Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for July 8th, 2008

Johnny On Healthcare: Wrong, As Always

By- Jolly Roger @ 1:28 AM EDT

First, let me say that I am delighted to be contributing to Suzie’s blog. I am a long time reader, sometime commenter, and constant admirer. The good people posting here are fighting to bring the truth to the fore, and there is no issue before us that is more important than giving the truth a voice. Now, the truth here will take on the form of a bile-coated rock thrown through your window from time to time 🙂

Brothers in Senility

McCavein is really trying to out-ape the ape these days.

We all know how fond Chimpy is of doing the same thing over and over again, no matter how many times its already failed. Johnny, as we can see here, is no different; he’s embracing an insurance program that is already rejected by the vast majority who qualify for it because it is simply too damned expensive for most Americans to handle. Americans with an illness, of course, will be caught in a vicious catch-22; they can go without the insurance and watch their bills skyrocket out of sight, or they can try to make the premiums and find themselves without the means to pay for anything else.

This is yet another example of a politician turning to the source of a problem (in this case a well-helled source that contributes heavily to election campaigns) to supposedly “fix” the problem. The concept of a “high risk pool” is, in and of itself, a guarantee that far too many Americans will never be insured. There is only one viable solution, and that is the unqualified coverage for all Americans. Obama’s plan, though coming up short itself because of HIS reliance on the problem creators to solve the problem, is a far better plan for the mess that is medical insurance in the US.

Of all the Western world, Americans like their healthcare system the least. It’s too expensive, and insurers use too many tricks to try to drive up premiums and deny legitimate coverage. The “high risk” category for medical insurance is an obscenity that has to be removed from the discussion before we can even begin to truly reform the broken healthcare system in America. But hey, if you’re one of those wingtards who hates the idea of giving all Americans an equal chance to pursue happiness, then I’m sure Johnny’s plan is much better to you than any plan that would actually work towards solving the problem.

If Senator John McCain’s radical plan for remaking American health care is to work, he will have to find a way to cover people like Chaim Benamor, 52, a self-employed renovator in this Baltimore suburb. Mr. Benamor never found it necessary to buy insurance before having a mild heart attack last year and now, 13 years shy of Medicare, has little hope of doing so.

The heart attack left Mr. Benamor with a $17,000 hospital bill, $400 in monthly prescription costs and a desperate need for insurance. After being rejected by a number of commercial carriers, he turned to the Maryland Health Insurance Plan, one of 35 state programs for high-risk applicants whom no private company is willing to insure.

He decided that the annual premium – $4,572 for a plan with heavy deductibles – was more than he could handle on an income of about $35,000. Yet his earnings were too high for him to qualify for state subsidies.

“I’d like to get it, but what do you pay first?” Mr. Benamor asked at his dining room table. “Do you pay the mortgage? Do you pay your child support? Do you pay your car insurance? Do you pay for your medicine?”

In late April, Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, announced that if elected president he would seek to insure people like Mr. Benamor by vastly expanding federal support for state high-risk pools like Maryland’s, or by creating a structure modeled after them. But as Mr. Benamor’s case demonstrates, even well-regarded pools have served more as a stopgap than a solution.

Though high-risk pools have existed for three decades, they cover only 207,000 people in a country with 47 million uninsured, according to the National Association of State Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans. Premiums typically are high, as much as twice the standard rate in some states, but are still not nearly enough to pay claims. That has left states to cover about 40 percent of the cost, usually through assessments on insurance premiums that are often passed on to consumers.

Health economists say it could take untold billions to transform the patchwork of programs into a viable federal safety net. The McCain campaign has made only a rough calculation of how many billions would be needed and has not identified a source for the fi-nancing beyond savings from existing programs. Finding the money will only get more difficult now that Mr. McCain has pledged to balance the federal budget by 2013, which already requires a significant reduction in the growth of spending.

Mr. McCain’s proposal stands in sharp relief to that of his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who wants to require insurers to accept all applicants, regardless of their health. That is now the law in five states, including New York and New Jersey.

For those who can afford the premiums, or who qualify for subsidies in the 13 states that provide them, the high-risk programs can be a godsend.

