Battle of the Bilge

“FEAR is an acronym in the English language for “False Evidence Appearing Real” – Neal Donald Walsch

Background

Google Health care bill and private army and you will find close to a million hits, almost all of which are the same one or two fear mongering stories about how the health care bill establishes President Obama’s ‘private’ army that has been so feared. Of course it is true if it is on so many websites and email chains going around. Except for the fact that it isn’t an army, isn’t private and wasn’t ‘hidden’ in the health care bill. More after the reprint of the main article…

Most Common Iteration

Obama Just Got His Private Army

Were you aware of the fact that the health care bill created a civilian army?

A Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.
All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws (which means they will not be sworn to uphold the Constitution) and compensated without regard to the Classification Act 2 of 1923, as amended.

Remember when Obama said he wanted a “national security force”? Not the national guard, but a civilian one that has not sworn to uphold the Constitution?

Obama just got his private army… and no one seems to have noticed. It is buried in the Senate revisions to the health care bill.
Subtitle C–Increasing the Supply of the Health Care Workforce
Sec. 5201. Federally supported student loan funds.
Sec. 5202. Nursing student loan program.
Sec. 5203. Health care workforce loan repayment programs.
Sec. 5204. Public health workforce recruitment and retention programs.
Sec. 5205. Allied health workforce recruitment and retention programs.
Sec. 5206. Grants for State and local programs.
Sec. 5207. Funding for National Health Service Corps.
Sec. 5208. Nurse-managed health clinics.
Sec. 5209. Elimination of cap on commissioned corps.
Sec. 5210. Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps.
Subtitle D–Enhancing Health Care Workforce Education and Training
See the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, page 1312:

SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.

Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT:
(1) IN GENERAL.–here shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.

(2) REQUIREMENT.–All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act 2 of 1923, as amended.

(3) APPOINTMENT.–Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(4) ACTIVE DUTY.–Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.

(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.–Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service.

(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS: Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps. [Note here that those personally appointed by BO -- without the advice and consent of the Senate -- automatically become a part of the Regular Corps. Ed.]

(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE:
(1) PURPOSE. The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.

(2) USES: The Ready Reserve Corps shall–

(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;
(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;
(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and
(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services.

(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training of Commissioned Corps Officers.

Again, I ask the question: Were you aware of the fact that the health care bill created another army? We can easily imagine what they will be ordered to do, including lethal injections (a.k.a. vaccinations) to “unworthy” people?

Whew, Nazi Germany all over again and it is happening right before our eyes, and right under our noses.

Reality

What this portion of the bill does is create a Reserve component to the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) that will serve in much the same capacity as the Reserve components of the other uniformed services. This is actually something MOAA has been a proponent of for years, as has The Military Coalition. What is the USPHS?

From their website:

What is the Commissioned Corps?

The U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is an elite team of more than 6,000 full-time, well-trained, highly qualified public health professionals dedicated to delivering the Nation’s public health promotion and disease prevention programs and advancing public health science. Driven by a passion for public service, these men and women serve on the frontlines in the Nation’s fight against disease and poor health conditions.

As one of America’s seven uniformed services, the Commissioned Corps fills essential public health leadership and service roles within the Nation’s Federal Government agencies and programs.

The establishment of a Ready Reserve component is something that has been needed for a long time, especially during times of war. With a large number of doctors, nurses and field medics of all kind deployed overseas for combat support, there is a definite need in the homeland for more medical personnel. The new law raises the cap of officers for the Ready Reserve Corps to 6,600. Their ability to help National Guard forces respond to mass casualty events and natural disasters at home is an essential part of emergency management. Their role is very explicitly laid out in the law, and although the unknown author of this piece can ‘imagine’ what they’ll be ordered to do, it just isn’t true.

