Health Insurance is NOT Healthcare: The false debate

As we move ever faster towards effecting major changes in health insurance coverage under the guise of Health Care Reform it is critical that we make a separation in the debate: health insurance is NOT health care. No matter how many people have coverage, and no matter how many plans are available, health insurance does not and can not guarantee appropriate, cost efficient, effective care.

The massive changes that are being pushed through Congress are too narrow, too focused on coverage instead of care, and will do nothing but give more of us more of the same.

The only way to provide appropriate, cost efficient, effective care is to re-write the rules of the game, not just put more people into the system. This will include redefining the role of the health insurance company, supporting an open market for insurance, changing the way we think about and pay for health care, refocusing the education and practice of our medical professionals so the impetus is on preventative care versus acute care, and reducing the costs and professional burden of medical education and malpractice coverage. Obviously the devil is in the details but this is where it begins - not a rushed bill that really truly isn't reform at all.

1. Commercial health insurance should truly be insurance
   We don't use our home or auto insurance for anything other than to repair damage caused by catastrophic events, so why do we treat health insurance any differently? We've become accustomed to using our health insurance to pay for all of our health care, whether it's a major heath care event, or a well patient checkup that could easily be paid for entirely out of pocket. Health insurance plans should reflect a catastrophic event coverage structure, such as $1,000,000 lifetime/$15,000 per 'health care event' with an annual total deductible, and monthly or annual premiums, like home or auto insurance (which we don't actually use unless we absolutely must).
   
   Health Care Event: A 'health care event' would be defined as any provided care related to a single disease state. If a patient sees a doctor 5 times a year for migraine treatment and monitoring, it would be considered 1 health care event. If a patient is seen in the emergency room for kidney stones and then follows up with a urologist 3 times over the next 6 months, that would also be considered 1 health care event.
   
   Healthy Person Benefits: Just like auto insurance companies offer 'good driver' benefits such as reduced premiums and better coverage, health insurance companies could also offer a 'healthy persons' benefit.
   
   Public Option: The public health insurance option would provide catastrophic coverage with lower premiums and deductibles based on income, but would not offer a full credit towards these costs. The patient will still be contributing to their health care costs.
   
   Medicaid & Medicare: The role of Medicaid and Medicare would become that of a safety net for those that can not afford commercial or public insurance.
   
   Claims Management: The patient could be responsible for submitting a claim to their insurance provider and be reimbursed after the service - like an auto claim. Health care facilities and providers could also opt to submit claims as well and could provide payment grace periods to their patients who submit their own. Claim forms would allow the claimant to provide proof of payment towards their plan's deductible.
   
   Triggering Event: Deciding when a claim is paid would be determined by the specific health insurance policy, as agreed to by the plan purchaser. It would no longer be a sometimes arbitrary decision made by a panel after the health care event. Everyone will already know what their health insurance will and will not cover and why.
   
   
   
2. Non-catastrophic health care should be paid for by the patient
   Physicians and patients need to set prices for care, not insurance companies, and in order for this to happen the patient needs to pay for their health care. Currently a hospital or physician bills an insurance company for the service at the rate the insurance company allows, not at a real market driven rate. Once a health care provider is forced to actually set prices based on what the real patient market can bear, prices will go down. Health Savings Accounts are the best vehicle for putting the patient in the driver seat and allowing them, along with physicians, to set true market prices for care. Supply and demand needs to be part of this equation, not artificial prices and markets created by Insurance companies.
   
   
3. Health Insurance companies should provide insurance, not medical decisions
   Insurance companies would be removed from the role of approving or denying point of care medical decisions, a role best relegated to the physician and health care providers. They no longer approve or deny health care, but pay claims as required by the patients' insurance plan - just like with home or auto insurance.
   
   
4. An open market is the best option for reducing costs and providing appropriate benefits
   Health insurance companies would provide plans and benefits at-will, as the market allows. Any company that currently offers any kind of insurance, such as Geico or Allstate, would be allowed to offer commercial health insurance plans.
   
   
5. The focus of health care will need to change from acute to preventative care
   Changing the focus of health care from acute to preventative care is paramount in changing the health care landscape and reducing costs.
   
