Viagra for Sex Offenders Coming Soon to a Health Benefit Exchange Near You

Readers may recall  Senator Coburn's amendment to the reconciliation sidecar legislation that would prevent sex offenders from receiving taxpayer funded Viagra and other erectile drug therapies. Politico posted the text of the amendment March 23rd, noting Republicans were doing their best to derail the reconciliation package by forcing Democrats to take some hard votes to avoid sending the bill back to the House:

No Erectile Dysfunction Drugs To Sex Offenders – This amendment would enact recommendations from the Government Accountability Office to stop fraudulent payments for prescription drugs prescribed by dead providers or, to dead patients. This amendment also prohibits coverage of Viagra and other ED medications to convicted child molesters, rapists, and sex offenders, and prohibits coverage of abortion drugs. (Note: the creation of exchanges could allow sex offenders to receive taxpayer-funded Viagra and other ED drugs unless Congress expressly prohibits this action – see additional background attached)

No one appears to have taken Coburn's warning very seriously and it was too much to hope they read the additional background material Coburn provided.  The amendment failed in a 57-42 vote and was later described as ""a crass political stunt aimed at making 30-second (political) commercials.”" by Senator Max Baucus.  Baucus further suggested the amendment made a "mockery" of a serious bill.  Baucus might want to rethink which was the serious bill and which was the "mockery."  Both Roll Call and Fox News  report on a Congressional Research Service memo that confirms there is indeed nothing in the new law that would prevent sex offenders from receiving Viagra through taxpayer subsidized health benefit exchanges just as Coburn warned:

The CRS said there are no provisions in the new health care law "which would require health plans to limit the type of benefits that can be offered based on the plan beneficiary's prior criminal convictions."

"Additionally, there do not appear to be any provisions that would specifically restrict qualified health plans' coverage of drugs prescribed to treat ED," the memo read.

"Therefore, a convicted rapist, child molester, or other sex offender who is not incarcerated would not appear to be excluded from enrolling in a qualified health plan through an American Health Benefit Exchange in their state solely because of that conviction," the memo added.

Senate Democrats failed in their efforts to spare the House another vote.  Was it all worth it, the second House vote passed with more of a whimper than a bang.   Now it seems the Democrats are the ones who are left to sort out the sordid details of their own bill.  Does that amendment vote still look good in the light of day?   I'll bet not, though Democrats aren't likely to admit regrets for having chosen the blue pill.  The deed is done and Democrats now face what is bound to be the world's longest "walk of shame."  Expect the video sometime before November.

Legislation Addresses Mal-distribution of Income

Real Clear Politics has the video but here is the money quote of the day:

Sen. Max Baucus (D): "Too often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

Where exactly might I find the bit in the Constitution that enables the Federal Government to address the mal-distribution of income? Evidently there were no dictionaries on hand in 1787 and the poor Founding Fathers confused enumerated with innumerable. Who knew?

Max Baucus Impersonates Drunken Sailor on Spending Binge

I am not sure if this is Best Drunk Dude Ever Tries to Buy More Beer Part II or if Baucus is punch drunk from all the kool aid the Democrats were forced to swallow to pass their health care bill. Could be he is totally sleep deprived after they worked for 24 days straight to pass the rotten lousy health care bill before Christmas. In any case this video is pretty pathetic as Baucus slurs and rambles through a rant against the Republicans who opposed the health care bill:



I am fairly certain the synapses are not firing as they should because Democrats seem to be under the mistaken impression those who say no to their drunken out of control spending binges are going to be in trouble with voters next year. Even their own pollsters are having a hard time believing the fauxtrage against Republicans has any hope of sticking:"

“People are angry and what Democrats are trying to do is channel that anger,” said Democratic pollster Doug Schoen. “You’ve got to displace the anger onto the Republicans. If they can do that, Democrats have some hope but right now things are looking increasingly bleak every day.”

Schoen was blunt about the challenge Democrats are facing next fall. “The Democrats are trying to stem the bleeding,” the former pollster for President Bill Clinton said. “Obama’s in a free fall and, unless they stem the bleeding, they’re going to face unprecedented losses.”

If I were a betting woman, I would think the odds might just favor anyone who stood up and opposed the health care debacle the drunken Democrats have tried to ram through without a single Republican vote. Baucus' rant is the epitome of delusional displaced anger because they know they are doing themselves in with their own legislation. I personally hope they continue to rant and rave about the party of no, ramp it up and keep it coming. Someone needs to announce the keg is tapped, we're out of beer.

