ACTUALLY...
Dubya will be replaced in 2008! Period! He can't go longer than that! Beep beep beep game over!!
<feels better, momentarily...>
blatham, I was wondering why somebody went through the bother of posting on this forum, but after reading the article, I can see why. I'm gonna paste this one on the Iraq forum. Thx, c.i.
Be my guest, ci...and merry christmas to you and yours.
Same to you and yours. HAVE A GREAT ONE!
Governors Unite in Medicaid Fight
By PAM BELLUCK
Published: December 26, 2004
BOSTON, Dec. 25 - Fearful that President Bush plans to shift more Medicaid costs to the states, the nation's governors are mounting a bipartisan lobbying effort to stave off new federal limits on the program.
Medicaid, the nation's largest health insurance program, is costing the states and the federal government more than $300 billion a year. The growth of the program, which covers the poor and disabled, has outpaced state revenues, and Medicaid is now a larger component of total state spending than elementary and secondary education combined, according to the National Governors Association.
Showing rare bipartisan unity, governors of both parties said in interviews this week that they would press hard in the coming months to preserve or even increase their current Medicaid allotments.
"I certainly understand the need to balance the federal budget," said Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a Republican and the vice chairman of the governors association. "But people need to remember that to balance the federal budget off the backs of the poorest people in the country is simply unacceptable. You don't pull feeding tubes from people. You don't pull the wheelchair out from under the child with muscular dystrophy."
The association's chairman, Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia, a Democrat, said the governors were "much more in unanimity on this issue than they are on most issues." He added, "We do see on a regular basis that unless the governors step up, you will see cost-shifting done because it relieves the federal problem."
The governors could find themselves on a collision course with Mr. Bush, who has pledged to cut the federal budget deficit in half in the next five years. A bipartisan lobbying effort would also put pressure on the Republican-controlled Congress.
The White House has not tipped its hand on its new budget and has declined to comment on its plans for Medicaid. Federal officials, however, have said they are sending auditors to state capitals to review Medicaid programs and cracking down on methods that states have been using to try to get as much federal Medicaid money as possible.
The governors, who will be forming a committee to press their Medicaid agenda, say they are determined to avoid repeating their experience the last time they tried to negotiate Medicaid changes with federal officials, in 2003. Mr. Bush at that time proposed giving each state a fixed amount of federal money each year for 10 years, instead of basing federal payments on actual health costs and enrollment.
"They tried to cap it the last time around," said Gov. Bob Taft of Ohio, a Republican. "Then, you're asking the states to take a risk - what if the caseload grows?" That effort to make major changes in the program collapsed after lengthy negotiations between federal officials and a bipartisan group of governors.
The governors say Medicaid, which insures a quarter of the nation's children and two-thirds of its nursing-home patients, has become so expensive that it now, on average, makes up 22 percent of states' budgets, compared with 10 percent in 1987.
"It's just a huge problem for Ohio and almost every other state that I know about," said Mr. Taft, adding that he had titled a recent speech "Medicaid: The Monster in the Middle of the Road."
"We're going to have to do cuts in services, cuts in people on the caseload," Mr. Taft said. "We're going to have to freeze or possibly even cut some provider rates just to restrain the growth. It's squeezing what we can do for schools, what we can do for higher education. We're constraining and tightening our belt in every way, cutting the number of state employees. If we could control Medicaid we wouldn't have budget problems in Ohio."
Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts is among several governors battling the Bush administration's efforts to eliminate a practice some states use to get more federal Medicaid money. The federal government says these states' practice of transferring money to county governments or local hospitals is a way to get more federal Medicaid money by making it appear that they are spending more on Medicaid than they are.
In Massachusetts, the Bush administration says $580 million in federal Medicaid money obtained using such a practice was an improper grant. Mr. Romney disagrees.
This administration's conduct regarding those imprisoned at Guatanemo Bay is completely vile.
On the
presumption that these prisoners
might return to Afghanistan or Iraq or somewhere else and wage war against us again, they will simply be held there.
And tortured:
Quote:Using the Freedom of Information Act, the American Civil Liberties Union has uncovered thousands of government documents detailing torture of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. One FBI memo about Gitmo cited "strangulation, beatings, placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees' ear openings, and unauthorized interrogations." It also repeatedly referred to a "cover-up."
The White House has long insisted that detainee abuses, first detailed at Abu Ghraib, were isolated, unrelated to interrogations, and certainly not happening at Gitmo. While the documents don't prove that torture was official policy, they do, as an acerbic Washington Post editorial put it, "establish beyond any doubt that every part of this cover story is false."
FOIA Eyes Only
This isn't a goddamn bit different than what Saddam was doing.
Trends to watch...
China has just cut deals for oil with both Canada and Venezuela. As their demands for the resource continue to grow, and as their clout in the world economy continues to grow, China will increasingly be in competition with the US.
Note today in various media that US oil corp execs are doing the bow and scrape to Khadafy because of oil supplies there, which ought to be tossed into the mid-east equation of the last four years.
This administration used torture on these suspects without charges of criminal behavior, and now they are going to hold them indefinitely. Where's the world community and courts? These guys are running roughshod over international and Geneva Convention rules and regulations, and most Americans are saying nothing! This is part and parcel of what's happening in Iraq; America has lost it's moral voice.
Actually it is quite a bit different. To my knowledge Saddam's regime did not respond to Freedon of information requests from the ACLU. These documents have been characterized by the ACLU as indicating what they say amounts to systematic torture, however the government of the United States denys, which released the documents denys their interpretation. The ACLU have offered no comparable account of what was found in Saddam's torture establishment as a basis on which to establish that the two are at all comparable.
Hyperbole and hyperventillation about not much at all.
Yes, the two are different...as murder is different from merely chopping off someone's hand.
The "government of the US denies [it]". And that denial is precisely as valuable as any statement in any courtroom coming from the person on trial that he/she is innocent.
Even Scott Peterson denied killing his wife and baby. Says alot about some people's mind-set about honesty, ethics, and laws.
Happy New Year.
Just popped in to point out the title of this 584 page thread appears to be in need of some slight revision. Some have perhaps mentioned this already.
We are stuck with Mr. Bush, with only the consolation that he is at least now a lame duck.
Let's talk about replacing the neocons in 2005.
Greyfan, I'm all for that! Why don't you start a new forum. You can create the title. Don't forget to link it from this thread. ;-)
BTW, read this past week that Bush's handling of the war in Iraq is below 50 percent. That's bouund to head further south as more violence is reported in the media.
It will become increasingly clear to those of us who really do not much like Bush and team nor the interest groups and policies aligned with Bush that we are very fortunate indeed that Kerry did not win this last election.
There is very little good news ahead. That would not have changed with a Kerry win. And as things continue to fall apart (as in Iraq) it will become apparent to more that present policies and individuals are greatly responsible for what has gone wrong.
Don't lie. Try not to exaggerate. Keep yourself educated and intellectually honest. And keep yelling loudly at the ugly crap these guys are doing.
As more mothers, fathers, siblings, and friends realize the futility of this war in Iraq as they lose their loved ones, just maybe, they'll begin to wake up to the reality that their sacrifice doesn't have much meaning. Some will continue to delude themselves that this president did it for the good of the American People.
