R's profileTRAVLINROSE'S GYPSY JOUR...PhotosBlogListsMore ![]() | Help |
TRAVLINROSE'S GYPSY JOURNALTravel, Photography Journal, Provocative News & Political Blog. "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." (Thomas Paine)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
political and/or health related support or activist groups.
Provocative and informative reads, shows and films I have discovered
USEFUL GOVERNMENT WATCHDOG SITES
military support websites and veterans organizations
Useful Information for travel and RVing.
good specialty websites
just guess
|
June 25 SANFORD, FATHER AND HUSBAND AND VOCIFEROUS "FAMILY VALUES CONSERVATIVE," ADMITS BEINGAWOL IN ARGENTINA FOR AN AFFAIR. " REPUBLICANS TOUTING FAMILY VALUES CAN'T SEEM TO STAY ZIPPED." : K. PARKERA great line from 'Daily Sow's" Jon Stewart-- " John Sanford-- just another politician with a conservative mind and a liberal penis."
Kind of says it all about these conservative hippocrites caught with their pants down.
Please Cry for Me, South Carolina
By Kathleen Parker A wise man once said that love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. No one who managed to get through the torture of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's news conference admitting to an affair would disagree. Yes, I know, shocking. Another Republican affair. Next thing you know, we'll learn that a Democrat hasn't paid his taxes. There does seem to be a pattern of failure in those matters about which people purport to care the most. If we were feeling charitable, we might say something about man's fallen nature and his attempt to repair himself through public works. Thus, Republicans touting family values can't seem to stay zipped. Democrats raising taxes can't seem to spare the change come April. We might conclude that public espousals carry certain risks of self-incrimination. Before charity exhausts its welcome, let's do give Sanford this much: He has a flair for the dramatic in what otherwise would have been merely banal. Nothing like vanishing for a few days amid lies, mystery and frenzied speculation to get that "whole sparking thing" going, as Sanford ickily described his affair. That was but one of many bits of information the governor might have spared the world -- and especially his family. His news conference felt like a combination AA meeting-tent revival, filled with self-recrimination and flagellation, absent only the sackcloth, ashes and Oprah. Although his agony seemed sincere enough to make me want to offer the man a cigarette, his apparent need to drag everyone else along his Via Dolorosa was both personally embarrassing and politically disastrous. The man would not stop talking. But first he wouldn't start. Even though most cable news channels covered the spectacle live -- and the room was fairly bursting with media and equipment -- Sanford began with a wistful recounting of his adventurous youth when he loved to hike the Appalachian Trail. What? He spoke for five minutes about those good ol' days before moving, finally, to the point: Where did he go, with whom, and why? One sensed that the governor was afraid to put a period at the end of the sentence, whereupon his own sentence would begin. As long as he talked, he could entertain an illusion of control over his life. People generally will forgive human frailty, especially in matters of the flesh. After too many such public trials, schadenfreude begins to feel as unseemly as the original sin. But Sanford's foray into iniquity has potential repercussions beyond what he and his wife ultimately resolve. He did disappear for several days, five of which he confessed to having spent "crying in Argentina." What is it about that place? And, there's no nice way to put this, he lied -- by omission if not commission. He lied by not telling his staff where he was going or how to reach him. He deceived his staff by allowing them to believe and then report to the media that the governor was hiking in the Appalachians. And most important to his political future, he failed to make arrangements for his state's uninterrupted governance. To his credit, Sanford acknowledged all of these failings, but he seemed less interested in discussing his shirking of executive duty than in making rending statements about the condition of his heart. Not only did we learn Sanford's philosophy of moral absolutes, but we were led through the meaning and purpose of God's laws. The governor even lectured on the definition of sin. Spiritually, Sanford may have succeeded in checking off several acts of contrition. But politically, he did everything wrong -- invoking religion, apologizing endlessly, and acknowledging friends in a sort of reverse intervention. Meanwhile, the questions that matter remain essentially unaddressed. Can a governor lie about his whereabouts and leave the country while his state is untended? Were taxpayer funds ever used in the pursuit of his personal gratification? Exactly a year ago, Sanford went on a South Carolina trade and investment trip to Brazil and Argentina. Undoubtedly, that trip's receipts will be closely examined. If not for Sanford's appalling judgment in disappearing, his personal travails might never have come to public light. That alone suggests that he is a man unmoored from reality and, just possibly, unfit for public office. Sanford ended his tearful remarks by saying he was committed to getting his heart right. It might serve him better to think about getting his head right. June 20 AMERICANS POLLED STRONGLY SUPPORT GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH INSURANCEREPUBLICANS LISTEN UP!!!! GET A CLUE-- THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT A PUBLIC OPTION. THE INSURANCE COOKIE JAR IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE LOW ON CASH FOR YOUR CAMPAIGNS...