What about the language of the bill stating that each member of the officer corps needs to be appointed by the president? Promotions in the uniformed services are almost always due to a recommendation from the DoD, approval by the president and congress. There’s no real difference between the USPHS officer advancement and the US Army. President Obama will not be looking to fill the ranks of the new program with his ‘operatives’, this is just how things work. The exemption clause is due to the very nature of the USPHS. Doctors, nurses and the rest of the medical community have a level of training that is expensive, so higher compensation is in many cases necessary to draw the best and brightest to military service.

The USPHS has been envisioning a broader role for some time, and that vision is captured in the 2008 report Blueprint for a Healthier America.

Conclusions

With such distrust in the American political landscape right now, people are more than willing to jump on board anything that will confirm their beliefs that President Obama is moving us toward a ‘different’ nation, away from democratic ideals. There will always be people that jump to conclusions rather than take the time to understand the true implications of the administration’s actions. In this case, there is nothing that is insidious or troubling to be found in this extension of USPHS. The hyper-partisanship that has been a cornerstone of internet, radio and cable news will not slow down. That’s why the posts on this blog have been few and far between lately.

But this one is just too far off the mark not to comment on. Eternal fear mongering is no replacement for eternal vigilance.

As always, FactCheck.org has an excellent article on this issue.

Discussion

Posts are not held for moderation so your comment will appear immediately, but may be modified if it is deemed inappropriate.

Health Care Bill Q&A

In response to rumors and a flood of inquiries, MOAA put their legislative and communications teams together to provide answers to some of the most prevalent questions we’ve received this week. The Questions & Answers given below were transmitted to all subscribers of MOAA’s bi-weekly e-newsletter News Exchange. Anyone wishing to stay on top of important issues such as these are encouraged to subscribe to News Exchange or our weekly Legislative Update by visiting here. And if you’ve held a commission in the military and aren’t a member yet, see the ‘Join MOAA’ link at the top of this page.

General Effects on TRICARE and VA care

Q: I heard the new legislation will roll TRICARE into a massive government health care program. Is this true?
A: Definitely not.

Q: I’ve seen message traffic saying the new legislation poses a “sneak attack on TRICARE.” Is that true?
A: The Senate bill language has been public for months, and we don’t believe there was any intent to disadvantage TRICARE beneficiaries, though it didn’t explicitly state that TRICARE is “qualifying coverage.” Just to make it clear, the House unanimously passed separate legislation on March 20, deeming TRICARE as “qualifying coverage” under the new law. The Senate is expected to pass the same legislation shortly. Defense Secretary Gates has issued a statement asserting that health reform “won’t have a negative effect on TRICARE.” Everyone in the Administration and in the House and Senate, of both parties, agrees TRICARE and VA coverage must be held harmless. But there’s been inevitable debate among legislators about who cares most and who’s doing what to protect troops and vets.

MOAA doesn’t care who gets the credit for making sure TRICARE is protected, and we take political hyperbole on both sides with an appropriate grain of salt.

Q: What does deeming TRICARE as “qualifying coverage” mean?
A: Under the new legislation, people who don’t have qualifying coverage will have to pay a financial penalty. Since TRICARE and VA coverage will be qualifying coverage, those beneficiaries won’t be subject to the penalty.

Q: How about VA care?
A: The new legislation states that care rendered under title 38 of the US Code (VA care) is also qualifying coverage.

Q: I’ve seen message traffic saying that the new law will end TRICARE as of 2014, and that TRICARE beneficiaries will then have to buy other coverage. Is that true?
A: That’s definitely NOT true. There’s nothing like that in the new law.

Q: Can I expect my TRICARE enrollment fee, premiums, deductibles or co-pays to go up because of this legislation?
A: No, there’s nothing in the legislation that would change any TRICARE fees. That said, it’s unrealistic to think that TRICARE fees will never go up, even if retired pay doubles or triples over a retiree’s lifetime. But it will be deficit concerns and DoD budget problems, not national health reform, that drive any future changes in TRICARE fees.

