Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (17806)	11/26/2003 2:29:17 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793622

The prescription drug benefit bill mystifies me at present. It's an insurance policy that will work if you start needing over a $1000 worth of drugs a year. Otherwise, forgeddaboutit. I think I will be pretty well forced by Kaiser to take it. I expect the bennies to be upped next year before we even get into it. Costs will immediately jump from 395 Billion to a Trillion, IMO.

To: Ilaine who wrote (17806)	11/26/2003 10:21:09 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793622

Fiction to Fact Rule by lawyers — on and off screen. By Jim Copland NRO Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals hastened America's descent from the rule of law into the rule of lawyers. In Ileto vs. Glock, the increasingly infamous court ruled 2-1 that the gun manufacturer could be held liable for selling a firearm in Washington state that wound up being used in Buford Furrow's 1999 shooting spree in California. Judges Richard A. Paez and Sidney R. Thomas, who cast the two deciding votes, were also on the three-judge panel that voted last September to stop the California recall election. It's an ironic decision, given that it has come along while the movie adaptation of John Grisham's The Runaway Jury is still running in theaters. Although Grisham's 1996 book involved a suit against a tobacco company, the screen version was changed to a trial over gun violence — presumably because the successes of Dickie Scruggs, Ron Motley, and the other tort kings who extracted billions from the tobacco companies made Grisham's original plot seem somewhat less than novel. Runaway Jury is part of a familiar pattern: From A Civil Action to Erin Brockovich to The Practice, the media consistently depict noble plaintiffs' attorneys running bootstrap operations against nefarious corporate execs. In this latest variant, sinister Gene Hackman is the unscrupulous defense-side jury consultant pitted against Dustin Hoffman's ambitious-but-incorruptible plaintiffs' lawyer. Hoffman is trying to blame and punish gun companies for his client's random murder — a legally tenuous theory that the jury unflinchingly adopts when freed from the companies' blackmail and bribes. But as with the tobacco cases, fact has quickly outrun fiction. Although Glock involves no jury trial, and obviously no jury tampering, holding the gun company responsible is still a travesty of justice. The killer, Furrow, had attacked staff members at a mental institution where he had arrived drunk, threatening suicide and mass murder. While pleading guilty to that assault, he reiterated mass-murder fantasies. Nevertheless, the judge failed to commit Furrow, instead letting him walk with a light eight-month sentence — barely more than time served — only months before he made good on his threats. Yet Furrow himself is not a defendant in Lilian Ileto's suit, and neither are the treatment facilities and state entities that let him fall through the cracks. Instead, the plaintiffs predictably went after the company that manufactured the gun that ultimately wound up in Furrow's murderous hand, and the court's majority buys into that loopy theory of guilt through judicial activism of the worst sort. The majority not only ignores relevant California case law on negligence and nuisance, but also sidesteps a controlling California statute that exempts manufacturers in products liability claims for "njuries or damages resulting from the discharge of a firearm or ammunition." Government through legal fiat — what my colleague Walter Olson calls "the rule of lawyers" in his eponymous book released earlier this year — conveniently circumvents those pesky checks and balances, which foster stability by making radical changes difficult to achieve. Constitutional mandates are nearly impossible to reverse, and massive class-action settlements achieve policy goals without requiring approval from the public and its elected representatives. It also should be emphasized that the Hollywood image of noble plaintiffs' lawyers protecting the public from evil big business is nothing but a self-perpetuated myth. As documented in "Trial Lawyers, Inc." — a recent study by the Manhattan Institute — the plaintiffs' bar is in itself the biggest of big businesses. Trial Lawyers, Inc., were it a corporation, would have annual revenues of $40 billion — that's 50 percent more than the revenues of Microsoft or Intel, and twice those of Coca-Cola. But unlike these businesses, which sell desired products to willing consumers, Trial Lawyers, Inc. fills its coffers by exploiting the government's monopoly on "justice," shifting dollars coercively from one set of pockets to another while taking a huge cut for itself in the process. This frightening reality has been hidden from the American people, thanks to inaccurate Hollywood portrayals and the massive public-relations efforts the lawsuit industry makes on its own behalf, through political contributions (over $500 million since 1990) and so-called "consumer groups" that manipulate public opinion. But even as Ralph Nader calls the Big Mac a "weapon of mass destruction," Americans do retain the power to reassert their authority at the polls. The trial bar's obstruction of commonsense reforms like the Class Action Fairness Act, and judicial nominees offensive only for their fidelity to the law, may ultimately backfire. Seven years after The Runaway Jury, John Grisham published this past winter The King of Torts, which exposes mass-tort lawyers as the corrupt swindlers they really are. Let's hope that the American people prefer its legal analysis to Runaway Jury's. Because while the victims of Buford Furrow's killing spree can never be brought back, our outrage over that tragedy shouldn't blind us to the legal tragedy wrought by the outrageous Ninth Circuit — and their cohort of greedy trial lawyers. — Jim Copland is director of the Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute. nationalreview.com