Reuters: Wide support for government health plan: poll
Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:45am EDT WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday. The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two. Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care. But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage. Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed. President Barack Obama and many Democrats in Congress have argued a publicly run healthcare insurance plan would increase competition and drive down the high cost of care at a time when the U.S. economy is mired in a deep recession. Republicans argue a public plan would drive insurers out of business and lead to a government-run healthcare system. Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives suggested this week that all Americans should be able to get insurance regardless of medical history and that coverage should be mandatory for individuals and businesses. The proposal, contained in the latest House draft of the healthcare bill, would create new insurance exchanges where people shop around for health coverage. Whether a government-run plan has a role in such an exchange has spurred serious political debate. Republicans, the minority party in Congress, have proposed more modest healthcare changes, but lack the votes in the House or Senate to push them through or derail the Democrats' health reform drive. They have warned about the expected high cost of restructuring the healthcare system, projected at more than $1.5 trillion -- a huge expense for a nation carrying record budget deficits. The Republicans also hope to gain traction by playing on fears a vast expansion of government could further hurt the economy and reduce the quality of medical care. The poll found that people were uneasy about heightened government involvement in the healthcare sector, with 77 percent saying they were very or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their own care. A total of 895 adults participated in the telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. (Writing by Paul Simao; Editing by Peter Cooney)
June 19 JOHN ENSIGN- MASTER REPUBLICAN HYPOCRITE, HAS ICKY SORDID AFFAIR -- THE SAME HYPERCRITICAL MORALIST WHO ATTACKED CLINTON AND LARRY CRAIG... NOTHING BUT SYMPATHY FROM FELLOW REPUBLICANS... TYPICAL. THE HUSBAND AND THE SON OF HIS MISTRISS WORKED FOR HIM.
ANOTHER REPUBLICAN HYPOCRITE...
June 19, 2009, 7:30 pm
A Senator, an Affair, a Demand for MoneyBy Jim RutenbergA spokesman for Senator John Ensign said today that the husband of the former staff member with whom the senator admitted having an affair earlier this week had made demands for money through his lawyer. It is the first time Mr. Ensign’s office has commented on various reports that the husband, Doug Hampton, had demanded cash from the senator after learning of Mr. Ensign’s relationship with his wife, Cindy Hampton. Both Hamptons, and even their son Brandon, had worked at the Senate and political offices of Mr. Ensign, who came forward to admit the relationship on Tuesday. “Within the past month, Doug Hampton’s legal counsel made exorbitant demands for cash and other financial benefits on behalf of his client,’’ said a spokesman for the senator, Tory Mazzola. “Doug Hampton’s outrageous demand was referred to Senator Ensign’s legal counsel who is handling the matter going forward.” Mr. Mazzola also helped to clear up questions about the timing of Mr. Ensign’s public confession of the affair, which came several months after his office said it had ended: Mr. Hampton, he wrote, “approached a major television news channel before Tuesday. We learned of this fact before the press conference.” “In December of 2007 in the midst of some very difficult personal issues that deeply impacted my family and marriage, Senator Ensign pursued and engaged in a relationship with my wife,’’ the letter reads. “The unethical behavior and immoral choice of Senator Ensign has been confronted by me and others on a number of occasions over this past year,” it continues. “In fact one of the confrontations took place in February 2008 at his home in Washington DC (sic) with a group of his peers. One of the attendee’s (sic) was Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma as well as several other men who are close to the Senator.” It goes on, “Senator Ensign’s conduct and relentless pursuit of my wife led to our dismissal in April of 2008. I would like to say he stopped his heinous conduct and pursuit upon our leaving, but that was not the case and his actions did not subside until August of 2008.” A lawyer for Mr. Hampton, Daniel Albregts, has not returned phone calls seeking comment, nor has a spokesman for Senator Coburn. But today’s news – including an allegation that another senator knew of the affair — further complicates attempts by the Senate Republican leadership to move past the scandal and, at least, isolate itself from the fall out. On Wednesday Mr. Ensign resigned his post as the fourth-ranking lieutenant in the Republican Senate ranks, which appeared to help. But new information on the case has trickled out daily ever since. A producer for Ms. Kelly told a staff member to call Mr. Hampton, who, they said, was unresponsive and demanded to speak to Ms. Kelly, leading her producers to dismiss the seriousness of the letter. Mr. Ensign made his confession the following day, but officials at Fox said their senior executives did not learn of the letter’s existence until after the Sun published it today. In a brief round of interviews earlier today, Ms. Kelly’s producer, Tom Lowell, took personal responsibility for the network’s failure to follow up on the letter – effectively missing a scoop. Fox News officials would not make him available for an interview late this afternoon. The letter does not detail the discussions between Mr. Hampton’s attorney and Mr. Ensign, and it is unclear how it is consistent with Mr. Hampton’s attorney’s statement earlier this week lamenting Mr. Ensign’s public confession because “the Hamptons did everything possible to keep this matter private.” The statement criticized Mr. Ensign for announcing that he had an affair “without concern for the effect such an announcement would have on the Hampton family.” In his letter to Ms. Kelly, Mr. Hampton wrote, “I need justice, help and restitution for what Senator Ensign has done to me and my family. Regardless of technicalities, regardless of position, regardless of power this cannot and should not be tolerated in our country from our trusted leaders.” DAVID DUKE-- THE ASPIRING LEADER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?Extremist Politics Racists Threaten to Abandon Republican Party http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=1042# Already reeling from the election of a black president, white supremacists were enraged by the appointment of Michael Steele - "Obama Junior," in the words of David Duke - to chair the Republican National Committee.
