tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News November 30, 2013 11:00am-11:31am PST
this week on "the journal editorial report," the white house launches a push to sell its iran nuclear deal to a spectacle congress and angry allies in the middle east. plus, with all eyes on the healthcare.gov relaunch, another obama care crisis waiting in the wings. as thousands of americans discover you really can't keep your doctor. and a life saving court decision now being undermined by the obama administration. should the feds ban payment for bone marrow donors? welcome to "the journal editorial report."
facing sharp criticism from allies in saudi arabia and israel and deep skepticism from some members of congress, president obama this week defended last sunday's deal with iran, praising the diplomacy he says is responsible for halting the progress of their nuclear program. calling the accord an important first step towards peace. >> huge challenges remain. but we cannot close the door on diplomacy. and we cannot rule out peaceful solutions to the world's problems. we cannot commit ourselves to an endless cycle of conflict. tough talk and bluster may be the easier thing to do politically but it's not the right thing for our security. >> joining the panel this week, "wall street journal" columnist and deputy editor dan headinger. foreign affairs columnist dan stevens. the president says this plan freezes the enrichment. it reduces the stockpiles that they have that are capable for
nuclear weapons. freezes the plutonium reactor. and subjects all of the program to inspections. what's wrong with that? >> none of that is really true. they're not allowed to operationalize the reactor. iran continues to have the right to continue to enrich uranium to this low -- >> 5% instead of 20%. >> but the tough part of enrichment is early enrichment. by the way, the west still doesn't have access to some of the more critical sensitive iranian military sites where we suspect they have been conducting tests relevant to create ig nuclear weapons. just the very terms on the way this deal is being sold is misleading. it allows iran to keep its nuclear infrastructure intact and even continue to grow it while we turn to a process of endless negotiation.
>> here's their response to that. at least this slows it down. they were making hellbent progress to getting the bomb, right. we have six months to negotiate a final deal. >> the way i see it, iran is at mile 23 of its nuclear marathon and we're saying, don't sprint to the finish line, let's bring it down to a jog. if you really wanted to halt the nuclear program, you would actually ratchet up sanctions. you would increase the pain on the iranians. people keep talking about how much they're hurting but there's more that can be done. blocking their oil. u.n. security council resolutions insist that iran cease enriching uranium. this deal violates the security resolution. >> is there a better deal to make and behalf of the administration, playing devil's advocate? >> to see what happens in the
next six month, there is a deal i think we can live with if we do close at least one of the plans. really do dismantle a significant amount of centrifuges and allow inspections of the military sites. this regime has given no indication over the last 20 years it is ready to do that, nor by the price it paid by this deal that it will be forced to do that. that's the real danger here. we've given away a sanctions regime that took years to put together and has been very effective. >> here's the other argument the administration makes, which is, well, what's the alternative, you critics, what's the other one? it's war. you take this or nothing at all. >> brett has already been mentioning the sanctions regime which took ten years to build and was working. the president is wrong on that score. on endless conflict, the president is doing something very unique here.
he is taking the military option off the table, saying he's going to pursue diplomacy only. that is the unique relationship with countries like this. they do not have to worry the u.s. might take military action. that is going to have implications for alliances all over the middle east because they've always relies on the u.s. being there when they need them. >> there's also, by the way, i think it's important to stress -- i actually think taking the military option off the table makes a conflict in the middle east more likely, not less. to israel principally. >> that's exactly right. the israelis were biding their time, thinking when the chips are really down, this president is not going to allow iran to become a nuclear weapons state. the president has said that many times. after the capitulation in syria, the israelis are looking at this in a whole new way.
having conversationings with israelis, they simply don't think america is a credible -- >> the israelis are boxled in now. they can't do anything because they would isolate themselves if they acted. >> that's true. i think things are much harder for israel to act. israel has acted in the past when the whole of international opinion was against it, including to bomb the iraqi nuclear sites. 33 years ago. the element here is the sunni arab state, principally saudi arabia but turkey and egypt, we have essentially through capitulation in syria and this move said, iran, you are now the regional head. we are creeding to you this -- >> and they will react by getting the bomb themselves? >> and doing more freelancing by themselves. because they cannot trust us to be engaged. >> what about the u.s. domestic reaction? is congress likely to do anything to intervene here, to counteract this deal?
or is president obama have a free hand? >> i think he has largely a free hand. they've taken polls that shows the american people are tired of these engagements. that is going to make them be very reluctant to push hard against what the president is doing. >> all right, dan, i'm afraid i agree with you. all eyes are on the relaunch of health care.gov. obama care marches on. why keeping your doctor will be increasingly hard to do, despite the president's promises. hey kevin...still eating chalk for heartburn? yeah... try new alka seltzer fruit chews. they work fast on heartburn and taste awesome. these are good. told ya! i'm feeling better already. [ male announcer ] new alka seltzer fruits chews. enjoy the relief!
so i deserve a small business credit card with amazing rewards. with the spark cascard from capital one, i get 2% cash back on ery purchase, every day. i break my back around here. finally soone's recognizing me with unlimited rewards! meetings start at 11, cindy. [ male announcer get the spark business card from capital one. choose 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase, every d. what's in your wallet? i need your timesheets, larry!
