- : Attorney Master of Public Administration former US Senate LA
-
Co-payments - one example
Seniors and disabled Americans - so called "dual eligibles" - until this year had all drug costs reimbursed. With the passage of the prescription drug benefit, Part D, these folks now pay deductibles, co-payments and full costs in the "donut hole" of coverage.
Consider the case of a disabled person or senior receiving 1400/month in Social Security Benefits. The Medicaid "share of cost" is about 700/month. When her drug costs reach the bogey 2400(?)/yr., this person almost certainly will go without medication for the rest of the year Hospitalizations and increased outpatient services the likely result. Local public hospitals and state governments will inevitably bear a good portion of the additional, uninsured medical expenses as well.
The programs are so complex. Different rules and thresholds apply to families, children, singles etc in all 50 million Americans but the case captures the basic scandal
Truly a scandal but where is the outrage?
The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.
— Joseph Mengele
Posted at February 4, 2006 7:15 PM in response to Medicaid and the Budget
-
You Daily Muckers are great...like ducks on june bugs
Bush et al have pissed off most everyone on the planet and most of those wanna a piece of him now
When it rains it poursRorate coeli desuper et nubes pluant justum
(Drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the just)Posted at February 3, 2006 9:05 AM in response to The Daily Muck
-
Pat Buchanan blasts Bush in Human Events over phony charges of protectionism and isolationism and claims Bush is running out of alibis.
Why would a president use his State of the Union to lash out at a school of foreign policy thought that has had zero influence in his administration? The answer is a simple one, but it is not an easy one for Bush to face: His foreign policy is visibly failing, and his critics have been proven right.
But rather than defend the fruits of his policy, Bush has chosen to caricature critics who warned him against interventionism. Like all politicians in trouble, Bush knows that the best defense is a good offense.
..................................................
If America is angry over what interventionism and free trade have wrought, George Bush cannot credibly blame isolationists or protectionists. These fellows have an alibi. They were nowhere near the scene of the crimePosted at February 3, 2006 7:34 AM in response to Defining Isolationism Down
-
Pat Buchanan blasts Bush in Human Events over phony charges of protectionism and isolationism and claims Bush is running out of alibis.
Why would a president use his State of the Union to lash out at a school of foreign policy thought that has had zero influence in his administration? The answer is a simple one, but it is not an easy one for Bush to face: His foreign policy is visibly failing, and his critics have been proven right.
But rather than defend the fruits of his policy, Bush has chosen to caricature critics who warned him against interventionism. Like all politicians in trouble, Bush knows that the best defense is a good offense.
..................................................
If America is angry over what interventionism and free trade have wrought, George Bush cannot credibly blame isolationists or protectionists. These fellows have an alibi. They were nowhere near the scene of the crimePosted at February 3, 2006 7:33 AM in response to Bush's Isolationists
-
Befire they come peddling UN resolutions, sanctions and preventive wars, read, mark, remember:
Report: Bush, Blair Wanted War, No Matter WhatUS President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were ready to go to war against Iraq with or without a second United Nations resolution, it was reported today.
- oh they're doing it again, you say?
The allegation was based on a White House memo - which the program said it had seen - following a meeting between the two men in Washington on January 31, 2003.
In the memo Mr Bush is alleged to have said that military action against former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein would start on March 10, 2003.
The war actually started 10 days later on March 20.
Britain's Channel 4 News reported that according to the memo, Mr Bush stated that the United States would put "its full weight behind the effort to get another (UN security council) resolution" and would "twist arms" and "even threaten" to get it.
"If ultimately we fail, military action would follow anyway," Mr Bush is said to have added.
To Mr Bush's assertion, Mr Blair is alleged to have replied that he was "solidly" behind the US president and that he was "ready to do whatever it takes to disarm Saddam".
For Mr Blair, "a second United Nations resolution (against Iraq) would provide an insurance policy against the unexpected, and international cover, including with the Arabs", Channel 4 News said.
On the other hand, in January 2003, less than two months before the start of the military action, the two leaders did not seem persuaded that Iraq had made any material breach of United Nations resolution 1441.
Iran..that's IraQ with an "N"
Posted at February 2, 2006 10:22 PM in response to Bush's Isolationists
-
The Chinese military, meanwhile, is no match for ours at the moment and isn't going to be one any time in the near future. Their modernization effort is geared at building a mostly obsolete force up to the level of the early-1990s Russian state-of-the-art.
Watched too much Shock n Awe on CNN
Understandable that Matt and most others would buy into the propaganda. That was the Iraqi Army we fought and the Iraqi insurgents who're slowly but so surely grinding down thist mighty military - mighty expensive military.
Iraqi Army is not the PLA and for whatever missions the Pentagon might rrasonably plan, I don't think we want to test the proposition anyway.
Posted at February 2, 2006 2:26 PM in response to The Next War
-
Confusion?
Bush isn't confused. Neither is his regime incompetent.
They make policy out of slogan, sound bite and lies. They're as ccomptent as the finest used car dealer in tow.
Posted at February 2, 2006 11:40 AM in response to Oil Confusion
-
I read it as an argument for comparative negligence
You should read Ivo Daalder's OpEd in the LAT praising the merits of "preventive wars"
$450,000,000,000
That's alot of zeros - alot of lettuce
That's per Congressional sources the updated price tag of Bush Bloody Baghdad Boondoggle and foreign aid to Iran's Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI? Perhaps you've heard of em)
Throw money at it..the GOP way..
No wonder Iran loves Bush's New Iraq so much.
Posted at February 2, 2006 10:44 AM in response to reply to SOTU
-
$450,000,000,000
That's alot of zeros - alot of lettuce
That's per Congressional sources the updated price tag of Bush Bloody Baghdad Boondoggle and foreign aid to Iran's Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI? Perhaps you've heard of em)
Throw money at it..the GOP way..
No wonder Iran loves Bush's New Iraq so much.
Gee, how do I join the Vast Isolationist Conspiracy?
Posted at February 2, 2006 10:42 AM in response to Bush's Isolationists
-
$450,000,000,000
That's alot of zeros - alot of lettuce
That's per Congressional sources the updated price tag of Bush Bloody Baghdad Boondoggle and foreign aid to Iran's Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI? Perhaps you've heard of em)
Throw money at it..the GOP way..
No wonder Iran loves Bush's New Iraq so much.Posted at February 2, 2006 10:41 AM in response to reply to SOTU
