Reminder: what the election was about

Unemployment is up, state and local tax revenues are down. Along with their jobs people are losing their health insurance. Their sole remedy will be Medicaid, jointly financed by the states and the federal government. What a great time to cut the federal share of support:

In the first of an expected avalanche of post-election regulations, the Bush administration on Friday narrowed the scope of services that can be provided to poor people under Medicaid's outpatient hospital benefit.

Public hospitals and state officials immediately protested the action, saying it would reduce Medicaid payments to many hospitals at a time of growing need.

The new rule conflicts with efforts by Congressional leaders and governors to increase federal aid to the states for Medicaid as part of a new economic action plan.

President-elect Barack Obama has endorsed those efforts. At a news conference on Friday, he said that legislation to stimulate the economy should include "assistance to state and local governments" so they would not have to lay off workers or increase taxes.

In a notice published Friday in the Federal Register, the Bush administration said it had to clarify the definition of outpatient hospital services because the current ambiguity had allowed states to claim excessive payments.

"This rule represents a new initiative to preserve the fiscal integrity of the Medicaid program," the notice said.

But John W. Bluford III, the president of Truman Medical Centers in Kansas City, Mo., said: "This is a disaster for safety-net institutions like ours. The change in the outpatient rule will mean a $5 million hit to us. Medicaid accounts for about 55 percent of our business."

Alan D. Aviles, the president of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, the largest municipal health care system in the country, said: "The new rule forces us to consider reducing some outpatient services like dental and vision care. State and local government cannot pick up these costs. If anything, we expect to see additional cuts at the state level."

Carol H. Steckel, the commissioner of the Alabama Medicaid Agency, said the rule would reduce federal payments for outpatient services at two large children's hospitals, in Birmingham and Mobile.

Richard J. Pollack, the executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, said these concerns were valid.

"The new regulation," Mr. Pollack said, "will jeopardize important community-based services, including screening, diagnostic and dental services for children, as well as lab and ambulance services." (New York Times)

Thanks for reminding everyone why we threw you sonsabitches out on your sorry asses.

More like this

... an expected avalanche of post-election regulations...

To be capped off with the pardons list!

The last days of the Busheviks are going to be really ugly.

You could save yourself and all of us a lot of trouble by promising a wholesale repeal of executive orders immediately upon inauguration, Mr. Obama.

By Pierce R. Butler (not verified) on 09 Nov 2008 #permalink

These people are the lowest of the low. I'd compare them to muggers and burglars, but at least muggers and burglars don't hide behind the American flag and make boneheaded claims about their own fiscal responsibility.

I hope the Obama administration can untangle this mess early on. What a disaster.

By Julie Stahlhut (not verified) on 09 Nov 2008 #permalink

Reveres,

A question out of left field.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Bush Administration some how make a deal to get out of jail free? Did Bush push through some legislation absolving the Bush Administration of all evils (ie. Guantanamo Bay and hidden torture cells around the world). My husband and I have been having heated debates about this. I say, I don't think that they have, my husband thinks that the Bush Administration has stitched a deal.

Personally, I don't think that the pot will be stirred after Obama's inauguration, there is too much to stir, and it would not send the right message to the world at large.

Victoria: They have signed into law things that arguably make some of what they have done legal, although it isn't clear how much of it would fly in court. The more important point is that I don't think they will be indicted for anything. War crimes aren't committed by powerful nations or victors, only loser nations and leaders. Kissinger is a war criminal but will never suffer for it. Bottom line: I'm not sure which of you is right but I expect it is an academic question. Alas.

Victoria, to answer your question, they tried to. The war crimes act of 1996

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_1996

was changed retroactively in the Military commissions act of 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

to legalize certain types of torture by changing the definition of what torture was. This may prevent prosecution by the US Justice Department. The presidential power to pardon can do so as well. If Bush issues a blanket pardon, then no one that he pardons can be prosecuted in a US court.

However, that does not �legalize� the behaviors. Torture was criminal under the Geneva Convention, and the Geneva Convention was not changed so it is still in force. The Geneva Convention cannot be withdrawn from while a conflict is going on. The US has not tried to withdraw from the Geneva Convention.

