Comments


  • I ordered a Medicare book and the word PENALTY stuck out like a sore thumb. Thanks again for the heads up because what I could do and what I will be able to do, takes up a lot of pages; and that word penalty is on page 1 and 2...I am just getting started.

    February 16, 2010 at 11:37 a.m.

  • Mike
    Your response reminded me of a similar problem that I had. My wife is younger and we had to retain United Healthcare which included me on Medicare. This caused me not to sign up for Part D when I was eligible and resulted in a penalty. Medicare became confused also and could not understand why I had two insurances. Finally got the mess straightened out after my wife turned 65. Hope this helps.

    February 16, 2010 at 10:45 a.m.

  • Arlen
    I hear you but I will still have to pay for Aetna since my wife is 4 years younger than I am but as you say I will have to find a supplement…I am fortunate because my doctor will continue to see me but I know referrals might run into some difficulty…Thanks for the heads up, I will be inviting a lot of my older friends out for dinner hoping they can give me pointers…I remember the many times my mother was let out the hospital only to be readmitted that afternoon because of a relapse.

    February 16, 2010 at 10:14 a.m.

  • Legion357
    I don't get the point you were getting at "straddling the fence" or completing parts of post I made as I was leaving for the night...It was just a quick Google observation.

    February 16, 2010 at 10:01 a.m.

  • Mike
    I apologize for assuming your healthcare benefits did not include Medicare. I recall thinking of my own eligibility for Medicare being a magic moment. The magic disappeared when I turned 65 and found it was not magic when you added up premiums, deducts and copays. The cost of my healthcare did not go down very much at all. Finding a doctor that will accept medicare + supplement is difficult and you don't have much choice. I hope the magic works better for you.
    arlen

    February 16, 2010 at 10:01 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    February 16, 2010 at 9:59 a.m.

  • reyrey

    You make a compelling argument and I think the former vice president Cheney is doing a good job trying to drive that message home but the Supreme Court had to rein in the policies of the Bush administration; hence two of three tried in a military commission were set free.

    I agree we as a country are actively engaged in a war but we still have three co equal branches of government. If we want to change what we are doing, we need to do it legislatively…BTW From what I read; the military is on board with the policy.

    I respectfully disagree; his status will not change just because he is tried in a civilian court. Most Americans will still view him as a terrorist; after the trial; a dead terrorist...Finally

    I’m sorry I just don’t buy that neither or arguments…Never have.

    February 16, 2010 at 9:31 a.m.

  • Hello Arlewill

    I remember the comments and I commend your insight for that period of time but I still don’t believe in the silent majority, you might be right but I respectfully disagree for the following reasons.

    1.I would call it the VOTING majority because I seriously doubt the 30 million or so without health insurance are against health care reform efforts.
    a.It was always an uphill battle because 85% of the nation are insured be it VA, Medicare, Medicaid, or private.
    b.The Obama administration lost the message war in the summer.
    c.The internal greed inside the Democratic Party became a serious problem.
    d.Xring and Barry were right; trying to shove in the whole enchilada at one time is a bit much for a country suffering from 10%+ unemployment.
    e.I was wrong for supporting the house or senate bill because the final package was a gift for the insurance companies, had mandates to support the private insurance companies and it was put together like an 11th hour project.
    f.In hindsight they should have gone with candidate Obama’s campaign plan; get as many children insured without a mandate.

    I don’t understand why you said I would not be on Medicare when I reach 65…That magic date will come in the latter part of this year…

    February 16, 2010 at 9:13 a.m.

  • The question is not whether Bush did it first or not, besides I thought you said Bush was an idiot. The question is what is the best policy.

    Before this is over we will probably end up with many of these so-called "enemy combatants." Running all of them through our legal system doesn't seem smart or practical.

    We are dealing with well armed international terrorists, that have the support of entire populations. These people aren't carrying around saturday night specials holding up liquor stores - they destroyed the center of a major city.

    They don't care if they die in fact they welcome death. Each one of them is a potential "smart" bomb and they will be difficult to defeat. And to treat them like common criminals is well, stupid.

    February 16, 2010 at 8:57 a.m.

  • Mike, I dont believe in the death penalty. Send him to Florence, CO, to the park over there. Once again, this is not about courts but the war. Either we are in a war or we are not. Doing a trial in a court would make this guy a criminal and not a terrorist.