   
6. We need to cap malpractice awards and reduce the cost of education for health care providers
   There are other more effective means of punishing physicians and providers for willfully negligent care than through punitive awards. That said, litigation is not unnecessary for all negligent events. Capping awards however would reduce malpractice premiums across the board, while providing relief in limited cases to the patient population. We need to provide affordable education to physicians so they don't begin practice with $200,000 or more in debt, which in the end is paid for by the patient as the physician and their employer seek ways to pay for this cost.

Reduce Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation with Brain Beads Ferrite Bead

I've been seeing more and more articles and blog posts about the effects of cell phone radiation and the controversy over the effects of extended and long term exposure. I would say there are basically two camps in this argument, the cell phone industry which is pretty sure that because cell phone radiation is 'non-ionizing' that there isn't a problem, and the independent scientific community that is producing more and more research which seems to indicate that at the very least we don't know whether it's safe or not, while others say that it is not safe and precautions should be taken.

I have always assumed that holding a radio that operates in the microwave frequency range next to my brain couldn't be great, so I've always tried to use the speakerphone or a wired hands free headset, but it turns out that the wire can actually act like an antennae and can transfer radiation up to the face, ears and brain. Well, I found a solution and it isn't Bluetooth (which is still a radio sitting next to my brain).

The latest recommendations from Elizabeth Cohen, CNN Medical Correspondent, are for wired headset users to attach a small ferrite bead to the cell phone headset wire which effectively "kills" the radiation:

A ferrite bead is a clip you put on the wire of a headset. The concern is that the wire itself emits radiation into your ear. The bead is designed to absorb the radiation so you don't.

Another fan: Lawrie Challis, physicist and former chair of the Mobile
Telecommunications and Health Research Programme, a government panel in Britain.

They did tests at the University of York and found that under even the worst conditions, if you use a ferrite bead you can't even measure the radiation coming off the wire.

This common device kills the radiation.

(full article here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/07/31/ep.cell.phones.cancer/?iref=hpmostpop)

I ran with her recommendation and started looking around on the web for a ferrite bead (which is a usually a small piece of ferrite cut in half, set inside a small locking plastic case that snaps over the headset wire) and everything I found was large and looked like a piece of industrial hardware - which I didn't want to have dangling from my hands free headset.

After a long search I finally found one that I want to share: Brain Beads at http://www.brainbeads.com/. It's small, it's light gray so it matches my current headset, and it's pretty inexpensive for the benefit it offers.

Here is a photo of it attached to a hands free kit, right below where the left and right ear pieces split from the main wire.

They go for $12 which includes tax and shipping within the continental US.

Saudis Can't Find Buyers for Light Sweet Oil

President Bush is putting the political screws to Congress this week to get them to open offshore drilling and shale development to increase domestic production with the goal of lowering gas prices.

This is disingenuous - he knows it and the Saudis know it. The Saudis you say? The Saudis are scratching their heads at the high prices because they can't sell what they already have - nobody is buying right now according to a recent NY Times article about the development of the Khurais oil field. Last page, last 2 paragraphs:

With all this oil becoming available, the Aramco officials said they were baffled that the market seemed to be behaving as though there were a shortage.

“We’ve asked all the international oil companies that buy from us if they want more oil,” Mr. Nasser said. “But we can’t find customers.”

Basic economics tells us that prices should go down as supply increases and in light of the fact that the Saudis can't find buyers that must mean one of the following three:

1. we don't need oil anymore
2. there is already enough supply
3. the markets are being manipulated

My vote is 3, the markets are being manipulated because choice number 1 is obviously false, and choice number 2 would mean lower prices and less fluctuation, which we aren't seeing.

Just recently the heads of the major airlines sent a letter to their frequent flier customers asking them to contact Congress and demand legislation that will but the brakes on speculative oil markets (market manipulation) because they believe that is the major reason for high oil and gas prices, not lack of foreign or domestic supply. Read the full letter from the airline executives.

Congress responded this week by starting the process of introducing a bill that would do exactly that. President Bush responded in kind, through his spokeswoman Dana Perino:

So while they can have the vote on speculation and they can move forward on that, we think that it is critical that we start focusing on the resources that we have in our country and the ways that we can access those resources in environmentally friendly ways, including oil shale, offshore oil drilling and opening up a small bit of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.

