They shoot lame horses don't they?
Jun/07/2006 00:46
Mr. President,
Six six six what a day. Expectant mothers raced to the hospitals to have their doctors induce labor the day before or the day after. No one wants their child to have 6/6/6 as a birthday.
That's just silly. Now 7-01-06 is a real bad luck day especially for the tens of millions homeless and undocumented workers.
You signed a new law this February, with a provision aimed at cleaning up the streets all across our country. The new requirement is effective July 1, and it will deny Medicare to tens of millions of low-income people. To obtain health care through their state Medicare program, they will need to show their birth certificates or U.S. passports.
The bill is advertised to save $ 220 million over a five-year period based on reducing Medicaid benefits. For someone who never vetoed a single bill and has increased American debt to record levels as well as wage the most expensive war in history, you seem uncharacteristically concerned about saving $ 220 million. We spend approximately $122, 820 per minute, not counting the follow-up medical costs of disabled American soldiers.
So if I buy the premise you just want to save a little money, it is a unique way of eliminating the homeless, and mentally ill. After all, a rose is a rose or if we are talking about the homeless; a bum is a bum.
The words bum and immigrant must make nice-and-neat boxes in your mind with walls made of prejudice and racism.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities conducted a survey showing 9 percent of black adults reported they lack a passport or birth certificate, compared to 5.7 per cent of all adults surveyed. Back in the days of segregation many black women were not allowed to give birth in "white" hospitals. So many of today's elderly black people have no official records of their birth.
Mark McClellan, administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said he was sensitive to the concerns cited by various consumer groups. He said the agency was crafting a process for exceptions.
Will McClellan provide a means of exempting the homeless?
I don't think so. The purpose of this legislation is obvious; to deny health care to street people. I doubt that many homeless people carry their birth certificates or passports with them.
I don't want to burst your bubble but the homeless do not fall into an easy to define box although you may prefer to think of them that way.
Victims of domestic abuse who run away from their abusers often find themselves on the street. In 1990 half of the homeless women and children were fleeing from domestic abuse.
Tornados, floods, and hurricanes have created many people to live out of their cars or on the street. Cut-backs, out-sourcing and layoffs, or whatever business-spun phrasing you want to use for losing one's job caused many other people living on the edge to finally loose everything they have. Some families are done in by costly medical emergencies especially if the main wage earner(s) is out of work.
Other homeless are physically or mentally ill, while some are poor ex-cons.
One report estimated 38% of homeless suffer from substance abuse.
The drug abuse problem among the homeless, seems to be a "chicken or egg issue."
Do the homeless turn to drugs out of dispair or do drug users become homeless because of drug addiction? I suspect it is a little of both.
I doubt that lawmakers who voted for this bill cared very much about the "disposable people" who live, under bridges, in cardboard boxes, alleys, cars, and deserted subway tunnels.
Besides the homeless, immigrants are also at peril. How does this legislation work with your proposed immigration policy? By their nature immigrants are be reluctant to sign up for anything anywhere.
Does it mean that the gauntlet you proposed for immigrant's path to citizenship has to be performed without medicare medical aid?
It shouldn't surprise undocumented workers that any money they pay in social security, state taxes, federal, city and sales taxes would be ignored. They have no legal claim to anything.
Your process will become a "survival of the healthiest" endeavor for immigrants. Screw the weak and lame.
This will be bad news for those people picking our produce loaded with pesticides all these years. It can't be good for landscapers who spend hours in the sun cutting lawns and trimming hedges, sucking in lawn treatment chemicals. I don't even want to bring up the medical issues illegal immigrants who are fighting in Iraq might develop.
Every nation deals with "unwanted" people. Brazil had a well-publicized solution back in the 90's. Rio de Janeiro had homeless children laying about which caused a tourism problem. So off-duty policemen shot street kids who slept on the streets during the night. It was known as the Candelaria massacre of 1993. Vigilante groups were also hired by business owners to "clean up the streets."
If this law is not modifies, illegal immigrants and the homeless with serious illness may have few choices. Would the cold barrel of a gun pressed against their head ultimately bring more comfort than depending on our compassionate-conservative president to give a damn about people who are too weak to fight in Iraq or too poor to qualify as pioneer fund raisers? You tell me.
