† Nationalized Healthcare Always Leads To Rationing: Kidney specialists say that a law passed by Congress in 1972 that pays for kidney dialysis for patients in end-stage kidney disease that “was meant to keep young and middle-aged people alive and productive” has had the “unintended consequence” that “many of the patients who take advantage of the law are old and have other medical problems” and they want doctors to tell the oldsters that “even though they are entitled to dialysis, they may want to decline such treatment and enter a hospice instead,” reports The New York Times:

One idea, promoted by leading specialists, is to change the way doctors refer to the decision to forgo dialysis. Instead of saying that a patient is withdrawing from dialysis or agreeing not to start it, these specialists say the patient has chosen “medical management without dialysis.”

“That is the preferred term,” said Nancy Armistead, executive director of the Mid-Atlantic Renal Coalition, a Medicare contractor that collects data and patient grievances.

The phrase, she says, “acknowledges that death is imminent,” but it also sends an important message: “We are not just sending people home to die. We are offering palliative care.”

Dialysis is difficult, especially for the old and sick. Most of the nation’s 400,000 dialysis patients spend several hours, three days a week, hooked up to a machine, and additional time traveling back and forth to the clinic. …

[A] 78-year-old woman whose name is being withheld, was not a good candidate for dialysis, her doctors said. She has complications from diabetes, high blood pressure, a heart valve problem and severe coronary artery disease. Her medical problems were so grave that dialysis was likely to lead to a series of medical interventions — hospital stays, drugs and doctor visits — but would not necessarily prolong her life. And her doctors told her that.

But she insisted on dialysis, saying, “Some life is better than no life.” In the seven months she has been on dialysis, she has been hospitalized four times, including twice for heart surgery.

“I go to dialysis because I want to live,” she said in a telephone interview. “I want dialysis.”

If we must discuss rationing access to taxpayer-financed dialysis, why not start the conversation with illegals (last item) before deciding to pull the plug on grandma’s machine?

† Duke DA Says He 'Maybe Got Carried Away': Four years after three Duke lacrosse players filed suit against former NC prosecutor Mike Nifong and the City of Durham in “one of the most chilling episodes of premeditated police, prosecutorial and scientific misconduct in modern American history,” U.S. District Judge James A. Beaty Jr., has declined to dismiss their claims that their constitutional rights were violated through malicious prosecution, concealment of evidence and fabrication of false evidence, and the case will proceed to trial, reports The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog:

“The intentional use of false or misleading evidence before a grand jury to obtain an indictment and arrest without probable cause is exactly the type of unreasonable search and seizure that the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect against,” the judge ruled.

In 2006, Nifong conducted almost 100 media interviews in which he said he had “no doubt” the athletes had engaged in a racially motivated rape, according to Bloomberg.  But the director of a local DNA lab later admitted he and Nifong agreed to withhold evidence that probably would show that the team members did not commit rape.

However, Beaty dismissed the players’ conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.

† Media Irrelevancy – A Self-Inflicted Wound: Former CIA Counterterrorism analyst Michael Scheuer called out CNN’s Christine Romans for pro-Obama bias, reports Mediaite:

Scheuer was adamant that the U.S. should never have gotten involved in Libya because “I’m not sure that the opposition, if it takes power, is going to be much better than was Gaddafi.” …

Scheuer then concluded that when no American interests are at stake, we should not be spending money “at a time when we’re nearly bankrupt.” However, Romans disagreed with the argument, suggesting that the problems in the national economy and Libya were two separarte [sic] issues. Scheuer laughed and attacked back, “their not separate issues ma’am, you’re just carrying the water for Mr. Obama.” Romans, not eager for that to be the last word, passionately responded, “I’m certainly not carrying anyone’s water! And, I will assure you of that.” 

† Higher Taxes For Thee, But Not For Me: In an E-mail to supporters, lefty outfits MoveOn.org and Progressives United called for General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt to step down as the head of the White House’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness after a New York Times article revealed that GE paid no federal taxes on profits of $14 billion in 2010: “One of the chief ways GE avoids paying taxes is by shifting a large portion of its profits overseas, and jobs follow. Now GE’s CEO is the person charged with helping the President create jobs here in America. That’s just perverse.”

† Boobs And Brains Not Mutually Exclusive: The latest example of "boobism" - the last acceptable form of anti-woman bias, Agence France-Presse reports that Mayor Gerard Cordon of the French town Neuville-en-Ferrain wants to replace a bust of Marianne – the national emblem of the French Republic – because it is, well, too busty: 

Mayor Gerard Cordon persuaded councillors to approve 900 euros (1,280 US dollars) in this year's budget to buy a replacement, a more conventional bust of Marianne modelled on the statuesque French model Laetitia Casta.

The artist who made the rejected bust, Catherine Lamacque, said she gave it outsized breasts deliberately, "to symbolise the generosity of the Republic." …

Another town hall official who asked not to be named said he regretted the bust's removal, which was done "not by a joint decision but by the mayor alone."

† Updates To Previous Posts (penultimate item, Restorative Capital Punishment): After the Drug Enforcement Administration seized GA’s supply of sodium thiopental, used in the three-drug lethal injection cocktail because of questions of how and where it was obtained, KY has surrendered its supply of the sedative to the agency “to be used as evidence in a case in another jurisdiction”, reports The Associated Press. Supplies of sodium thiopental are dwindling in AZ, AR, CA, GA, NE and TN since U.S. manufacturer Hospira Inc., stopped making the drug earlier this year.

