Friday, March 06, 2015

THIS JUST IN! CLINTON SAYS SCANDAL IS A PLUS!

BULLY BOY PRESS &    CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE

CRANKY CLINTON AND HER E-MAIL SCANDAL REMAIN IN THE NEWS.



ASKED BY THESE REPORTERS IF SHE WAS WORRIED ABOUT FALL OUT FROM THIS HURTING HER POLLING NUMBERS, CRANKY CLINTON REPLIED, "WHY SHOULD IT?  ALL THESE E-MAILS DEMONSTRATE I AM POPULAR AND HAVE MANY FRIENDS!  SO MUCH FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO CALLED ME A COLD FISH!"





"The Choice Act has been shocking underutilized," declared Senator Richard Blumenthal at last Thursday's Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing.  Blumenthal is the Ranking Member, Senator Johnny Isakson is the Chair.  The hearing was about the VA's budget request and the first panel was composed of VA employees led by Secretary of the VA Robert McDonald.  The others were Dr. Carolyn Clancy, well known fabulist Allison Hickey, Ronald Walters, Stephen Warren and Helen Tierney.

Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal:  As I outlined earlier, Secretary McDonald, the choice card program basically seems not to be working.  I think you and I, in our conversations, have talked about the potential reasons that it is so underutilized a small fraction of the veterans who  are eligible to use it in practical terms are doing so.  The 40 mile rule may be a cause.


Before we go further, let's all get on the same page.  The House Veterans Affairs Committee offers the following highlights of The Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014:
To improve access to and quality of care for veterans, the law:
  • Requires VA to offer an authorization to receive non-VA care to any veteran who is enrolled in the VA health care system as of August 1, 2014, or who is a newly discharged combat veteran if such veteran is unable to secure an appointment at a VA medical facility within 30 days (or a future published goal established by VA) or resides more than 40 miles from the nearest VA medical facility, with certain exceptions.
    • Requires VA to provide a Veterans Choice Card to eligible veterans to facilitate care provided by non-VA providers.
    • Provides $10 billion for the newly-established “Veterans Choice Fund” to cover the costs of this increased access to non-VA care. Choice program authority would end when funds are exhausted or three years after enactment, whichever occurs first.
  • Requires an independent assessment of VA medical care and establish a Congressional Commission on Care to evaluate access to care throughout the VA health care system.
  • Extends the ARCH (Access Received Closer to Home) pilot program for two years.
  • Extends for three years a pilot program to provide rehabilitation, quality of life, and community integration services to veterans with complex-mild to severe traumatic brain injury.
  • Improves the delivery of care to veterans who have experienced military sexual trauma as well as care for Native Hawaiian and Native American veterans.

To expand VA’s internal capacity to provide timely care to veterans, the bill would:
  • Provides $5 billion to VA to increase access to care through the hiring of physicians and other medical staff and by improving VA’s physical infrastructure.
  • Authorizes 27 major medical facility leases in 18 states and Puerto Rico.

To provide real accountability for incompetent or corrupt senior managers, the law:
  • Authorizes VA to fire or demote Senior Executive Service (SES) employees and Title 38 SES equivalent employees for poor performance or misconduct.
    • Provides an expedited and limited appeal process for employees disciplined under this authority. Appeals would go to a Merit Systems Protection Board administrative judge, who would have 21 days to decide on the appeal. If a decision is not reached within that 21-day period, then VA’s decision to remove or demote the executive is final.
    • Prohibits SES employees from receiving pay, bonuses and benefits during the appeal process.
  • Reduces funding for bonuses available to VA employees by $40 million each year through FY 2024.

To improve education benefits for veterans and dependents, the law:
  • Requires public colleges to provide in-state tuition to veterans and eligible dependents in order for the school to remain eligible to receive G.I. Bill education payments.
  • Expands the Sgt. Fry Scholarship Program to provide full Post 9/11 G.I. Bill benefits to spouses of servicemembers who died in the line of duty after 9/11.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill would result in net spending of roughly $10 billion from 2014 - 2024, making it less expensive than previous VA reform packages passed by the House and Senate.