Richard and Susan Logan, both of whom have battled cancer this decade, said they were grateful to have coverage for themselves and their daughter through the Maryland plan, even though it will cost $22,232 this year. They had been rejected by 25 commercial insurers, said Mrs. Logan, 57, a part-time billing clerk for a physician.

The Logans, who live in Gambrills, near Annapolis, estimate that without the high-risk pool, they would pay $40,000 a year for medication alone.

“The plan’s worth its weight in gold for that,” said Mr. Logan, 62, an aviation accident investigator. “Otherwise, we’d be paying for the medications out of our retirement.”

A fifth of the 14,000 participants in the Maryland plan receive subsidies that drop their premiums below the market rates charged to healthy people, said Richard A. Popper, the plan’s director. But many in the middle find the policies both unaffordable and intolerably restrictive, and Mr. Popper estimates that two-thirds of those eligible have not enrolled.

Almost all of the state pools impose waiting periods of up to a year before covering the health conditions that initially made it impossible to obtain insurance. In some states, fiscal pressures have forced heavy restrictions in coverage and enrollment. Florida, which has 3.8 million uninsured people, closed its pool to new applicants in 1991, and the membership has dwindled to 313.

An informal survey by the American Cancer Society recently found that only 2 percent of nearly 2,700 callers to its insurance hot line enrolled in high-risk pools within two months of being referred to them. “In most cases, we know they probably didn’t apply because they discovered high premiums or pre-existing condition clauses and just didn’t bother,” said Stephen Finan, associate director of policy for the group’s Cancer Action Network.


Read Full Post »

By- Jim @ 7:04 PM EDT

Knowing I expect Obama to be assassinated and finding out just how rare and critical this was along with this not being his regular plane but a replacement I want to discuss this when I get back from the VA!

Read Full Post »

Bush’s Dangerous Games…

GEF @ 6:38 PM EDT

From

July 8, 2008

Russia threatens military response to US missile defence deal

Russia tonight threatened to retaliate by military means after a deal with the Czech Republic brought the US missile defence system in Europe a step closer.

The threat followed quickly on from the announcement that Condoleezza Rice signed a formal agreement with the Czech Republic to host the radar for the controversial project.

Moscow argues that the missile shield would severely undermine the balance of European security and regards the proposed missile shield based in two former Communist countries as a hostile move.

“We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

The ministry did not detail what its response might entail.

Dr Rice, the US Secretary of State, hailed the agreement as a step forward for international security.

After 14 months of negotiations, the US is struggling to clinch agreement with its other proposed partner – Poland – where it hopes to locate the interceptor missiles designed to shoot down any incoming rockets.

Washington insists that the system will not be targeted at Russia, but will act as a safeguard for Europe against regimes such as Iran. The plan was endorsed by Nato in April.

“This missile defence agreement is significant as a building block not just for the security of the United States and the Czech Republic, but also for the security of Nato and the security of the international community as a whole,” Dr Rice said. “Ballistic missile proliferation is not an imaginary threat.”

A change of government in Poland last November saw the country introduce a range of demands including US investment in its air defences in return for siting the missiles.

Poland’s tough negotiating position has even led to a threat from the Pentagon to find an alternative site in the Baltic state of Lithuania.

“There are remaining issues, but the United States has made a very generous offer [to the Poles],” said Dr Rice today.

A year ago at the G8 in Germany, President Vladimir Putin of Russia surprised the US by suggesting that the radar could be hosted in Azerbaijan so that the technology could be shared.

Today’s signing ceremony seemed to bury that idea. Addressing Russian anxiety about the anti-missile system in what used to be its backyard, Ms Rice added: “We want the system to be transparent to the Russians.”

Mirek Topolanek, the Czech Prime Minister, said that the deal was an example of “our joint desire to protect the free world” and said his country could not afford to miss out as it had done after the Second World War, when it fell under Soviet influence.

“We were in the past in a similar situation and then we failed. We did not accept the Marshall Plan…we should not allow a second error of this kind,” he said.

In Prague, where polls consistently show a majority of Czechs opposed to hosting the US radar, protestors from Greenpeace unrolled a large banner proclaiming “Do not make a target of us.”