While most of us would agree that we need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, increasing our dependency on domestic oil isn't the solution - changing dealers isn't a solution to the addiction. Oil will fail eventually whether it comes from overseas or our national forests. In the meantime, using our nations resources to speed us along to that eventual day seems like a greedy reach from big business, and I'd bet that President Bush knows that is the path he is leading us on. I bet the Saudis know it too.

YouTube Giving Up the Goods

Since YouTube is giving up the goods to Viacom, by which I mean all the data on whom is watching what, I've decided to do the same. I'm giving all the record companies, including the Indies, a list of everyone who may have inadvertently or advertently heard or listened to music that I may have legally purchased and subsequently played too loudly, at sometime. So if you heard me rocking out to Coldplay, I'm embarrased, and you're going to jail. Don't drop the iPod.



CNET has good news though - Viacom can't turn around and sue you or me for watching their programs on the YT. However nothing was said about not sending detailed viewing information to your mom or your boss. Interesting and you're fired AND grounded.

Cheney - Iraq is a quagmire

Obama Baby! '08

Some friends and I have researched and composed an email that we think will be interesting for people to forward and post on blogs. Our hope is that you will forward the copy below to all of your contacts and start a forwarding e-mail campaign. To go along with Obama's 'Change' theme, we have created an “It’s time for a change” onesie (get it?) and other baby merchandise at www.obamababy08.com. As you will read below, the merchandise fits within the theme of our forwarding e-mail campaign. Profits after the administrative costs of the Obamababy08.com website will be donated directly to the Obama 08' campaign.

To the estimated 4 million babies born in the United States this election year…

On the day you are born... According to current census data, over 40 million people in the U.S. were considered to be living in poverty, over 45 million people were without health insurance, and the national debt exceeded $9 trillion.

The cost of fighting one day in Iraq could provide health insurance coverage for a year to 380,900 uninsured children in America, immunize every baby born in the U.S. against measles, mumps, and rubella 14.2 times, and feed all of the starving children in the world four and a half times over.

By the end of your first year in the world... As you're just beginning to walk, you will be facing a 50% likelihood of the detonation of an atomic weapon by a terrorist on U.S. soil within 10 years.

At the end of 2007, Harvard professors Graham Allison and Douglas Dillon said, "Based on current trends, a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States is more likely than not in the decade ahead. As horrific as that vision is, the most important but largely unrecognized truth is that this ultimate catastrophe is preventable."

By the time you enter kindergarten... As you're learning to read, at least 40-50 million Americans will not read well enough to provide a wage to raise their standard of living above the poverty line.

Six million middle and high school students read significantly below their grade level. A full third of high school graduates do not immediately go on to college. American 15 year olds rank 28th out of 40 countries in mathematics and 19th out of 40 countries in science. Almost 30 percent of students in their first year of college are forced to take remedial science and math classes because they are not prepared.

By the time you are a senior in high school... As you are taking your SAT/ACT's and applying to colleges, you will be facing the reality that your first year of tuition will cost about $54,750.

College costs have grown nearly 40 percent in the past five years. In 2007, the average graduate left college with over $19,000 in debt. Between 2001 and 2010, 2 million academically qualified students will not go to college because they cannot afford it.

By the time you finish your last year of college... As you are looking at places to visit on your spring break, you will have 5-7 years left to see Glacier National Park before all the glaciers melt due to climate change.

As of 2007, Glacier National Park only has 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

By the time you're 30... As you are preparing to marry or start a family and plan for your financial future, the Social Security system will be able to cover only about 73 percent of benefits owed.

According to projections, in 2015, the Social Security program will begin to spend more money than it collects in taxes. At that point, the Social Security program will begin to collect on the money that it has loaned to the federal government. Between 2037 and 2075, the Social Security program is projected to run annual deficits totaling 30 trillion dollars.

Rep. John Dingell - 'No' To Fuel Efficient Cars

The new head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. John Dingell, has voiced that increasing fuel efficiency in automobiles is not part of his agenda. From MSNBC:

Rep. John Dingell, who has been a U.S. lawmaker since 1955... gave a strong indication of what he did not plan to do: raise fuel-efficiency standards for U.S. automobiles.

“I’m not sure that there’s any urgent needs for us to address those questions,” Dingell told CNBC in an interview.

