, he cannot afford either the premium or the fine without selling his house or his business, he can be sentenced, notwithstanding the Schumer amendment, to up to $250,000 in additional fines and up to five years in prison. There is an exemption for persons who would have to pay in excess of 8% of income for insurance.

Section 1511 et seq. provide for employer responsibilities. Section 1511 provides for automatic enrollment in the case of employers with over 200 employees. Under section 1513, an employer with employees eligible for the exchange who does not provide insurance must pay the “applicable amount,” times the number of employees. The “amount,” laid out in 26 U.S.C. 4980H(b)(2)(B), is up to $600 each for each employee. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the potentially negative impact on jobs, this figure is low enough to make it almost always economically preferable to dump employees onto the exchange, rather than paying the spiraling costs of premiums under government-mandated insurance, even given the puny tax benefits which are made available under that section.

TAXES: (1) There is a 40% tax on insurance with premiums over $23,000 ($8,500 for individuals). Because these are not indexed to premium costs -– and because the average premium will soon be in excess of this level -– this is another Alternative Minimum Tax in the making. (2) The increases in small business taxes (for those filing taxes using Schedule C) would cripple jobs creation. The Medicare payroll tax would increase for these earners from 1.45% to 1.95. (3) In addition, there are increased taxes on HSA distributions (section 9004), increased taxes on flexible spending arrangements under cafeteria plans (section 9005), an annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers which would be passed on to the consumer (section 9008), an annual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers which would be passed on to the consumer (section 9009), an annual fee on health insurance providers which would be passed on to the consumer (section 9010), elimination of the deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D (section 9012), a tax on the very sick by increasing from 7.5% to 10% of income the level at which you can deduct health care expenses (section 9013), and the bo-tox tax (section 9017). This is in addition to the massive penalties imposed on the uninsured.

Some-bo-dy’s lo-sing in-de-pen-dents….

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Under ReidCare and PelosiCare, with the HHS and Omamba Administration, women are to put themselves at greater risk for death by no longer getting mammograms. Under the same guidelines, we guys are to quit having prostate exams. Now, truth be told, being a guy, I have no clue what a woman goes through for a mammogram. I know what I go through having a cancerous history, what I go through as a guy having my rectum intruded upon for a prostate check, and what happened after…

Notwithstanding, women are being told to quit believing the American Cancer Society, their gynecologist, the government before 2009, and common sense, to save their lives. Before Tuesday, November 17, 2009, every woman was told that annual mammograms were necessary for good healthcare. As recently as February 2009, America’s women were told that not having mammograms was a threat to not only their health, but America’s weal and welfare. Now, under Omamba and HHS Sibelius, taking preventive care is too costly, and may cause anxiety for false-positives. Umm, Tell me if you’d rather have a false-positive than the reality of cancer?

The government is pushing vaccines that can cause paralysis, sterility and swine-flu like symptoms on your 9-12 year old daughters to prevent cervical cancers, yet tell you that PAP smears are unnecessary if you are under a certain age (21) for cervical cancers… and after that, you really don’t need them before 40 (forty). Then why the vaccine?

This is Comparative Effectiveness Research run amok.

What is CER, you ask? This is the theory that three 25-year-olds have the potential of contributing more to the ‘good of society’ than one proven 75-year-old person’s. The 75 year old, under this theory has no further value because he/she is no longer contributing to the ‘good of society, but rather drawing upon it.’ Or, that if the cost of caring for a 43 year old woman with breast cancer doesn’t match her potential earnings (tax contributions), she isn’t worthy of care. So much for Susan G Komen and the pink-ribbon campaign.

Now, there are two problems with the above premise: That three 25 year olds are worth more than one 75 year old. 1) We are talking potential; there isn’t any guarantee one or more of the 25 year olds won’t be killed through crime, disease, or genetic time bomb. 2) The 75 year old contributed already to his/her care through government fiat. It’s a proven fact as to his/her value to society. And if he/she contributes through working, where is the moral justice?