Q: What’s MOAA doing to make sure beneficiaries aren’t negatively affected by the national health reform legislation?
A: MOAA has pushed House and Senate leaders for much of the past year to make sure that language was included in any health care debate to protect the unique nature of military and VA health benefits and prevent taxation of those benefits. We’ve generated more than 100,000 messages to Congress on that topic so far – more than any other association. That strong membership support has gotten results, as the combination of legislation already passed and legislation about to be finished by the Senate substantially accomplishes those objectives.

Effects on TRICARE For Life and Medicare

Q: Is TFL also “qualifying coverage” under the new law?
A: Yes. Both Medicare and TFL are expressly deemed as such under the legislation already passed by both the House and Senate.

Q: I understand Medicare is cut $500 billion under the new law. Won’t that have to cut payments to doctors and threaten TFL?
A: It’s true that the new law reduces Medicare spending by about that much, but most of those changes are relatively less painful ones that probably won’t affect TRICARE or TFL beneficiaries much. They include $118 billion from eliminating the extra subsidy to the Medicare Advantage HMO program (which was sold to Congress as a cost-saver, but actually costs 14% more per person than Standard Medicare), cutting about $150 billion from non-rural hospitals (which the hospital associations say they can handle because expanding insurance coverage to most Americans will mean they won’t have to eat the cost of serving the uninsured), and cutting back abuses in medical equipment (under current systems, Medicare will buy you a wheelchair you may only need a few months, or allow a company to rent you one for life for a permanent condition). These are things most of us would probably push to consider if it were our own money paying for them (which it actually is).

Q: Are you saying that the funding cut won’t affect Medicare beneficiaries at all?
A: No. But the implications are probably longer-term ones than shorter-term ones. The real issue under national health reform is that the money from these Medicare savings will be used to fund expansion of health insurance coverage to those who don’t have it now instead of being used to pay for needed fixes to Medicare. It’s hard to argue that reducing the number of uninsured would be a bad thing. But using the relatively “easy” Medicare savings initiatives to fund that means that when the baby boomers start swamping Medicare and Social Security in the next few years, Congress will be forced to look at more painful ways to fund that need. And that’s something that will be considered by the debt commission that is supposed to make recommendations by Dec. 1 on how to reduce the national debt. It’s that coming commission that we think will really create some tough options for all Americans, and the military is unlikely to escape unscathed. We’ll be keeping an eye on that and keeping our members informed.

Medicare/TRICARE Payments to Doctors

Q: Is it true that the new legislation cuts payments to doctors by 21%?
A: No, that’s NOT true. In fact, it’s PREVIOUS law that calls for a 21% cut in Medicare and TRICARE payments to doctors as of April 1. Congress is working on separate legislation to prevent that from happening.

Q: What’s the status of legislation to reverse the 21% cut in Medicare/TRICARE payments to doctors?
A: The Senate has passed legislation putting off the date of the cut from April 1 until October 1. The House has passed legislation putting it off only until May 1. Our sources tell us the Senate will pass the May 1 legislation. One problem is that Congress is scheduled to take a two-week recess, and the April 1 deadline will occur right in the middle of the recess. So the short-term solution likely will be to “kick the can” for a month and take it up again when Congress returns after recess. Getting a longer-term fix for the doctor payment problem remains MOAA’s #1 health care priority.

Q: Are there any changes in the new law that will affect payments to providers?
A: Yes, there are some changes to periodic “market basket” and other assumptions that affect annual adjustments. These would generally tend to dampen annual increases over time, based on the assumption that productivity will improve over time. This is probably a weak assumption, given past experience with such things. If the expected productivity increases don’t materialize, Congress may have to revisit these assumptions in the future. On the other hand, the new legislation sustains a 5% increase in payments to mental health providers.

Physical, Speech, and Occupational Therapy

Q: Does the new legislation do anything to fix the current $1,860 cap on annual Medicare payments for outpatient physical, speech, and occupational therapy?
A: Yes, the new legislation allows an exception to the cap (until Dec. 31, 2010) for medically necessary therapy. That’s a big relief for accident and stroke victims who can run up big therapy bills quickly. But it means we’ll have to get another extension before the end of the year.