>> another now famous promise from president obama in the run-up to the passage of the affordable care act. as many americans are about to fiend out, keeping your doctor may not be as easy as he made it sound. our guest is a practicing physician and former deputy commissioner of food and drug administration. he's a fellow at the american enterprise institute. welcome back. >> thanks for having me. >> we're now hearing these reports about people not being able to keep their doctor, even if they keep their insurance or get new information. why is this happening? >> because the network these obama care plans are using are extremely restrictive narrow networks. they're doing that to try to hold down costs. >> how does it hold down costs? >> it impedes access. you might not be able to get an appointment. >> long waiting lines? >> yes. the plans are also trying to contract with the lower cost providers. that's why many of the plans in the exchanges are actually medicaid hmos. >> they're called me kade plus
in the industry, which is the lowest level of care. low reimbursements by the federal government? >> right. the plans are not paying the doctors a lot. they're going back and renegotiating. >> we are also hearing the anecdotes that it's happening in the medicare advantage program. a private form of medicare. is that happening there too? >> remember there were $158 billion worth of cuts to medicaid program. >> this is part of the affordable care act? >> right. now those cuts, instead of raising premiums, they're cutting access to doctors. they're basically skinnying down their networks. this does save money. >> give us a sense of the magnitude. are you talking tens of thousands? are you talking millions of people who are going to have their access to physician, restricted? >> anyone who goes into obama
care is going to have their access restricted. you might be able to keep your gp if you're lucky but not your full complement of doctors. i found one practice in florida who only has seven pediatricians for 260,000 kids. seven pediatricians, not seven practice, seven doctors. i found a plan in new york that only has a single oncology practice in it. if you go outside your network, you're forced to pay the full bill doesn't count against your deductible in most cases. >> always the full bill or sometimes just the reimbursements are less? >> sometimes it's partial payment and sometimes it's 100%. >> what does this do, let's say, i get really sick and i have cancer and i want to see a specialist outside of my network, maybe somewhere else in the country. a lot of people i know, you know, will get cancer and they might say, i want to see a specialist, at md anderson in houston or the mayo clinic if i live in the upper midwest. is that kind of access restricteded? >> it's exactly what's
restricted. it puts people who have rare conditions at a disadvantage. the memorial sloan-kettering hutch in seattle, those aren't going to be accessible. >> those are great institutions. from all over the world, people going to those hospitals. if you're saying if it's not in my net are i have to pay substantially out of my pocket for my cancer care? is that really what's happening? >> substantially, and since it's expensive in the first place, it will be prohibitively costly for people, they just won't be able to do it. >> another thing happening as a result of this law. that is, the integration of medical networks, hospitals and physicians. >> right. >> tell us what's happening there. you described it as the death of dr. marcus welby md. the so-called family physicians. the three or four doctor practice. why has that happened? >> doctors are becoming owned entities of hospitals. this is a couple of reasons. it makes it easier to regulate the physicians if they're part
of systems where you can regulate the system rather than regulate down to the level of the doctor. also, because they want to transfer risk to physicians. they want physicians to be bearing the risk of the cost of the care they're delivering. >> what is the incentive for doctors to sign up with big networks? >> other than the fact that their overhead costs are going up, so their real income's declining. by signing up, they effectively become salary and at least know what they're going to earn next year. >> you've written there's evidence to suggest when doctors sign up for these network, their productivity goes down. why so? >> they become shift employees. >> they're 9 to 5ers? >> right. where you lose productivity is in the handoff. doctors do shift work and don't take care of their own complement of patients. you lose productivity in the form of that handoff, if you will. >> some of the architects of obama care would respond to what you're saying and say, look, the
model we're pursuing is something called accountable care others and those have proven to be successful at mayo and other big institutions which know how to manage themselves very well. what are you worried about? this is going to save money for everybody and still deliver quality care. >> if you believe someone has to ration, the government can ration through boards which they're doing in obama care. the patient can self-ration by being exposed to some of the costs of their decisions. the doctor can ration care, by having to bear responsibility for the cost of the care they're delivering. they're favoring the doctor being cap tated -- >> meaning individual payments? >> they get a lump sum for taking care of a whole population of patients. if they do more for those patient, they'll lose money. i think that's the least transparent place. at least if the government is doing it, you see what the government is doing. if you're forced to make those considerations, you know the choices you're making.
>> thank you. still ahead, if the obama care rollout isn't a big enough mess, now the hhs is seeking to undermine a federal court decision and control who can donate bone marrow. what that could mean for the 14,000 americans waiting for a life saving match, next. hoo-hoo. hoo-hoo...hoo-hoo. hoo-hoo hoo. sir... i'll get it together i promise... heeheehee. jimmy: ronny, how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? ronny:i'd say happier than the pillsbury doughboy on his way to a baking convention. get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.
that life saving treatment. even as 14,000 patients wait for a match. "wall street journal" senior editorial page writer colin levy joins us with more. let's try to give context. this is a 1984 law that banned compensating for organ donations, things like livers and kidneys. and bone marrow was included because at the time that kind of transfer was very difficult technologically. that's changed over the years and now it's much easier. tell us how. >> at the time, it was a relatively complicated procedure that required sedation. in the 30 years since, it's become something not much more difficult than donating blood. a donor gets hooked up to a machine, have blood taken out and that's essentially how it works. so in 2009, the institute for justice sued on behalf of a woman named doreen flynn who's a maine mother who has three children who have a blood disease that may require marrow
donation. and they basically said, look, blood donation can be compensated. this is essentially the same. it's an ash ash trary decision to be banning this. >> and the court sided with the family and said, look, given the progress that's been made, for this kind of transplant, it no longer was the intention of the organ act was no longer to apply for this and they can go ahead. the administration didn't appeal that ruling, did it? >> no, it didn't. instead, it turned to hhs and had hhs basically write a rule that redefined bon marrow, even donated through this much simpler process, as an organ. that's sort of ridiculous when you think about it because organ is a word in the english language and it means a distinct group of cells for the purpose. it's also something that not naturally regenerates.
bone marrow regenerates. a bone marrow donor will have their mario regenerate and be just fine within a period of days and weeks right back to normal. >> this is the federal health and human department. what about the rules they make that will prevent the transmission of disease and if they don't regulate this, you'll see more transmission of disease? >> again, this is really a strawman they're putting out here. these people who need these donation, need them urgently. 3,000 people a year die because they don't get the bone marrow donations they need. those people will certainly be more than willing to take whatever small risk might be there in order to actually get a bone marrow match. this isn't like blood where you can easily get a match. bone marrow requires a much
complex level. so you need more donors, you need a broader base. >> worried this is going to lead to a modification of organ transplant, an ideological justification in the mind of these regulators, that somehow if you have a market for this sort of thing, you're going to lead to the rich getting it and the poor not getting it. >> right, the example of being the enemy of the good. the thing we have to make clear, as kocolicolin has, the status does not work. it creates shortages. not compensating people will continue to create shortages. they're afraid if they allow compensation for bone marrow, it will work, and then there will be pressure for other organs like liver, kidneys and hearts. >> but you don't buy that? >> i don't buy that at all. i think it should be possible to try out alternatives. see if they work or if they don't. but to continue the status quo, it reminds me of the aids
patients in the 1980s who finally had to storm the fda building in maryland to get access to new drugs. >> all right. well, thank you, both, and thanks, colin, for alerting us to this. when we come back, our hits and misses of the week. [ paper rustles, outdoor sounds ] ♪ [ male announcer ] laura's heart attack didn't come with a warning. today her doctor has her on a bayer aspirin regimen to help reduce the risk of another one. if you've had a heart attack, be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. to share with family. [ woman 2 ] to carry on traditions. [ woman 3 ] to come together even when we're apart. [ male announcer ] in stuffing, mashed potatoes, gravy and more, swanson makes holiday dishes delicious.
time now for hits and misses of the week. brett, start with you. >> get ready for this, paul. i'm going to say something nice about the obama and because it's hanukkah about chuck hagel. >> you often do that. >> the united states responded to a unilateral chinese move to create an
air defense zone over the japanese senkaku islands by sending two b-52 bombers other these islands unannounced, letting the chinese know these kind of provocative aggressive acts are not going unchecked. it strengthens our alliance with japan and shows there is
substance to the pivot. good for the obama administration. >> fresh off the scandal with the irs and tea party groups, the irs and treasury are now proposing rules to curtail the activities of tax exempt political groups in campaigns. these groups somehow didn't sway the election last time for mitt romney. it's still trying to limit their right of free speech. >> all right, colin. >> paul, i have a hit to all the people who ate a little too much on thanksgiving. everyone's feeling guilty now. but as it turns
out, studies have actually shown that dieters who do indulge once in a why in high-calorie foods are more likely to be able to lose weight, keep weight off, then people who deprive themselves entirely. so it's good news for your grandmother's advice which is everything in moderation. >> the all you can eat weight loss diet, colin, what you are suggesting works? >> that's my way. >> every so often.
great to hear it. thank you. that's it for this week's show. thanks to my panel and all of you for watching. i'm paul gigot. hope to see you right here next week. it is d-day for the website powering president obama's signature health care law. hello, everyone. glad you're with us. >> welcome inside america's news headquarters. white house officials say they're on track to meet the deadline for the online obama care fixes. today is the self-imposed date to have healthcare.gov running smoothly for a variety of users. molly heninburg is live in washington. >> president obama's team working on the website says it will update us