to run for office. If one has to release them they all should. What is Obama's family history? Is he on antihypertensives? Is he on any kind of mood altering meds? Does he have high cholesterol? lol. That is none of my business, and neither is McCain's medical record.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
>> John McCain has not yet released his medical records to the public. McCain is 72 years old, and has been diagnosed with invasive melanoma. In May of this year, a small group of selected reporters were allowed to review 1,173 pages of McCain’s medical records that covered only the last eight years, and were allowed only three hours to do so. John McCain’s health is an issue of profound importance. We call on John McCain to issue a full, public disclosure of all of his medical records, available for the media and members of the general public to review. >>
just the ones we know (and have known) are innocent. Gitmo absolutely has to be closed. At this point it is and always will be a brand for the US. What did the N. Koreans say when asked about the treatment of those 2 girls they have? They said "we aren't Gitmo." That should tell you a lot right there.
The ones who are guilty can easily be imprisoned in the US. We already have terrorists of the worst kind in our prisons, and to date there has never been anyone escape from a maximum security prison. Would they influence other inmates? Possibly. But they can also be separated from other inmates. There is no plausible reason for us not to do this.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZDFkMGE2MmM1M2Q5MmY0ZmExMzUxMWRhZGJmMTAyOGY
It has been release, viewed by the courts
Sme people just want to live inside the lies they create...and often are not able to distinguish reality from fiction. Most children outgrow this but, on the other hand, some never do.
Watching press release
Could our president be double-standard? Reporters are asking really good tough questions. No confidence in this new administration whatsoever.
He will release all the "torture" memos from the....
previous admin, but says it is none of our business who he sees in the White House. There seems to be the tiniest bit of hypocrisy going on here...but on wait. No...politics as usual. O says: If releasing it hurts them, do it. If it hurts me, don't do it. They are accountable. I am not. Yes, I said I was going to stop the war if I get elected. No wait...I am going to ramp up the one in Afghanistan and keep fighting the one in Iraq as well to the tune of what was it...3 billion? Yes, you complained about the cost in men and money and I agreed and you elected me, but here's the thing. We can't just pull out (like Bush said). So we set a "date," but trust me, if things are looking good then we will just push the date. Don't hold me to the date (flash of the big white smile). You wanted transparency in government. So did I, and I got elected. No, wait. I want the previous administration transparent. I gotta have my secrets y'know, Presidental privilege and all that. Do I have something to hide? Why no, of course not...it might effect National Security. Oh wait...Bush used that excuse didn't he? Well, I will think of something else if I have to, but just take my word for it. That has worked for you up to now, hasn't it? (flash that big white smile, YES WE CAN).
I saw a blurb on the web where O was whining because Fox News was constantly "attacking him." What a whiner. He should try being attacked on a daily basis by every other news outlet the way the previous administration was. Geez. Poor baby. LOL.
And people see this guy as a great leader. Holey moley. LOL.
The White House on Friday threw its support behind a plan to speed release of $25 billion in existing loans to the Big Three automakers but rejected a Democratic proposal to use money from a financial bailout to help the troubled industry.
The $700 billion financial rescue package was never intended to help automakers and shouldn't be now, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told The Associated Press. But since Democratic leaders in Congress are pressing forward with a proposal to carve out a piece of its for the auto industry, she said the White House has decided to pursue a different approach: accelerating the availability of federal loans Congress first approved in September.
Those loans were approved to help automakers build more fuel-efficient vehicles and become more competitive companies in the global marketplace. The administration now supports allowing the loans to be released more quickly than the original legislation prescribed and to be used for more urgent purposes as the companies struggle to stay afloat.
"Democrats are choosing a path that would only lead to partisan gridlock," she said. "We are now actively calling on Congress to amend the loan program."
I've watched Democratic strategists long enough to know that they are masters in the art of misdirection and misinformation, and I find the timing of the release of these so-called "torture" memos to be cast directly in the same mold as some of the tricks that Carville and Rahm Emanual engineered to try to take attention off of President Clinton's problems until they could no longer hold back the tide of public indignation.