    February 15, 2010 at 9:11 p.m.

  • Mike
    Early last year, I commented to you that Obamacare had awakened the Silent Majority. Your response was that you did not know who we were.
    Later I was surprised that you supported a 500 billion dollar reduction in Medicare expenses. I finally concluded you would not be on Medicare when you turned 65, like a lot of us in the Silent Majority.
    You make good arguments for your cause and I still read your blogs but don't agree most of the time.

    February 15, 2010 at 8:40 p.m.

  • True Mike, except the immigrants where Irish and Italian,the British empire was already in decline, the compromise of 1850, threaten by veto by President Taylor for economic reasons, passed after his death.

    Endorsed by President Filmore as a attempt to satisfy both the north and south, the bill was passed, it satisfied nether.

    Filmore attempted to "straddle the fence" on the issue, now that seems familiar.

    February 15, 2010 at 6:57 p.m.

  • Very good Writein ,you are are absolutely right, I did some quick research and found out that the British were getting defeated in Afghanistan, we had immigration problems and Congress was having problems with the slavery issue.....

    Thanks

    February 15, 2010 at 6:25 p.m.

  • Mike.

    Today is similar to the 1840's & 1850's. You know what I mean.

    February 15, 2010 at 5:37 p.m.

  • reyrey
    It has been thrown out there that the Bush administration prosecuted 300 terrorists in civilian court and three in a military tribunal. Of the three terrorists tried under military commissions since 9/11, two are now free. David Hicks, an Australian who joined Al Qaeda, was sent back to his native country after a plea bargain. Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s former driver and confidante, is a free man in Yemen after all but a few months of his five-and-a-half-year sentence were wiped out by time spent in custody. (The third terrorist, Ali Hamza al-Bahlul, a former Qaeda propaganda chief, was sentenced to life in prison.)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/opi...

    I think we should have killed to KSM after we tortured him 183 times, instead of making a mockery out of a military tribunal or our civilian justice system. The Attorney General said we have enough evidence on KSM that will assure the death penalty that is not tainted by torture.

    The 20th hijacker was tried in Virginia and applauded by Rudy Giuliani as being a victory for the American people and the American justice system. Different president, different opinion.

    New York has tried Mafia figures, terrorist, and the baddest of the bad, so I don't think they will recoil in fear just because KSM is being tried there… The costs of security,politics, and loss of commerce might be more of a reason.

    We have a lot of evidence against KSM and much of it has been written in books, magazines and newspapers and thoroughly discussed in the media, so there are not a lot of military secrets that will be leaked out.

    It has been over eight years.

    February 15, 2010 at 1:34 p.m.

  • Once again, making the trial a criminal act instead of an act of war, is nothing more than politics and a false ideologue. It is basically putting our soldiers and foreign operatives out of the SOFA. Reed has been brought up and he should be brought up. We learned from him and we were hopeful that we learned from him but it seems like we have not.
    Sarah Palin, enough said. Cheney, old geezer that is making some noise that needs to be made. Although he thinks that Dont ask, dont tell should be repeal because his daughter is a lesbian. Once again, he doesnt know about a platoon sergeant trying to keep a platoon's moral in the field. Ultimately, not that I like to see the naivete that currently exist in this country but it shows that we are doing something right. We are not really worry about what is going on outside our borders, meaning, the conflict is being kept outside. Most people do not care what is going in Marjah, I guess our service member are doing their job. Lets keep Marjah in Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq not in NYC. As a New Yorker, I can tell you this, we as a whole, didnt want KSM trial in NYC. The reasons to move came from inside, not outside. Just is case you do not what SOFA is, well enough said.

    February 15, 2010 at 12:29 p.m.

  • The trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers required that the prosecution allow the defense to review certain intelligence documents. The trial judge allowed this with the clear understanding that these documents revealed certain closely held and Top Secret intelligence information. The bombers'defense attorneys explicitly agreed that this information would never be shared with anyone.

    Subsequently, captured/killed Taliban were found to have copies of this information in their possession, something that would never have happened had they been tried by a Military Tribunal. At least the Bush Administration was capable of learning from the mistakes of others. Still want to argue that a civilian trial is the way to go?

    February 15, 2010 at 12:15 p.m.