† Updates To Previous Posts (last item, There’s No Such Thing As Free Healthcare): The MA Inspector General says that the state’s Uncompensated Care Pool for the uninsured has shelled out $7 million for nonresidents (it is unclear whether the nonresidents are citizens who live in other states or to illegal aliens), $18 million for "medically unlikely" or "medically unnecessary" claims (including gynecological bills for men), and $6 million in duplicate claims. The pool was established in 2006 by former Gov. Mitt Romney's health care reform law.

† Updates To Previous Posts (seventh item, Obama Creating Green Jobs That Americans Won’t Do): It's not just solar panel manufacturer Evergreen Solar. Other companies are taking tax credits from MA then saying "forget you" as soon as they finagle a better package from another state government, complains Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi:

Fidelity, which benefited from a huge mutual fund industry tax change adopted in 1996, is moving 1,000 jobs to Rhode Island. Evergreen, which benefited from a lucrative tax incentive package doled out more than a decade later, cut 800 Bay State jobs as it moves its production operations to China. …

First the defense industry, then the mutual fund and insurance industries lobbied successfully for tax policy changes that cost the Commonwealth billions. Indeed, the same tax philosophy guides Governor Deval Patrick, who championed a $1 billion tax incentive package for the life sciences industry. He also got behind Evergreen — a company that was always in the red. It remains a curious decision, and one which makes Patrick’s pique over Fidelity harder to take seriously. …

Under Massachusetts law, the specific taxes paid by individual corporations are confidential and can’t be publicly disclosed. That should change. Taxpayers should at least know how much an individual business is paying, so policymakers can weigh the actual cost against the alleged economic benefits. Fidelity declined to provide that information at the hearing.

“Clawbacks’’ - a way to take back benefits - should also be tougher. If Massachusetts is going to give tax breaks, it should also take them away when a company’s job-growth obligation ends. In Fidelity’s case, the company pledged to increase its workforce by at least 5 percent for five straight years. However, beginning in 2003, the tax law applied regardless of how many jobs are added or lost.

† Updates To Previous Posts (second item, Living In These Mad, Mad, Madoff Times): The Washington Times reports that researchers are finding that families benefit when adult children who move back in with Mom and Dad after losing their jobs or suffering another serious financial setback:

"I think there has been a lot of talk today about the decline of the family - that people are only looking out for themselves and don't take care of one another," said researcher Teresa Swartz, co-author of "Safety Nets and Scaffolds: Parental Support in the Transition to Adulthood."

"I think that this study gives us some signs that families do look out for one another, especially during hard times and when people are trying to achieve something," she said.

Brad E. Sachs, a psychologist and the author of "Emptying the Nest: Launching Your Young Adult Toward Success and Self-Reliance," said, "The transition to adulthood is a good deal more fragmented, a good deal more complex and a good deal more daunting than it's ever been. … Sometimes you have to move backwards in order to move forwards." …

Not everyone is ready to celebrate the boomerangs.

William Doherty, a professor of family social science at the University of Minnesota, warned of delayed maturity that might arise from returning home to live with parents after college.

"The biggest thing is that they are postponing adulthood," he said. "They are postponing adult responsibilities."

† Updates To Previous Posts (last item, A To Z Approach On Illegal Immigration In AZ): AZ State Sen. Russell Pierce’s rapid-fire introduction of several ground-breaking proposals to stop illegal immigration was meant, in part, to trigger a state’s rights showdown in the Supreme Court. That may yet happen with S.B. 1070 with the Justice Department having filed suit against AZ on the grounds that the law pre-empted the federal government's exclusive authority over immigration policy. However, the DOJ looked the other way when UT passed a law that negates federal immigration law, according to Federation for American Immigration Reform president Dan Stein in this Washington Times op-ed:

[A bill] signed by Gov. Gary Herbert would grant two-year work permits to illegal aliens who reside in Utah, provided they have no criminal records. Because federal law expressly forbids illegal aliens from working anywhere in the United States - including Utah - the law gives the governor until 2013 to negotiate a waiver with the federal government. Even if a waiver is not issued, Utah would begin issuing work permits to illegal aliens beginning in 2013.

The 1986 federal law prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens does not include provisions for waivers - a point that was noted by Utah’s own legislative attorneys. Thus, the executive branch has no authority to negotiate, much less issue, a waiver that would allow Utah to turn illegal aliens into legal guest workers. To do so would require the Obama administration to invalidate unilaterally a federal statute. …

To date, the only reaction from the Department of Justice to Utah’s blatant usurpation of the federal government's exclusive authority over the power to regulate immigration has been a vague statement that they are “monitoring” the situation. That tepid response speaks volumes about the administration’s willingness to subvert the Constitution to achieve political ends. Arizona’s effort to enforce immigration laws passed by Congress follows a long line of legal precedent that clearly establishes the right of state and local governments to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Utah, on the other hand, is flagrantly disregarding the federal government’s constitutional authority over immigration policy. …

The administration’s failure to sue Utah could trigger a constitutional confrontation over the separation of powers. The Constitution vests the legislative branch with exclusive authority to make immigration laws. The role of the executive branch is to carry out the laws enacted by Congress (whether the administration in office likes those laws or not). Waiving a core provision of U.S. immigration law - the prohibition against the employment of illegal aliens - would clearly exceed any reasonable discretion that the Constitution affords the president in carrying out the law.