After Prague, Dr Rice will visit Bulgaria and Georgia where she will stress US support for Tblisi’s application for Nato membership, another annoyance for Russia.

She will also appeal for calm between Moscow and Tblisi over the separatist Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

“We have said both Georgia and Russia need to avoid provocative behaviour but frankly some of the things the Russians did over the last couple of months added to tension in the region,” Dr Rice said.

“Georgia is an independent state. It has to be treated like one. I want to make very clear that the US commitment to Georgia’s territorial integrity is strong.”

The radar agreement still has to pass through the Czech parliament where the government only has a slim majority.

Read Full Post »

Globalism=Greed

GEF @ 6:08 PM EDT

Globalist Dine On 18-Course Meal While Talking Food Shortages as Nations plan food rationing….

G8 Irony, Leaders Talk About Food Shortage, Leaders Dine on 8-Course Dinner

While the G8 leaders talk about shortage of food worldwide and food costs, there is a sheer irony of the aspect presented in that regard.

There is a sheer irony in the paradox associated with this year’s G8 summit, which is being hosted by Japan on the northern island of Hokkaido. A wide range of topics would be discussed at the G8. Such topics included: Zimbabwe, Africa, oil prices, climate control, and everything else. One topic they went over was the international food shortages.

This is where the irony begins.

While the G8 leaders were talking about food shortages, they were eating an eight-course dinner banquet. Yes, they were eating hearty while they were discussing global food shortages. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown talked about how people shouldn’t waste food. Yet, he was one of the leaders that enjoyed a very grand meal.

They already had a five-course lunch afterwards. Japan itself had spent over half a billion dollars to hold the G8 summit. It was revealed that the same amount of money could be used to help and save many people. But, the money was used to host the G8 summit. That would mean that a good chunk of that cash was spent to prepare such a scrumptious dinner enjoyed by the G8 leaders.

In short, while the G8 leaders are talking about world hunger and food shortages, they are enjoying a five-course lunch and an eight-course dinner.

Looking at the items on the lunch and dinner menus, one could say the G8 leaders were eating pretty hearty.

There is a sheer irony and paradox associated with this talk on global food shortages.

Anybody else feeling the irony?

While they talk about global hunger and international food shortages, this is what the leaders attending the G8 summit are heaving:

For lunch: a soup with white asparagus and truffles, a type of edible foam made from Kegani crab, stuffed chicken, selection of cheeses, and ice cream.

The lunch alone should cost a high six-figures.

For dinner: a type of caviar stuffed in corn, smoked salmon, onion tart, Kyoto beef, fatty tuna fish, clams, grilled eel, sweet potato, Goby (a type of fish), crab soup, some other type of seafood called thornyhead which has been salted and grilled, milk-fed lamb, roasted lamb, selection of cheeses, a special G8 fantasy dessert, and coffee.

The dinner alone should cost between the high-six figures and low seven-figures at least.

They did not skimp out on the wine either.

Reading the selections of wine, it too costs a pretty penny.

Yes, these are our world leaders. While they talk about global food shortages, these are the selections they have been eating.

While the amount of money is estimated to be used to help millions of people, it has instead been used to host the G8 summit. On top of that, a good chunk of the cash has seemed to be used to prepare that 5-course lunch and 8-course dinner.

On a personal note, anybody else besides me notice something wrong with the picture?

Read Full Post »

What Scares Conservatives?

By- Betmo @ 4:18 PM EDT

intelligent indigenous world leaders:

“Europeans arrived en masse to Latin and North America, without visas or conditions imposed on them by the authorities. They were simply welcomed, and continue to be, in our American continent, which absorbed at that time the European economic misery and political crisis. They came to our continent to exploit the natural wealth and to transfer it to Europe, with a high cost for the original populations in America. As is the case of our Cerro Rico de Potosi and its fabulous silver mines that gave monetary mass to the European continent from the 16th to the 19th centuries. The people, the wealth and the rights of the migrant Europeans were always respected.”

evo morales, president of bolivia

Read Full Post »

By- Suzie-Q @ 12:15 PM MST

Waxman threatens AG with contempt unless he gets FBI’s Cheney transcripts

Raw Story- Nick Juliano
Published: Tuesday July 8, 2008

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) says his committee will vote next week to hold Attorney General Michael Mukasey in contempt if the Bush appointee continues to refuse to hand over transcripts of an FBI interview with Vice President Dick Cheney.