To: Ilaine who wrote (17806)	11/27/2003 3:14:04 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793622

Saw this on New Drug/Medicare Bill...A closer look at changes in new law By Aaron Zitner Los Angeles Times seattletimes.nwsource.com For the 40 million seniors and disabled Americans who rely on Medicare, some big changes are in the works. Congress has added the option to buy insurance coverage for prescription drugs. It has also told beneficiaries they will pay more for the existing Medicare coverage for doctors' services, medical equipment, outpatient hospital care and certain other services, known as Part B medical insurance. Combined with other modifications, the changes are the most extensive since Medicare was created in 1965. Following are some questions and answers about how to navigate the new options. Q: Can I buy coverage for prescription drugs right away? A: No. The insurance will not be available until 2006. As a temporary measure, seniors will be able to buy a drug card that entitles them to discounts on prescription drugs. Q: How can I tell if I should buy a drug card? A: This will require some shopping around. The drug cards will cost $30 a year. But they will be offered by private companies, and each one will have a different list of covered drugs and discounts. A look at existing drug cards has some experts worried it will be hard for seniors to determine which card offers the best deal. Some cards state a drug discount as "retail price minus 12 percent," for example, while others give the discounted price — say, $49.04 for 100 pills. Consumer advocates hope federal officials will require the card companies to make it easier to compare plans. Q: If drug discount cards are already on the market, why did Congress authorize new ones? A: If they meet certain requirements, the new cards will be able to use the Medicare name in their marketing, a kind of quality seal of approval, said Tricia Neuman, a Medicare specialist at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, an independent health-policy organization. Congress is betting that the Medicare imprimatur will prompt more people to buy the new cards, and that card companies will be able to use the higher volumes to bargain for deeper discounts from drug manufacturers. Q: Once the drug benefit starts in 2006, how can I tell if it's a good deal for me? A: First off, people should look at the drug coverage they may already have, consumer advocates say. About 12 million Medicare beneficiaries are covered as part of their retirement package from companies or the government. They may want to stick with their current coverage rather than consider one of the new plans. Q: What if I don't have drug coverage? A: Again, get out the calculator and prepare to shop around. Private companies will sell the drug plans, and their premiums, deductibles and other features will vary. However, Congress has laid out a standard plan that should be close to what the private market will offer. That plan calls for a monthly premium of $35, or $420 a year. Once in the plan, consumers have a $250 deductible before any coverage kicks in. For the next $2,000 in drug bills, the plan covers 75 percent, giving the beneficiary as much as $1,500 in reimbursement. For the next $2,850 in drug bills, the plan covers nothing. When annual drug costs reach $5,100 — at this point, an individual will have paid $3,600 out of pocket — reimbursements begin again. At that point, the plan covers 95 percent of all additional costs. Q: How can I tell if this is a good deal? A: Beneficiaries can determine their cost savings by using a calculator at the Kaiser Family Foundation Web site: www.kff.org/medicare/rxdrugscalculator.cfm. Neuman notes that people with less than $800 in annual drug costs would wind up paying more into the plan — in the form of premiums, co-payments and the deductible — than they would get in benefits. Most seniors spend far more than $800 a year on prescription drugs. The average drug bill will be $3,160 in 2006, the foundation estimates. The standard plan would cover one-third of that bill. Q: Do I have to buy the coverage? A: No. However, there are strong incentives to buy the coverage in the first year a person is eligible, experts say. People who decline the coverage will pay higher premiums if they decide later that they want it. The rules are different for people who already have coverage through a retirement package. Those people will be able to switch into a Medicare drug plan without paying the penalty of higher premiums. Q: Will the costs of the insurance rise? A: Yes. The estimated average premium is expected to rise from $35 a month in 2006 to $58 a month in 2013. The average deductible will rise from $250 in 2006 to $445 in 2013. And instead of $5,100, a person would have to spend $9,066 on drugs in 2013 before the plan would start paying 95 percent of the drug costs. Q: What if I can't afford the insurance? A: Congress has approved significant subsidies for low-income seniors and disabled people, including reduced or waived premiums and drug prices. These subsidies vary according to income and end when a senior has more than $13,470 in annual income, or $18,180 for a couple. Seniors with assets over a certain dollar value are also disqualified from the subsidies. Q: Can I get a better deal if I join a Medicare managed-care plan? A: Maybe. Congress has approved big subsidies to insurance companies to encourage them to create health-maintenance organizations and other managed-care networks for Medicare beneficiaries. These plans usually have limitations on the doctors a beneficiary may use and on access to specialists. But they may also offer features that are more generous than those in the standard Medicare package, such as enhanced drug coverage. Q: What changes are in store for Medicare Part B, the coverage for doctor visits, medical equipment, out-patient hospital care and other services? A: This insurance has carried a $100 deductible for years. Now, it will be indexed to inflation. The deductible will rise to $110 in 2005 and is expected to hit $166 by 2013. For the first time, upper-income individuals will pay higher premiums under Part B than lower-income people. These adjustments, which start in 2007, affect people with annual incomes of $80,000 or more, and the adjustments get larger as a person's income rises. The premium for Part B is currently $57.80 a month.