Still reeling from Barack Obama's win last November, right-wing extremists were dealt another grievous body blow when former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele was elected by the Republican Party faithful in early February to become the first African-American chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Extremists view Steele's ascension to the helm of the GOP as a betrayal by the party that many considered, in their words, "the lesser of two evils." On blogs and online forums, they excoriated the Republican Party for supposedly pandering to minorities.
No one professed more outrage than David Duke, the ex-Klan boss, ex-con and former Louisiana state legislator. Duke blasted "GOP traitors" for appointing "Obama Junior as Chairman of the Republican Party."
Grasping for a silver lining, Duke bravely predicted "a huge revolt" in the Republican base. "As a former Republican official, I can tell you that millions of rank-and-file Republicans are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore! We will either take the Republican Party back over the next four years or we will say, 'To Hell with the Republican Party!' And we will take 90 percent of Republicans with us into a New Party that will take its current place!"
For now, though, white supremacists are doing more whining than revolutionizing. The Council of Conservative Citizens headlined their anti-Steele screed, "GOP continues shooting bullets into it's [sic] own corpse."
The League of the South, a racist neo-Confederate hate group that has proposed that the South secede anew, blasted Steele for reaching out to moderates in a blog post titled, "New GOP chair to Southerners and conservatives: drop dead." It concluded: "Remind me again why I should vote Republican?"
The anti-immigration hate website VDARE.com (named for Virginia Dare, the first white child born in the English New World colonies) branded the election of Steele a "disaster" for nativists and called white Christians "the new Slave class."
"Apparently Chairmanship of the Republican National Committee has become another of those positions, like being head of an Ivy League School or Governor of the Federal Reserve, to which white men of Christian heritage Need Not Apply," fumed the writer of the post, Patrick Cleburne.
Perhaps the only bright spot in recent mainstream political events for the anti-immigration sector of the extremist movement came in late January, when outgoing President Bush commuted the lengthy sentences of Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, two Border Patrol agents imprisoned for shooting an unarmed, fleeing drug smuggler in the buttocks and then attempting to cover up the episode. Nativists from Lou Dobbs to the vigilante Minutemen groups had demanded their release.
Celebration of the commuted sentences in white supremacist circles was considerably less enthusiastic, considering that both agents are of Latino descent. As "Aryan Warlord" put it in his Jan. 19 post to a Ramos-and-Compean discussion thread on the white nationalist online forum Stormfront: "Okay, so they can't hold authority over whites any more but they get out of prison [for shooting a Mexican]. I can live with that."
HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES REFUSE TO STOP ABUSIVE RECISSSION PRACTICES-- MORE PROOF WE NEED A SINGLE PAYOR OR PUBLIC OPTION PLANHEALTHCARE: ROADS TO REFORM
Health insurers refuse to limit rescission of coveragehttp://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rescind17-2009jun17,0,3508020,full.story
Susan Walsh / Associated Press
An insurance company "is supposed to honor its commitments and stand by you in your time of need," Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said. Lawmakers ask three executives if they'll stop dropping customers except where they can show "intentional fraud." All say no.