Consider that in the days prior to the release of these memos, which served absolutely no other useful purpose, the White House had been staggered by two things:
1. Obama's massive budget was getting massive push-back, even from members in his own party. The conversation on Capitol Hill was turning extremely ugly, and Obama was having to do head-fakes like ordering his cabinet to make "$100 million in budget cuts" - which looks like a big number, but actually amounts to less than 3/100ths of the Obama budget. In other words, this was like asking a family that spends $40,000 a year to find some way to save about $1.18.
The head fake wasn't working. Folks with calculators wised up.
Then, the administration was rocked by the tea parties. Oh yes, I know that Obama's brilliant response was that he "hadn't noticed them" (and this man is in charge of our national intelligence agencies, mind you)...but who's buying that bull? Umm, no one did.
Then, we had the little fiasco at the "American summit", with Obama doing everything but slipping one of the world's most brutal dictators, Chavez, a little tongue (and we can't be sure about that).
And, there was some other ugly stuff happening with the Obama administration like his Rasmussen Approval Index falling from a high of +30 when he took office to +2. The index is calculated by subtracting the percentage of Americans who "strongly approve" of Obama from the percentage of those who "strongly disapprove". Although the AP continues to trumpet ridiculously high numbers for Obama, I can assure you that Rahm Emanuel knows the truth. And he ain't a happy camper these days.
...and some nasty shove-back within his own party on cap-and-trade as well. It hasn't been a great couple of weeks for the administration, let's put it that way.
And suddenly we have these memos and if you'll notice, hardly anyone's been talking very much about the budget, the fake budget cuts, the Chavez debacle, the slipping poll numbers or anything else except George Bush and the former administration.
Please note that this has been the modus operandi of this administration ever since they took office. Blame everything bad on the previous administration (never mind that Obama himself voted for budget bailouts, etc. as a Senator). Take credit for everything positive that happens - if we can find any.
Now, some will believe that Obama released these memos at this particular time merely as a coincidence, and for the sole purpose of ...umm, well I can't think of what that would be, but you can probably find out on Huffington or one of the other left-loon rags.
Unfortunately, the whole thing backfired. He didn't get support from the moderates on the left for this idea for a nation-distracting witch hunt and he found himself with only the liberal crazies signing up for his dance card.
Whaddya want to bet? I'd bet a pretty good chunk of the farm that there was a lot more behind the release of these memos than meets the wool-covered eyes of the voters. Oh - and one other thing. Obama's a long way from running out of wool.
Family members of Judge Sotomayor in attendance at today’s East Room announcement:
Celina Sotomayor (mother) Omar Lopez (stepfather) Juan Sotomayor (brother) Tracey Sotomayor (sister-in-law) Kylie Sotomayor (niece) Conner and Corey Sotomayor (nephews)
Judge Sonia Sotomayor
Sonia Sotomayor has served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit since October 1998. She has been hailed as “one of the ablest federal judges currently sitting” for her thoughtful opinions,i and as “a role model of aspiration, discipline, commitment, intellectual prowess and integrity”ii for her ascent to the federal bench from an upbringing in a South Bronx housing project.
Her American story and three decade career in nearly every aspect of the law provide Judge Sotomayor with unique qualifications to be the next Supreme Court Justice. She is a distinguished graduate of two of America's leading universities. She has been a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator. Before she was promoted to the Second Circuit by President Clinton, she was appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. She replaces Justice Souter as the only Justice with experience as a trial judge.
Judge Sotomayor served 11 years on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, one of the most demanding circuits in the country, and has handed down decisions on a range of complex legal and constitutional issues. If confirmed, Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years. Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit, said “Sonia is an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind. She brings a wealth of knowledge and hard work to all her endeavors on our court. It is both a pleasure and an honor to serve with her.”
In addition to her distinguished judicial service, Judge Sotomayor is a Lecturer at Columbia University Law School and was also an adjunct professor at New York University Law School until 2007.