Coverage for Children until Age 26

Q: I understand the new health care bill allows adult children to stay on their parent’s healthcare plan until age 26 if their employers don’t offer insurance. Will TRICARE adopt this policy?
A: Yes, we expect TRICARE will do that.

Q: When would I be able to take advantage of that new TRICARE option?
A: It’s hard to say at this point. In all likelihood, it will take a law change, and the vehicle would be the FY2011 Defense Authorization Act, which probably won’t become law until at least October, if not later. Then, the Pentagon would have to negotiate a change to the TRICARE contract and issue new regulations, and get computers and finance systems changed. For past changes, that has taken anywhere from 12 to 24 months. So it could be 12 to 24 months or more before the change takes effect for TRICARE.

Q: Is there anything I can do now to cover a child who is about to “age out” of TRICARE?
A: Yes. TRICARE already offers coverage for people who lose TRICARE eligibility because of separation or children who lose eligibility because of age. It’s called the Continued Health Care Benefit Program (CHCBP). CHCBP is renewable in quarterly increments and costs about $933 a quarter for an individual – but you have to sign up for it within a pretty short time after losing eligibility. If you have a child who’s now age 25, that child doesn’t qualify for CHCBP.

MOAA’s MEDIPLUS® TRICARE Supplement

Q: Will the new legislation affect my MEDIPLUS® TRICARE supplement in any way?
A: At this point it’s too early to know for sure. We don’t think there will be any negative impact, but we’re working to verify this with our insurance provider.

Discussion

Posts are not held for moderation so your comment will appear immediately, but may be modified if it is deemed inappropriate.

“It has always been my private conviction that any man who pits his intelligence against a fish and loses has it coming.” – John Steinbeck

Slow News Day?

A quick attempt to hopefully keep the viral emails from going around on this issue is in order. Although not directly related to the military, there are enough sport fishermen out there that this will catch their attention. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh stated plainly that the president was targeting people’s right to fish. A direct quote from Beck was “Forget about the frickin’ fish. People are losing their rights. Who’s more important: the fish or you?” Other samplings across the blogosphere have been equally knee-jerk:

From the SayAnythingBlog: “Because He’s Not Unpopular Enough: Obama Pushes Ahead With Fishing Ban.”

From RedState: Obama: The Will Of The People Be Damned – I’LL Decide Who Can Go Fishing

From GatewayPundit: Obama’s Latest Assault on Freedom– New Regulations Will Ban Sport Fishing

The story that sparked the commotion originally ran as a blog article on ESPN that cited Phil Morlock of the New York Times in saying that:

“Morlock fears that “what we’re seeing coming at us is an attempted dismantling of the science-based fish and wildlife model that has served us so well. There’s no basis in science for the agendas of these groups who are trying to push the public out of being able to fish and recreate.

“Conflicts (user) are overstated and problems are manufactured. It’s all just an excuse to put us off the water.”

The issue is that the Obama administration has ceased accepting public input on a strategy to change the way our nation uses our water supply and natural resources. NOAA is leading the review and will give recommendations to the president. While there may be some changes to fishing sites and regulations, there has been no indication that any decision has been made. Task forces often close off public input at certain points in their mission to develop plans based on what has already been received. NOAA is extremely unlikely to recommend anything approaching a ban on sport fishing, and the president would have to be crazy to think a move like that would be politically viable. There are as many as 60 million voters in this country that enjoy fishing, and this would not be something easily forgotten.

That Smell is Not the Fish

As the rhetoric on the web and cable news got heated, ESPN took action to try to calm everyone down. Executive Editor ESPNOutdoors.com, Steve Bowman, issued this statement, which I’ll reproduce in full:

Firestorms get started in a variety of ways, especially on politicized issues.

ESPNOutdoors.com inadvertently contributed to a flare-up Tuesday when we posted the latest article in a series of stories on President Barack Obama’s newly created Ocean Policy Task Force, a column written by Robert Montgomery, a conservation writer for BASS since 1985. Regrettably, we made several errors in the editing and presentation of this installment. Though our series has included numerous news stories on the topic, this was not one of them — it was an opinion piece, and should have been clearly labeled as commentary.

