Post #305,719
3/17/09 8:12:52 PM
|
A little more...
http://www.talkingpo...fing_--_31709.php
Q One other quick policy question. The President met yesterday with about 11 veterans groups, and discussed with the chief of staff and the head of the Veterans Administration the concept -- which hasn't been put in the President's budget yet, but it's on the table -- of having third-party insurance companies pay for combat-related injuries -- something that's never happened before. The American Legion put out a very strong letter today condemning that; IABA also has questioned this very strongly. Can you conceptually explain to the American people why for the first time it would be a good idea to think about the Veterans Administration having a third-party private insurance company pay for combat-related injuries?
MR. GIBBS: Let me not make the case for a decision that this administration hasn't made yet regarding the final disposition or decision on third-party billing as it relates to service-related injuries.
Q It is on the table, though, correct?
MR. GIBBS: But no decisions have been made. Let me give this answer to -- and I know that the veterans, the VSOs, the Veterans Service Organizations that were here yesterday to meet with the President, the VA chief and the Chief of Staff, who will return later in the week to meet again with the Chief of Staff, can have confidence that the budget the President has proposed represents an historic increase in discretionary spending to take care of our wounded warriors, those that have been sent off to war, have protected our freedom and have come back wounded. There's an 11-percent increase in discretionary spending in the VA budget, an historic jump -- because this President takes very seriously the needs of our wounded warriors that have given so much to protect our freedom on battlefields throughout the world.
Q But why would this even be on the table?
MR. GIBBS: Again, I think the President and the VSOs had a good conversation, and the veterans can be assured that the President understands any concerns that they would have, as well as shares -- looks forward to sharing with them the fact that the budget represents an historic increase for discretionary spending as it relates to taking care of wounded warriors.
The Post says neither the House nor Senate include billing 3rd parties for combat-related insurance costs. http://www.washingto...html?hpid=topnews
The plan would authorize the VA to pursue reimbursement of medical costs from private insurers, or so-called third-party billing, for treating injuries and medical conditions sustained in the course of a veteran's military service. The VA already pursues third-party billing for non-service-related conditions.
[...]
The Senate and House committees on veterans' affairs explicitly rejected the proposal today when they submitted recommendations on VA budget levels to their respective budget committees. But leaders of veterans groups said today that President Obama told them in a stormy meeting Monday that the plan would remain up for discussion. A meeting between the groups and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is scheduled for Thursday.
[...]
Presumably the press will turn its herd instincts (search for "AIG" in the transcript above) toward this issue on Thursday, and maybe we'll learn more then.
It looks to me that someone in the Administration thought that since the VA bills insurance companies for some things for vets, then they assumed they should bill them for more - or at least put the possibility on the table for discussion. (Just my guess, though.)
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #305,720
3/17/09 8:15:26 PM
|
its on the table
when the president should have said, that stupid fucking idea aint happening on my watch
:-(
|
Post #305,740
3/18/09 4:36:08 AM
|
Lessee if I've got this straight -- vulture capitalism is
crumbling, as is Pakistan; we can't keep paying-off the irascible ones-with-guns in Iraq; the entire Suit-Class has been demonstrated to be -- non compos mentis AND ethics-free, having also spawned the Zombie bank.
That's 3% of just the critical matters, never mind planets, crumbling structures, rearmed Russkies with dyspepsia and and
He's been in there shy of 2 months, and you insist that he hit every soft- low- high- fast- ball Outta the Park..
NOW! Kid
Too much caffeine? or just normal surreal dogma.
|
Post #305,745
3/18/09 7:38:03 AM
|
I'm afraid that the two month sword cuts both ways.
True, he's only been in for two months. I'm doing the best I can to give him the benefit of the doubt. But... in that two months he has
- endorsed a two tier justice system, one for the rich and powerful and a more draconian system for the worker bees, by insisting that he will only look forward and not poke into the messes of the previous administration.
- stacked his administration with beltway insider retreads who maintain the status quo if their embarrassing sense of self entitlement allows them to keep the job.
- is still killing civilians in Pakistan in the hopes of getting a "bad guy" in the process.
- seems to be keeping the powers hijacked by the Bush administration.
- hasn't done a whole hell of a lot about the Gitmo situation except to have things reviewed in half a year or so. Some of these guys have been in custody for six years without charges. Why should they mind another six months? And he got rid of the "enemy combatant" designation! Maybe they can become "sea kittens" of something...
- has been reaching out to just about everybody except the people who voted for him.
- while firmly against signing statements, he will continue to use them, but only for good. Trust him. Really.
I will admit that it is a refreshing change to have a president who can speak in complete sentences when he wants to. However... There haven't been ANY accomplishments that I can see. He could have done SOMETHING, even if it was a completely symbolic gesture to show that he will effect changes. He doesn't seem to be able to upset anybody. I get the uneasy feeling that I'm being distracted while his policy makers set me up in the back room. It's only been two months, but he has done an awful lot to disappoint me in that short time.
