I can say the same thing about other areas of government. "No one looking to oversee expenditures" is not the same thing "as no one interested in cutting the budget". The story you are using as an example shows that SOMEONE was looking to oversee it.

Also, wasn't most of the billions that went missing in Iraq actual Iraqi money that we had frozen over here? It wasn't taxpayer money.

Well, here's one data point:

Medicare FFS, Medicaid and Medicare Advantage (Part C) paid out $717.8 billion in 2010, of which $63.1 billion ended up being improper payments, or roughly 9%. Some percentage of that is actual fraud. High-Error Programs | Payment Accuracy

I say "some percentage of that is actual fraud" because there are a number of non-fraud ways that improper payments can be made (and much of that is actually recouped) in those programs (usually this is due to the complexity of the reimbursement contracts / system).

In addition, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has had an active anti-fraud regime for years now, with improving results. I'm not aware of a similar anti-fraud program for DoD (nevermind CIA, etc...).

But that's the data point. It would be interesting to compare to any that exist for DoD.

You are somewhat correct (actually mostly correct):


also of note:


still:


Which is my point. They may have found it eventually, but not having sufficient financial and management controls to account for that amount of money, especially for such a long time, is simply not tolerated in most other parts of the government (and especially by CMS), and subject to Congressional scrutiny in a way DoD financial fuckups aren't.

Reagan's astrologist died. Amazing he suffered as little political damage for this as he did.

From the obit:


Nancy was paying her 3000 a month, or around 8500 in today's money.

You do a pretty good job of making this sound ominous and relevant. Congrats!

I just find it interesting, particularly in today's media climate. Can you imagine the shitstorm if a president was caught spending 100k a year on an astrologist?

You mean our over-dramatized media climate? Yeah, most definitely, the media would go crazy explaining how much we care. He probably wouldn't do that in today's world though.

Not sure if I missed this in earlier briefings but this seems like a significant escalation of troops. I see a lot of political risks for Obama but little gain but do think some help is right thing to do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...y.html?hpid=z1

We're not at much risk here. The big risk is if it spreads outside of western Africa. If we want to be safe here we need to do more in Africa.

Anyone know how this would play out? States vs Fed on quarantine, who really has the authority (assume States) and if Obama has ability to override/rescind without going thru the other 2 branches of government.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102121778

Good luck with fixing Africa. :(

One of my favorite Bruce Willis action movies - "Tears of the Sun" which I caught recently on TV.

Father Gianni: Go with God!
Lt. A.K. Waters: God already left Africa.

I'm sure there are good analysis out there as to why it seems so messed up - colonization/slaves, tribal culture, dictators, low intensity conflicts etc. There should be a way to jump start it with all the natural resources ... but probably not.

Just idly thinking here ... how impactful could a Fed intervention be on the mid-term elections?

Those 4 states mentioned above aren't exactly GOP strongholds.

Don't know yet. I'm sure there'll be some surveys on the quarantine question soon.

My guess is majority support some sort of quarantine.

Doesn't look good for Obama and the Democrats. There's not much for them to anchor down with.

CNN poll: Voters are angry - CNN.com

The Dems could always try standing for something.

Has anyone else noticed that heading into the midterm elections, you don't hear about the sub-10% approval rating of Congress anymore?

That would be me, given my desire that they don't do anything - like passing major legislation.

Whenever I read approval rating numbers, I remember that 47% of the country voted for Mitt Romney, and none of those fools are going to approve of Obama even if he were to fart rainbows and give out free unicorns.

And yet, 90% are going to be reelected.

Speaking very specifically (and narrowly) about the election, I agree with you.

Speaking more broadly, I don't.

Let's say the GOP gains control of the Senate. What, exactly, is going to change about the next two years compared to the previous six? I'd love to know.

We'll stop passing so much legislation!

The main thing is that federal justice appointments will slow to a crawl, as will all other appointments, but that was likely to happen in the final two years anyway.

The big thing will be if there's a SCOTUS vacancy. But even there I suspect an Obama appointee would get through, especially as he's unlikely to nominate someone unsuitably left-wing.

Obama is going to be more of a lame duck than he already is. You're right on this point, more finger pointing, blame game, positioning for 2016.

Sheesh. I am critical of Obama's recent foreign policy ineffectiveness but this comment is stupid.

Boehner: Bush would have punched Putin in the nose - CNN.com

Was that a CNN opinion piece?

Don't think so.

Boehner exposing his own stupidity and his comments being repeated verbatim doesn't make it an opinion piece, Dutch.

Edward: that was my point. Obama's already a very lame duck. What was the last significant piece of legislation he signed? Yes, he'll be a lamer duck, but he's about 90% of the way there. In a way, Mitch McConnell got his wish of making Obama a 1-term president, as they've allowed him to do very little in the 2nd term. Hooray!

Got my first taste of Obamacare. A nice letter from Blue Cross/Blue Shield informing me that, due to health care legislation, my family's monthly premium is going from $370 to $580. I'm really pleased about the prospect of paying $2,500/year for affordable health care.

What, specifically, is causing the increase? Is it possible that BC/BS is raising premiums and using the ACA as a cover?

A section of the ACA states that if a provider raises rates more than 10%, they must provide justification to the state. Missouri is one of eight states that so far has declined to implement a rate review program.

I don't know, but with the vague language, you can be assured a 'frustrated' call will occur today.

I'll probably just downgrade my insurance to a lower level. That's a lot of extra money for what amounts to four relatively healthy individuals.

So, basically, because Missouri hasn't implemented the ACA, BCBS can raise rates unfettered?

(Insert Thanks Obama picture here)

SI

This this this.

My health insurance just went up $3/month. Thanks Obama!

The average cost for a family of four's healthcare was, last time I checked, around $22,000. Compared to that, $2,500 is quite affordable.

Seriously? Where the hell is that?

FWIW, it's not $2500 for me. It's $570 x 12 months, so around $7K total.

IIRC we pay like $2000/month for one of our employees and his family of four.

And I assume this is the state that was used as a model for Obamacare? No wonder this is so f'd up.

The state that ranks 5th in life expectancy overall (as opposed to MO which is 40th)?

Think I'd rather it be modeled on a healthcare system that actually ya know...works better, instead of just the cheapest one.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ife_expectancy

If you're self-employed and that's the total cost of your insurance, you should be thrilled. That's a hell of a plan.

At some point, I'd rather die than deal with crazy health care costs. The stress alone will kill you.

Things that work are so overrated ;).

I'm assuming it's region-related like everything else. The exact same plan could easily be triple that cost on the coasts.

Don't forget to kill your wife and kids, too! You'd hate for them to be stressed.

Citation Needed.

Forget the coasts even. Here's an example where 100 miles results in a plan that triples in price.


The 10 Least Expensive Health Insurance Markets In The U.S. | Kaiser Health News

So what's your point?

His point I imagine (although I'm sure he'll deny it) is that we need a system where the costs aren't arbitrarily defined by the insurance companies and subject to so much price fluctuation based just on where you're located.