Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Medicare Plan D was godsend for health insurance companies to make more money. When my husband went on Medicare. I did the research for him. What a nightmare. Too many choices. Besides Medicare part B & A which you pay for based on your income, you have to get a J policy from and insurance company to cover what B&A does not cover, and a separate D policy if you need prescription drugs. What a nightmare of choices. I found out from my Blue Cross agent that before plan D was created that Blue Cross's Plan J as well as other insurance companies supplemental policies covered presription drugs. The premiums for Plan J without prescription drug benefit is the same or more as it was when prescription drugs were included, and then insurance companies were enabled to create anther policy for Plan D and charge more money. I never did figure out the 'donut hole'. Hedecided not to get the Plan D because we figured out the plan D premiums would cost more that the one drug my husband took, which was covered under his BC insurance before he went on Medicare.
Health care reform should include getting rid od all the choices, turn Medicare into one universal health care plan for all. The government could save billions in administration costs by rolling Medicare, Medicaid, veterans care etc. into one program. Every citizen should be allowed to buy into Medicare. It would lower premiums for everyone if we had one universal health care all paid into based on their income. Insurance companies could bid to administer the program in each region.
If we examine history closely we generally find that empires crumble from within. Some external cause is often cited, because someone pushes over the last stone standing; but if the termites leave their mound, it doesn't require much wind to scatter the thing.
The memo includes intelligence on al Qaeda threats as recent as three months before the attacks.
Highlights of the report include:
• An intelligence report received in May 2001 indicating that al Qaeda was trying to send operatives to the United States through Canada to carry out an attack using explosives. That information had been passed on to intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
(GOSH, May 2001, who would have been president then, hmmm. . . George W. Bush. So let me see this is a historical document issued on Augst 6, 2001 using information from just FOUR MONTHS PRIOR detailing that intelligence indicated an attack from Bin Laden in the U.S. Nothing to see there. TECHINICALLY it is historical. Practically anyone but an idiot would treat this as relatively fresh intelligence. Especially after you've REQUESTED the report and the memo is entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the U.S." At some point you really have to be able to put two and two together.)
• An allegation that al Qaeda had been considering ways to hijack American planes to win the release of operatives who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999.
(Can't argue the Bush Administration wasn't made aware of THIS one then. It also leads one to think, as the 9/11 Commission charged, that perhaps Secretary Rice should have spent just a little bit MORE time dealing with this particular memo. And maybe it was a tad bit MORE important than she realized at the time. Sure seems to have a lot of information in it.)
• An allegation that bin Laden was set on striking the United States as early as 1997 and through early 2001.
• Intelligence suggesting that suspected al Qaeda operatives were traveling to and from the United States, were U.S. citizens, and may have had a support network in the country.
(Wow. One might think, if they were president or national security advisor, this would be indicative of an attack.
• A report that at least 70 FBI investigations were under way in 2001 regarding possible al Qaeda cells/terrorist-related operations in the United States.
(So can't really pin THAT one on the FBI either. They GAVE then-National Security Advisor Rice the info on that one. Now what would MOST people do if they were the National Security Advisor with a memo like this?)
I'm not asking Condoleezza Rice to be psychic. I'm asking her to do some basic-level analysis. Why am I asking her and not others? Well as the president's National Security Advisor, unlike say your average CIA agent, she has a great deal of access to ALL of the intelligence as well as unprecedented access TO the president.
She should have been able to put this together. And, had she been doing her job, she would have. Now, technically, can she sit there and argue this is outside of her job purview and there is no way she could have know. Sure she COULD. But to do so is grossly irresponsible and shows the same laxness with intelligence and threat assessments (i.e. Saddam is a bigger threat to us than Iran or Pakistan) that has plagued the Bush Administration throughout. Bush and Condi failed on this one, big time. And everyone INSIDE the intelligence community knows it.
Nothing you have posted contradicts what Richard Clarke, Richard Ben-Veniste, and Condoleezza Rice said about the August 6 PDB.
For the record, I believe very little of what Clarke says. See
http://www.sinsofthehusband.com/clarke.html
However, he told Salon.com that he believed the importance of the August 6 PDB was "overblown." He also noted in his book that there was no "proof or specificity" concerning an imminent al Qaeda attack.
Given that Clarke's goal in 2004 was the election of John Kerry, if Clarke really believed that PDB was important or that we had specific information about an imminent al Qaeda attack, he would have certainly said so.
I realize that most of the liberals who visit Salon.com do so to get their "Two minutes of hate," and that I have gotten in the way of that a bit with facts and reason. However, I sincerely believe would be happier if you started treating your BDS.
newspapers across the United States are losing readership to the point of having to shut off their presses. It's understandable after 1) reading the Denver Post this morning; 2) reading this terrific article in Salon; and 3) comparing the two. In the Post we get crappy news summaries and furniture ads on every page. Here we get a kick-ass summary of what the past eight years of the Bush Administration will cost our country. Way to go Salon.com. Way to go.
To me, one number rises above the others in this horror show of fiscal irresponsibility, is the original Bush Administration's estimate of the Iraq War's total cost at SIXTY BILLION dollars. The actual cost will be over THREE TRILLION dollars. The difference between the two is not fiscal irresponsibility, it is madness.
How can a handful of wingnuts cost our country so much without being held responsible in any real way?
Great work, Vincent and Gabriel. How about doing some more for us here?
(Oh, I cancelled my subscription to the Denver Post this morning.)
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