Waxman says the interview transcript is vital to the Oversight Committee’s investigation of the outing of former CIA agent Valerie Plame. In a letter to Mukasey (.pdf), Waxman noted that Cheney’s former aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby told the FBI it was “possible” that Cheney told him to expose Plame after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, publicly undercut the administration’s claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.

“The arguments you have raised for withholding the interview report are not tenable,” Waxman told Mukasey. “When the FBI interview with the Vice President was conducted, the Vice President knew that the information in the interview could be made public in a criminal trial and that there were no restrictions on Special Counsel Fitzgerald’s use of the interview.”

Mukasey has invoked executive privilege — the Bush administration’s go-to response to Congress’s attempts at oversight — in refusing to hand over transcripts of the interviews with the president and vice president. The interviews were conducted in relation to Patrick Fitzgerald’s probe of Plame’s outing. Libby was the only person convicted as a result of that inquiry, although it eventually revealed that Karl Rove and former State Department official Richard Armitage also had leaked Plame’s name.

Waxman said the committee was willing to relent on its demand for Bush’s interview transcript, but he would not let up on Cheney because of the vice president’s potential orchestration of the campaign.

Read Full Post »

Afternoon Jukebox… Gimme Shelter

By- Suzie-Q @ 12:10 PM MST

The Rolling Stones- Gimme Shelter

Read Full Post »

anthony @ 17:09 BST

Glaring and damning errors already apparent in new BBC WTC 7 hit piece

No BBC, WTC 7 Did Not Collapse “Due To Fire” & The Final 9/11 Mystery Is Not Solved

Movies I Made To Counter The BBC’s Argument That “The Final Mystery Of 9/11″ Has Been Solved

WTC 7 isn’t the final mystery, it is one in a row of mysteries

BBC Set To Launch New Smear Attack On 9/11 Truth

Paul Joseph Watson | Prison Planet | Tuesday, July 8, 2008

The BBC’s embarrassing attempt to dig itself out of a hole that keeps getting deeper was again exemplified during their latest yellow journalism hit piece on 9/11 truth, in which they played Larry Silverstein’s “pull it” comment but edited out the most important part of the statement, and in doing so changed its context altogether.

An army of informed truth activists are almost tripping over each other to point out the gargantuan number of errors, ad hominem smear tactics, bias and shoddy investigative techniques displayed in the program which aired Sunday in the UK.

Just one such example concerns WTC complex leaseholder Larry Silverstein’s infamous “pull it” comment which can be viewed in its entirety below with other clips included for context in confirming that the term “pull it” is industry jargon for deliberately demolishing a building.

Watch the clip.

However, in the BBC’s attempt to convince the viewer that “pull it” meant to withdraw firefighters from the building, despite the fact that according to NIST’s WTC collapse lead investigator Shyam Sunder, “There was no firefighting in WTC 7,” and additionally the FEMA report, which stated “No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY,” the editors carefully snipped out the last portion of Silverstein’s comments where he states, “and then we watched the building collapse.”

Cycle through to 20 minutes into the clip to spot the edit.

[to be added later]

By deliberately removing “and then we watched the building collapse,” the BBC has performed a hatchet job on the whole context of the statement by censoring the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 was a consequence of the decision to “pull” the building.

The BBC’s zealous efforts to redeem its name by ceaselessly attacking the 9/11 truth movement accelerated after the broadcaster was shamed when footage from 9/11 emerged of their correspondent Jane Standley reporting that WTC 7 had collapsed even as it remained standing in the shot behind her head.

Questions as to how this could have happened and allegations that news corporations, whether wittingly or unwittingly, were being fed a script on the day of 9/11 as it unfolded were met with hostility, and the BBC claimed it had “lost” the tape.

The tape was miraculously “discovered” again on the eve of the broadcast of their latest hit piece but the footage was not shown in the program, presumably to avoid further embarrassment.