Torture is a �grave breach� of the Geneva Convention (article 147).

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6756482d86…

Attempting to legalize behaviors that constitute a �grave breach� is expressly prohibited by the Geneva Convention (article 148).

Issuing pardons to prevent criminal prosecution of those who did the torturing might be considered something that this provision outlaws. However US Courts would probably be bound by the pardon and would be unable to prosecute someone who has been pardoned by the president. However the president cannot pardon himself. Bush remains personally liable for full criminal and civil penalties. That includes civil compensation for those who have been tortured.

I think that if Bush does pardon everyone else, then he bears sole civil liability for all the torturing that was done on his watch and by everyone that he pardons.

The Military commissions act of 2006 and any pardons that Bush gives does nothing to change liability under non-US law. If Bush or any other Bush administration official travels outside the US, they could find themselves arrested and put on trial for war crimes.

If Bush does push through a bunch of lame duck crap, he may find there is no willingness on the part of the Obama administration to protest if he is arrested and tried for war crimes over seas.

daedalus2u: If Bush does push through a bunch of lame duck crap, he may find there is no willingness on the part of the Obama administration to protest if he is arrested and tried for war crimes over seas.

Wishful thinking alert! Regardless of what Prez v.44 may personally feel, in such a scenario he would be hearing from every potentially prosecutable war criminal in US political, military, intelligence and business circles. Being a canny Chicago politico, BHO might extort a slate of favors from each miscreant, but he ultimately has little choice but to pull even, say, Rumsfeld's ass out of the fire.

But, given Obama's apparent understanding with career war criminal Colin Powell, there's not much case to be made that he feels very strongly about such peccadilloes in the first place.

By Pierce R. Butler (not verified) on 09 Nov 2008 #permalink

this is one of the many things I don't understand about how US government is run...you have an election in November, but the guy doesn't actually start the job until January, which means you've got two months in which the incumbent can work his hardest to royally screw things up for the new guy...and because the poligical platform is well-publicized, the guy being turfed out can direct his efforts to make things difficult for the new guy.

Seems the only think that prevents total nonsense is the slow speed at which government works.

Here in Canada we dissolve the government, have a 6 week election campaign, vote, know who the winner is by midnight and the new guys pretty much report for work in a week or two. The well entrenched bureaucracy and civil service keeps things running nicely in the interim.

By CanadianChick (not verified) on 09 Nov 2008 #permalink

Reveres, and deadalus2u thank you. We both win the argument for now. Cheers.

CanadianChick: It may not make much sense anymore, but IIRC this lag time is a relic of the days when it could take months to count the vote, assemble the electors, and get the electee to Washington, D.C.

Caia - although the time delay makes sense historically, is there any reason why the time delay couldn't be a little shorter? Its true that new presidents pretty much make up their government from scratch, but being given 3 months to do what you like is a recipe for political scorched earth.

The Canadian system largely seems the follow the system here in the UK, where parliament is dissolved, there is an election, and as soon as somebody wins enough seats, the party leader is PM and is off to the palace and into No.10. Of course our system is different, with the opposition having a 'shadow cabinet' already in place, and a non-partisan,professional civil service, but there would ways to at least cut down the number of appointments which have to be made.

For instance, we only have career diplomats (ignoring Lord Levy and his like). This means that ambassadors are not appointed by the party in power, and are certainly not changed when the government does. On the other hand, US ambassador posts are often gifts for large donors. For instance, if you want to be ambassador to Denmark, Poland, or the Bahamas, give cash to the GOP. If you get a posting like Bangladesh, your a pro. When the US ambassador to Germany (a political appointee) is described as "widely reviled in Germany for his ignorance of foreign affairs", its makes you wonder if the system is working.

As for the UK, can we have someone who isn't a car salesman? The adults are going to be in charge once again in the White House fairly soon, so can we have pros doing diplomatic work, and let the donors do something less important?