Is this part of the "New Direction for America"? It sounds an awful like the "Old Entrenched Paid For By Big Oil America" that we just threw out of Congress. Maybe Rep. Dingell didn't get the message. Please contact Rep. John Dingell to let him know your concerns regarding our current low fuel-efficiency standards and that we expect the new congress to enact tougher standards.




Molten Carbon

Americans Voted Their Values - Senator Tester

From DailyKos:

It's about time the Senate has someone that looks like Montana.

Calling McCaskill, Tester, Webb

Molten Carbon is calling all three remaining senate races in favor of McCaskill, Tester, and Webb. The most likely fight will come from Allen's team and will include a very expensive all-star litigation team from RNC headquarters. That's our prediction anyway and we're sticking to it.




Calling McCaskill, Tester, Webb

Live Virginia Senate Race

11:58pm MST Webb by 7,811 votes

1999 War Games Predicted Problems In Iraq

The Associated Press broke a story today about war games conducted in 1999 which were focused on overthrowing Saddam and the ensuing outcome. The following conclusions resulted, and were ignored for the subsequent real War in Iraq:

• A change in regimes does not guarantee stability


• A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability


• Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic — especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments


• Iran’s anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq


• The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad


• The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development


• Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government


• A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners

This could be a copy from the pages of the Bush Administrations 'Lessons Learned' manual. Unfortunately for us, they aren't reading this manual and didn't bother to read the intelligence and assesments that had already been prepared. Why do we pay our intelligence agencies billions of dollars annually if the President isn't going to follow their advice?


Molten Carbon

Republican Candidates 2006

--UT-Sen: Senator Hatch

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl

--AZ-01: Rick Renzi

--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth

--CA-04: John Doolittle

--CA-11: Richard Pombo

--CA-50: Brian Bilbray

--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave

--CO-05: Doug Lamborn

--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell

--CT-04: Christopher Shays

--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan

--FL-16: Joe Negron

--FL-22: Clay Shaw

--ID-01: Bill Sali

--IL-06: Peter Roskam

--IL-10: Mark Kirk

--IL-14: Dennis Hastert

--IN-02: Chris Chocola

--IN-08: John Hostettler

--IA-01: Mike Whalen

--KS-02: Jim Ryun

--KY-03: Anne Northup

--KY-04: Geoff Davis

--MD-Sen: Michael Steele

--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht

--MN-06: Michele Bachmann

--MO-Sen: Jim Talent

--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns

--NV-03: Jon Porter

--NH-02: Charlie Bass

--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson

--NM-01: Heather Wilson

--NY-03: Peter King

--NY-20: John Sweeney

--NY-26: Tom Reynolds

--NY-29: Randy Kuhl

--NC-08: Robin Hayes

--NC-11: Charles Taylor

--OH-01: Steve Chabot

--OH-02: Jean Schmidt

--OH-15: Deborah Pryce

--OH-18: Joy Padgett

--PA-04: Melissa Hart

--PA-07: Curt Weldon

--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick

--PA-10: Don Sherwood

--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee

--TN-Sen: Bob Corker

--VA-Sen: George Allen

--VA-10: Frank Wolf

--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick

--WA-08: Dave Reichert

Keith Olbermann Puts America First

Darn Geneva Convention is Too Confusing

President Bush thinks Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention is too vague and needs to be clarified in order to prosecute the terrorists being held at Guantanamo. Well, here it is for your perusal, and I'm sorry if it confuses you. I'll try to help out:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

The reason Bush wants this changed?

Its also alot easier to convict people of terrorism if you don't have to actually produce evidence or if you accept hearsay, or better yet, if the suspect doesn't have access to the information his case is based upon:

NY Times: (T)rials at Guantánamo Bay in military tribunals...would allow evidence obtained by coercive interrogation and hearsay and deny suspects and their lawyers the right to see classified evidence used against them.

Now I see why President Bush thinks the Geneva Conventions need clarification: They bring humanity to the brutality of war.

Molten Carbon

America Comes First

This country is fractured and bleeding. We need to stop electing parties and start electing true American's, those who know that without our liberties we have nothing to fight for. That's the only thing that makes us America! Not our homes, our cars, our mountains or our cities, but our Bill of Rights, our Constitution, our families and our civic participation.

This isn't about party affiliation anymore, though they want you to believe it is. It isn't about the 'War on Terror' though that's how they scare us into giving away the liberties we are supposedly fighting for.

When the President acts contrary to established law, he is breaking the law no matter how much justification there seems to be. When Congress writes a law saying that his actions are now legal, it doesn't change the fact that he broke the law.

When our President wants to gut the Geneva Conventions in the name of 'clarification', you know he cares little for the welfare of our soldiers who fight relentlessly to protect our country.

When the President can casually count off 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed to achieve his objectives in the 'War on Terror' and then stare us down and claim

It’s unacceptable to think there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.

You can stare him right back in the eyes and say there is no difference. Does it matter the reason or moral authority on which those innocent women and children are killed? Does one reason make it right and the other reason make it wrong when the outcome is the same?

When the President and Congress sit idly by as the rest of the world struggles to find solutions to Global Warming, you know their pockets are lined by Big Business and their souls have been bought. The ice caps are melting faster than ever before, the summers are hotter than they have ever been and our elected officials hem and haw to protect the economy, an economy that won't be able to withstand the onslaught of more hurricanes like Katrina, inundated coast lines and new and ever virulent diseases.

What are we going to do? Are we going to be complacent and lazy? Are we waiting for the call to action? Have we become so confused and tired of the political rhetoric that we don't know which way to move or even how to proceed if we did know the way? Its time for new leadership. Its time to put our families and our country first.

We need leadership, we need a road map, we need moral direction. Most of all, we need to act as a united front. We shop at the same stores, we put our kids through the same schools, we drive on the same roads and watch the same TV shows. Its time to play to our strengths and ignore our differences. Our country depends on us depending on each other.

Domestic Espionage=Check Please

The only Congressional bill addressing the domestic espionage issue to receive much traction is one proposed by Senator Specter (R) which gives the President the option of having the program reviewed by the FISA court for its constitutionality. Senator Specter believes his bill will balance the need for judicial review of the program while honoring the Bush administration's need for secrecy. This reasoning is flawed for a number of reasons:

The FISA court has no precedent to form an arguable case for or against the legality of this program; They approve or deny wiretapping requests, they don't argue constitutional law. You may ask, what about the Supreme Court? This law and it's effects will be exempt from oversight by the Supreme Court as the FISA court will be the sole judiciary body responsible for oversight of

..any case before any court challenging the legality of classified communications intelligence activity relating to a foreign threat ... or in which the legality of any such activity or program is in issue.

Why the hoopla?
Not only is President Bush breaking established law by wiretapping American citizens, he is doing so under a flawed and unconstitutional premise of power. The NSA program in question violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and more importantly the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. The President claims however that he has inherent and Congressionally mandated authority to bypass the FISA court (break the law) as a result of the theory of the 'Unitary Executive', a divergent view of the Executive Branch which vests all powers not delegated by Congress or the Constitution to the President, in direct violation of the 'All Powers' clause of the Constitution, which delegates these powers to the people, NOT the President.

By allowing the President to maintain a shroud of secrecy over this program, Senator Specter is giving in to the President's claim that the constitutional authority inherent in the Office of the President is enough to ignore, circumvent and deride Congressionally enacted law and our system of checks and balances.

Should this bill pass, Senator Specter and the rest of Congress will have given the President the authority to spy on the international phone calls and emails of American citizens without a warrant. This is a dangerous precedent that will come back to haunt us when President Bush next pushes for warrantless eavesdropping on domestic communications. The argument now is that if al-Qaeda is calling into the U.S., Bush wants to know who they are calling. The argument soon will be that if al-Qaeda is calling from within the U.S., Bush wants to know about it. We will see an increased focus on domestic terror cells in the coming months, with a push to erase all checks on the President's authority related to eavesdropping.

A quote from Senator Specter's bill:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the constitutional authority of the President to collect intelligence with respect to foreign powers and agents of foreign powers.

Without a definition of 'foreign powers and agents of foreign powers' Senator Specter is creating an obvious loophole for future and increased domestic espionage by the Bush administration.

With a complicit Congress, President Bush is poised to realize the greatest coup of all time: the creation of a fascist America.

President Bush, 12/18/2000: If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.

Domestic Espionage=Check Please

Technorati Profile

CIA Secret Prison Announcement: Dirty Politics

President Bush announced that the US has been keeping suspected terrorists at CIA run black sites in foreign countries. He said that some of the main players responsible for 9/11 will be moved to Guantanamo, as the CIA has extracted as much information from them as they are going to get. I've heard and read different reactions, ranging from finally President Bush is being honest to President Bush is being strong on terrorism.

The real reason for the sudden announcement? Dirty politics. By moving the people directly responsible for 9/11 to Guantanamo, President Bush is challenging Congress to now defy his requests for legislation authorizing him to prosecute using military tribunals. The Supreme Court already shot him down, and now he needs Congress to make it legal.

The scenario should play out this way: the Republican Bloc will create rubber-stamp legislation giving the President too much authority. The Dems won't go along with it and the Republicans will start in with their 'Democrats are soft on terror' tirade just in time for the November elections. He isn't being either honest or strong on terror, he is once again politicizing 9/11 and putting America last.

CIA Secret Prison Announcement: Dirty Politics

President Bush Press Conference

From CBS News.

Molten Carbon

Bush's Talking Points are Nixonian

Here's a short and incomplete comparison of various statements by President Bush and statements made by President Nixon during his November 3, 1969 televised speech. At least we know where he gets his talking points, and they aren't from Rove. I've highlighted some of the more egregious examples of plagiarism:

Nixon:

We have adopted a plan which we have worked out in cooperation with the South Vietnamese for the complete withdrawal of all U.S. combat ground forces, and their replacement by South Vietnamese forces on an orderly scheduled timetable. This withdrawal will be made from strength and not from weakness. As South Vietnamese forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can become greater.

Bush:

Our strategy can be summed up this way: As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down, and when our commanders on the ground tell me that Iraqi forces can defend their freedom, our troops will come home with the honor they have earned. (Applause.)

Nixon:

The South Vietnamese have continued to gain in strength. As a result they have been able to take over combat responsibilities from our American troops.

Bush:

As more Iraqi battalions come online, these forces are assuming responsibility for more territory.

Nixon:

We must retain the flexibility to base each withdrawal decision on the situation as it is at the time rather than on estimates that are no longer valid.

Bush: via Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman:

There should not be hard and fast timetables associated with our force adjustments..the commanders on the ground need the flexibility to be able to adjust the troop levels based on the conditions that exist.

Nixon:

I have not and do not intend to announce the timetable for our program. And there are obvious reasons for this decision which I am sure you will understand...an announcement of a fixed timetable for our withdrawal would completely remove any incentive for the enemy to negotiate an agreement. They would simply wait until our forces had withdrawn and then move in.

Bush:

I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out.

Nixon:

I recognize that some of my fellow citizens disagree with the plan for peace I have chosen. Honest and patriotic Americans have reached different conclusions as to how peace should be achieved.

In San Francisco a few weeks ago, I saw demonstrators carrying signs reading: "Lose in Vietnam, bring the boys home."

Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view. But as President of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this Nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the Nation by mounting demonstrations in the street.

Bush:

There are a lot of people in the Democratic Party who believe that the best course of action is to leave Iraq before the job is done. Period. And they're wrong.

I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me...this has nothing to do with patriotism. It has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live.

Bush's Talking Points are Nixonian

$230 Million = Chump Change

President Bush is playing big politics with the announcement that he will make available $230 million for the reconstruction efforts in Lebanon. One estimate puts the reconstruction costs at $3.6 billion and lost tourism revenue at $1.5 billion, with the Jiyahh power station oil spill clean up efforts alone to top $64 million.

What about other countries? How are they helping out? Kuwait has pledged almost 3.5 times as much as the US to the tune of $800 million. Saudi Arabia? 2 times with $500 million guaranteed. The interesting thing is that Lebanon was founded as an enclave for Christians who still make up 40 percent of the population, but these Arab countries don't seem to have any problem with that. From the Kuwaiti Times:

"We Kuwaitis support all the Lebanese people from Muslims to Christians and donating is the least we can do," said Abdullah, a Kuwaiti who owns a summer home in Lebanon.

We spend $250 million a DAY in Iraq, not to mention the $110 BILLION alloted to the Katrina cleanup efforts/scandal. Is $230 million really going to do anything? Its a strange and duplicitous person who gives political cover to one government as they destroy another country and then offers a consolance package worth a couple hundred million for the trouble.

$230 Million = Chump Change