An American Story
Judge Sonia Sotomayor has lived the American dream. Born to a Puerto Rican family, she grew up in a public housing project in the South Bronx. Her parents moved to New York during World War II – her mother served in the Women’s Auxiliary Corps during the war. Her father, a factory worker with a third-grade education, died when Sotomayor was nine years old. Her mother, a nurse, then raised Sotomayor and her younger brother, Juan, now a physician in Syracuse. After her father’s death, Sotomayor turned to books for solace, and it was her new found love of Nancy Drew that inspired a love of reading and learning, a path that ultimately led her to the law.
Most importantly, at an early age, her mother instilled in Sotomayor and her brother a belief in the power of education. Driven by an indefatigable work ethic, and rising to the challenge of managing a diagnosis of juvenile diabetes, Sotomayor excelled in school. Sotomayor graduated as valedictorian of her class at Blessed Sacrament and at Cardinal Spellman High School in New York. She first heard about the Ivy League from her high school debate coach, Ken Moy, who attended Princeton University, and she soon followed in his footsteps after winning a scholarship.
At Princeton, she continued to excel, graduating summa cum laude, and Phi Beta Kappa. She was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. At Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor served as an Editor of the Yale Law Journal and as managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order. One of Sotomayor’s former Yale Law School classmates, Robert Klonoff (now Dean of Lewis & Clark Law School), remembers her intellectual toughness from law school: “She would stand up for herself and not be intimidated by anyone.” [Washington Post, 5/7/09]
A Champion of the Law
Over a distinguished career that spans three decades, Judge Sotomayor has worked at almost every level of our judicial system – yielding a depth of experience and a breadth of perspectives that will be invaluable – and is currently not represented -- on our highest court. New York City District Attorney Morgenthau recently praised Sotomayor as an “able champion of the law” who would be “highly qualified for any position in which wisdom, intelligence, collegiality and good character could be assets.” [Wall Street Journal, 5/9/09]
A Fearless and Effective Prosecutor
Fresh out of Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor became an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan in 1979, where she tried dozens of criminal cases over five years. Spending nearly every day in the court room, her prosecutorial work typically involved "street crimes," such as murders and robberies, as well as child abuse, police misconduct, and fraud cases. Robert Morgenthau, the person who hired Judge Sotomayor, has described her as a “fearless and effective prosecutor.” [Wall Street Journal, 5/9/09] She was cocounsel in the “Tarzan Murderer” case, which convicted a murderer to 67 and ½ years to life in prison, and was sole counsel in a multiple-defendant case involving a Manhattan housing project shooting between rival family groups.
A Corporate Litigator
She entered private practice in 1984, becoming a partner in 1988 at the firm Pavia and Harcourt. She was a general civil litigator involved in all facets of commercial work including, real estate, employment, banking, contracts, and agency law. In addition, her practice had a significant concentration in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright and unfair competition issues. Her typical clients were significant corporations doing international business. The managing partner who hired her, George Pavia, remembers being instantly impressed with the young Sonia Sotomayor when he hired her in 1984, noting that “she was just ideal for us in terms of her background and training.” [Washington Post, May 7, 2009]
A Sharp and Fearless Trial Judge
Her judicial service began in October 1992 with her appointment to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. Still in her 30s, she was the youngest member of the court. From 1992 to 1998, she presided over roughly 450 cases. As a trial judge, she earned a reputation as a sharp and fearless jurist who does not let powerful interests bully her into departing from the rule of law. In 1995, for example, she issued an injunction against Major League Baseball owners, effectively ending a baseball strike that had become the longest work stoppage in professional sports history and had caused the cancellation of the World Series the previous fall. She was widely lauded for saving baseball. Claude Lewis of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote that by saving the season, Judge Sotomayor joined “the ranks of Joe DiMaggio, Willie Mays, Jackie Robinson and Ted Williams.”