I think Bush may do lots of bad things as a lame duck but this may not be one of them. No one should be getting their dental and vision care in a hospital (i guess literally "in" a hospital is ok but on the books of a hospital with all the unnecessary overhead is the issue).

There is a serious problem of hospital mission creep and hospital expenses. We should be providing care at appropriate settings in order to improve quality and keep costs reasonable. It really bothers me that so many people think the solution to health care is shoveling money at hospitals (it is not).

It does sound like states may be left paying for the full cost of these services (states tend to let the hospitals do stuff first and hope the Feds say its OK later). That cannot be good, but I think Congress and even Bush should agree to a higher Federal share of Medicaid payment this year to help states out (and restore some balance to who gets "stimulated" and bailed out).

By floormaster squeeze (not verified) on 10 Nov 2008 #permalink

MikeB - yes, the Canadian system is in many ways identical to the UK system - there are some minor differences and a few major ones, but the system of elections is basically the same.

We also have something like the shadow cabinet - the critics. So the opposition critic for finance, say, would end up being the minister of finance if his party was elected. At least that's the way it usually works.

It takes us remarkably little time to set up a new government, thanks in large part to our officially non-partisan civil service.

By CanadianChick (not verified) on 10 Nov 2008 #permalink

CanadianChick - I love the name 'the critics' - pretty much says it all!

On the other hand, it at least means that when someone starts their new job, they have some idea of what's going on. Likewise, the 'officially non-partisan civil service', who just get on with it, no matter what the government.

I assume that ambassadors and heads of various government agencies are also career civil servants?

Maybe it is wishful thinking on my part to hope that the rule of law would be upheld.

The GOP impeached Clinton for lying about a BJ. Bush pardoned Liddy after he was convicted of obstruction of justice. The White House email logs for the times in question still have not been found.

Throwing Bush to the wolves (which he richly deserves) would improve Obama's stature in the World. It would put the fear of the rule of law back into all the neocon fascists.

Obama inherits all the machinery that Bush used to do renderings. Do that in reverse, kidnap a war criminal and turn them loose somewhere in Europe with a hundred pound weight chained to their leg. If Republicans can break the law to pervert the course of justice, why can't Obama stretch the law to set it right?

Isn't turnabout fair play?

WHAT AN OBAMA PRESIDENCY MEANS TO YOU: MANDATORY CIVIL SERVICE

Rahm Immanuel the new chief of staff for President elect Obama was recently quoted and caught on a taping interview saying that under the Obama Administration, mandatory civil service and training would be required. Of course, he doesnt take into account the cost or liability to the government for thrusting people into situations with people of diverse backgrounds, possible rapes both hetero and homo, making them live in barracks, cost of healthcare of these people or really conscriptions without legal authority. But, it is the Obama Nation. This is the lead up to his vaunted increase in the Peace Corps. Its also exactly what Hitler did with the Hitler Youth. Mandatory participation in a government run program that could by law in a national emergency "call you up."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kerry-picket/2008/11/11/ben-smith-intervie…

Tape is a little hard to hear, read the transcript as you listen to the tape.

Rahm Immanuel is a radical left wing autocrat who will one day run for the White House himself. That is if there is any USA to run in. But this is the draft all over and the training would be in what? How to operate the MGL-140 grenade launcher when standing in front of semi-armed civilians.

So this is to get you trained to be what, good citizens? This suggestion that you, your kids and anyone they think might be a problem could be conscripted and then FORCED to perform like a trained seal for the government goons (hey, remember that civilian police force of 10 military divisions. Now you know who'll be running the camps)is over the top and your rights are about to be infringed upon.

How could he do it? Simple, pass a law in the Democrat Congress and then have those new Obama Nation federal judges that he appoints make it legal. Add in the new federal prosecutors that replaced those that will be fired in a month to enforce the Obama Nations policies and laws and you have the police state that people are touting now. Bet we see a list created of people who are considered to be subversives to the administration and the US. Johnson had one created and the FBI hounded them. Some of it was justified... Guess who was on the list? William Ayers and Bernadette Dorn. You know the hang out buddies of Obama. Most were not and the ACLU knocked that out.