It's my own fault. I forgot the maxim: "Blessed are they who have no expectations, for they will not be disappointed." I suppose there still may be hope, but I'm not expecting it any more. I think we, as a country, are getting to the point where we must regard him as just another in a long line of politicians and treat him accordingly.
|
Post #305,748
3/18/09 8:15:05 AM
|
+5 Enlightened
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #305,752
3/18/09 9:46:37 AM
|
You know, I have to say
that I find it very strange that because he's a politician (well duh!) therefore he's just the same as the person before. Sorry, this is not true. Furthermore, we don't yet know exactly what he may have in mind for a lot of those issues that hnick elucidates. For example... he's a constitutional law professor. Is it possible that he understands that giving congress back it's constitutional powers via presidential fiat accomplishes nothing wrt the organic law of your constitution? That he understands that for it to be able to have the force of law as understood under our legal systems that Congress needs to force him to give it up, having ceded it to his office in the first place? If Congress is too spineless to actually do the stuff that it's supposed to do, what is he supposed to do about it, exactly?
There's a great book I read many years ago, called In Defence of Politics. It's by a brit, ISTR his name was Crick or something like that. You guys should read it, because the point that he makes is a very very relevant one to the situation your country is in. Personally, I find it strange that Americans seem to have this idea that the President is not supposed to be a politician, and if he is, then he's useless. That's just laughable.
|
Post #305,753
3/18/09 9:53:47 AM
|
Yeah, but don't miss the forest for the trees.
1) Holder is still evaluating changes to Bush's policies on the GWoT.
2) Keep in mind that he expresses his opinions on things like investigating Bush's policies, but he expects Congress to do their job. Once/If the majority in the Senate increases enough to reduce the filibuster threat (after the 2010 elections), expect Congress to be less afraid to figure out who did what when.
3) Obama still sets the agenda in the Administration. If Summers and Geithner and ... aren't up to the job, I have little doubt that he'll bring in new blood. Who was he supposed to pick to hit the job running on these issues? He had to pick people with previous government experience, and that means Clinton people. (Carter's people are too old by now.)
4) The policy and tactics in Afghanistan are also being reviewed. I'm heartened that he's spoken much less frequently about "defeating the Taliban" since last summer. He does recognize the complexity of the situation. I expect significant changes when the review is complete.
5) (Broken record, I know but) Gitmo is also being reviewed.
6) Obama's trying desperately to build a big tent while making sure that no single group has a veto on the policy. It takes time.
7) We'll see how the signing statement stuff turns out... :-/
As for what he's done, it's easy to take the MSM punditry view and only see stasis and crisis. But he has changed things a lot with more changes to come. Compare the Laws passed (and signed) by the 111th Congress in the last 2-3 months with those under similar time frames under Bush. http://www.thomas.go...111/d111laws.html
By all means be skeptical and keep an eye on him. I'm attempting to do the same, but I refuse to buy into the meme that some are trying to push (not you) that Obama has already failed. :-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #305,758
3/18/09 10:34:02 AM
|
Excuse me you 2
but were we not promised CHANGE...and now you seem to defend using status quo as a defense?
I agree that 2 months doesn't make the man's legacy...but it has NOT been a pretty 2 months by any stretch of the imagination.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #305,797
3/18/09 4:19:25 PM
|
Re: Yeah, but don't miss the forest for the trees.
I'm not whining, or at least trying not to. Obama was cut a lot of slack to get voted in; he was running on promises with no backing. I had a bad feeling when he folded on the FISA vote. As Jake pointed out, he's a professional politician. I really don't want to believe that means that everything he says is bullshit.
As far as all the evaluations going on, since he is a constitutional scholar, he could just say, "This is fucking illegal. MAKE IT STOP!" He IS the head of the party and they have control and his job description DID have a requirement to protect the constitution.
As far as a big tent, if he's really trying to co-opt the Republicans, I'm going to have to reevaluate my estimation of his intelligence. He is still a popular president. He could use that to try to at least kick his own people into line to advance his agenda. If he's not going to go that far, he's not going to advance any change whatsoever. He has Pelosi and Reid, both of whom are so tough their shit has muscles, but only when facing other Democrats. When a Republican gives them a dirty look, they roll over on their backs and pee on their stomachs. If he can't get them in line, he needs to do something about it. That, at least, is normal party politics.
Routinely killing civilians by remote control, because they MIGHT be standing near a "bad guy" is SO antithetical to our alleged society that I just don't know where a review would begin. They could use the same drones to get pictures and see if they could leverage Pakistan's government to do some of the foot work. I mean, since we really don't live over there and all...
Looking forward to 2010 or 2012 is also a non-starter. I'd really like some of these losers to actually do their friggin job NOW. If it's not too much trouble...
I just don't know. I guess I just don't see the big picture. Or about half of my life's savings, for that matter. Still, I'm better off than somebody standing next to an Afghani Jehovahs Witness while drones are flying...
|
Post #305,801
3/18/09 5:38:10 PM
|
on drones and targets
killing the indians you can find because you cant find the ones you want to kill has been US policy for a long time.
Sherman's march to the sea.
carpet bombing of german civilians
carpet bombing and nuking japanese
puff and b52's in Nam
nothing new here
thanx,
bill
|
Post #305,805
3/18/09 5:45:21 PM
|
Duh!
It is antithetical to our social values. We've been fuckheads for a while now. I was kinda hoping for change. Walk it like we talk it? Maybe next time.
|