CBO Sees Diminished Quality of Care and Reduced Access

Via Memeorandum

Bill Kristol writes in The Weekly Standard there are ten key words to remember from page 19 of the CBO letter on the Manager's Amendment to the Senate health care bill. These 10 words are highlighted in bold below:

Based on the extrapolation described above, CBO expects that Medicare spending under the legislation would increase at an average annual rate of roughly 6 percent during the next two decades--well below the roughly 8 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades (excluding the effect of establishing the Medicare prescription drug benefit). Adjusting for inflation, Medicare spending per beneficiary under the legislation would increase at an average annual rate of less than 2 percent during the next two decades--about half of the roughly 4 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades. It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care."

While the CBO analysis has been touted as proof of the fiscal soundness of the health care legislation, a claim that is demonstrably false by the way, achieving those goals absent greater efficiencies in the delivery of care will likely result in diminished quality of care and/or reduced access to care.  James Capretta elaborates:

Similarly, the Medicare cuts assume that hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies and others can survive with a permanent annual cut in their payment rates for presumed productivity gains. Medicare’s chief actuary has already signaled that this reduction could push one in five hospitals into insolvency, thus forcing them out of the Medicare program.

 I recommend reading Capretta's analysis of the budget gimmicks and tricks included in the amendment which were likely written solely to get a better "score" from the CBO.  Director Elmendorf of the CBO had a seat at the grownup table, you may recall,  where the much anticipated Baucus bill was written.  Clearly, over time, the Senate has learned how to write or propose legislation that scores well at least theoretically.  Practical application of the savings and cuts have always had a caveat in the CBO analysis.  It is quite likely the smoke and mirror savings may never materialize, the reduced access or diminished quality of care almost certainly will materialize as millions are added to an unreformed system.

White House, Congressional Dems and AARP Conspire to Keep Seniors From Truth about Medicare Advantage Cuts

The AP reported yesterday the Department of Health and Human Services is investigating Humana at the urging of Senator Max Baucus for daring to inform their beneficiaries of impending cuts to their Medicare Advantage programs. Baucus accuses Humana of misleading seniors:

"It is wholly unacceptable for insurance companies to mislead seniors regarding any subject — particularly on a subject as important to them, and to the nation, as health care reform," Baucus said Monday, disclosing the HHS investigation.

Were there such a  charge as misleading seniors, who was actually doing the misleading?  President Obama denied cuts to Medicare Advantage would result in loss of coverage in his interview with George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday.  A CBO analysis released this evening, however, contradicts the Presidents claim.   Director Elmendorf  states the changes "would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans."  The White House and Congressional Dems appear to have been heavily invested in keeping this information from the seniors who would take substantial cuts in their benefits.

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal , GOP  leaders are calling the investigation nothing more than a gag order.    GOP.gov states Humana was actually  in violation of a White House edict preventing insurers from communicating with their beneficiaries, an edict which applied to all but one organization, the AARP:

Yet the Administration's edict prohibiting plans from communicating with their beneficiaries failed to include AARP, which sponsors a Medicare Advantage plan but has been a prime advocate of Democrats' government takeover of health care-quite possibly because AARP has been supporting a health care overhaul from which it stands to gain overall handsomely. Even as AARP advocates for cutting Medicare Advantage plans by more than $150 billion, an analysis of the organization's operations reveals that it stands to receive tens of millions of dollars at the expense of seniors' medical care-with Democrats' full approval.

GOP.gov explains how AARP  will benefit from the cuts to Medicare Advantage at the expense of the seniors they purport to represent:

Because the government-run Medicare benefit is less generous than most private health plans, the independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission found in June that more than nine in ten seniors not in nursing home settings utilize some form of Medicare supplemental insurance. While many of these individuals currently rely on Medicare Advantage plans for the extra benefits they provide to seniors, many would be forced to purchase supplemental Medigap policies should their existing Medicare Advantage plans be taken away from them due to Democrats' government takeover of health care.

Michelle Malkin  elaborates on this, citing the explanation from a Hill source who also suggests seniors fare better under Medicare Advantage plans while the plans also achieve greater efficiencies and savings.  Be sure to read her entire post where she lists the complete case laid out by GOP.gov in addition to the explanation from the Hill source.  Further evidence the AARP is no stranger to selling out the seniors they represent can be found in a December article by Gary Cohn and Darrell Preston on Bloomberg.com.  Phillip Klein at The American Spectator has an emailed response from the AARP that fails to address specific charges, choosing instead to hide behind claims of scare tactics and "death panels."

Clearly the White House, Congressional Democrats and the AARP have made a concerted effort to keep the seniors who stand to lose substantial benefits in the dark until legislation is passed.  The absurd investigation of Humana suggests there are no limits to the means they will use to achieve that end.   This is far from the transparent process then candidate Obama promised health care reform would be.  Set aside the promises of hearings shown on CSpan that never materialized, gag orders and cozy agreements with AARP can only be the tip of the "dirty little secrets" iceberg.   Each new revelation should give any of the 43% who still support this debacle more than a moments pause to wonder what's next.