To: Ilaine who wrote (17806)	11/29/2003 6:46:21 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793622

I get tired of hearing Catholic politicians say, 'I am personally opposed to abortion,' or whatever, 'but I can't impose my moral standards on everybody else,' " said Bishop Joseph A. Galante of Dallas at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, D.C., this month. "That's a weaseling-out." Church May Penalize Politicians Bishops are exploring requiring officeholders who are Catholic to back official doctrine. By William Lobdell and Teresa Watanabe Times Staff Writers November 29, 2003 The three Catholics in the Democratic presidential primary quickly fired off statements supporting the Massachusetts high court ruling last week that same-sex couples have the right to marry. Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio and retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark made the announcements despite two Vatican directives this year to Roman Catholic officeholders to never promote laws that endorse gay marriage. Politicians' practices — known as "cafeteria Catholicism" — led U.S. bishops this month to begin exploring possible penalties for officeholders who ignore church doctrine. It would be the first time the U.S. church threatened to discipline individual politicians. "This is a miracle," said Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, a Catholic-influenced antiabortion group based in Virginia. "It takes seriously the problem of pro-choice Catholic politicians." Punishments could range from bans on speaking appearances at Catholic institutions to excommunication. Politicians under fire from orthodox factions of the church include Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Republican Gov. George E. Pataki of New York and some of California's most visible officeholders, including Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), the House minority leader. All support abortion rights. "I get tired of hearing Catholic politicians say, 'I am personally opposed to abortion,' or whatever, 'but I can't impose my moral standards on everybody else,' " said Bishop Joseph A. Galante of Dallas at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, D.C., this month. "That's a weaseling-out." But some clerics and laity wonder whether the bishops' desire to sanction certain politicians is politically or theologically sound. "People worry about Catholic politicians scandalizing the community," said Father George O'Brien, who has served Communion to former Gov. Gray Davis many times. "I think a greater scandal is for the church to be arrogant in judging others." Voters and many fellow Catholics haven't been bothered by the inconsistencies, electing to state and federal offices 412 politicians who identify themselves as Catholic and supportive of abortion rights, according to the American Life League. Politicians, were they to remain faithful to key Catholic teachings, would have to oppose abortion, capital punishment, birth control, the war in Iraq and gay marriage. A few of America's 195 dioceses, including Dallas and Philadelphia, bar abortion-rights politicians from speaking at Catholic churches and schools. In April, news leaked that Bishop Robert Carlson of Sioux Falls, S.D., had sent a letter asking the state's Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle to stop calling himself a Catholic. But the bishops and the Vatican haven't agreed on a disciplinary policy, and no politicians are being denied Communion. "The bishops and pope have decided not to excommunicate people on their views on abortion," said Frances Kissling, president of the Catholics for a Free Choice, an abortion-rights group. "If they started, they would have to excommunicate a lot of people they don't want to excommunicate." Kissling said the bishops valued their relationships with the more liberal Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, such as Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Kennedy, who help advance the church's mission to help the poor. Antiabortion advocates say there is another reason why bishops are afraid of angering liberal