A Tough, Fair and Thoughtful Jurist
President Clinton appointed Judge Sotomayor to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1998. She is the first Latina to serve on that court, and has participated in over 3000 panel decisions, authoring roughly 400 published opinions. Sitting on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has tackled a range of questions: from difficult issues of constitutional law, to complex procedural matters, to lawsuits involving complicated business organizations. In this context, Sotomayor is widely admired as a judge with a sophisticated grasp of legal doctrine. “’She appreciates the complexity of issues,’ said Stephen L. Carter, a Yale professor who teaches some of her opinions in his classes. Confronted with a tough case, Carter said, ‘she doesn’t leap at its throat but reasons to get to the bottom of issues.’” For example, in United States v. Quattrone, Judge Sotomayor concluded that the trial judge had erred by forbidding the release of jurors’ names to the press, concluding after carefully weighing the competing concerns that the trial judge’s concerns for a speedy and orderly trial must give way to the constitutional freedoms of speech and the press.
Sotomayor also has keen awareness of the law’s impact on everyday life. Active in oral arguments, she works tirelessly to probe both the factual details and the legal doctrines in the cases before her and to arrive at decisions that are faithful to both. She understands that upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts. For example, In United States v. Reimer, Judge Sotomayor wrote an opinion revoking the US citizenship for a man charged with working for the Nazis in World War II Poland, guarding concentration camps and helping empty the Jewish ghettos. And in Lin v. Gonzales and a series of similar cases, she ordered renewed consideration of the asylum claims of Chinese women who experienced or were threatened with forced birth control, evincing in her opinions a keen awareness of those women’s plights.
Judge Sotomayor’s appreciation of the real-world implications of judicial rulings is paralleled by her sensible practicality in evaluating the actions of law enforcement officers. For example, in United States v. Falso, the defendant was convicted of possessing child pornography after FBI agents searched his home with a warrant. The warrant should not have been issued, but the agents did not know that, and Judge Sotomayor wrote for the court that the officers’ good faith justified using the evidence they found. Similarly in United States v. Santa, Judge Sotomayor ruled that when police search a suspect based on a mistaken belief that there is a valid arrest warrant out on him, evidence found during the search should not be suppressed. Ten years later, in Herring v. United States, the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion. In her 1997 confirmation hearing, Sotomayor spoke of her judicial philosophy, saying” I don’t believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it.” Her record on the Second Circuit holds true to that statement. For example, in Hankins v. Lyght, she argued in dissent that the federal government risks “an unconstitutional trespass” if it attempts to dictate to religious organizations who they can or cannot hire or dismiss as spiritual leaders. Since joining the Second Circuit, Sotomayor has honored the Constitution, the rule of law, and justice, often forging consensus and winning conservative colleagues to her point of view.
A Commitment to Community
Judge Sotomayor is deeply committed to her family, to her co-workers, and to her community. Judge Sotomayor is a doting aunt to her brother Juan’s three children and an attentive godmother to five more. She still speaks to her mother, who now lives in Florida, every day. At the courthouse, Judge Sotomayor helped found the collegiality committee to foster stronger personal relationships among members of the court. Seizing an opportunity to lead others on the path to success, she recruited judges to join her in inviting young women to the courthouse on Take Your Daughter to Work Day, and mentors young students from troubled neighborhoods Her favorite project, however, is the Development School for Youth program, which sponsors workshops for inner city high school students. Every semester, approximately 70 students attend 16 weekly workshops that are designed to teach them how to function in a work setting. The workshop leaders include investment bankers, corporate executives and Judge Sotomayor, who conducts a workshop on the law for 25 to 35 students. She uses as her vehicle the trial of Goldilocks and recruits six lawyers to help her. The students play various roles, including the parts of the prosecutor, the defense attorney, Goldilocks and the jurors, and in the process they get to experience openings, closings, direct and cross-examinations. In addition to the workshop experience, each student is offered a summer job by one of the corporate sponsors. The experience is rewarding for the lawyers and exciting for the students, commented Judge Sotomayor, as “it opens up possibilities that the students never dreamed of before.” [Federal Bar Council News, Sept./Oct./Nov. 2005, p.20] This is one of many ways that Judge Sotomayor gives back to her community and inspires young people to achieve their dreams.
She has served as a member of the Second Circuit Task Force on Gender, Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts and was formerly on the Boards of Directors of the New York Mortgage Agency, the New York City Campaign Finance Board, and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Medicare and Medicaid already have a program in place that will subsidize a hospital's cost to change to EHR so that it makes it easier for them to process claims.
I did look at the records
of McCain and Obama. I always research who I'm voting for before I vote. I don't want to be one of those uninformed voters like the ones that were interviewed and said they had no problem with Sarah Palin being Obama's VP. I mean....come on. If you are that misinformed that you don't even know the candidates VP choice....you shouldn't be voting.
My problem was that I didn't have faith in either McCain or Obama. I voted for McCain because I felt he was the lesser of two evils and I didn't want to throw my vote away by voting for an independent. I'm not doing that any more. If I think an independent is better, I'm bucking both parties. Maybe if both parties lose, they may open their eyes and see that both parties have screwed up and both parties have p!ssed us off.
voting records...yes, let's go there...
Obama -- most liberal senator in the senate based on his votes. Biden -- 3rd most liberal. That means more government, more spending, more programs...no thanks. As for "voting with Bush..." Anything that passed was also voted for by the majority of Democrats. As President Obama can't vote for anything, as Bush can't, so I don't see how Obama is going to change anything. That's how it works. Nice try, no cigar (no pun intended).
JM did not adopt Obama's exit strategy. If anyone did, Bush did...he's the President now and the strategy is being applied now. Obama admitted on O'Reilly that the surge succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams. That one he voted against too. Biggest national security/foreign policy decision during the war and he voted against it. Enough said.
If you had watched his speech, he outlined it. He said his administration would be completely transparent. I believe him. Obama says he is going to change things. He doesn't say how. You believe him.
Oh good grief. You don't even know what pork barrel spending is, and it is the same on both sides. It is attaching things to bills to help your financial supporters back at home and selling your vote to get the earmark. Has nothing to do with social programs. Both sides do it, and it needs to stop. Politicians should be there to take care of ALL of us...not their fatcat supporters, and yes...Obama has fat cat supporters...Moveon.org to name one.
Boy, you have that class warefare mantra down. Trouble is, you buy it, I don't. I know better. Name one evil corporation who does not employ tens of thousands of Americans, who will loose their jobs if Obama taxes them into oblivion. Name just ONE.
American imperial delusions of grandeur. What does that even mean?? Look at T. Boone Pickens again. He said: "Yes, drill EVERYWHERE, drill NOW. But that is not enough." John McCain says the same thing.
Some of us actually READ RECORDS.
nm
Checking adoption records
I agree. I think the media is way out of line with that. Judge Roberts and his wife should be commended and respected for having the love and compassion in their hearts to adopt these children.
The more I see of him, the more respect I have for him and the more I like him.
Secondly, he did not seal his college records. The colleges did this. Apparently it is common practice with presidential candidates as they are flooded with requests during the campaign.
looked at her financial records lately?
she is definitely not a poor girl in my opinion. I think she could afford to buy her own clothes...
"People have to start looking at records
when they are voting" so what in McCain's record was so appealing? Firstly, he cheated on his wife who was in a horrible car wreck, and then eventually married for money. Not much appealing going on there. Secondly, his record of Keating-5 not very appealing. Thirdly, he doesn't know anything about the economy, handled himself erradically; that's not appealing to me, for sure. So as far as the choice, Americans have chosen the right person for prez in these dire times.
"A prez/rep has of the people has to hold the constituents thoughts in mind when they are voting." If I understand this, I think you mean the prez/rep has to remember why they were voted into office. What has Obama done in one week that has not shown that he is doing just that? He most certainly has done, in one week, a lot that the American people who voted for him want done. So far, so good.
"People have to get involved by writing to their reps." Did you write to Bush when he invaded a country without reason, when he was killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people? Did you write to your rep when he and his cronies sanctioned torture? Did you write to your rep when they put in jail PFCs for the Abu Ghraibe deal, which goes much higher than Private First Class!! Did you write to your rep when Katrina hit and thousands of people were stranded, and some even killed by police officers who are sworn to help people, when they had nothing to drink for 5 days? Did you write to your rep when Halliburton stole Billions of bucks? Did you? No? didn't think so. So much for your involvement.
...is that with each job cut that is announced, more than likely there is another American who becomes uninsured (since many can't afford to pay COBRA payments). So if we had 47 million people previously uninsured, that number has increased by a few million or so (at least) since it was last researched.
I believe that medical represents a HUGE cost to companies, which is another reason I don't believe medical coverage should have anything to do with employment.
As you pointed out, for overseas auto industries, medical insurance isn't part of employment. Those countries are way ahead of us in terms of medical care for their citizens, and as a result, they have the upper hand in competing against us.
Medical was part of it......... sm
The foreign car workers have, I believe, national insurance coverage so that does not figure into the workers' benefits from the company. The figure being negotiated with the UAW was the amount that the foreign companies pay their workers. I don't believe health care would be a part of the package for the UAW.
what does all this have to do with Medical Transcription?
I just have to ask this question. Since when did this become a political opinion debate forum? I thought the whole purpose of this forum was for us to be able to talk to each other about our jobs, give ideas on equipment, companies to work for, etc. Now we are going to debate whether you are better to be a republican or a democrat, support Obama or not. This is ridiculous. This has nothing to do with our jobs whatsoever.
Yes, and check the voting records for how many times...
he voted "present." He has never made an executive decision in his life. He has not managed a government of ANY size. In Congress you have committees and panels and discussion and debate and it takes weeks to get anything done. That does not work in the white house...you can't get a committe or a panel or vote present. She has more executive experience than he has. Fact. And she is the #2 on the Republican ticket. He is the #1 on his ticket. I agree with Joe Biden's initial assessment.
Who makes your medical decisions now?
Socialism does not always evolve into dictatorship. France is not a dictatorship, nor is Canada, and the 3 Scandanavian countries have had socialized medicine, socialized transportations, socialized education for about a century. Unlike this country, they have never started a single war, have no race riots, no poverty to speak of, very low rate of unwed pregnancies and STDs, etc.
"Socialist" Germany before WWII? What on earth are you talking about?
All socialism is all the people sharing the burden of public goods - schools, streets, sewer systems, military defense, etc. We are the only developed country in the world that does not share the cost of health care and education for its entire citizenry.
There are so many half-baked statements in your post, it would take a book to answer them all.
Again, we are the only country that does not pay for the education of its citizens - here we have to go n debt for 10 or 20 years to pay back student loans for a college and/or graduate education. Why do you think we have so many foreign doctors here? Because they come here to make PROFIT - we have the only health care system that is run by corporations and is based on profit, not on care for the patients.
Read a book before you spout off. What is your opinion regarding medical marijuana?
Although the residents of California voted overwhelmingly to make medical marijuana legal in our state with written recommendation from a doctor, the federal government still considers it a crime.
I don't think you're an MT, but I do believe you're a Republican.
DEA to halt medical marijuana raids.
Supporters of programs to provide legal marijuana to patients with painful medical conditions are celebrating Supporters of programs to provide legal marijuana to patients with painful medical conditions are celebrating Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement this week that the Drug Enforcement Administration would end its raids on state-approved marijuana dispensaries.
Holder confirmed that states will have the final say on use of the drug for pain control.
originated, I believe, during FDR's New Deal. When wages were capped, employers found a way to circumvent this by providing ''sickness insurance'' for their employees, thus giving them a raise without violating the wage caps.
Another example of government meddling. Had they not imposed wage caps, employers would have been able to keep paying their employees and give raises to enable them to afford their own healthcare. But instead, we grew the employer-provided healthcare system we have now and people experience ''job lock,'' unable to move to another employer because of pre-existing conditions which may not be covered by a new company's insurance plan.
Of course it's income, always has been. Same as use of a company car, or executive housing provided by a company (both of which are taxable to the extent they are used outside of actual business activities.) I'm amazed nobody until now has taxed insurance.
Does this constitute a new tax on people earning under $250 thousand (or $235 thousand, or whatever the new number is?)
Extreme medical situations is NOT what this doctor
--
Have you priced medical insurance recently?
The $1000 may be a little exaggerated, but 6 years ago when I wanted to get a policy that covered merely 1 daughter and I, the quoted rate was $700/month. Even through work, a family policy runs around $600/month just for the medical, probably another $50 combined for the dental/vision. Between copays and prescriptions (even generic), you can add a little bit more to that. So while I agree that $1000 might be high, $700 would likely be a low conservative estimate. And, as noted, I'm basing my numbers on 5 years ago; since it's regularly on the news that the cost of policies has gone up, the $1000 may not be too far off.
Phone-Jamming Records Point to White House
More Bush dirty tricks.
Phone-Jamming Records Point to White House
By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press WriterMon Apr 10, 4:55 PM ET
Key figures in a phone-jamming scheme designed to keep New Hampshire Democrats from voting in 2002 had regular contact with the White House and Republican Party as the plan was unfolding, phone records introduced in criminal court show.
The records show that Bush campaign operative James Tobin, who recently was convicted in the case, made two dozen calls to the White House within a three-day period around Election Day 2002 — as the phone jamming operation was finalized, carried out and then abruptly shut down.
The national Republican Party, which paid millions in legal bills to defend Tobin, says the contacts involved routine election business and that it was preposterous to suggest the calls involved phone jamming.
The Justice Department has secured three convictions in the case but hasn't accused any White House or national Republican officials of wrongdoing, nor made any allegations suggesting party officials outside New Hampshire were involved. The phone records of calls to the White House were exhibits in Tobin's trial but prosecutors did not make them part of their case.
Democrats plan to ask a federal judge Tuesday to order GOP and White House officials to answer questions about the phone jamming in a civil lawsuit alleging voter fraud.
Repeated hang-up calls that jammed telephone lines at a Democratic get-out-the-vote center occurred in a Senate race in which Republican John Sununu defeated Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, 51 percent to 46 percent, on Nov. 5, 2002.
Besides the conviction of Tobin, the Republicans' New England regional director, prosecutors negotiated two plea bargains: one with a New Hampshire Republican Party official and another with the owner of a telemarketing firm involved in the scheme. The owner of the subcontractor firm whose employees made the hang-up calls is under indictment.
The phone records show that most calls to the White House were from Tobin, who became President Bush's presidential campaign chairman for the New England region in 2004. Other calls from New Hampshire senatorial campaign offices to the White House could have been made by a number of people.
A GOP campaign consultant in 2002, Jayne Millerick, made a 17-minute call to the White House on Election Day, but said in an interview she did not recall the subject. Millerick, who later became the New Hampshire GOP chairwoman, said in an interview she did not learn of the jamming until after the election.
A Democratic analysis of phone records introduced at Tobin's criminal trial show he made 115 outgoing calls — mostly to the same number in the White House political affairs office — between Sept. 17 and Nov. 22, 2002. Two dozen of the calls were made from 9:28 a.m. the day before the election through 2:17 a.m. the night after the voting.
There also were other calls between Republican officials during the period that the scheme was hatched and canceled.
Prosecutors did not need the White House calls to convict Tobin and negotiate the two guilty pleas.
Whatever the reason for not using the White House records, prosecutors tried a very narrow case, said Paul Twomey, who represented the Democratic Party in the criminal and civil cases. The Justice Department did not say why the White House records were not used.
The Democrats said in their civil case motion that they were entitled to know the purpose of the calls to government offices at the time of the planning and implementation of the phone-jamming conspiracy ... and the timing of the phone calls made by Mr. Tobin on Election Day.
While national Republican officials have said they deplore such operations, the Republican National Committee said it paid for Tobin's defense because he is a longtime supporter and told officials he had committed no crime.
By Nov. 4, 2002, the Monday before the election, an Idaho firm was hired to make the hang-up calls. The Republican state chairman at the time, John Dowd, said in an interview he learned of the scheme that day and tried to stop it.
Dowd, who blamed an aide for devising the scheme without his knowledge, contended that the jamming began on Election Day despite his efforts. A police report confirmed the Manchester Professional Fire Fighters Association reported the hang-up calls began about 7:15 a.m. and continued for about two hours. The association was offering rides to the polls.
Virtually all the calls to the White House went to the same number, which currently rings inside the political affairs office. In 2002, White House political affairs was led by now-RNC chairman Ken Mehlman. The White House declined to say which staffer was assigned that phone number in 2002.
As policy, we don't discuss ongoing legal proceedings within the courts, White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said.
Robert Kelner, a Washington lawyer representing the Republican National Committee in the civil litigation, said there was no connection between the phone jamming operation and the calls to the White House and party officials.
On Election Day, as anybody involved in politics knows, there's a tremendous volume of calls between political operatives in the field and political operatives in Washington, Kelner said.
If all you're pointing out is calls between Republican National Committee regional political officials and the White House political office on Election Day, you're pointing out nothing that hasn't been true on every Election Day, he said.
WASHINGTON — Director Leon Panetta says agency records show CIA officers briefed lawmakers truthfully in 2002 on methods of interrogating terrorism suspects, but it is up to Congress to reach its own conclusions about what happened.
Panetta's message to agency employees came one day after Speaker Pelosi said bluntly the CIA had misled her and other lawmakers about the use of waterboarding and other harsh techniques seven years ago.
Panetta wrote that the political debates about interrogation "reached a new decibel level" with the charges.
He urged agency employees to "ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission."
Pelosi Accuses CIA of 'Misleading' Congress on Waterboarding
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday accused the CIA of misleading Congress about its use of enhanced interrogation techniques on terror detainees.
"Yes I am saying the CIA was misleading the Congress, and at the same time the (Bush) administration was misleading the Congress on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to which I said that this intelligence doesn't support the imminent threat," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference.
"Every step of the way the administration was misleading the Congress and that is the issue and that's why we need a truth commission," she said.
Under a barrage of questioning, Pelosi adamantly insisted that she was not aware that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques were being used on terrorism suspects.
"I am telling you they told me they approved these and said they wanted to use them but said they were not using waterboarding," she said.
Growing increasingly frustrated throughout the briefing, Pelosi slowly started backing away from the podium as she tried to end the questioning.
As she backed out, she continued to accuse the CIA of not telling Congress that dissenting opinions had been filed within the administration suggesting the methods were not lawful.
The CIA immediately disputed Pelosi's accusation, saying the documents describing the particular enhanced interrogation techniques that had been employed are accurate. CIA spokesman George Little noted that CIA Director Leon Panetta made available to the House Intelligence Committee memos from individuals who led the briefings with House members.
"The language in the chart -- 'a description of the particular EITs that had been employed' -- is true to the language in the agency's records," Little said. "The chart I'm referring to is, of course, the list of member briefings on enhanced interrogation techniques."
Republicans also questioned Pelosi's charge.
"It's hard for me to imagine anyone in our intelligence area would ever mislead a member of Congress," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said at his weekly news conference. "They come to the Hill to brief us because they're required to under the law. I don't know what motivation they would have to mislead anyone."
The top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., told FOX News that Pelosi's accusation against the CIA is "not credible."
"I am afraid she has disremembered what she went through," he said. "We have had not only the records from the CIA but the contemporaries who were there with her had other views on it, so I am afraid that this is not a credible explanation."
Pelosi said she was briefed only once on the interrogation methods in September 2002. She acknowledged that her intelligence aide, Michael Sheehy, informed her about another briefing five months later in which Bush officials said waterboarding was being used on CIA terror detainee Abu Zubaydah.
Pelosi said she supported a letter drafted by Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee who also attended the briefing in February 2003, and sent to the Bush administration, raising concerns over the technique.
Pelosi's account has changed several times in recent weeks as she has sought to clarify what she did or didn't know about the interrogation methods that she is pushing to investigate.
Pelosi said last month that she was never told that the controversial interrogation methods were being used. But a national intelligence report later showed that she was briefed seven years ago on the tactics while she was on the House Intelligence Committee.
Her spokesman then said the speaker thought the techniques were legal and that waterboarding was not used.
Democrats will hold a series of hearings on Justice Department memos released last month that justified rough tactics against detainees, including waterboarding and sleep deprivation.
While Democrats want the hearings to focus on what they call torture, Republicans have tried to turn the issue to their advantage by complaining that Pelosi and other Democrats knew of the tactics but didn't protest.
marks the location of current message within thread