Along with backlog claims issues, the VA has suffered from the scandal of not delivering timely care and inventing a system not to fix that but to hide it.  The simplest explanation is that the VA kept two sets of books on appointments -- the false one had veterans receiving timely care when they called in to schedule appointments, the reality version -- which was hidden from Congress --documented the lengthy wait times.

As a result of veterans being denied timely care -- and the health problems and, yes, deaths that resulted from these actions led to the passage of the 2014 act.

It was hoped that this measure allowing veterans living "more than 40 miles from the nearest VA medical facility" to utilize a non-VA facility and doctor would allow for more timely health care.


To be clear, veterans can utilize that and could before the bill -- minus the 40 miles clause.  But to do so they had to get a written referral from a VA doctor and present that at whatever appointment/consultation with a non-VA doctor.  This clause in the act was supposed to simplify this process.

But that did not happen.

Today, Tom Philpott (Stars and Stripes) noted Senate VA Committee Chair Johnny Isakson is calling for the 40-mile aspect to be loosened:

  As we reported here several times last year, the law is more restrictive than early Capitol Hill tweets had indicated.  For each episode of care, regional VA healthcare managers still must authorize outside care, and VA usually will direct patients into a contracted network of health care providers.
Meanwhile, the 40-mile rule narrows eligibility to use cards in two ways.  First, the law uses “geodesic” or as-the-crow-flies distance to determine if a veteran lives more than 40 miles from VA care.  This denies access to private sector care to many vets who reside within 40 miles of VA care if one uses a map and ruler.  Actual drives for care can be much longer.
Second, the 40-mile rule applies to the nearest VA health facility, not nearest VA facility providing needed care. So veterans who reside within 40 miles of a VA clinic that can’t treat their conditions still aren’t eligible to use the Choice Card.  Those are two problems that need fixing, Isakson said.
“We need to make sure that if [VA] health care within 40 miles of the veteran doesn’t provide chemotherapy or doesn’t provide a heart transplant or doesn’t provide a specialty the veteran needs, they get to exercise the 40-mile rule because the health care they need is not available,” said Isakson.

“We also need to be certain we look at how long it takes to drive there…This straight-line application is crazy,” Isakson said.  “It needs to be the time [or mileage] from leaving the garage of the veteran to pulling into the parking lot of the Veterans Administration.”


I understand why the act was passed, I understand the reasoning behind it -- and I actually support that.  But I'm confused to this day of why the lawmakers seem unaware of what was already available.

Veterans had to jump through hoops -- whether they were VA, TRICARE or CHAMPVA to get those referrals unless their VA primary care doctor was a good one.  (A sign of a good one?  They retroactively authorize it if you're on vacation and have to see a non-VA doctor out of your area.  Which they can do but only very few will.)  (If your visit is not authorized -- prior to the appointment or retroactively -- you are responsible for the cost of the visit, your veterans plan is not covering it.)

It appears the hope was that by the wording of the 40 miles, it would be easier for the veterans to receive the referral for care.  I think it was stupid to rely on the same system that was already a problem -- VA doctors -- to give the same referrals. 

I'm glad Isakson wants to reform it and I agree with his comments but more needs to be done.  The easiest thing would be to have some sort of clearance that took place online and by phone (because everyone doesn't have a computer -- shocking though that is to America's so-called 'creative class').  So a veteran would log on or dial in and enter their address -- already on file with the VA -- and request a referral for a visit to a non-VA facility.  The computer or phone system would know that the address was X number of miles from the nearest VA and if was 40 or more a referral would automatically be sent out to the veteran.

The thinking seems to have been that by putting it into law the VA doctors would be less hesitant about providing the referrals.  But the problem was more the issue of accessing the doctors and getting the referral -- the time involved for both -- and this was time while you were waiting for treatment.  The system should have been automated.

If the doctors are part of the reason for the delay -- and they are and that's chiefly because of the time involved -- then the solution was to automate the process.


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"


Wednesday, March 04, 2015

THIS JUST IN! THEY REALLY ARE TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE! MOST LIKELY!

BULLY BOY PRESS &    CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE



THE POINT OF THE MEET UP?

TO PROVE THAT ALTHOUGH THEY GOVERN IDENTICALLY, THEY REALLY ARE TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE.