And while our series overall has examined several sides of the topic, this particular column was not properly balanced and failed to represent contrary points of view. We have reached out to people on every side of the issue and reported their points of view — if they chose to respond — throughout the series, but failed to do so in this specific column.

This series started in October and has included several updates on how the creation of the task force and its actions could impact recreational anglers. ESPNOutdoors.com should have made it clear to all readers that this was part of a larger series, and — even though this was Montgomery’s opinion, and those of the sources quoted in the column — we should have taken more care to fairly represent opposing arguments.

We do feel it is our duty to cover issues surrounding outdoor sports to the best of our abilities, and given the nature of this task force and the potential impact on all fisherman, this was an appropriate topic to address for our audience. We take seriously the tenets of journalism that require we take an unbiased approach, and when we make mistakes in the presentation of a story or a column, it is our responsibility to admit them.

Any confusion on that part rests entirely on my shoulders as the executive editor of this site.

We have appended the original column to note that it was in fact a commentary, and we will institute more rigorous editing safeguards in order to prevent such issues in the future.

Discussion

Posts are not held for moderation so your comment will appear immediately, but may be modified if it is deemed inappropriate.

“Like recurring nightmares, conspiracy theories aren’t necessarily gone for good just because they disappear for a while” – David A Graham, Newsweek

Background – Newsweek‘s Blunder

If you intend to take on a list of conspiracy theories as a member of one of the largest news outlets in the world, you have to assume that it will draw major attention. Knowing this it would be a good idea to do your research and come up with thorough lines of evidence to support your conclusions. If there is one cardinal rule about discussing conspiracy theories, is that you bring as much information to the table as possible. The true believers on the subject are going to deny your research and conclusions anyway, but at least you’ll have specific points of information to start the discussion.

In a web exclusive article posted on February 12th, Newsweek breaks this rule with gusto, providing one or two sentence rebuttals to conspiracy theories with very little in the way of supporting evidence for their conclusions. Called the ‘Guide to Conspiracy Theories’, the article is a shotgun listing of various active theories that have permeated the web, most of which we have reported on in the past. The result of the article’s lack of evidence, although the conclusions are for the most part dead on, has been a thrashing of the article via its comments section, and believers and non-believers alike have expressed their feelings about the article in a massive way. Instead of putting these issues to rest, Newsweek seems to have successfully contributed to their durability and in some cases will no doubt breathe new life into (thankfully) dying theories.

First let’s take a look at the thirteen theories highlighted by the article and their short conclusions.

Newsweek’s List and Conclusions

1. Barack Obama was not born in the United States.
Kernel of Truth? It’s fully debunked. Forged Kenyan birth certificates have been exposed, and—despite protestations to the contrary—Obama’s birth certificate has been certified by the state of Hawaii, and images have been shown on national television. And that’s leaving aside plenty of circumstantial proof, like birth announcements in both major Hawaiian papers from August 1961.

2. Anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.
Kernel of Truth? Deniers have long taken advantage of scientists’ cautious statements, and “Climategate” breathed new life into the movement, but the science stands: warming is real, and it’s caused by human actions.

3. Goldman Sachs intentionally created the economic crisis.
Kernel of Truth? Goldman undoubtedly did better than any competitor from the financial crisis, and CEO Lloyd Blankfein even admitted—albeit cryptically—that the company had “participated in things that were clearly wrong.” This theory is tougher than others to debunk fully, because there’s no empirical data available either way. Nonetheless, while Goldman may have profited, that alone doesn’t prove malice or conspiracy.

4. Democrats’ health plan will create death panels.
Kernel of Truth?[Sarah] Palin was apparently referring to a provision of draft legislation that would have funded consultation about end-of-life care. There was and is, however, no plan for rationing care as a cost-cutting measure, and fact-checking outlet PolitiFact named the theory the “Lie of the Year” in 2009.

