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.
No one should have to release their medical records...
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.
First of all, Obama did not seal his records....sm
Only the person named on the birth certificate has access to a copy of it. He got a copy and presented it, period.
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.
"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.
computerized medical records
Probably a dumb question, but what does Pres. Obama mean by computerizing medical records, and how does that hurt/help us?Article on offshoring of records
http://www.latimes.com:80/features/health/medicine/la-fg-philippines-transcribe19-2009apr19,0,902588.story
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.
When will McCain release his medical records? sm
>> 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. >>
1) Jobs (and our medical records) brought back from
3) The rich & big corporations pay their fair share.
4) Bring more honesty into the healthcare/HMO industry.
5) Address ILLEGAL immigration... it's out of hand.
6) Incentives for those who come up with clean & viable alternatives to oil & gasoline.
I know everyone's focus is on the financial...sm
news of the last several days just heard about a special on CNN tomorrow night and Sunday where Colin Powell, Madeline Albright, Henry Kissinger, Jim Baker and Warren Christopher engage in a forum and talk about foreign policy. I heard a few sound bites and it sounds very interesting. I am glad to see a forum where respected people from both parties with experience get together and express their views, agree or disagree respectfully. I will definitely be watching.
A financial attack?
Tell that to the thousands who lost their lives or their loved ones that day. Wow, how cold can you be?
Financial bonuses
Two days ago on C-Span they seemed to congratulate the bigwigs of the financial companies who got BILLIONS in BONUSES. They ran down the list of those that were being questioned and how much they received. It's absolutely sickening. I had to turn it off.
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.
for quite some time for just such a thing. We haven't spent foolishly or lived above our means. New toys and technology don't impress us much. We have been fortunate and blessed.
November 14, 2008 World leaders dine in style as they discuss financial crisis
(CNN) – The global economy may be undergoing a significant downturn, but the White House's dinner budget still appears flush with cash.
After all, world leaders who are in town to discuss the economic crisis are set to dine in style Friday night while sipping wine listed at nearly $500 a bottle.
According to the White House, tonight's dinner to kick off the G-20 summit includes such dishes as "Fruitwood-smoked Quail," "Thyme-roasted Rack of Lamb," and "Tomato, Fennel and Eggplant Fondue Chanterelle Jus."
To wash it all down, world leaders will be served Shafer Cabernet “Hillside Select” 2003, a wine that sells at $499 on Wine.com.
The exceedingly pricey wine may seem a bit peculiar given leaders are in Washington to discuss a possible world financial meltdown, but Sally McDonough, a spokeswoman for Laura Bush, said it "was the most appropriate wine that we had in the White House wine cellar for such a gathering.
McDonough also said the White House purchased the wine at a "significantly lower price" than what it is listed at.
"Of course the White House gets its wine at wholesale prices," she said. "Given the intimate size of the group, it was an appropriate time for The White House to use this stock."
The leaders of the U.K., France, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey and 11 developing economies have all come to Washington at the behest of President Bush in an effort to express confidence in the fundamental underpinnings of the world's economy.
– CNN's Becky Brittain contributed to this report
With the looming financial situation...... sm
I don't think Obama's current "plan" will hold much water. A plan is just that....a plan, and we know what John Steinbeck had to say about that. Even if he could tax the upper crust enough to cover the financial crisis, his redistribution of wealth would be moot point because there would likely be nothing left to distribute.
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett
Commentary by Kevin Hassett
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.
Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.
But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.
Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.
In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.
The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.
Turning Point
Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
Actually, McCain was in financial meetings all morning....sm
and what I read on CNN is that McCain wasn't told of the content of Obama's first call. I can't find the link to it now, because their news keeps changing.
I believe McCain decided this on his own, without any input from Obama, or even knowing about the call.
I'm willing to bet that he won't give a darn if he loses the debate if he doesn't show up, as it sounds as if Obama refuses to cancel the debate to another time.
Just proves to me that McCain does, indeed, put the country first. He's acting like a true leader.
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.
If my memory serves me, it started going downhill when a democratic congress took over.
Not only that, this MORTGAGE crisis was set into effect by the CLINTON administration and helped by a DEMOCRATIC congress.
Now let me be clear, I do not think Bush was a great president and he made mistakes, but DO NOT tell me that this financial crisis was his doing. I know you are going to flame me, but don't ignore the facts! Actually, that's what liberals do so nevermind, go ahead anyway.
I agree. I am helping the victims with all the financial support I can spare BUT
if we don't ask the question what happened to the levees, what can we do to make sure this doesn't happen again, where did the funding go? then we will find ourselves in the same position again. We can not afford to be policing other countries when the funding is bankrupt for our own needs. That's just the truth. Best friend to Hillary, a democratic supporter and financial contributer,
a member of the DNC's (Democrat) platform committee has decided to endorse John McCain. Lynn DE Rothchild is best friends of Hillary and gave her 100,000 for Hillary compaign. She had not even spoke to Hillary yet about her news, but Lynn announced on CNN today that she was resigning the DNC and voting for McCain. Lynn stated that our country is divided due to the Democrats and Congress. She also stated that we need to vote only for the president who will get us through what is going on with our country (which is a lot of things currently) and she stated the only one would be McCain and Palin. She stated, "I care more about my country right now than I do my democratic party." Wolf Blitzer stated to Lynn "You know you are are going to get a lot of flack from this?" Lynn stated that she knew this and just cares more about our country. Even Joe Lieberman endorses McCain who used to be AL Gore's running mate. I am sorry, but I agree that our country is divided.
war, depression, recession, collapse of financial system, people losing
homes, natural disasters unattended to, collapsing bridges, earmark bridges. Address those first, save flag for later.
when Obama said that we aren't a Christian nation. I don't really agree with that given the number of Christians in this country and the fact that all of our money has In God We Trust on it....but whatever. I understood that he didn't want to tick off the secular part of our country because, as we know by the hate stated on this board, many non-believes truly hate believers.
However, when he said that we are a Muslim country.....I was like.....excuse me? We aren't a Christian nation but we are a Muslim country? Why couldn't he have just said that we are a country with many different religions and we have the freedom to practice whatever it is we choose or don't choose. I would have respected that a lot more than....we are not a Christian nation......we are a Muslim country.
I understand trying to make ties with Muslims who aren't extremists and want us dead, but to say something like that.....total BS. I just don't know what games our President is playing. You would even think that some of the atheists on this board who hate Christians would have a problem with Obama calling us a Muslim country too....but since Obama said it and some of them love Obama.....I'm sure they will, once again, give the big O a free pass as always.
he looked awful
He looked like something was wrong in the news video I saw..I did not state it was alcohol. I stated you never know cause something looked wrong..his face was hanging, his eyes were puffy, he was inattentive..definitely something was not right..Believe me, I do not wish this disease on anyone..I have seen what it can do..
Oh, you looked in the mirror, then? Oh, don't stop now! Keep talking, keep the accusations rolling! Keep proving my point.
marks the location of current message within thread
- Don't believe everything ya' read...