By Lisa Girion
June 17, 2009 Executives of three of the nation's largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive. The hearing on the controversial action known as rescission, which has left thousands of Americans burdened with costly medical bills despite paying insurance premiums, began a day after President Obama outlined his proposals for revamping the nation's healthcare system. Related ContentAn investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period. It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses. "No one can defend, and I certainly cannot defend, the practice of canceling coverage after the fact," said Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.), a member of the committee. "There is no acceptable minimum to denying coverage after the fact." The executives -- Richard A. Collins, chief executive of UnitedHealth's Golden Rule Insurance Co.; Don Hamm, chief executive of Assurant Health and Brian Sassi, president of consumer business for WellPoint Inc., parent of Blue Cross of California -- were courteous and matter-of-fact in their testimony. But they would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage, a refusal that met with dismay from legislators on both sides of the political aisle. Experts said it could undermine the industry's efforts to influence healthcare-overhaul plans working their way toward the White House. "Talk about tone deaf," said Robert Laszewski, a former health insurance executive who now counsels companies as a consultant. Democratic strategist Paul Begala said the hearing could hurt the industry's efforts to position itself in the debate. "The industry has tried very hard in this current effort not to be the bad guy, not to wear the black hat," Begala said. "The trouble is all that hard work and goodwill is at risk if in fact they are pursuing" such practices. Rescission was largely hidden until three years ago, when The Times launched a series of stories disclosing that insurers routinely canceled the medical coverage of individual policyholders who required expensive medical care. Sassi said rescissions are necessary to prevent people who lie about preexisting conditions from obtaining coverage and driving up costs for others. "I want to emphasize that rescission is about stopping fraud and material misrepresentations that contribute to spiraling healthcare costs," Sassi told the committee. But rescission victims testified that their policies were canceled for inadvertent omissions or honest mistakes about medical history on their applications. Rescission, they said, was about improving corporate profits rather than rooting out fraud. "It's about the money," said Jennifer Wittney Horton, a Los Angeles woman whose policy was rescinded after failure to report a weight-loss medication she was no longer taking and irregular menstruation. "Insurers ignore the law, and when they find a discrepancy or omission, they rescind the policy and refuse to pay any of your medical bills -- even for routine treatment or treatment they previously authorized," Horton said. She and others from around the country accused insurers in testimony of gaming anti-fraud laws to take policyholders' premiums, only to drop people who developed serious illnesses. They testified that they or a deceased loved one had had policies canceled over innocent mistakes and inadvertent omissions on their applications. A Texas nurse said she lost her coverage, after she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, for failing to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne. The sister of an Illinois man who died of lymphoma said his policy was rescinded for the failure to report a possible aneurysm and gallstones that his physician noted in his chart but did not discuss with him. The committee's investigation found that WellPoint's Blue Cross targeted individuals with more than 1,400 conditions, including breast cancer, lymphoma, pregnancy and high blood pressure. And the committee obtained documents that showed Blue Cross supervisors praised employees in performance reviews for rescinding policies. One employee, for instance, received a perfect 5 for "exceptional performance" on an evaluation that noted the employee's role in dropping thousands of policyholders and avoiding nearly $10 million worth of medical care. Committee members took turns, alternating Democrats and Republicans, condemning such practices. "When times are good, the insurance company is happy to sign you up and take your money in the form of premiums," said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.). "But when times are bad . . . some insurance companies use a technicality to justify breaking its promise, at a time when most patients are too weak to fight back." "I think a company does have a right to make sure there's no fraudulent information," said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.). "But if a citizen acts in good faith, we should expect the insurance company that takes their money to act in good faith also." Late in the hearing, Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show "intentional fraud." The answer from all three executives: "No." Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said that a public insurance plan should be a part of any overhaul because it would force private companies to treat consumers fairly or risk losing them. "This is precisely why we need a public option," Dingell said. Proponents of a public plan seized upon the hearing, saying it showed why access to healthcare cannot be left to private insurance companies. "This could reshape the debate," said Jerry Flanagan, a patient advocate with Santa Monica-based Consumer Watchdog. "When insurance companies go under oath and admit they are canceling innocent patients when they get sick, it makes it very difficult for lawmakers to pass a law that requires every American to buy a policy or face a tax fine. It opens the way for a public option to hold the companies in check." Rescission has fueled consumer outrage, particularly in California, where lawmakers are considering legislation to limit the practice to cases of intentional misrepresentation. It has also led to a flurry of lawsuits. In November 2007, The Times reported that insurer Health Net Inc. paid bonuses to employees based in part on their involvement in rescinding policies. According to internal corporate documents disclosed through litigation, Health Net saved $35 million over six years by rescinding policies. The disclosures in part led an arbitration judge to levy $9 million in damages against Health Net in a case involving the company's rescission of the policy of a woman diagnosed with breast cancer. At the time, Blue Cross told The Times that it did not link employee performance reviews to rescission. Blue Cross also said at the time that it had conducted audits to ensure that claims reviewers were not given any "carrots" for canceling coverage. The company reiterated that position Tuesday in spite of the committee's disclosure of two employee performance evaluations from 2003 discussing rescission levels and savings. In a statement, WellPoint spokesman Jerry Slowey said the company had "no policy to factor either the number of rescissions or the value of claims not paid in the evaluation of employee performance or when calculating employee salary or bonuses." Last year, while reviewing documents for the committee, two employee reviews from 2003 were discovered "that made reference to savings in a section of the review that contains many other factors," Slowey said. "Once we discovered this reference, more than 100 other individuals' reviews were reviewed, and no other such references were found." "The fact that two out of more than 100 individuals handling possible rescissions points to the fact that this was just two associates in the same area recognizing the work done that year to uncover fraud and abuse," he said. lisa.girion@latimes.com |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|