5. Barack Obama is a secret Muslim.
Kernel of Truth? Nope. Obama belonged to a Christian church in Chicago (for which he ironically also caught flack) and has a record of unambiguous support for Israel and hawkish policies on eradicating Al Qaeda’s strongholds in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

6. Sarah Palin is not the mother of her 1-year-old son, Trig.
Kernel of Truth? No. Sullivan has couched the whole thing as just pointing out minor discrepancies and asking for reasons—not directly making accusations. Palin has understandably refused to dignify these questions with responses. No one else has picked up the theory publicly, although privately some liberals regard it as plausible.

7. ACORN is part of a liberal conspiracy to steal elections.
Kernel of Truth? The James O’Keefe videos showed questionable conduct at the very least, but neither they nor anything else proves a vast left-wing conspiracy between Democrats and ACORN to steal elections.

8. FEMA is establishing detention camps.
Kernel of Truth? Too silly to discuss.

9. The Council on American-Islamic Relations is trying to infiltrate Capitol Hill and spread jihad.
Kernel of Truth? CAIR has tried to place interns on Capitol Hill, but as it points out, that’s standard practice for advocacy groups of all types and allegiances. There’s no proof of sinister motives or an effort to encourage international jihad.

10. Obama wants to conscript Americans into a civilian defense corps.
Kernel of Truth? Liberal press watchdog Media Matters says the theory stems from a speech Obama made in which he argued for the importance of the Foreign Service, AmeriCorps, and the Peace Corps. That’s a far cry from an American Gestapo—a claim for which there’s no support.

11. Time magazine wants to restrict the Internet to licensed users.
Kernel of Truth? Time published a story reporting on a Microsoft executive who’d like to see licensing to combat anonymity. Broadcasting such a controversial proposal—regardless of its merits—is quite the opposite of censorship, as Time’s Michael Scherer rightly explained.

12. 9/11 was an inside job.
Kernel of Truth? Not even the staunchest mainstream George W. Bush bashers believe this one. Enough said.

13. The Omnibus One-World Government, Unified Currency, Dollar-Abolishing, Free Trade–Advocating Theory of Everything:
Kernel of Truth? Eh, sounds plausible to us.

For the full background on each conspiracy theory in the article, go to: http://www.newsweek.com/id/233518/

Comments on, Attacks and Denials Incoming

The article itself, by its very nature, is going to get a lot of heated comments and the usual rhetoric of believers on both sides. But the way it was written, in an apparent vacuum where supporting documentation and evidence, assumes there are no dissenting beliefs or outstanding questions for most of the issues. Instead of spelling out the evidence and creating a clear rebuttal of each, Newsweek basically painted a big target on their site for the attack of the legions of believers of these theories. Thus not only emboldening the spread of false information but also given their readers a chance to attack Newsweek as the often cited ‘part of the machine’ and demonizing their report as misinformation fed to them by the nation’s elite.

Let’s take a quick look at a few of the more out there comments:

Hahaha, wow newsweek has now hit a new low in my book. This is clearly a liberal article. Was there even one conservative “conspiracy theory” that this so called author even talked about?
—-
Newsweek is such an intelligent publication. This one ranks up there with when they said the Internet would never catch on.
—-
This article isnt worth even wiping my A$$ with!
—-
Wow! This article truly is a joke…whoever wrote this should punch themselfs in the face because its been proven that “global warming” is natural…its the earth’s way of reaching equalibrium.
—-
Propaganda from the New World Order… this “article” is laughable. 9/11 was indeed an inside job.
—-
Fodder for the masses, Newsweek strikes again! WOW! 11 for 13. And that’s only because Goldman-Sachs was just the catalyst for the “crisis”to occur. And who gives a rodents back-side about Palin’s reproductive and family problems? The only people who would believe this drivel are children and fools! The facts prove every one of these to valid.
—-
I admit to only skimming the comments on this ridiculous Newsweek fluff but I didn’t see ONE that supported the article.
—-
Newsweek. Your lies perpetuate myths which cause us to focus on the wrong problems while actual problems threaten our very existence. You really stink.
—-
This article is a complete joke. Complete subjective journalism without any revelation or examination of facts and evidence. I will never read Newsweek again. Hear that advertisers?
—-
Newsweek is pure propaganda. This pathetic excuse for an article is proof, and I am complimenting you by calling it an article!