Catholics: money. "They are afraid of alienating pro-choice Catholics and suffering the consequences of that alienation, including loss in donations and loss in federal funding dependent" on Catholic abortion-rights politicians in Congress, said Deal Hudson, editor of Crisis, a conservative Catholic magazine. President Kennedy set the tone for Catholic politicians. As a presidential candidate in 1960, he told a group of Protestant ministers in Houston that his Catholic faith would be kept private and not interfere with his public policy. Kerry used Kennedy's speech in his response to Pope John Paul II's efforts in January to get American politicians in line with church doctrine. "As a Catholic, I have enormous respect for the words and teachings of the Vatican," Kerry said. "But as a public servant, I've never forgotten the lasting legacy of President Kennedy, who made clear that in accordance with the separation of church and state no elected official should be 'limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.' " Kucinich said this month that he has tried to carry out his Catholic faith as best as he could and that he believed the prelates have too. "I respect the bishops' right to do what they feel is appropriate," Kucinich said. "I'm not trying in any way to suggest that my role in public life is to make church doctrine." Kucinich is a recent convert to the abortion-rights movement and says he remains personally opposed to abortion. Clark, who supports abortion rights, was born Jewish, raised Protestant and converted to Catholicism as an adult. He attends a Presbyterian church, but hasn't given up Catholicism. Clark describes himself as "pro-choice" and has said during the campaign that "homosexuality is not a sin." Though the three candidates support the Massachusetts court decision, they give more nuanced statements about their individual views on gay marriages. Kucinich is for them. Kerry is against them, though he supports giving the same legal rights accorded married couples to homosexual partners. Clark believes in guaranteeing equal rights for gay couples but says legalized marriage should be a decision of each state. Abortion-rights politicians in recent years have benefited from the breakup of what once was considered the Catholic voting bloc. Today, moral beliefs of U.S. Catholics closely match those held by all Americans. According to a recent ABC News-Washington Post poll, 88% of Catholics believe that it is morally acceptable to use birth control, and 67% believe that it is acceptable to have premarital sex. In addition, 62% believe that invoking the death penalty was morally acceptable. Homosexual relations are morally acceptable for 48% of Catholics, and having the right to abortion was acceptable to 30% of those polled. "Very few American Catholics strictly follow all of the Vatican's positions, and these persons are quite willing to excuse Catholic-identifying politicians for doing the same," said Mark J. Rozell, chairman of the political science department at Catholic University of America in Washington. In California, controversy over Catholic politicians whose positions on abortion run counter to church teachings has repeatedly surfaced. Last December, Msgr. Edward Kavanagh, pastor of St. Rose Church in Sacramento, barred Davis from visiting an orphanage he directs because of the governor's abortion policies. The furor widened when Sacramento Bishop William K. Weigand in January called on Davis and other Catholics who support abortion rights to abstain from receiving Communion. Anyone "who thinks it is acceptable for a Catholic to be pro-abortion is in very great error, puts his or her soul at risk," Weigand said. Davis responded by saying he is "a practicing Catholic and believes in the separation of church and state," a spokesman said. Sean Walsh, a spokesman for Schwarzenegger, said the new governor also made a distinction between private religious beliefs and public policies. Walsh declined to state whether Schwarzenegger was personally opposed to abortion. Kavanagh said that unless the governor publicly opposed abortion, he should be excommunicated. latimes.com