if the government sets the prices so low that no doctors will provide a certain service, then you are rationing care. but the ipad, as we call it, can even go beyond that. it can, despite a prohibition on rationing that s in the statute, it can even tell seniors you re not going to get specific treatments. and the reason is that that prohibition on rationing is absolutely unenforceable. it is toothless. it can do whatever it wants, and it s going to take 60 votes in the that the to overrik what th. is there some political check? in other words, they start denying seniors a bunch of end-of-life care, and the american people are going to rise up. well, first, i want to clarify something. the whole idea of death panels is a very inflammatory term. if what ipab is doing is trying to find cost-effective ways of spending taxpayer dollars on health care, what that means is that it s not a death panel, it s a life panel because it s trying to purchase the most life, the most health, with p
prices so low that no doctors will provide a certain service, then you are rationing care. but the ipad, as we call it, can even go beyond that. it can, despite a prohibition on rationing that s in the statute, it can even tell seniors you re not going to get specific treatments. and the reason is that that prohibition on rationing is absolutely unenforceable. it is toothless. it can do whatever it wants, and it s going to take 60 votes in the that the to override and block what the ipad did. is there some political check? in other words, they start denying seniors a bunch of end-of-life care, and the american people are going to rise up. well, first, i want to clarify something. the whole idea of death panels is a very inflammatory term. if what ipab is doing is trying to find cost-effective ways of spending taxpayer dollars on health care, what that means is that it s not a death panel, it s a life panel because it s trying to purchase the most life, the most health, with per
if the government sets the prices so low that no doctors will provide a certain service, then you are rationing care. but the ipad, as we call it, can even go beyond that. it can, despite a prohibition on rationing that s in the statute, it can even tell seniors you re not going to get specific treatments. and the reason is that that prohibition on rationing is absolutely unenforceable. it is toothless. it can do whatever it wants, and it s going to take 60 votes in the that the to override and block what the ipad did. is there some political check? in other words, they start denying seniors a bunch of end-of-life care, and the american people are going to rise up. well, first, i want to clarify something. the whole idea of death panels is a very inflammatory term. if what ipab is doing is trying to find cost-effective ways of spending taxpayer dollars on health care, what that means is that it s not a death panel, it s a life panel because it s trying to purchase the most life, th
you have not cut the medicare expenses so i think it is a little bit of a trojan horse. chris: this week romney went after the president s record in so-called private equity, spending taxpayer money on companies like solyndra. we will take a look. free enterprise to the president means taking money from the taxpayers and giving it freely to his friends. chris: you said something similar a few days ago. i don t think government should be in the business of what some people call industrial policy or picking winners or creating make work jobs and things like that. is romney right? guest: well, as you pointed out in last signaturement, massachusetts engaged in the same practices, a solar energy company in massachusetts went bankrupt on friday and solyndra is not an isolatedded example of where the government can make mistakes. the government has a role to play encouraging technology, and
technology, the rocket technology to put a satellite into space, which therefore implies that they have the technology that would be able to deliver a police tick missile basically to anywhere on the earth. they have not proved that today, obviously. they haven t proved it in any of their three previous attempts to prove it. basically, four missile tests, four rocket launches for zero. that s the first thing. they haven t proven they ve got the rocket. the security council is going to have to make some kind of response. we ll have to see how strong that response is. in the past previous two tests they made, when the u.n. security council said strongly to the north koreans, who insisted they had every right to do these kinds of tests, then went ahead and did a nuclear test. whether they did it this time, there are speculations. there are thoughts the underground facility is being prepared for such a test. if that happens, that will be very serious. tim schwarz joining us wit