Almost all of the comments are like this, with some groups attacking Newsweek about specific issues like 9/11, birthers, global warming and ACORN. It seems that everyone still has very strong feelings about these issues, and Newsweek poured oil on a large stack of wood just waiting to find a spark. Birthers are sick of being called racists and anyone that believes 9/11 was an inside job is an idiot, if you read the comments.

My absolute favorite comment came from an exchange between “grossmutter” and “MNPatriot79″:

Posted By: grossmutter @ 02/19/2010 7:33:42 PM
No one gives a rat’s ass anymore. People are sick of hearing the whole Muslim thing. Find something else to spout off about.

Posted By: MNpatriot79 @ 02/19/2010 8:29:01 PM
Obviously, a LOT of people care, soooo… you’re dumb…

Commenting on the Internet

As a very smart man once told me, to paraphrase ‘the great part about the internet is that it gives people a release that they would normally internalize and let it burn until they took real world action. Better to have them angry sitting behind a computer than angry on a rooftop with a weapon’. Very true, and this article and the hundreds of comments it has produced illustrates that. I’m not going to go over each theory and debunk or support them, I’ve touched on many here before. I just want to point out how much distrust there is in the government and the media to illicit this sort of response. I’ve held back most of the more virulent attacks in the comments of the article, but take a look and think about what this tells us about our country.

As for Newsweek, hopefully a lesson learned. While you can’t reason people out of anything that they didn’t reason themselves into, you can’t just dismiss what people believe in without a good amount of information to back it up. Something I’ve learned the hard way. Anyway, thank you Newsweek for giving me material for the 100th article of Battle of the Bilge.

Discussion

Posts are not held for moderation so your comment will appear immediately, but may be modified if it is deemed inappropriate.

_

“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” -Sun Tzu

Another TFL & Medicare Email

An article that appeared on January 9th on GOPUSA has been picked up by Tea Party sites and forwarded as a viral email raises once again the issue of TFL and retiree health care. Unfortunately, the piece contains scare tactics and assumptions, and paints military organizations in a bad light. The MOAA response is listed below in full from our Director of Government Relations.

The Email

Subject: TriCare For Life & Medicare
Military Retirees, Victims of a Congressional Shell Game

Military piece by Thomas D. Segel Harlingen, Texas, January 9, 2010

Military retirees are very close to losing their hard won Tricare for Life health insurance…and it is their own fault. The sad truth about military retirees is they usually fail to respond when their rights are violated or their futures placed in jeopardy. When viewing voting constituencies, the most dossal and inactive people are found among the retired military members and their dependents.

Any politician engaged in the deceitful practices of Washington D. C. knows one of the easiest targets to attack is the retired military community. Politicians view this group as the least harmful of any who make up the ranks of the voting public. They place those who served in uniform at the top of their least harmful list, thus making them political targets whenever there is a search being conducted to show the public what the political elite call meaningful dollar savings.

There are some strong military retiree advocates who are speaking out on the dangerous situation facing their former comrades-in-arms. One of these is Colonel Wayne Morris, USMC (Ret), who says, “We know that nothing is safe right now when considering the ongoing efforts of the current administration especially in any and all areas aligned with health care! Military retirees will quickly become a ‘soft target’ for those who would take away from one group and give to another.

I personally see a marked effort on the part of the current administration to divide us on this issue – to cause those who are NOT military retirees, (even those now on active duty) to eventually play against us and the benefits we have thus far been able to retain.”In support of this idea, the colonel points out there are some ‘so-called’ veteran support organizations already advising retirees to calm down and not worry about our health benefits.