Back in my younger days, I’ve had expensive and necessary surgeries to save my life, or (after military action), reconstruct vital body parts to walk rather than be pushed in a wheelchair. I’ve had reconstructive knee surgeries, heart, PAD/PVD, cancer (bone and prostate) treatments, and an arterial renal thrombosis bi-femoral transplant in my life. So far, persons other than myself have awarded/given me Who’s Who in Business, a Silver Star, journalistic, inspirational and religious awards. I have undergone veteran and civilian PTSD counseling. What have I done wrong/right?

Back to women under onslaught: The current heath care Bills are saying nothing goes forward until passed; LIE!The Reid Bill says it will base its actions under Section 804 of the America’s Recovery Act (Stimulus Act) of 2009, already passed. And under this Act, signed by President Omamba, women are nailed. Because it says so… don’t believe me? Read it for yourselves…

www.reid.senate.gov and download.

The One’s puppets in his Organizing for America group put out a statement that was reported in The Hill:

President Obama’s political operation took a shot at Sarah Palin today, accusing her of lying on her media blitz.

“It’s dangerous,” Organizing for America Director Mitch Stewart said of Palin’s book tour.

As mentioned the other day, leftists have been trying to pin a tag of cowardice on conservatives opposed to the dangerous and stupid decision by The One and his AG to prosecute some terrorists in civilian court while prosecuting others in the military tribunals (all without any legal reasoning explaining why). Holder went so far as to show how “brave” (think “Brave Sir Robin”) he was by saying he was “not scared of KSM”. Naturally, the lefties followed suit. So, Morrissey asks this very pertinent question [emphasis from original]:

Even on that basis, we’re now to believe that giving al-Qaeda terrorists a global media platform for propaganda and recruitment isn’t at all dangerous … but a book tour should have people running for cover?

You can’t make this stuff up. Beta-males like this Mitch Stewart of OFA have become a mass of cowardice when it comes to Sarah Palin. Considering all the bits, bytes, pixels, and ink that have been spilled about Palin by her critics in just a little over a year, especially the master of all things gynecological, Andrew Sullivan, the fear these cowards put on display is simply something that to treasure. Especially with popcorn.

I just came from dinner and recognized the voices beside me. It was Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and three other Democrats. I knew the other faces but names escape me.

They were strategizing on how to raise the gas tax. Congressman Blumenauer said he knew a way to get at least 20 Republicans on board a gas tax increase. The place was loud and that’s about all I could make out. They talked about other times when they manages to split us. It was not fun nor easy to hold back.

1) $100 million (per CBO score) in Medicaid subsidies, to secure Senator Landrieu’s cloture vote (Louisiana is not mentioned by name, but read Section 2006, page 432 start with line 14, and page 434 start with line 8, and decide for yourself which state would qualify…)

ABC News believes it’s Louisiana…

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/sen-harry-reid-woes-skeptical-democrats-health-care/story?id=9124461

2) Using 10 years of taxes to cover 7 years of expenses - want to bet the first 3 years of tax collections, won’t be diverted immediately to general spending same as with all prior entitlement plans?

3) Monthly Abortion Premium (Section 1303 on page 122 starting with line 11)

CONTACT INFO.  COURTESY OF ONE NATION PAC:

http://www.onenationpac.org/takeaction/healthcare/callfaxemail.html

HERE ARE A FEW KEY “SWING VOTE” SENATORS - PLEASE CONTACT THEM IMMEDIATELY AND CONTACT THEM OFTEN:

ARKANSAS
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D)
D.C. Phone: (202)224-4843
D.C. Fax: (202)228-1371
Little Rock Phone: (501) 375-2993
Little Rock Fax: (501) 375-7064

Staff Emails:
• elizabeth_burks@lincoln.senate.gov
• anna_taylor@lincoln.senate.gov
• ashley_ridlon@lincoln.senate.gov
• roger_fisher@lincoln.senate.gov
• ed_french@lincoln.senate.gov
• jim_stowers@lincoln.senate.gov
• katie_laning@lincoln.senate.gov