Below you can read articles concerning the mountain of other lies contained in the hit piece and watch a discussion about the program with Alex Jones and Jason Bermas.

We will be picking apart the BBC’s latest atrocious effort to claim they have “solved the final mystery of 9/11″ over the course of this week with multiple investigative reports and as we did last time – debunk this latest hit piece as nothing more than the revolting stench of yellow journalism.

Read Full Post »

McCain Campaign In Turmoil And Festering Feuds

By- Suzie-Q @ 8:15 AM MST

Internal Politics Heat Up at McCain Campaign

NY Times- By ADAM NAGOURNEY

Published: July 8, 2008

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain’s campaigns have long been defined by internal squabbling and power plays, zigzagging lines of command and a penchant by the candidate for consulting with former advisers without alerting current ones, always a recipe for disquiet.

After a period of relative calm on that score, it is becoming clear that his campaign is once again a swirl of competing spheres of influence, clusters of friends, consultants and media advisers who represent a matrix of clashing ambitions and festering feuds. The cast includes the surviving members of Mr. McCain’s 2000 campaign, led by Rick Davis and Mark Salter; a new camp out of the world of Karl Rove, led by the recently ascendant Steve Schmidt; and on the periphery, the ever-present Mike Murphy, Mr. McCain’s strategist in the 2000 presidential race who has been dispensing advice to the candidate to the annoyance of the other camps, and is the subject of intensifying rumors in Republican circles that he is about to re-enter the campaign.

Mr. McCain is uncomfortable firing people or banishing them entirely. His orbit remains filled with people who have been demoted without being told they are being demoted, like Mr. Davis, who continues to hold the title of campaign manager even as Mr. Schmidt manages the campaign. Yet, Mr. McCain inspires uncommon loyalty in those who serve with him — hence the willingness of Mr. Murphy to consider coming back into the McCain campaign, despite his own rather brutal history of enmity with Mr. Davis.

More

Read Full Post »

Iran: The Threat

Sudhan @10:55 CET

Thomas Powers | The New York Review of Books, Vol. 55, No. 12, July 17, 2008

At a moment of serious challenge, battered by two wars, ballooning debt, and a faltering economy, the United States appears to have lost its capacity to think clearly. Consider what passes for national discussion on the matter of Iran. The open question is whether the United States should or will attack Iran if it continues to reject American demands to give up uranium enrichment. Ignore for the moment whether the United States has any legal or moral justification for attacking Iran. Set aside the question whether Iran, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently claimed in a speech at West Point, “is hellbent on acquiring nuclear weapons.” Focus instead on purely practical questions. By any standards Iran is a tough nut to crack: it is nearly three times the size of Texas, with a population of 70 million and a big income from oil which the world cannot afford to lose. Iran is believed to have the ability to block the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf through which much of the world’s oil must pass on its way to market.

Keep in mind that the rising price of oil already threatens the world’s economy. Iran also has a large army and deep ties to the population of Shiite coreligionists next door in Iraq. The American military already has its hands full with a hard-to-manage war in Iraq, and is proposing to send additional combat brigades to deal with a growing insurgency in Afghanistan. And yet with all these sound reasons for avoiding war with Iran, the United States for five years has repeatedly threatened it with military attack. These threats have lately acquired a new edge.

President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are the primary authors of these threats, but others join them in proclaiming that “all options” must remain “on the table.” The option they wish to emphasize is the option of military attack. The presidential candidates in the middle of this campaign year agree that Iran is a major security threat to the United States. Senator Hillary Clinton in the last days of April threatened to “totally obliterate” Iran—presumably with nuclear weapons—if it attacked Israel. Senator Barack Obama dismissed Clinton’s threat as “bluster” in the familiar Bush style but agrees that Iran cannot be permitted to build nuclear weapons, and he too insists that a US attack on Iran is one of the options which must remain “on the table.” The presumptive Republican candidate, John McCain, takes a position as unyielding as the President’s: Iran must abandon nuclear enrichment, stop “meddling” in Iraq with support for Shiite militias, and stop its sponsorship of “terrorism” carried out by Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Any of these threatening activities, in McCain’s view, might justify a showdown with Iran.

Continued . . .

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »