RAW STORY
Fox & Friends segment warned on Tuesday that President
Barack Obama’s administration was set to enact a ban on doughnut
sprinkles, which meant that the government could take control of where
you live and work next.
In a report
that seemed to have no actual news value other than to rile up readers
during the holiday season, Breitbart asserted just days before Christmas
that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had moved to “ban cake” and
“donut ‘sprinkles’.”
“Although the amount of trans fats Americans consume has declined
significantly in recent years, the FDA’s quest to completely eliminate a
particular type of trans fat threatens to eliminate the noble
‘sprinkle,’ used to decorate holiday treats and donuts,” the Breitbart
report said. “Even a small amount of joy is suspect in the FDA’s brave,
new, food-monitored world.”
It’s true that the FDA took steps in 2013 to phase out the sale of artificial trans fats. And the Center for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that moving forward with a complete ban could prevent as many as 7,000 deaths and 20,000 coronary events each year.
Manufacturers like popcorn maker Redenbacher’s have responded by reformulating their foods to remove trace amounts of trans fats.
In fact, the Paulaur Corporation has already removed trans fats from its line of sprinkles by using a non hydrogenated palm oil.
But Fox News host Clayton Morris told viewers on Tuesday that they
would have to “say goodbye to your favorite sprinkled doughnut.”
“They’re getting rid of doughnuts like these,” Morris explained while
hold a plate of pastries. “Doesn’t the FDA have more important things
to do than regulate sprinkles?”
“Food police” opponent Jayson Lusk argued that there was no need to
ban trans fats because food companies had already reduced the amount
that was used because of new labeling laws.
“What it is also saying to people is, ‘You’re just not responsible,
right?’” Morris opined. “If you can’t eat one of these every other day,
and you know that you’re going to have some other health issues if
you’re eating doughnuts, that’s the main part of your diet, that’s
probably going to have some issues, what the government is saying is,
‘Look, you’re not responsible for your own health so we’re going to step
in and make sure we’re going to be responsible for you.’”
“You know, there’s a tendency to look at this policy and say, ‘What’s
the big deal? You know, a ban on sprinkles on donuts, it’s just not
that big of deal,’” Lusk replied. “But I think the way you want to look
at that is to say that, you know, if the government can involve itself
in such small minutia decisions of our daily lives as to whether we want
to eat sprinkles or not, you know, that’s really not much respect for
the citizens’ choices.”
“And if they’re willing to ban those small decisions, you know, what
kind of respect will they give citizens in the large decisions in lives
about where to work or where to live or some of the things that really
matter?” he continued.
Morris went on to say that the government would also be banning
crackers, frozen pizza, popcorn, coffee creamers and canned frosting.
“If you’re making some cookies once a year with your kids on the
holidays, that will be banned,” Morris remarked, wondering if the
government could have some “common sense” and make exceptions for tasty
foods.
Lusk said that his children agreed that the policy was “just dumb.”
“We should have kids running government,” Morris quipped................
"In the simple version, it would be like with your own bank account,
you are transferring money from your savings account to your checking
account," Duane Goossen, former Republican state legislator and state
budget director who now blogs independently, told TPM in a phone interview on Friday.
The Kansas Health Institute first outlined
what was happening in a story last week. They noted that Kansas Budget
Director Shawn Sullivan didn't credit the federal law when explaining
why the state would be able to use that money to close the gap.
"The additional revenue from the rebates is the result of
higher-than-expected pharmacy utilization among the Kansas Medicaid
population and better pharmacy program administration by the MCOs in the
state,” Sullivan said, per KHI.
When contacted by the news agency, a state health department
spokesperson initially told reporter Andy Marso that Obamacare "doesn't
have a role" in the $55 million that will help save the state's
finances. But the spokesperson later corrected themselves, saying they
"had gotten incorrect information about the ACA's role in the pharmacy
rebate program."
The rebate program is complicated, but here is the gist, as it was
explained to TPM on Friday by George Washington University professor
Brian Bauen. Under the program, pharmaceutical companies pay rebates to
states and to the federal government, based on a percentage of their
sales to the Medicaid program that year.
What the ACA did was allow Medicaid managed care (which is different
than traditional fee-for-service) to participate in the drug rebate
program. Kansas has recently reformed its Medicaid program to include
significantly more managed care, though a health department spokesperson
told TPM that the reforms had not been made because of the federal
health care law.
Obamacare also increased the rebate rates, from 15.1 percent of the
average manufacturer price for most brand-name drugs to 23.1 percent,
and from 11 percent to 13 percent for generic drugs. The exact impact
can be hard to suss out, but according to Bauen's analysis of federal
data, Kansas saw an increase in rebates from $60 million in 2009 to $90
million in 2012.
So while Brownback's administration seems to want to credit more drug
purchases and its own Medicaid reforms for the revenue that it is now
using to fill its budget hole, Obamacare would also have played a role,
as the health department spokesperson eventually acknowledged to KHI.
"Oh yeah, they definitely are saving money," Bauen said. The ACA "would have increased the revenue from rebates."
There are no legal restrictions for what states can do with the
Medicaid rebate money, Bauen said. According to Goossen, it has
historically been used to help pay for the state's Medicaid program. But
desperate times, desperate measures.