INDIANA

Sen. Evan Bayh (D)
D.C. Phone: (202) 224-5623
D.C. Fax: (202) 228-1377
Indianapolis Phone: (317) 554-0750
Indianapolis Fax: (317) 554-0760

Staff Emails:
• tom_sugar@bayh.senate.gov
• josh_sargen@bayh.senate.gov
• chris_murray@bayh.senate.gov
• eric_kleiman@bayh.senate.gov
• sarah_rozensky@bayh.senate.gov
• charlie_salem@bayh.senate.gov
• martha_pabon@bayh.senate.gov
• cynthia_walker@Bayh.senate.gov
• meghan_keck@bayh.senate.gov
• brian_weiss@bayh.senate.gov
• marie_francis@Bayh.senate.gov

LOUISIANA
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D)
D.C. Phone: (202) 224-5824
D.C. Fax: (202) 224-9735
Baton Rouge Phone: (225) 389-0395
Baton Rouge Fax: (225) 389-0660

Staff Emails:
• jane_campbell@landrieu.senate.gov
• kate_nicolai@landrieu.senate.gov
• sarada_peri@landrieu.senate.gov
• scheduler_landrieu@landrieu.senate.gov
• adam_sharp@landrieu.senate.gov
• jason_matthews@landrieu.senate.gov
• laverne_saulny@landrieu.senate.gov
• Stephanie_allen@landrieu.senate.gov
• aaron_saunders@landrieu.senate.gov

MAINE
Sen. Susan Collins (R)
D.C. Phone: (202) 224-2523
D.C. Fax: (202) 224-2693
Augusta Phone: (207) 622-8414
Augusta Fax: (207) 622-5884

Staff Emails:
• steve_abbott@collins.senate.gov
• holly_nesbit@collins.senate.gov

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R)
D.C. Phone: (202) 224-5344
D.C. Fax: (202) 224-1946
Boston Phone: (207) 622-8292
Boston Fax: (207) 622-7295

Staff Emails:
• john_richter@snowe.senate.gov
• anna_levin@snowe.senate.gov

NEBRASKA
Sen. Ben Nelson (D)
D.C. Phone: (202) 224-6551
D.C. Fax: (202) 228-0012
Omaha Phone: (402) 391-3411
Omaha Fax: (402) 391-4725

Staff Emails:
• melanie_rogge@bennelson.senate.gov
• tim_becker@bennelson.senate.gov
• jonathan_coppess@bennelson.senate.gov
• dayle_williamson@bennelson.senate.gov
• kate_howard@bennelson.senate.gov
• christiana_gallagher@bennelson.senate.gov

It seems he’s found a really cool way of pretending he’s still a Republican. He now opposes the Cap and Trade legislation being crafted in the Senate. Politico.com describes how McCain has sawed his good old buddies off at the knees.

Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman have been working overtime to craft a climate bill that can attract significant GOP support. But they aren’t exactly scoring points with their mutual best friend in the Senate, John McCain.

“Their start has been horrendous,” McCain said Thursday. “Obviously, they’re going nowhere.”

I never imagined I’d say this, but somewhere by the banks of The River Styx, the incubi are having a snowball fight. I feel glad that Senator McCain is a invertebrate, disloyal, back-knifing, weasel. God bless his gelatinous spine.

Now that people actually contemplate voting for Republicans, Our Good Friend has decided that it might be smart to at least act like one. This has lead to the following atypical behavior. Here’s Politico describes the latest Rouge behavior from Senator McCain.

McCain refers to the bill as “cap and tax,” calls the climate legislation that passed the House in June “a 1,400-page monstrosity” and dismisses a cap-and-trade proposal included in the White House budget as “a government slush fund.”

Senator Graham, in the words of cartoon character Johnnie Test, didn’t see that one coming. He must really feel like the rube that went to bed with a Roadhouse Harlot and woke up the next morning nursing a tequila hangover and without his keys and wallet. Senator McCain’s “Good Friend” voices his incredulity.

”I wouldn’t be here on this issue without him,” said Graham, a South Carolina Republican who spent much of last fall campaigning for McCain. “He’s the guy that introduced me to the climate problem.”

Well, Lindsay Old Bean, he’s now introducing you to the dung heap of used up friends. John McCain is selling his shares in the coming apocalypse the way people of Lindsay Graham’s intellectual caliber wish they’d sold their investment portfolios with Bernie Madoff.

One advantage of having a spineless rock-o-tofu like John McCain in the party is that he serves as a barometer of where the winds on a given issue are blowing. He has a knack for getting out of “bubble issues” before the pop. Tell Senator McCain that no one with a Ph D. in Climate Scatology can explain the “Ten Year Warming Holiday,” and he feels no moral imperative to remain stuck on stupid. It’s what you can expect from this rotting, old husk of a once great man, who generally feels no moral imperative at all.

As you can glean from just two paragraphs of this, I like John McCain about as much as I appreciate my Jockey shorts chaffing. While he glad-hands, befriends you and calls you a Great American, the dagger lies concealed somewhere in the conversation. It’s always good to remember around Senator McCain that only eighteen inches separates a good, firm pat on the back and a roundhouse kick in the Gluteus Maximus.

What Lick-spittle Lindsay and “Holy” Joe Liebermann forgot was the essential nature of John McCain. He’s prototypical of nearly every “Friend of The Earth” in modern political life. He’d love to save the planet – as long as you guarantee his fee. Just because John McCain hasn’t garnered the ROI to match Al Gore, don’t think for one second that the man supports Global Warming hysteria out of misguided moral decency.

People who go on Crusades do so with a sense of great commitment and decency. They do so prepared to fight and die for the cause. John McCain is no Crusader. He rides gravy trains. As the political winds hue to a different tack, the gravy has run out and it’s time for “Mavarick” John to go cut a dashing figure elsewhere.

For Barbara Boxer, George Miller and Henry Waxman, losing McCain is a bellwether. Losing him on Global Warming is a tell. It tells us that they’ve lost momentum. They are no longer chic, they are no longer in, they are no longer with it. Nobody watched the Hollywood movies or went to the rock concerts. Al Gore recently received the Nobel Bull-fertilizer Prize.

Nobody in their right minds wants their Senator to vote for a Cap and Trade Bill. Senator McCain enjoys remaining Senator McCain. Senator Webb and Senator Landrieu would prefer to remain Senators Webb and Landrieu. This Cap and Trade Bill will get no warmer than the actual planet it would supposedly protect. This we learn from observing, in his natural habitat, a spineless jellyfish named Senator John McCain.

Cross-posted (with slightly more accurate title) at: The Minority Report

So just how would this X-Files Episode proceed? How does the government deliberately not know something? Wouldn’t deliberately not seeing the obvious look suspicious?

It would be kind of like letting a guy who hated the US Army’s involvement in Iraq, join the US Army, have his medical training paid for by US taxpayers, spend years saying things like “infidels should have their throats cut open and filled with boiling oil”, drive on post with semi-automatic weapons and then gun down fourteen of our soldiers. We all know the US government wouldn’t be stupid enough to allow those sorts of man-made disasters to ever happen again after 9-11.

Thus, they lay the groundwork carefully. Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that breast cancer detection and treatment really bent the Cost Curve of Orszag in the wrong direction. Let’s say the tests are expensive, the treatments uncertain and the political ramifications of not spending this money generously quite daunting for the professional office-seeking class. How do you go about shunting this money to uses that generate more Quality-adjusted Life Years per dollar expenditure?

It all starts with science. You can do anything with science. Just ask former divinity student and Vice President Al Gore. You need lots of science to deprive people of their healthcare. Especially after Senator Burris assured them it was a constitutional right.

Thus, the US Government has to prove that they can take away the mammograms without endangering the actual mammary. Once they’ve “proven” this statistically unlikely piece of truth, then they can move on to the policy implications. Otis W. Brawley, Chief Medical Officer of The American Cancer Society, describes recent research that argues against routine mammography for women between 40 and 49.

On Monday, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force took a step backward in the fight against breast cancer. The task force announced that it would no longer recommend routine mammograms for women between the ages of 40 and 49, a group that accounts for about one out of six breast cancers. The recommendation is based on data that find that mammograms do reduce the risk of death in these women, but apparently not enough deaths to recommend that all women 40 to 49 should be screened.

This development has once again raised a heated public discourse on the benefits, risks and harms of breast cancer screening. This rigorous discussion is an important part of reaching clear and understandable public health guidance. But it can be messy and confusing to the public. And, in this case, it could result in fewer women getting screened and a return to the days when we caught cancers only when they were big enough to feel. That’s a step the American Cancer Society does not want to take.

Not taking the mammograms seems to be taking unnecessary risk. Davey Johnson, a former manager for the New York Mets, used fundamental precepts from Operations Research to help him make better baseball decisions during games. He hated it when a player on his team committed unnecessary chance deviations. Even if the official scorer didn’t ring that player up for an error in the box score, Manager Johnson made sure that guy heard it in the clubhouse.

Unnecessary chance deviations involve doing something that lowers your chance of success without any sort of compulsion. Nothing good gets accomplished by one of these and they only make failure more likely to occur. People who speak English rather than Math Nerd call these sorts of things bad decisions.

If cost rationing plays no part in anyone’s thinking, reducing the currently accepted regimen of mammography that most women undergo is a negative chance deviation. It’s only in the Land of Orszag, where the shadows lie, that this type of policy has a positive outcome. Take out ten years of routine mammography from every member of the current female population under forty, and that cost curve starts bending exactly where President Obama promised us it would.

Female GOP Congresswomen wasted no time in beating Democrats soundly with this issue as a shillelagh. Politico describes the immediate connections that were drawn between Orszag’s cost curve bending and the sudden advocacy athwart routine testing for breast cancer. Representative Rodgers of Washington State lead the GOP pushback.

“This is the wrong approach, especially as we’re debating health care reform in America,” Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) said. “It is concerning to us that these recommendations mirror policies in single-payer nations like England.”

Marsha Blackburn wasted no time supporting her colleague. She issued the following critical statements regarding the report.

“This is how rationing begins. This is the little toe in the edge of the water. And this is where we start getting a bureaucrat between you and your physician. As we have gone through this health care debate over the past several months, this is what we have warned about,” Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said.

Thus, with push-back running rampant, it was time for Democrats to prove their party has female members as well. Secretary Sibelius was trotted out to clean up the remains of Barack Obama’s initial experiment in Cost as An Independent Variable analysis outside the domain of defense acquisition. She issued the following statement cum denial regarding the recent study.

“The U.S. Preventive Task Force is an outside independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations. They do not set federal policy and they don’t determine what services are covered by the federal government,” the statement said.

So, in much the same way that Great Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence never recommends specific patient treatment regimes, this panel of doctors just issues advice. This just so happens to be mathematically calibrated advice designed to effect a Pareto Optimal outcome that supersedes the particulars of any particular patient.

Republican Candice Miller very effectively pointed out why Pareto Optimal societies are great to live in – unless you happen to be an individual human being.

“What is the driver of many of their decisions?” Rep. Candice Miller asked about the numerous task forces created by the new health care bill. “Will cost be a consideration? If that is the case, for instance, why have all these mammograms because it is very costly, they could test 2,000 women and only one is a positive. I guess it doesn’t matter. If you’re the one, it matters.”

Sibelius can dissemble. She can announce that George W. Bush hired the doctors. She can claim Barack Obama is way too caring an individual to ever take away people’s mammograms. The final hypothetical advice could even be God’s own truth whispered only to Kathleen Sibelius’ privileged ears.

Yet why should we even consider passing a healthcare reform bill that gives Barack Obama the opportunity to be that caring and nice? He’s got seven more years of such swell niceness left in the tank at most - unless he’s taking his advice in Constitutional jurisprudence from Hugo Chavez or Vladimir Putin.

At some point reality intrudes upon the fantasy of universal healthcare as a basic human right. The people peddling these delusions understand this already. The efforts to lop off a huge cost driver by denying the necessity of early detection to better fight breast cancer were laying the groundwork not to have the state-run health insurer pay for them. That would have given the badly strapped Federal Treasury a whole bunch more change to believe in.