February 19th, "CENTCOM whispers about an upcoming assault on Mosul which may involve US troops."  That's when an official with CENTCOM spoke on 'background' with the US press about the then-planned upcoming attack on Mosul which has been held by the Islamic State (also known as ISIS and ISIL) since June.  As we noted then:


This was not a private conversation.
It was a background briefing. 
Here's how that works, the Pentagon is the john insisting on his fantasies being played out and the press are the whores working to make the fantasy come true.



While we emphasized the aspect that US troops would be utilized -- despite US President Barack Obama insisting last June that US troops would not be sent back into Iraq to be ground troops in combat -- most went with the official declaring the assault would begin in March, April or May . . .

This has resulted in a large amount of criticisms.

Strangely, Barack hasn't been asked about it.

Strangely, he's not offered an opinion.

For once in his time as President, Mr. Know It All hasn't had an opinion to share -- this from the man who's weighed in on everything from reality TV to Kanye West.

At today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, the background briefing to the press was raised and the new Secretary of Defense Ash Carter labeled the briefing an error and a mistake.


Senator Tom Cotton: I have to go back to something that we were discussing a few series ago about the leak of our plans to Mosul.  I believe, Secretary Carter, you said you were looking into it.  I know General Dempsey that you said you were looking into it.  I-I-I don't understand what would take so long to get to the bottom of. I mean, this was not a leak.  I mean it was a planned conference call with members of the media, if I understand the reporting correctly.  Do I misunderstand something here?

Secretary Ash Carter: No, that's my understanding as well.  And I just say two things about this whole incident.  The first is, Senator, that when a-a-a operation is mounted against Mosul or anywhere else, uh, it needs to be a success and it needs to be Iraqi-led and supported by us and it needs to be successful.  And that -- It's a little bit like the conditions-based point that Senator --

Senator Tom Cotton:  Mr. Secretary, I agree fully.  I agree fully.  I don't -- I don't understand why announcing any timeline would have contributed to any idea it would have been a success nor do I understand why it would take so long to understand why an organized conference call with the media was held. 

Secretary Ash Carter: I'll say something about that and let the Chairman who's also spoken about that to General [Lloyd] Austin [CENTCOM Commander] about that.  That clearly was not neither accurate information nor had it been accurate would it have been information that should be blurted out to the press.  So it's wrong on both fronts -- on both scores.  And the only thing I'll say is that we try as aaaaaaaaaaaa [he stretched "a" out and we're noting it that way to capture it correctly] -- as the Department of Defense  of  a democracy to be as open as we can.  So there are lots of people out there talking all the time about what we're doing and every once in a while somebody gets out in front of their skis but I also even as we make sure that this particular incident doesn't happen again, uhm, I-I-I think that it's important that we be open as a Department -- not with military secrets and not with war plans -- which is the mistake made in this case -- but we do try to keep the country informed about what we're doing. It's about protecting them, it is a democracy, and so openess is important but it has to have limits when it comes to security matters and those limits obviously weren't respected in this case.


Robert Burns (AP) observes, "The episode is remarkable in at least two respects. It was unusual for the U.S. military to disclose in advance the expected timing of an offensive as well as details about the makeup of the Iraqi force that would undertake it. And it was curious that a secretary of defense would wait nearly two weeks after such a briefing to denounce it publicly for having spilled military secrets."


If the briefing was wrong, maybe it's equally wrong to inaccurately portray Carter's remarks.  This outlet did just that.  Above is what was said.

If you're going to put words in between quotation marks, you need to make sure they're accurate.  And while mishearing a word or two is always possible for anyone, recreating and restructuring public remarks is not reporting.


With the Secretary of Defense now calling out the briefing, it's probably past time that the White House was asked for a formal comment.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq"
  •  


  • Tuesday, March 03, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! CRABBY CLINTON SAYS 'TRUST ME'!

    BULLY BOY PRESS &    CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE


    HILLARY CLINTON'S FOUND HERSELF IN YET ANOTHER SCANDAL OF HER OWN MAKING.  


    REACHED FROM COMMENT A CRABBY CLINTON TOLD THESE REPORTERS THAT IF PEOPLE WANT E-MAILS, "ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS ASK."

