Friday Mashup (10/23/09)

I happened to come across the following highlighted story at the Fix Noise site…

Oh mah gawd, I thought to myself; I’d better click on this story and read it right away!

And after I did, I found this (with the very different headline of “Google CEO: Vast Web Changes Coming Within Five Years”).

And just to make sure, I searched the story for “government” and “screw” and found nothing.

So just to reiterate, Fox “News” ran a story with an imaginary quote from the story subject in the headline.

And they actually have the gall to whine when they’re not treated like a reasonably serious news organization (more here – unless they were really trying to criticize this but were too lazy and/or cowardly to do it any other way).

And in another somewhat shocking development, I came across the following item from The Hill by none other than U.S. Congressional District PA-16’s very own waste of space, Pancake Joe Pitts himself…

There is one thing that people across the ideological spectrum can agree on when it comes to the issue of energy—the United States needs to produce far more clean energy from a source that does not rely on the whims of tyrants in far off parts of the world.

Fortunately, there is a technology out there that produces clean, emission free energy without the need for raw materials imported from unstable countries. Our green energy future is a nuclear future.

I believe that we need to provide for a regulatory process that will encourage an increase in the production of this clean, alternative energy.

I don’t think we should charge headlong into developing nuclear reactors as a means of lessening our oil dependency, but I grudgingly admit that nukes should be part of the picture (of course, it doesn’t hurt that Limerick, the site of an existing reactor, is in nearby PA-06, but I guess Jim Gerlach, that district’s rep, is too busy trying to run for governor to sign onto this also).

However, as I read the text of Pitts’ bill, I came across a little item of concern (the very last section, actually)…

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 shall not be used to arbitrarily prevent uranium mining from taking place on Federal lands. The Federal Government shall not collect additional leasing fees, beyond that which are currently applicable, to mine uranium on Federal lands. Any fees collected in association with commercial uranium mining on Federal lands that should be applied for remediation purposes, shall only be applied to the remediation of sites that incurred damage as a result of commercial nuclear activities. Such fees shall not be applied to the remediation of any sites that incurred damage as a result of Government or Government-sponsored activities.

So basically, Pitts is proposing that the Act not be enforced to “prevent uranium mining,” huh?

This story from last July tells us the following…

WASHINGTON – The Interior Department announced Monday it is temporarily barring the filing of new mining claims, including for uranium, on nearly 1 million acres near the Grand Canyon.

The land is being set aside for two years so the department can study whether it should be permanently withdrawn from mining activity, according to a notice published in the Federal Register online. The notice covers 633,547 acres under the control of the Bureau of Land Management and 360,002 acres in Kaibab National Forest.

The announcement comes ahead of Tuesday’s congressional hearing on a bill to set aside more than 1 million acres of federal lands north and south of the canyon. The bill’s sponsor, Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, and environmental groups had been looking to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for temporary protections at the Grand Canyon while the legislation is pending.

…

The Interior Department under President George W. Bush was unresponsive to efforts to ban new uranium mining claims. The House Natural Resources Committee invoked a little-used rule to stop any new claims for up to three years, but Interior officials refused to recognize the action and continued to authorize additional mining claims.

…

Former Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent Rob Arnberger said he would welcome any protection that (Interior Secretary Ken) Salazar offers, but permanent withdrawal is the goal.

“Are we prepared to allow the landscape to be torn up adjacent to the park, to threaten the hydrological and the natural resources of that park?” Arnberger said. “My answer to that is no. Don’t open it up to exploration.”

So, if Pitts wants to advocate for more nukes, that’s his right. However, don’t try to play these cowardly and environmentally destructive games in the meantime.

Given al of this, I guess I shouldn’t complain so much when Pitts regularly votes No, since that’s usually not as detrimental as episodes such as this, when he actually decides to do something but ends up flirting with catastrophe for his (and our) trouble.

Finally, former Laura Bush employee Andrew Malcolm opined as follows from here…

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of Health and Human Services, who recently taught Americans the federally-approved way to sneeze this season, was on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.

She was trying to explain widespread delays in the delivery of the H1N1 vaccine across the country.

Basically, of course, she said it wasn’t the Obama administration’s fault, that as soon as the vaccines come in, they’re being shipped out immediately by the many thousands of doses.

You know how everyone talks about Americans not making things anymore, that so many manufacturing jobs, for instance, have been shipped overseas?

Well, Sebelius was essentially saying the same goes for flu-vaccine-making.

Four of the world’s five makers are foreign. And we all think we know what that means.

Huh?

Members of Congress could have been exploring this subject last winter when their latest automatic pay raises took effect.

Instead, Wednesday they expressed shock and dismay at the situation now that it’s October and thousands are already falling ill with the H1N1 virus…

Also, Purdue University researchers reported the late deliveries may not matter because by the end of this year 63% of Americans will be infected anyway. So, too many doses, too late.

Well, this wasn’t helped one bit by the following, as noted here last April…

Famously, Maine Senator Collins, the supposedly moderate Republican who demanded cuts in health care spending in exchange for her support of a watered-down version of the stimulus, fumed about the pandemic funding: “Does it belong in this bill? Should we have $870 million in this bill? No, we should not.”

Even now, Collins continues to use her official website to highlight the fact that she led the fight to strip the pandemic preparedness money out of the Senate’s version of the stimulus measure.

And as noted here by Dana Milbank at the WaPo (experiencing a welcome moment of clarity, describing how a certain furry red muppet was called upon to make the case for flu preparedness)…

This reliance on (PR stunts) rather than medicine is not the fault of the Obama administration, which has done about the best it could with limited tools. It’s the result of years of failure to build adequate vaccine-manufacturing capacity in the United States. Too little work on new vaccine technologies means producers of flu shots still rely on the ancient method of making inoculations with chicken eggs. And the anemic public health system will almost surely buckle this fall as flu sufferers flood emergency rooms.

If there’s any good news, it’s that the government may be jolted into building an adequate vaccine and public health infrastructure before a more severe pandemic comes along with the potential to kill millions of Americans instead of mere thousands. In the meantime, the best the feds can do is try to slow the spread of the germs until the vaccines arrive…

And just remember which political party favors delay and obstruction on health care reform as you read this, including fighting the creation of the infrastructure Milbank is talking about.

Which is nothing to sneeze at, if you will, as the number of flu cases rise across this country (it’s a shame that there’s no similar vaccine to stifle pundit idiocy, or else Malcolm would require multiple injections).

Time For Thursday Health Care Hackery (And More)

If you’re thinking that all I ever do is post about health care anymore, I should tell you that that’s not correct, though you are close to the truth.

In today’s Philadelphia Inquirer, Former Senator Man-On-Dog laments the cost of the health care reform legislation here (as a former U.S. Senator, I’m sure he has no coverage issues concerning his own health care) and tells us the following…

Even after all this new spending, almost half a million Pennsylvanians would still be uninsured, according to the Lewin Group, a health-care consulting firm. And if a government plan modeled after Medicare became available to everyone, the firm predicts that a majority of privately insured Pennsylvanians would move to the government plan.

Oh, by the way, as Media Matters notes here, the Lewin Group is owned by United Healthcare, so don’t expect anything approximating a “fair and balanced” point of view (the Media Matters post also tells us of another sky high – and incorrect – enrollment estimate from Lewin…I would say there’s quite a difference between 88 million and 2 million.)

And here’s more from our former “family values” senator…

The health-care proposals could be financed partly through cuts in Medicare reimbursements to health-care providers. Pennsylvania ranks third, behind West Virginia and Maine, in the share of the population on Medicare. So not only would our doctors and hospitals be hurt disproportionately, but other insurance rates would go up as costs are shifted to the private sector.

Philadelphia also would feel a disproportionate impact. A proposed surtax on the “rich” to pay for expanded coverage would disproportionately strike higher incomes in the region. But the biggest hit would be to the region’s bioscience industry.

American health care was born in Philadelphia. The city boasts a list of national health-care firsts: first hospital, children’s hospital, medical school, cancer center, and more. Not surprisingly, those institutions are also among the nation’s best. This region leads the country, and our country leads the world in innovative medicine.

Why? Because private markets reward excellence and innovation. Government-managed systems won’t pay for either. With more than 40,000 people employed in bioscience jobs in the Philadelphia area, a shift away from quality and innovation would disproportionately penalize the region.

As noted here, the Philadelphia life sciences industry is funded also by the city and the state (I have no information on federal funding, and Santorum’s argument that enrollment in a government-funded public option could mean less for the life sciences industry from Uncle Sam is nothing more than typical propaganda).

But wait, there’s more!…

As to the climate bill, it would make coal Public Enemy No. 1, slapping enormous taxes on states that produce it and burn it for electricity. Pennsylvania is among the top five coal-producing states. More than 900 active mines employ more than 20,000 workers in the Commonwealth, in addition to almost 60,000 other jobs related to mining.

Taxing poor people in Appalachia for the benefit of California, New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey may be politically appealing to Democrats.

But is it change Pennsylvanians can believe in?

Demagoguery aside, Santorum actually has a point, shockingly enough. And that’s why ten Democratic senators, including PA’s Bob Casey and Arlen Specter, signed off on a letter that stated as follows (here)…

In a letter to Obama, the senators asked for a strong “border adjustment mechanism” to help U.S. industries adjustment to higher energy costs. Such a “mechanism” might include a tax or tariff against foreign manufacturers whose costs aren’t affected by the legislation.

“Any climate change legislation must prevent the export of jobs and related greenhouse gas emissions to countries that fail to take actions to combat the threat of global warming comparable to those taken by the United States,” the senators write.

And as long as I’m taking note of Little Ricky, this tells us that he’s been “making the stops” in Iowa. To do some ground work. For three years from now. Contemplating the “big chair” at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

It’s almost too scary for words.

Oh, and since it is Thursday, that means that it’s time once more for J.D. Mullane of the Bucks County Courier Times to inflict more nonsense on our public deliberation on health care reform (here…and by the way, read commenter “my2cents” for the reality-based perspective).

And today, that means attacking something else in the House version of the bill, and that would be Section 1233 (and in so doing, Mullane singles out Dem Congressman Earl Blumenauer of Oregon)…

Blumenauer, a lawyer, insists that Section 1233 is “carefully crafted” and “bipartisan” and that the “advance planning” it promotes is “voluntary.”

Yet, the word “voluntary” does not appear in the law. To be fair, neither does the word “mandatory.” This leaves the legal intent vague.

Blumenauer has denounced critics as “unhinged.” He has issued a “myth vs. fact” paper, insisting that Section 1233 “merely provides coverage under Medicare to have a conversation once every five years if – and only if – a patient wants to make his or her wishes known to a doctor.”

In fact, Section 1233 says more than that. A patient’s wishes may be “known” and “respected,” but the treatment a patient receives will be “guided by a coalition of stakeholders.” These include doctors, nurses, emergency medical technicians, long-term care facility managers, lawyers, hospice caregivers and state departments of health.

I read through Section 1233 from the bill (here), and I can’t find evidence of what Mullane is talking about. But in case I missed something, here is Section 1233 of the bill…

SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.
6 (a) MEDICARE.—
7 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861 of the Social
8 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended—
9 (A) in subsection (s)(2)—
10 (i) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of
11 subparagraph (DD);
12 (ii) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of
13 subparagraph (EE); and
14 (iii) by adding at the end the fol15
lowing new subparagraph:
16 ‘‘(FF) advance care planning consultation (as
17 defined in subsection (hhh)(1));’’; and
18 (B) by adding at the end the following new
19 subsection:
20 ‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation
21 ‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the
22 term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a con23
sultation between the individual and a practitioner de24
scribed in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning,
25 if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has
VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00424 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
425
•HR 3200 IH
1 not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such
2 consultation shall include the following:
3 ‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of ad4
vance care planning, including key questions and
5 considerations, important steps, and suggested peo6
ple to talk to.
7 ‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of ad8
vance directives, including living wills and durable
9 powers of attorney, and their uses.
10 ‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the
11 role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
12 ‘‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list
13 of national and State-specific resources to assist con14
sumers and their families with advance care plan15
ning, including the national toll-free hotline, the ad16
vance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal
17 service organizations (including those funded
18 through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
19 ‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the
20 continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail21
able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene22
fits for such services and supports that are available
23 under this title.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00425 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
426
•HR 3200 IH
1 ‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of
2 orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar
3 orders, which shall include—
4 ‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of
5 such an order is beneficial to the individual and
6 the individual’s family and the reasons why
7 such an order should be updated periodically as
8 the health of the individual changes;
9 ‘‘(II) the information needed for an indi10
vidual or legal surrogate to make informed deci11
sions regarding the completion of such an
12 order; and
13 ‘‘(III) the identification of resources that
14 an individual may use to determine the require15
ments of the State in which such individual re16
sides so that the treatment wishes of that indi17
vidual will be carried out if the individual is un18
able to communicate those wishes, including re19
quirements regarding the designation of a sur20
rogate decisionmaker (also known as a health
21 care proxy).
22 ‘‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement
23 for explanations under clause (i) to consultations
24 furnished in a State—
VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00426 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
427
•HR 3200 IH
1 ‘‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been
2 addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining
3 treatment to constitute a set of medical orders
4 respected across all care settings; and
5 ‘‘(II) that has in effect a program for or6
ders for life sustaining treatment described in
7 clause (iii).
8 ‘‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining
9 treatment for a States described in this clause is a
10 program that—
11 ‘‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized
12 and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
13 ‘‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such
14 orders to physicians and other health profes15
sionals that (acting within the scope of the pro16
fessional’s authority under State law) may sign
17 orders for life sustaining treatment;
18 ‘‘(III) provides training for health care
19 professionals across the continuum of care
20 about the goals and use of orders for life sus21
taining treatment; and
22 ‘‘(IV) is guided by a coalition of stake23
holders includes representatives from emergency
24 medical services, emergency department physi25
cians or nurses, state long-term care associa-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00427 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
428
•HR 3200 IH
1 tion, state medical association, state surveyors,
2 agency responsible for senior services, state de3
partment of health, state hospital association,
4 home health association, state bar association,
5 and state hospice association.
6 ‘‘(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is—
7 ‘‘(A) a physician (as defined in subsection
8 (r)(1)); and
9 ‘‘(B) a nurse practitioner or physician’s assist10
ant who has the authority under State law to sign
11 orders for life sustaining treatments.
12 ‘‘(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination
13 under subsection (WW), including any related discussion
14 during such examination, shall not be considered an ad15
vance care planning consultation for purposes of applying
16 the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).
17 ‘‘(B) An advance care planning consultation with re18
spect to an individual may be conducted more frequently
19 than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant
20 change in the health condition of the individual, including
21 diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a
22 life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening
23 injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a
24 long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or
25 a hospice program.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00428 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
429
•HR 3200 IH
1 ‘‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may in2
clude the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining
3 treatment or a similar order.
4 ‘‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order
5 regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect
6 to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to
7 the treatment of that individual that—
8 ‘‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as de9
fined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care
10 professional (as specified by the Secretary and who
11 is acting within the scope of the professional’s au12
thority under State law in signing such an order, in13
cluding a nurse practitioner or physician assistant)
14 and is in a form that permits it to stay with the in15
dividual and be followed by health care professionals
16 and providers across the continuum of care;
17 ‘‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s
18 preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, in19
cluding an indication of the treatment and care de20
sired by the individual;
21 ‘‘(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized
22 within a given locality, region, or State (as identified
23 by the Secretary); and
VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00429 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
430
•HR 3200 IH
1 ‘‘(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as
2 defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the in3
dividual.
4 ‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subpara5
graph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treat6
ment to an indication to limit some or all or specified
7 interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may in8
clude indications respecting, among other items—
9 ‘‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the
10 patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac
11 or pulmonary problems;
12 ‘‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer
13 to a hospital or remaining at the current care set14
ting;
15 ‘‘(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
16 ‘‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutri17
tion and hydration.’’.
18 (2) PAYMENT.—Section 1848(j)(3) of such Act
19 (42 U.S.C. 1395w–4(j)(3)) is amended by inserting
20 ‘‘(2)(FF),’’ after ‘‘(2)(EE),’’.
21 (3) FREQUENCY LIMITATION.—Section 1862(a)
22 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is amended—
23 (A) in paragraph (1)—
24 (i) in subparagraph (N), by striking
25 ‘‘and’’ at the end;
VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00430 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
431
•HR 3200 IH
1 (ii) in subparagraph (O) by striking
2 the semicolon at the end and inserting ‘‘,
3 and’’; and
4 (iii) by adding at the end the fol5
lowing new subparagraph:
6 ‘‘(P) in the case of advance care planning
7 consultations (as defined in section
8 1861(hhh)(1)), which are performed more fre9
quently than is covered under such section;’’;
10 and
11 (B) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘or (K)’’
12 and inserting ‘‘(K), or (P)’’.
13 (4) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made
14 by this subsection shall apply to consultations fur15
nished on or after January 1, 2011.
16 (b) EXPANSION OF PHYSICIAN QUALITY REPORTING
17 INITIATIVE FOR END OF LIFE CARE.—
18 (1) PHYSICIAN’S QUALITY REPORTING INITIA19
TIVE.—Section 1848(k)(2) of the Social Security Act
20 (42 U.S.C. 1395w–4(k)(2)) is amended by adding at
21 the end the following new paragraphs:
22 ‘‘(3) PHYSICIAN’S QUALITY REPORTING INITIA23
TIVE.—
24 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of re25
porting data on quality measures for covered
VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00431 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
432
•HR 3200 IH
1 professional services furnished during 2011 and
2 any subsequent year, to the extent that meas3
ures are available, the Secretary shall include
4 quality measures on end of life care and ad5
vanced care planning that have been adopted or
6 endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if
7 appropriate. Such measures shall measure both
8 the creation of and adherence to orders for life9
sustaining treatment.
10 ‘‘(B) PROPOSED SET OF MEASURES.—The
11 Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register
12 proposed quality measures on end of life care
13 and advanced care planning that the Secretary
14 determines are described in subparagraph (A)
15 and would be appropriate for eligible profes16
sionals to use to submit data to the Secretary.
17 The Secretary shall provide for a period of pub18
lic comment on such set of measures before fi19
nalizing such proposed measures.’’.
20 (c) INCLUSION OF INFORMATION IN MEDICARE &
21 YOU HANDBOOK.—
22 (1) MEDICARE & YOU HANDBOOK.—
23 (A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year
24 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
25 Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00432 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
433
•HR 3200 IH
1 update the online version of the Medicare &
2 You Handbook to include the following:
3 (i) An explanation of advance care
4 planning and advance directives, includ5
ing—
6 (I) living wills;
7 (II) durable power of attorney;
8 (III) orders of life-sustaining
9 treatment; and
10 (IV) health care proxies.
11 (ii) A description of Federal and State
12 resources available to assist individuals
13 and their families with advance care plan14
ning and advance directives, including—
15 (I) available State legal service
16 organizations to assist individuals
17 with advance care planning, including
18 those organizations that receive fund19
ing pursuant to the Older Americans
20 Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 93001 et
21 seq.);
22 (II) website links or addresses for
23 State-specific advance directive forms;
24 and
VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00433 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
434
•HR 3200 IH
1 (III) any additional information,
2 as determined by the Secretary.
3 (B) UPDATE OF PAPER AND SUBSEQUENT
4 VERSIONS.—The Secretary shall include the in5
formation described in subparagraph (A) in all
6 paper and electronic versions of the Medicare &
7 You Handbook that are published on or after
8 the date that is 1 year after the date of the en9
actment of this Act.

Everybody got that? Good.

And as noted here…

Many observers now today write in the media that erroneous interpretations of Section 1233 of Health Care Reform Bill is (sic)very “egregious,” as it involves the lives of our senior citizens. The erroneous interpretation is that the government will counsel the senior citizens every five years on how to end their lives early. This is outrageous interpretation of end of life planning.

What the Section 1233 of the Health Care Reform Bill really reads is that “Medicare will pay for an “advance care planning consultation” once every five years. Section 1233 is actually creating a new benefit for seniors that will be paid for by Medicare. It will only pay for one consultation every five years unless the patient’s health changes. If that happens, the provision then calls for Medicare to pay for a new consultation when the change in health occurs,” explains SV Herald.

(More information is available here.)

By the way, I actually visited J.D. Mullane’s blog yesterday (where common sense goes home to die) and found out that his column will, according to Mullane, now “run…in the Burlington County Times, our sister newspaper across the river, beginning September. I’m looking forward to covering the governor’s race, one of the highest profile matchup’s in the country. With the Courier, the Intel in Doylestown and the Burlington paper, the audience expands to more than 100,000 readers.”

I just thought anyone out there who was thinking of renewing their subscription to the Courier Times (and who may be reading this) should know that Mullane’s publisher thinks rank propaganda should be rewarded instead of punished.

And newspapers wonder why they’re losing circulation…

Thursday Mashup (8/6/09)

From the “We Decide, Then Report” file, John Lott tells us the following from Fix Noise (here, taking an off day from compiling statistics on how much safer we would be if we all had assault rifles, no doubt)…

Only in Washington could a program that is spending money 13 times faster than was planned be labeled a “success.” The “cash-for-clunkers” program ground to a halt last week because in less than a week, a program that was supposed to last until November 1, had spent the entire $1 billion allocated to it. Let’s just hope that the government takeover of the rest of the health care industry doesn’t result in similar “success.”

Meanwhile, in the reality based community (here)…

The Obama administration’s much-maligned “cash-for-clunkers” trade-in system has made an immediate and indisputable impact on the struggling U.S. auto industry, with consumers flocking to dealerships in numbers not seen in years and auto companies posting strong sales they directly attribute to the government program.

Ford announced on Monday that their July U.S. auto sales were up a strong 2.3% over results from one year ago, a result that company executives linked to “cash-for-clunkers.”

And as noted here, the Senate is expected to vote on authorizing $2 billion more of funding for the program today.

Yes, I’ve read that this is expected to create a mini “auto bubble” also (funny – I wish more people noting that had paid attention to the housing and dot.com “bubbles” as well), with a likely dropoff to occur when the program ends, but who knows for sure? And how can it be a bad thing when the auto industry shows signs of life?

As noted here…

If the Senate approves the additional money, it’s likely to lead automakers to increase production and bring back laid-off workers. Many automakers reported low inventories due to increased sales from the program at the end of July. Already Hyundai Motor Co. has added a day of production to its Montgomery, Ala., plant, and Ford is considering increases.

Ford’s chief financial officer, Lewis Booth, said Wednesday night the company would decide this month and make an announcement in early September.

Among states, Michigan has taken most advantage of the program, requesting more than $44 million in vehicle vouchers. California dealers had requested nearly $40 million in vouchers, and Ohio had sought nearly $38 million.

Senate passage would send the legislation to the White House for Obama’s signature and assure consumers there will be no interruption in the program that has led to packed car dealerships nationwide.

The deals are aimed at boosting auto sales, which have been at their lowest levels in two decades.

Which of course means that the program is opposed by the Repugs, including Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, a state which, to the best of my knowledge, manufactures no automobiles whatsoever (maybe armored, but that’s it).

As noted here, President Obama is going to visit Bozeman, MT next week to pitch health care reform. As this story tells us, this is the first visit of a sitting president to this area of “big sky country.”

(And gosh, J.D. Mullane of the Bucks County Courier Times actually didn’t trash health care reform today, but wrote about a “missing ape sculpture” instead…insert your snark here).

Maybe while Obama and his entourage are staying over, someone could remind Repug State Rep Michael More that introducing language in a bill that could be potentially interpreted to justify an armed insurrection against this country isn’t a good idea (here).

And the both the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are coming under attack for the following based on this (as if Obama doesn’t have enough to do – he’s been in An Oval Office for how long now? Six months and two weeks?)…

President Obama got lots of attention last month for his drop-in visit to Ghana after the G20 meeting in Italy, where he blasted African leaders for misruling the continent and condemning its people to poverty and backwardness. “Repression can take many forms, and too many nations, even those that have elections, are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty,” said Obama. “No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there. And now is the time for that style of governance to end.”

They were fine words. But not much else. Obama didn’t single out any particular leader for criticism, and he gave the speech in Ghana, one of Africa’s handful of functional democracies. In her own trip to Africa this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will visit bright spots like South Africa, Cape Verde, and Liberia. But she also has a perfect opportunity to name and shame the continent’s worst leaders. There’s only one problem: she’s going to blow it.

See how our corporate media cousins have moved from magnifying perceived misdeeds of the Obama Administration to now forecasting what they will do wrong instead; Newsweek must be in possession of tarot cards, tea leaves, an Ouija board, and maybe even Harry Potter’s wand…amazing!

The article specifically singles out Umaru Yar’Adua of Nigeria, Mwai Kibaki, of Kenya and Joseph Kabila of the Congo as people who are particularly bad actors. And yes, Hillary Clinton has said here that not having a USAID agency head named by the White House is “frustrating beyond words.”

But I think the following should be considered (from here)…

The Obama administration inherited a foreign aid system starved of civilian experts and burdened by a bewildering array of mandates. USAID’s full-time staff shrank by 40 percent over the past two decades, but the assistance it oversees doubled, to $13.2 billion in 2008. The agency has a skeleton crew of technical experts, with four engineers for the entire world, Clinton noted recently. Increasingly, USAID has become a conduit for money flowing to contractors, who have limited supervision from the agency.

As USAID has weakened, foreign assistance programs have proliferated across government agencies, especially the military, causing duplication and confusion. Meanwhile, aid budgets have been saddled with presidential directives, “buy America” provisions and congressional earmarks that raise the cost of aid and reduce its effectiveness, development specialists say.

“In the USAID budget, every dollar has three purposes: help build an Air Force base, support the University of Mississippi, get some country to vote our way,” said the Rev. David Beckmann, president of the aid group Bread for the World, describing the plethora of political claims attached to aid. The development program, he said, “is a mess.”

The waste of billions of U.S. reconstruction dollars in Iraq and the growing role of development in the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan have given new urgency to long-running debates about reforming the aid system.

And as noted here (last year)…

…the United States currently provides economic aid and security assistance to such repressive African regimes as Swaziland, Congo, Cameroon, Togo, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Rwanda, Gabon, Egypt, and Tunisia. None of these countries holds free elections, and all have severely suppressed their political opposition.

Among the worst of these African tyrannies has been the regime of Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea. Obiang has been in power even longer than the 28-year reign of (Robert) Mugabe and, according to a recent article in the British newspaper The Independent, makes the Zimbabwean dictator “seem stable and benign” by comparison. Obiang originally seized power in a 1979 coup by murdering his uncle, who had ruled the country since its independence from Spain in 1968. Under his rule, Equatorial Guinea nominally allowed the existence of opposition parties as a condition of receiving foreign aid in the early 1990s. But the four leading candidates withdrew from the last presidential election in December 2002 in protest of irregularities in the voting process and violence against their supporters. In that election, Obiang officially received more than 97 percent of the vote (down from 99.5 percent in the previous election.)

Though the U.S. State Department acknowledged that the election was “marred by extensive fraud and intimidation,” the Congress and the administration devoted none of the vehement condemnation that was so evident after the recent, similarly marred election process in Zimbabwe.

One major reason for the difference in response is oil. The development of vast oil reserves over the past decade has made Equatorial Guinea one of the wealthiest countries in Africa in terms of per capita gross domestic product. Virtually all of the oil revenues, however, goes to Obiang and his cronies. The dictator himself is worth an estimated $1 billion, making him the wealthiest leader in Africa; his real estate holdings include two mansions in Maryland just outside of Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the country’s population lives on only a few dollars a day, and nearly half of all children under five are malnourished. The country’s major towns and cities lack basic sanitation and potable water, while conditions in the countryside are even worse.

During his most recent visit to Washington in 2006, Obiang was warmly received by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who praised the dictator as “a good friend” of the United States. Not once during their joint appearance did she mention the words “human rights” or “democracy.” At the same press conference, Obiang praised his regime’s “extremely good relations with the United States” and his expectation that “this relationship will continue to grow in friendship and cooperation.” None of the assembled reporters raised any questions about the regime’s notorious human rights record or its lack of democracy, instead using the opportunity to ask Secretary Rice questions about the alleged threat from Iran.

Does Obama have work to do in Africa? Yes. Does our Democratic Congress? Uh huh. And our media? Bueller?

Did Dubya have work to do? Next question.

Now, Newsweek, since we’ve settled all this for now, can you just report stories like grownups again for a change?

And finally, this tells us the following…

After a period of relatively low bankruptcy filings during 2006-07, U.S. consumer bankruptcies rose sharply in 2008 and continue to climb in 2009. Consumer filings reached 126,434 in July, the highest monthly total since the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) was implemented in October 2005, and pushed the consumer total for the first seven months of 2009 past 800,000 filings.

Just to refresh our memories, here are the brave souls who opposed this horrible law (all Dems)…

Daniel Akaka
Barbara Boxer
Maria Cantwell
Jon Corzine
Mark Dayton
Christopher Dodd
Byron Dorgan
Dick Durbin
Russ Feingold
Dianne Feinstein
Tom Harkin
Ted Kennedy
John Kerry
Frank Lautenberg
Patrick Leahy
Carl Levin
Joe Lieberman
Barbara Mikulski
Patty Murray
Barack Obama
Jack Reed
Jay Rockefeller
Paul Sarbannes
Chuck Schumer
Ron Wyden

And here are the cowards who supported it (Dems are noted)…

Wayne Allard
Lamar Alexander
George Allen
Kay Bailey Hutchison
Max Baucus (d)
Evan Bayh (d)
Bob Bennett
Joe Biden (d)
Jeff Bingaman (d)
Christopher “Kit” Bond
Sam Brownback
Jim Bunning
Conrad Burns
Richard Burr
Robert Byrd (d)
Tom Carper (d)
Lincoln Chaffee
Saxby Chambliss
Tom Coburn
Thad Cochran
Norm Coleman
Susan Collins
John Cornyn
Kent Conrad (d)
Larry Craig
Mike Crapo
Jim DeMint
Mike DeWine
Elizabeth Dole
Pete Domenici
John Ensign
Mike Enzi
Bill Frist
Lindsay Graham
Charles Grassley (he sponsored it)
Judd Gregg
Chuck Hagel
Orrin Hatch
John Isakson
Jim Inhofe
Daniel Inouye (d)
Jim Jeffords (i)
Tim Johnson (d)
Herb Kohl (d)
Jon Kyl
Mary Landrieu (d)
Blanche Lincoln (d)
Trent Lott
Richard Lugar
Mel Martinez
John McCain
Mitch McConnell
Lisa Murkowski
Ben Nelson (d)
Bill Nelson (d)
Mark Pryor (d)
Harry Reid (d)
Pat Roberts
Ken Salazar (d)
Rick Santorum
Jeff Sessions
Richard Shelby
Gordon Smith
Olympia Snowe
Arlen Specter (d?)
Debbie Stabenow (d)
Ted Stevens
John Sununu
Jim Talent
Craig Thomas
John Thune
David Vitter
George Voinovich
John Warner

(And Hillary Clinton voted Present, which I think is questionable also.)

A pox on those “Yes” voters for all time…

Monday Mashup (7/13/09)

Just trying to take care of some stuff before I get out of here for a few days…

The Bucks County, PA Courier Times ran a letter yesterday from local Repug Party chairman Harry Fawkes criticizing Patrick Murphy over alleged improprieties with defense contractor Kuchera Systems and co-owner Bill Kuchera; the firm was barred from doing business with the Navy in May.

For the record, Courier Times reporter Gary Weckselblatt told us the following in this story…

Kuchera Defense Systems Inc., a family-run business from western Pennsylvania, supported Murphy with $9,200 in donations to his campaign.

…

On March 6, 2008, both men gave $2,300 each to Murphy. Lisa Kuchera and Lena C. Kuchera also gave Murphy $2,300 each on the same day, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a government watchdog group that tracks campaign donations.

Murphy did not respond to several requests for comment Friday.

Murphy, who received $28,750 from PMA’s lobbyists and their spouses, previously said he donated that money to charity after the revelations of an FBI probe.

He has obtained at least $5.6 million in congressionally directed funds known as “earmarks” for PMA clients, including one that partnered with Kuchera.

Someone please explain to me how Murphy has personally benefitted from this relationship (of course, I can expect evenhanded impartiality from Fawkes the same day Sarah Palin is elected president – maybe I’d better not joke too much about that, though, since stranger things have happened…and by the way, kudos to Patrick once more for taking the lead on trying to repeal DADT).

(Oh, and one more thing – it’s particularly hilarious for Fawkes to compare Murphy to former congressman Mikey Fitzpatrick, given that Patrick returned the $28K in PMA money, whereas Mikey…well, check this out.)

I also found this item from phillyburbs last Friday…

(Thumbs Up) To state Rep. Steve Santarsiero, D-Bucks, and three of his colleagues for a package of reform bills that would make state government more “open, honest, transparent and responsible with tax dollars.”

So says state Rep. Richard Mirabito, D-Lycoming, who introduced bills that would establish a searchable Web site to track state expenses over $1,000, and restrict the awarding of contracts that would yield a financial payoff for public officials or their families.

Santarsiero, a former Lower Makefield supervisor who represents the 31st Legislative District, introduced a bill jointly with State Rep. Paul Drucker, D-Chester/Montgomery, that would require lawmakers to contribute 1 percent of their salary toward the cost of taxpayer-funded health benefits.

“I think our colleagues understand that it’s only fair that we contribute toward health-care costs, particularly in these tough economic times,” Santarsiero said.

The Courier Times also notes that 1 percent is a pretty low number, which is true. However, cleaning out the Harrisburg patronage trough is something that, if it is to be accomplished at all, will have to be done in incremental steps like this one.

And in a wholly other vein, I came across this from conservative celebrity Ben Stein in the New York Times yesterday (his main talking point here is that President Obama is trying to accomplish too much on the economy, health care, energy, and the wars – as if Obama actually has a choice, I say to myself)…

I don’t believe we need to do something radical about energy, but even assuming that we do, why do it right now? Do we need to take one of the few sectors that is working like clockwork through the recession — oil refining — and wring its neck by making it pay for pollution “cap and trade” credits? Why attack a healthy industry when so many other sectors are ill? What is all of this anger at Big Oil, which has not done anything blameworthy, all about? Why endlessly beat up the companies that keep the country going?

Apologizing for energy interests in this country (ExxonMobil in particular, noted here, in which the former “Ferris Bueller” star claimed that the mega-energy giant “needs a hug”) is familiar territory for Stein; also noted in the prior post from March of last year are remarks from Robert A.G. Monks, the longtime shareholder activist who holds 100,000 XOM shares through a family trust, who said ExxonMobil is “unwilling to acknowledge that they live in a world where they are accountable.”

More to the point, though, Paul Krugman tells us the following from here today about the economic and climate crises; in the latter case, you can consider this as more or less in response to Stein’s claim that a policy of “cap and trade” credits would “wring the neck” of Big Oil…

At this point, the central forecast of leading climate models — not the worst-case scenario but the most likely outcome — is utter catastrophe, a rise in temperatures that will totally disrupt life as we know it, if we continue along our present path. How to head off that catastrophe should be the dominant policy issue of our time.

But it isn’t, because climate change is a creeping threat rather than an attention-grabbing crisis. The full dimensions of the catastrophe won’t be apparent for decades, perhaps generations. In fact, it will probably be many years before the upward trend in temperatures is so obvious to casual observers that it silences the skeptics. Unfortunately, if we wait to act until the climate crisis is that obvious, catastrophe will already have become inevitable.

This Wikipedia article on Stein tells us, among other things, that he basically “blew off” the warning signs concerning the economic calamity we current face when those signs appeared in 2007. Unlike our economy, though, there is no chance of a “do over” when Stein is proven wrong once more concerning the gradual melting of our planet.

(And with that, I now take my leave – I’ll plan to reappear once more in about a week.)

Update 7/17/09: And speaking of Stein, this positively screams for a blogger ethics panel (h/t Atrios).

Update 8/8/09: Awww, what a shame – not! (here).

Crying Out Still For “Drill, Baby, Drill”?

Given this story from last August, with the U.S. House Repugs calling their special session over the summer recess as a P.R. gesture to try and lower oil prices (and blaming the Dems in the process, of course), I wonder is Messrs. Hensarling, Shadegg, Boehner et al are actually going to give the Dems credit for this?

I know the answer, but I’m compelled to ask anyway.

“The Answer’s Right In Front Of Us”

Yes it is; to do more, click here.

Upbraiding “Governor Hottie” on UNCLOS

This Think Progress post tells us that Our Gal Sarah Palin, despite being a self-professed “energy expert,” misstated the energy production of her home state, claiming that Alaska “produces 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy,” when it fact she would have been more on the mark to say that her state produces that much in oil; I mean, she still would have been wrong (the number is about 14 percent), but at least she would have been closer to the truth (this was noted in the excellent report on her by NBC News, the video of which I embedded last night here).

So I’ll tell you what, Governor “I-Didn’t-Blink-Well-Then-Again-Maybe-I-Did,” I’ll give you a chance to reclaim your footing a bit on this issue, you might say.

What do you think of UNCLOS?

I mean, I can pretty much guarantee that you would oppose it, since it enables the U.N. to be arbiter of jurisdictional matters regarding a country’s marine assets (it should be noted that the Wikipedia article states that Bushco favors ratification, which to me is a shocking acknowledgement that we belong to a community of nations from our ruling cabal of outlaws).

Here is a prior post on the matter so you can read more about it, as they say (it should be noted that Jim Inhofe leads the opposition to UNCLOS in the Senate, which tells you a lot right there, along with the fact that Lou Dobbs opposes it also, as noted here).

And just to make it easier for you, I should note that your opposite party VP nominee Joe Biden favors it. So for a self-professed “energy expert” such as yourself, you shouldn’t have too difficult of a time formulating a stand, particularly since it has such a nearby impact, you might say (and also, Medvedev and Russia have ratified UNCLOS and are ready to seize “black gold” right in your backyard, as noted here).

Oh, and one more thing: I really can’t see how you lose on this issue, when you think about it. Even if you support UNCLOS and it is eventually ratified by Congress but you still end up losing out on the oil to Medvedev, you and your AIP pals can always secede and join Russia, accomplishing your professed goal and getting a piece of the petroleum action in the bargain.

Update: And by the way, in other “Governor Hottie” news, would you call this the “nuclear option” for trying to bring the “Troopergate” investigation to a screeching halt?