Daily Archives: 22 August 2014

“US special forces tried to rescue hostages in Syria but failed”

Posted on by
Reply

So screamed a recent Fox News headline. And

The Obama administration sent US troops to Syria recently to attempt to rescue hostages being held by Islamic State militants, including journalist James Foley, but failed to find them, the Pentagon said Wednesday.

But why is the Obama administration mentioning this now, just after the beheading of Foley by these terrorists? There’s no reason at all, other than as another self-serving claim to be doing something in order to show that they’re doing something in response (!) to an act of monstrous barbarity. This administration also claims ISIS terrorists were killed in the raid. Really? Where—in the aftermath of that failure, or now, in the aftermath of the claim of that effort—are ISIS’ braggings about having inflicted such a defeat on the Great Satin?

Also, why is the Obama administration giving up this classified (or it should be) information at all?

NSC Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden said in a statement that the administration had not planned to release details of the operation, out of concern for the safety of the hostages. However, she said, it became clear Wednesday it would be reported in the media and the administration had “no choice but to acknowledge it.”

This makes no sense. If Obama’s administration didn’t leak any of this information, on what basis does it claim this information “would be reported in the media?”

Worse, giving up information about the raid (if it occurred), gives critical information concerning methods and sources to the terrorists, and to anyone else who’s listening, endangering friendly lives and hindering the ability to execute future ops of this type.

Of course, the Obama administration understands all of that. Which brings me back to that earlier purpose, mentioned above. This exposure is all about making Obama and his administration look good in the shower. As illogical as that seems, as immoral as that is, it’s entirely consistent with this administration’s performance these last six years. This act is all about Obama and his administration, and not at all about the safety of American troops or of American civilians situated overseas. After all, after his pretty speech about the beheading, and while Obama’s Own were blatting on about this failed raid, President Barack Obama went back to his golf game and his vacation.

 

Finally, a quibble. This butchery was by ISIS terrorists, not any nation. Full stop. The press really needs to stop muddying the situation, and it really needs to stop legitimizing these terrorists by euphemizing them.

Drug Markets and Regulation

Posted on by
Reply

With this attitude, we’re not going to have much of a drug development or production industry—to the detriment of our drug market.

“A big part of our concern is not just Sovaldi [a new, and so still very expensive, drug with a near-perfect cure rate for Hepatitis C], but all the other specialty drugs,” said Mario Molina, the CEO of Molina Healthcare that runs Medicaid and ObamaCare plans in nine states, on a July earnings call. He added: “I think that the government needs to step in here and make sure that the market is rational. If we as a health plan want a rate increase, we have to go to our regulators and get it approved. There’s no such thing going on in the pharmaceutical market.

Molina’s last is a valid beef. Health plan providers shouldn’t have to go to government regulators to get permission to set a price, either. Government simply should not have that regulatory power. But a man used to government regulation, indeed who’s dependent on his company’s status as a protected oligopolist, no longer even can conceive of having to compete on price and service.

He concluded his plaint:

Right now, pharmaceutical companies can charge whatever they want, and I think there needs to be a rational basis for all of this.

Of course, there is exactly that rational basis: it’s the supply and demand price setting of a free market.  Again, though, a concept lost on a man of a protected oligopoly.