“U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan has formally asked Ohio’s secretary of state to look into allegations that ACORN had at least a preliminary plan to back Democrat candidates in key Ohio congressional races in 2008.”

The political plan was described in an October article as “having been scaled back,” and of course, ACORN denied any partisan activity.

“But to some, ACORN’s early 13-page plan for the 2008 election reinforces what critics always assumed: The group’s goal was never nonpartisan. The political plan and other ACORN documents show that the group was interested not just in helping presidential candidate Barack Obama, whom it urged its members to support, according to post-election Federal Election Commission reports. ACORN also was interested in Congress and the Ohio Statehouse.

“There’s no question that ACORN strategized to figure out how its election efforts could maximize the benefit for selected Democratic candidates in the most competitive races,” U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa of California told The Plain Dealer. “

An illuminating  fact not mentioned in either article is that ACORN prepared political plans for several key battleground states in 2006 and again during the 2007-08 election cycle. As evidenced by the draft plans developed in the Spring of 2006 by the Strategic Writing and Research Department (SWORD) of ACORN Political Operations, these plans were aimed at electing “progressives” and in some cases broke down the Congressional districts by race for maximum targeting. SWORD, which was staffed by Project Vote staff, including myself, worked with ACORN head organizers in FL, MD, MI, MN, OH, PA, and RI to create local documents for the ACORN field staff to implement and present to funders and/or various partner organizations.

A copy of the Maryland and Colorado draft plans from 2006 are available online. Key parts of the plans are the contact and Congressional district sections at the end. For example, in the Maryland plan, it calls for mailings and face to face contact. A screen shot of the type of mailing Marylanders received is shown below.

ACORN used Project Vote staff and computers to create the PowerPoint “Campaign for a New Congress.” This PowerPoint was aimed at swaying the Congressional election in Maryland from Albert Wynn to ACORN ally Donna Edwards. Using the final political plan, ACORN canvassed voters and mailed pieces through its affiliate Communities Voting Together.

Campaign for a New Congress

Communities Voting Together has the same address as the Project Vote office in DC and its address on the screen shot above is the same Elysian Fields address where hundreds of other ACORN entities “reside.

As a 527 group, Communities Voting Together paid over 150,000 to Citizen’s Services Inc, and contributed to Wade Rathke’s Chief Organizer Fund. Jeff Robinson is listed as the contact for Communities Voting Together and some may remembered Robinson from the 2008 elections (emphasis mine):

“In fact, the Obama campaign paid an ACORN-run organization more than $800,000. In Federal Election Commission required filings, the Obama campaign reported that this money was paid for polling, advance work and event staging. After watchdog scrutiny called this claim into question, the Obama campaign revised its filing and acknowledged that CSI was paid for “get-out-the-vote” projects.

CSI Executive Vice President Jeff Robinson last August told Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporter David M. Brown that CSI is a ’separate organization entirely’ from ACORN. But as Brown reported, CSI has the same office address as ACORN’s national headquarters, ACORN itself described CSI in 2006 as its ‘campaign services entity.’ Coincidentally, the widely identified “national deputy political director for campaigns and elections” for ACORN is…Jeff Robinson.”

ACORN’s shell corporations make it easy for a political plan to become a partisan voter registration drive facilitated by thin veiled “partnerships.” The filing reports of Communities Voting Together raise a number of questions, including whether the misspelling of the name on the filing was intentional. The payments to various ACORN entities should give any astute lawmaker pause.

ACORN has been able to claim that it never worked in some recent elections including NY-23, but as this screen shoot illustrates, Communities Voting together was mailing and passing out door knockers in 2006 for Corzine in New Jersey (without a mention of ACORN).

Will ACORN backed officials like Jennifer Brunner (who has her eye on a Senate seat) and officials in Maryland and Colorado take notices of these obvious attempts to elect Democrats, or will they continue to turn a blind eye to ACORN in order to save themselves?