These groups are telling the veterans that Tricare for Life benefits are safe and that retirees have nothing to worry about. The falseness of such statements can be understood when it is realized that under current legislative plans Medicare will be cut by $500 billion and Tricare for Life is linked solidly to Medicare.

Doing the math anyone can see that such a devastating cut in services and benefits to Medicare would mean similar cuts in Tricare for Life.Additional searching into this healthcare legislation will reveal that, as now drafted, new healthcare rules would require our advanced aged military retirees on Medicare and Tricare for Life to pay the fist $525 of medical costs for the beneficiary and identical costs for any dependent.

The retiree would then pay 50% of the next $4,725 of medical charges up to a total of $6,301 per year. This is the additional financial load our Congress will place on those who have already given twenty and more years of service to their country. Many of who left their blood and body parts on the fields of battle.The Washington version of the old Shell Game has already started. This is a confidence trick where three shells and a pea are used in what is claimed to be a gambling game.

Actually, as the shells are shifted from position to position, the pea is removed from the table…and the player ends up picking NOTHING. In the 2,000 plus page Obamacare health insurance bill, congressional lackeys tell us time and again that Tricare for Life is protected. But hey keep shifting those shells. The service organizations have already swallowed the snake oil and are echoing administration claims that TFL is safe. They have already bought into the Shell Game.

We also know everyone in the Democrat Congress is keeping those shells moving and not letting us see that pea. The end result will be another case of “nothing is too good for those who served in uniform”…and that is what they will get. NOTHING!

Response from MOAA’s Legislative team

Much of the specific information in his message is patently untrue. The TFL changes he mentions are not, repeat NOT, in the current health care reform bill.

What he describes was one option in a list of options prepared by the Congressional Budget Office more than a year ago…well before the current administration took office.

That idea didn’t go anywhere – as we predicted it wouldn’t. It never appeared in any legislation anywhere on the Hill, and was never supported by anyone in the Administration or Congress.

Further, we would never say there’s nothing to worry about on military health care. Of course there is. The ongoing budget pressures (which will only get bigger with mounting deficits) will create tremendous pressures in 2010 and beyond to cut all kinds of federal spending. There’s a lot of talk about setting up an entitlements commission to review changes needed to preserve the financial viability of Medicare and Social Security when millions of baby boomers become eligible for those programs in the coming decade.

I believe there will be such a commission, and once it starts reviewing possible Social Security and Medicare changes, it will inevitably lead to review of possible changes for military and federal retirement, military and federal health care, military and federal survivor benefits, VA benefits, etc., etc., just as we saw during the last budget/deficit crunch in the early and mid-90s. We had a huge fight to dodge most of those proposals back then, and it will be a much bigger challenge in light of the much bigger deficits we face now.

But there’s a vast difference between being (a) alert to potential coming threats and (b) claiming that those threats are embodied in current legislation – which they’re not. There are some smoke and mirrors issues in the current legislation – as there is in almost any big bill Congress passes, and there are some things to keep an eye on in the future (such as assumptions that Medicare and its providers will achieve some pretty optimistic “efficiency” goals in the coming years). But most of the changes to Medicare in the current health reform legislation are actually relatively modest and pretty doable ones. The real problem is that those savings will be used to fund health care for the current uninsured rather than to build the Medicare bank to meet the coming expenses of the baby boomers. So when the boomer tide hits, Congress will have to come up with far more significant cuts or tax increases to meet that need, because the relatively easier savings options will have been used up.

So there’s a reason to be worried, but it’s difficult to put much stock in most opinions being passed around the internet about the health care bills, because most start from a highly partisan standpoint, and many just pass on pieces of misinformation that have long since been proven untrue – as in this case.

Unfortunately, once such things get out on the internet, they acquire a life of their own, and well-intentioned people pass them on and help perpetuate the misinformation.

Steve Strobridge
Colonel, USAF (Ret)
Director, Government Relations

Discussion

Posts are not held for moderation so your comment will appear immediately, but may be modified or deleted if it is inappropriate.