    AND HOW WILL THEY KNOW THAT SHE HAS TURNED ALL E-MAILS OVER?

    "PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO TRUST ME."

    ONCE UPON A TIME WHEN YOU RAN FOR THE PRESIDENCY YOU EARNED THE PEOPLE'S TRUST.

    CRABBY CLINTON NOT ONLY TAKES THE PEOPLE'S TRUST FOR GRANTED, SHE ALSO TAKES THE PEOPLE FOR GRANTED.








    The assault on Tikrit has begun.

    Sunday, Dominic Evans (Reuters) reported that "Iraq's army and Shi'ite militia" were attacking Tirkit.


    Nancy A. Youssef (Daily Beast) reports that the forces are being aided by the Iranian government but not the US one:

    The U.S.-led coalition forces that have conducted seven months of airstrikes on Iraq’s behalf did not participate in the attack, defense officials told The Daily Beast, and the American military has no plans to chip in.
    Instead, embedded Iranian advisors and Iranian-backed Shiite militias are taking part in the offensive on the largely Sunni town, raising the prospect that the fight to beat back ISIS could become a sectarian war.
    The news is the latest indication that not all is well with the American effort against the terror group. On Friday, U.S. defense officials told The Daily Beast that a planned offensive against the ISIS stronghold of Mosul had been indefinitely postponed.

    Jim Michaels (USA Today) adds, "Iran provides artillery and other support for a military offensive in  Tikrit, according to a senior U.S. military official. He did not want to be named because he is not authorized to speak publicly about Iran's role."  Zaid Sabah and David Lerman (Bloomberg News) note:



    Naim al-Aboudi, a spokesman for the Iranian-backed Asaib Ahl al-Haq militia, one of the main forces fighting around Tikrit, said that “the U.S.-led coalition has never decisively ended any battle.” 
    “We don’t trust the coalition and we don’t need their help,” he said by phone. 



    Meanwhile Luis Martinez and Martha Raddatz (ABC News) offer, "A U.S. official told ABC News that this appears to be more of a 'tactical operation' and that Iraqi military elements involved do not appear to be well-coordinated."


    Iranian help is not just support from afar in Tehran, it's on the ground in Iraq.  Paul McLeary (Defense News) notes, "Twitter came alive on Monday with photos of Iranian Quds Force commander Gen. Qasem Soleimani who is again in Iraq, directing Shia militias in their fight against IS militants."



    The assault's just begun.  Already the warning signs are flashing bright red.  Bobby Ghosh (Quartz) reports:


    There’s already cause for alarm. Early reports indicate that Shia irregulars are leading the assault on Tikrit, under the supervision of Hadi al-Amiri, nominally Iraq’s transport minister, but better known as the leader of the Badr Organization, an Iran-backed militia notorious for brutal torture and murder of Sunnis.

    Apparently unsatisfied with having a surrogate in the battlefield, Tehran has also despatched to Iraq’s Salahuddin province—of which Sunni-majority Tikrit is a part—the notorious Qassem Suleimani, the general who supervises most of Iran’s proxies, from Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, to the Houthis in Yemen.

    One of the world’s most dangerous men, Suleimani has had the freedom of Iraq for over a year, building and reinforcing Shia militias that have been murdering and terrorizing Sunnis with almost as much enthusiasm—if not with quite as much efficiency—as ISIL has been slaughtering civilians.



    Mark Thompson (Time magazine) notes Haider spoke today:

    He addressed the Iraqi people in a televised address Monday. “Today, God willing, we start an important military campaign to liberate the citizens of Salahuddin province which includes Samarra, Dhuluiya, Balad, Dujail, al-Alam, al-Door, and Tikrit and other areas in the province  from ISIS,” al-Abadi said. 

    More than just being suspicious of Haider, the Sunnis in Tikrit are right to be suspicious of the 'liberation' being attempted by the Shia forces.