And Deadie... Breaking of the law has not been established, nor have there been any indictments other than one, no convictions other than one. Its your opinion is all. If anyone broke the law then they should pay for it. Show cause and evidence and then see if anyone takes it up to a grand jury. Its also the law that you will follow the law. What a concept.

Besides, kidnapping a war criminal and setting him loose in the EU? They know an ally when they see one over there.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 13 Nov 2008 #permalink

criticize Rahm Emanuel if you wish --- the man is sure to have his faults --- but such criticism would look a good deal more informed if you could at least spell his name correctly.

By Nomen Nescio (not verified) on 13 Nov 2008 #permalink

Actually Nomen I have seen it spelled both ways... two different sources. But thats typical too. Dont address the issue.

And above all dont address admitted terrorist William Ayers connection to Obama. Might have lost an election if they had. Enjoy the government service.

By M.Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 13 Nov 2008 #permalink

Randy: Your reliance on stupid and ignorant sources is legendary. In any event, I can't stand Emanuel, not because he is a left wing radical but because he is on the right wing of the Democratic Party, always has been. It's well known except to people for whom nothing is known. The mandatory civil service issue is laughable. Are you worried you'll be called to serve? Don't fret. Maybe your kids will have a chance, in exchange for college aid. But they won't be drafted (which maybe is OK with you as long as its to kill someone?).

No, they are all locked and loaded for that Revere. I guess that the civilian police force doesnt bother you either. Probably because you are too wrapped up in the health issues. Well to get to one, you have to lose the other and I'll bet that if the stock markets dont stabilize you'll see either.

Reliance on stupid sources. How about directly from a fools mouth? When Karl Rove as chief of staff opened his mouth with Bush you sure took note. So which of us is relying on stupid and ignorant sources?

Even Obama turned around a couple of days ago and said that he was going to expand all of the "Corps" of civilian service. Mandatory now to get out of HS here you have to perform "citizen service". But you likely didnt know that.

I dont laugh when someone says the word mandatory that is in a position of power to put it into effect...Only an idiot would do that.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 13 Nov 2008 #permalink

Mandatory now to get out of HS here you have to perform "citizen service". But you likely didnt know that.

I guess that's because the people of Memphis are left wing commies. But it's not Obama policy, although I personally don't mind a national service requirement as many other countries have. Better than a military draft, which I oppose (as you know). What's your position on a draft?

Silly question Revere.

FWIW, though i'm certainly no MRK, i'm in favor of conscription. the nation's defense is certainly something that concerns the whole populace, and if we need to go to war offensively, that too should impact all of the people; conscription is a simple, effective way of driving that point home.

(having served in a conscript army, i fully agree it'd be much less effective than a totally professional one. but it'd be effective enough to defend the nation from foreign invasion, and if it wouldn't be effective enough to invade any other nations with, so what?)

By Nomen Nescio (not verified) on 14 Nov 2008 #permalink

Nomen: I strongly oppose conscription for a simple reason. It enables the war makers to raise an army quickly and without significant oppositionm at least at first. If we had the draft, we'd be fighting in Iran at this moment. Conscription came into use at the time of the French Rev. and Napoleonic Wars and fundamentally changed warfare in scale and scope. It winds up being just as inequitable (because societal power relations don't disappear) and gives the wrong people a powerful tool. Conscription after being attacked is another matter and more complicated, but I am talking about a routine, peace time military draft.

oddly, i favor conscription because i think it would strongly increase opposition to aggressive warfare. when it's just volunteers being sent abroad to kill and die, i think a lot more people shrug and ignore it than would if it were conscripts. it's true that Napoleon's armies and wars were larger than anything before him, but he was also effectively a dictator --- i seriously doubt it was very safe for the average Frenchman to loudly oppose his policies.

plus, a conscript army has to be large if it is to defend its homeland, especially in an age of very high technology and very powerful force multipliers. conscripts can't be nearly so well trained as professionals, and won't get nearly as much use out of high tech equipment; they'll be --- as they were in Napoleon's time --- cannon fodder.

a nation will tolerate seeing its youths used as cannon fodder in a purely defensive campaign against a clearly aggressive foreign power, but doing the same when you're the aggressors will raise a lot more opposition. dictators can get away with trampling opposition, but if the USA devolves into a dictatorship then it's all moot anyway.

