Greed apparently is more important than those in need.

[Guest guest]

m

Mon, 4 Apr 2005 07:01:26 -0400

 

 

Greed apparently is more important than those in need. :-((

 

I can't believe how people can be so self-centered, and not care about

the general good of society anymore. Actions speak louder than words,

and I found this while looking back at some of my Google Alerts for:

Social Security, Medicaid & Medicare, so I guess if we're in need but

can't pay, we might as well just be dead, because this greed is

sucking our nation dry of everything decent, and favors homelessness

and no care for the needy, which will only lead to more crime, people

fighting each other, and the good people will just have to die that

way so the rich can party on, in their lavish 'jet set' lifestyles.

 

It sure looks that way. Greedy triumphs over the needy. You know the

story by now; the extremely rich can't even fathom paying their

portion of taxes in order to do so much good for others, thus having

No Real Morals, but boy are they " religious " ! I hope all the truly

rich bastards who have more than they really need, all get screamed at

by their maker when they finally meet him/her. What a despicable,

sorry, self-centered, and pure greedy world this has become. :-((

 

Talk about being depressed; for many years I tried to fool myself into

believing that there are still some good people out there to overcome

this New World Order Greed, but as I watch my elderly parents in pain,

and struggling harder and harder every day, and I see all these secret

doings going on behind our backs by OUR so called " representatives in

government " , it all literally makes me sick, and want to just leave

this world already, even if there is No Better Place, because even

Nonexistence will soon be better than this " future " .

 

All of us worked hard every day for all of our lives, and contributed

much, but that means nothing to these damn greedy wackos who need more

and more money even if it kills good law abiding people! We're just

in their way anyhow, so we should just die.

 

Don't even think of even slightly hurting big business or the millions

of dollars for the CEO's, the huge " perks " of most politicians (though

there are a few still fighting for us, and THANK YOU for at least

trying - you know in your heart who you are) and the rest of the other

arrogant, self-centered, disgusting, so called " humans " who are for

these con-artist ways. While they have $40,000,000 innauguration

parties, and mansions with acres, we'd be willing to have our whole

family live in just one of those rooms, which are much better than our

whole homes! Those are the people who truly need mental help with the

shock treatment of a good lesson from God, on what daily pain is

really like to live through every day, while wanting, wishing, and yes

praying, that you could be healthy and have a just slightly better life.

 

The Pope and other truly good people who've died since 9/11, are lucky

they were able to leave right before so many people will loose all

their rights, and be kicked out of society, simply for not being as

healthy, or able, as the rich who already have everything so very much

easier every day, including their good health.

 

I'm sure glad I saved up several bottles of the necessary pills that

will at least give me a gentle way to just fall asleep forever. I

still keep trying, but someday when you suddenly don't hear anything

from me anymore, please, I Want You To Be Happy For Me, that I finally

had the courage to leave this world of bottom line, scum of the Earth

" people " . Then they can all CHOKE on OUR money they'll have saved

(stolen), while pretending to be so compassionate and " preach " in

God's name yet. Despicable, truly despicable!

 

Government By The People and For The People? The Land of the Free?

Yeah right, far right. So far right that it's just plain Deadly

WRONG! Extremely WRONG, and certainly Not American!

 

This is only going out to those of you who are still trying, because I

want to thank you, and I pray that someday, you will overcome these

horrors for other good people.

 

Mike - who guesses people like myself who always tried as hard as they

could, don't deserve even a simple below poverty life anymore. I don't

want to be around for the next needless World War anyway.

 

--

 

 

 

With changes, state could set Medicaid limits

If approved, public review and regulatory processes could be sidestepped

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

 

By Bill Toland, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau

 

HARRISBURG -- If the governor gets his way, future reductions to the

state's Medicaid plan would not be subject to the customary public

inspection. That means the welfare department could set benefit and

eligibility limits without going through the same regulatory process

that other agencies do.

 

It also means that the welfare department would be able to move more

nimbly in tight fiscal times and, as a side effect, would be able to

minimize political skirmishes that may arise as a result of additional

cuts to Medicaid, whose costs are growing faster than the state's

ability to pay.

 

Medicaid, though administered by individual states, is a federally

mandated program, and benefits offered through it must meet a minimum

threshold established by the federal government.

 

Under Gov. Ed Rendell's proposal, if federal officials disapproved of

Pennsylvania's proposed limitations on, say, doctor visits, the state

welfare secretary would have the unilateral power to drop people from

the Medicaid rolls.

 

The proposed changes have drawn criticism from the health care

industry, as well as some consumer advocates.

 

" It's astounding, " said Brian Baxter, a lobbyist for hospitals, which

would want input into any proposed Medicaid changes. " If the

Legislature were to approve this, it would really be a dereliction of

their duties to provide oversight. "

 

Rendell has circulated draft legislation that essentially would allow

the Department of Public Welfare to sidestep both the Legislature and

the state's Independent Regulatory Review Commission, in certain

circumstances.

 

The commission reviews most of the regulation changes proposed by

various state agencies, but it often takes years to render decisions.

It also can play the role of mediator, meeting with state agencies and

affected parties to reshape regulations.

 

The " sidestep " provisions are in a larger bill that would authorize

changes to the overall Medicaid program.

 

As part of the 2005-06 budget proposal, Rendell and the Department of

Public Welfare unveiled Medicaid cutbacks that would increase

prescription co-payments and limit doctors visits for some, as well as

ask for premium contributions from families whose children have severe

disabilities. Those children's medical costs previously have been

covered entirely.

 

The cuts are necessary, the state says, because the welfare department

needs to trim costs by $600 million this year.

 

Future cuts also are a possibility, even though the U.S. Senate voted

last week to strip all proposed Medicaid cuts from the $2.6 trillion

federal budget for next year. The state's Medicaid cuts were proposed

before President Bush offered his budget.

 

Under the proposed legislation, the welfare secretary could " reduce or

eliminate eligibility in the [Medicaid] program, " and those changes

" shall not be subject to administrative or judicial review. "

 

" We appreciate the complexity of what they're dealing with, " said

Paula Bussard, a senior official and policy expert with the Hospital

and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania. " But the opportunity for

public input into the process is pretty basic. That's pretty

important, that this be done in the light of day. "

 

Normally, in Pennsylvania and most other states, law precedes

regulations -- that is, the legislative body passes a law, then

specific regulations are drawn up that meet the broad prescription of

that law. Usually, those regulations are then subject to review by the

Legislature, the executive branch and even the courts, if they are

invited.

 

In Pennsylvania's case, the first round of proposed Medicaid changes

needs the blessing of the Legislature, because it calls for an

amendment of the public welfare code, as well as the reopening of the

state's tobacco settlement disbursement plan because the department

receives some money from that source.

 

After the initial approval, though, certain parts of the Medicaid

program thereafter would be precluded from the usual legislative or

regulatory review. Benefits packages, the premium requirements for

families with disabled children, the " nature and extent " of

co-payments -- all would be immune from the Commonwealth Attorneys

Act, which gives the state attorney general his review authority, and

the Regulatory Review Act, which gives the regulatory review

commission its oversight authority.

 

Those changes also would be immune from the state's Commonwealth

Documents Law, whose intent is to prevent the secret establishment of

regulations that could infringe upon important civil rights. This law

lays out the specific process an agency must follow when it adopts

changes to its regulations.

 

The governor's office last week deferred comment to the Department of

Public Welfare. Stacey Ward, a department spokeswoman, said the

changes are imperative because the normal route simply takes too long.

 

" Going through the [regulatory] process can sometimes take five years,

like the personal care home processes that we just went through, " she

said.

 

Last month, the regulatory review commission finally approved a raft

of changes to the laws that govern the personal care home industry.

That approval was the culmination of five years of debates among care

home operators, patient advocates, attorneys and the welfare department.

 

The welfare department maintains that if it had to go through that

process each time it wanted to change Medicaid regulations, it

wouldn't be able to respond to short-term budget problems.

 

But David Gates, an attorney with a public interest firm called Health

Law Project, said the five-year life span of the personal care home

debate was abnormal, not the rule. The proposed Medicaid sidestep

would be more acceptable if it was applicable only to this budget

year, he said.

 

" The changes they make here will affect how the department makes

policy for years to come, " Gates said. " It's unfortunate they're using

our current budget situation as an excuse for stripping away legally

recognized protections. "

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05081/475405.stm

 

 

In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work

in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or

payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the

included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.

[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]

 

 

 

It is also in the interests of a tyrant to keep his people poor, so

that they may not be able to afford the cost of protecting themselves

by arms and be so occupied with their daily tasks that they have no

time for rebellion. " - Aristotle

 

" All Laws Which Are Repugnant to The Constitution Are Null And Void "

Marbury Vs. Madison 5 US 137,174,176

http://www.restoringamerica.org/documents/marburyVmadison_text.html