    Sheren Khalel and Matthew Vickery (Middle East Monitor) speak with a man, Kareem Abbas, whose Diyala Province village was 'liberated' by Shia forces:


    According to Abbas, the massacre didn’t start until the day the Islamic State was pushed out. The Badr Brigade, an Iranian-funded Shiite militia with a force between 10,000 and 15,000, advanced on his village, and forced the Islamic State out of his hometown in a move the Iraqi central government called liberation.
    Human Rights Watch (HRW) has documented several cases of kidnap and summary executions by the Badr Brigade in Diyala province.
    “Iraqi civilians [in Sunni areas] are being hammered by ISIS and then by pro-government militias in areas they seize from ISIS,” Joe Stork, HRW’s deputy Middle East and Africa director, said in a statement.
    Visibly upset with hands shaking, Abbas tells MEE that on that first day militiamen gathered the villagers together, crosschecking their identification with names of known Islamic State fighters. Terrified, Abbas and other adult male villagers co-operated with the armed men.
    “But then a man with a facemask approached the fighters,” Abbas explains. “He started screaming at them ‘Are you really doing this? We know they [the villagers] are not with the Islamic State. We are here to kill.’”
    According to Abbas, the masked man raised his gun to the nearest villager and fired several shots at point blank range into the man – the rest of the militiamen started shooting indiscriminately. 




    Dominic Evans (Reuters) quotes Iraq's Shi'ite Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi declaring Sunday of the Sunnis in Tirkist, "This is their last chance. If they insist on staying on their wrong path they will receive the fair punishment they deserve because they ... stood with terrorism."


    With those kind of remarks, do you really think the Sunni population is safe in Tikrit?



    UNAMI issued the following cautionary statement today:


    Baghdad, 2 March 2015 – The Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq (SRSG), Mr. Nickolay Mladenov, urges all armed forces in Tikrit to do their utmost to spare civilians and to protect their security and safety in line with international standards. 


    “Military operations reinforced by international and Iraqi air support must be conducted with the utmost care to avoid civilian casualties, and with full respect for fundamental human rights principles and humanitarian law”, Mr. Mladenov noted.  He also called on the Government and the international community to take urgent action to ensure that desperately needed humanitarian aid is provided and to ensure that all those who fled from ISIL can safely return to their homes.


    Also issuing a statement was the Association of Muslim Scholars (statement via BRussells Tribunal):


    The Association of Muslim Scholars in its Statement No. 1056 ,  issued on the 1st March 2015 charges the current government as well as the religious “marijiya”in  Nejaf  with the responsibility for the crimes committed by the sectarian militias.
    The Association reiterated the truth of the fact it had previously stated that Abadi’s government is nothing but an extension of Maliki’s government in committing sectarian crimes  and that they are both Qassim Sulaimani’s diligent pupils, and part of his tools for putting into effect the Iranian project in the region.
    AMSI attributed to eye witnesses in Al Muqdadiya in Diyala that the so called “popular mobilization militias” with the government police force in the area bombed the Tawfiq Ajjaj Mosque, after using it as a headquarters, in addition to last Thursday in the Al Hussayniya area, north of Baghdad, 19 extra judicial executions and kidnappings of displaced people from the Yathrib area in Sallahudeen were carried out by sectarian militias in the presence and full view of government security forces.

    Finally, the Association  charged the current government, with full responsibility for these hideous crimes,  as well as the religious “marjiiya” in Nejaf,  for it is the “marjiiya” that called for the formation of the “popular mobilization militias” in the first place, and did not take any steps and precautions to keep them under control and prevent them from committing such crimes against innocent civilians.



    Ben Wedeman and Mariano Castillo (CNN) note, "Iraqi forces approached Tikrit from several fronts, Iraqiya TV reported, engaging with ISIS north of the city at al-Alam and south of the city at al-Dour."




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"


  • Truest statement of the week
  • Truest statement of the week II
  • A note to our readers
  • Editorial: Iraq, apparently, Can Wait (Yet Again)
  • TV: Agent Carter demonstrates a path forward
  • The bitches go after Patricia
  • Beyonce's biggest fan Janell (a cautionary parody)...
  • The IRS Scandal -- a Tale of Democratic Lying and ...
  • Celebrity
  • Bad Cops
  • The WSWS arts beat -- always a little behind (Ava ...
  • This edition's playlist
  • Human Rights Human Wrongs: How striking images can...
  • Miller Statement on Sec. McDonald’s Special Operat...
  • The IRS scandal