(except maybe the extreme gun nuts' fantasies about armed revolt against domestic tyranny; a dictatorship would be just about the only scenario that would make that desperate notion worth the cost of starting a new civil war! and if it does get to such a grave extreme, then having a population largely trained to use weapons through conscripted service would be quite handy, i should think.)

and yes, i too am talking of a routine, peacetime conscription. once war breaks out it's too late to start conscripting anyone. by that point, you'll be lucky to find enough time to mobilize already trained reserves.

By Nomen Nescio (not verified) on 14 Nov 2008 #permalink

Nomen: I suggest you look at the Vietnam War as a counter example. Yes, popular resistance developed, but only after many years and not until there were 500.000 soldiers in Vietnam. I lived through that period -- as a draft resister. History tells us that conscription is a weapon of the warmakers, not the peacemakers. Everything is a trade-off, of course, and one can make a case for both sides. But again, I submit, that history is not on the net benefits of peacetime conscription.

i can sympathize with your points to some extent, although i think you may be undervaluing the resistance and opposition that developed to the Vietnam war --- when have we ever seen such resistance to any war we sent an all-volunteer army to? as well, the only real alternative to a conscripted army is what we have now, a professional volunteer army --- and how is that any less of a warmongers' tool than a conscript force?

the way i weigh these factors, it seems to me a professional army is more of such a tool, and opposition to wars fought with such an army likely to be weaker than to wars in which the entire population has a direct stake. but we can agree to disagree, since these issues are certainly far from black and white.

By Nomen Nescio (not verified) on 14 Nov 2008 #permalink

Totally against conscription and a draft both Revere. The Democrat controlled legislature and signed by the Dem governor put that into effect about 8 years ago on the "community service" It put kids into the hood that had no business being there. Many were beat up just because they were competitors on the football team. Now its local community service. Duh.

Commies? No. Just misguided Democrats on a mission to save the world as usual. Or was that Vietnam? Certainly didnt help the Afghan people not to go to the Olympics. The real Olympics were to survive another day. Gold medal to all survivors.

Professional volunteer army is a lot different than getting put into a camp with people unwillingly. Wonder how much that is going to cost the economy in lost wages, upkeep of the people (you conscript them you have to take care of them) and of course as I said before the liabilities. One murder, rape, attempt and the nanny government is going...urps, we are going to get the bills for it.

And Nomen, we quit fighting wars to win them in Korea. Everyone of them that we went in to kick the snot out of the opposition we won and big time. That hasnt happened on a Democrat watch since FDR. Had to there, they were working on the bomb. Kind of like the reason we will have to do Iran unless they give up their nukes.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 14 Nov 2008 #permalink

but somehow different from the reason we're apparently not having to "do" North Korea. y'know, MRK, you'd not be the first person i went to for foreign policy advice.

(Iran is many years away from any hope of a nuclear weapon, which means we still have plenty of non-violent options for addressing them. not that it'll be easy, because wanting a nuke is a perfectly rational thing for any halfway sensible Iranian leader, just look at their security situation. but heck, even if they did manage to get a nuke, so what? that'd drive the Saudis and their neighbors even more strongly into U.S. alliance. it'd cement U.S.-Israeli alliance for a long time into the future, and likely do something similar with Pakistan --- unless Pakistan shattered entirely, which it might anyway. the only black horse in that situation would be Syria, frankly, and it's made a long career out of being the black horse of the middle east, i'd say. but one thing an Iranian nuclear weapon could manifestly not do is threaten the USA or its interests... unless you postulate that invading Iran is one of our interests, which would be unspeakably stupid.)

By Nomen Nescio (not verified) on 14 Nov 2008 #permalink