From: comments@whitehouse.gov
Date: June 7, 2006 1:16:35 AM CDT
To: guzmatom@mac.com
On behalf of President Bush, thank you for your correspondence.
We appreciate hearing your views and welcome your suggestions.
Due to the large volume of e-mail received, the White House is
unable to respond to every message, and therefore this response
is an autoreply.
Thank you again for taking the time to write.
Six six six what a day. Expectant mothers raced to the hospitals to have their doctors induce labor the day before or the day after. No one wants their child to have 6/6/6 as a birthday.
That's just silly. Now 7-01-06 is a real bad luck day especially for the tens of millions homeless and undocumented workers.
You signed a new law this February, with a provision aimed at cleaning up the streets all across our country. The new requirement is effective July 1, and it will deny Medicare to tens of millions of low-income people. To obtain health care through their state Medicare program, they will need to show their birth certificates or U.S. passports.
The bill is advertised to save $ 220 million over a five-year period based on reducing Medicaid benefits. For someone who never vetoed a single bill and has increased American debt to record levels as well as wage the most expensive war in history, you seem uncharacteristically concerned about saving $ 220 million. We spend approximately $122, 820 per minute, not counting the follow-up medical costs of disabled American soldiers.
So if I buy the premise you just want to save a little money, it is a unique way of eliminating the homeless, and mentally ill. After all, a rose is a rose or if we are talking about the homeless; a bum is a bum.
The words bum and immigrant must make nice-and-neat boxes in your mind with walls made of prejudice and racism.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities conducted a survey showing 9 percent of black adults reported they lack a passport or birth certificate, compared to 5.7 per cent of all adults surveyed. Back in the days of segregation many black women were not allowed to give birth in "white" hospitals. So many of today's elderly black people have no official records of their birth.
Mark McClellan, administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said he was sensitive to the concerns cited by various consumer groups. He said the agency was crafting a process for exceptions.
Will McClellan provide a means of exempting the homeless?
I don't think so. The purpose of this legislation is obvious; to deny health care to street people. I doubt that many homeless people carry their birth certificates or passports with them.
I don't want to burst your bubble but the homeless do not fall into an easy to define box although you may prefer to think of them that way.
Victims of domestic abuse who run away from their abusers often find themselves on the street. In 1990 half of the homeless women and children were fleeing from domestic abuse.
Tornados, floods, and hurricanes have created many people to live out of their cars or on the street. Cut-backs, out-sourcing and layoffs, or whatever business-spun phrasing you want to use for losing one's job caused many other people living on the edge to finally loose everything they have. Some families are done in by costly medical emergencies especially if the main wage earner(s) is out of work.
Other homeless are physically or mentally ill, while some are poor ex-cons.
One report estimated 38% of homeless suffer from substance abuse.
The drug abuse problem among the homeless, seems to be a "chicken or egg issue."
Do the homeless turn to drugs out of dispair or do drug users become homeless because of drug addiction? I suspect it is a little of both.
I doubt that lawmakers who voted for this bill cared very much about the "disposable people" who live, under bridges, in cardboard boxes, alleys, cars, and deserted subway tunnels.
Besides the homeless, immigrants are also at peril. How does this legislation work with your proposed immigration policy? By their nature immigrants are be reluctant to sign up for anything anywhere.
Does it mean that the gauntlet you proposed for immigrant's path to citizenship has to be performed without medicare medical aid?
It shouldn't surprise undocumented workers that any money they pay in social security, state taxes, federal, city and sales taxes would be ignored. They have no legal claim to anything.
Your process will become a "survival of the healthiest" endeavor for immigrants. Screw the weak and lame.
This will be bad news for those people picking our produce loaded with pesticides all these years. It can't be good for landscapers who spend hours in the sun cutting lawns and trimming hedges, sucking in lawn treatment chemicals. I don't even want to bring up the medical issues illegal immigrants who are fighting in Iraq might develop.
Every nation deals with "unwanted" people. Brazil had a well-publicized solution back in the 90's. Rio de Janeiro had homeless children laying about which caused a tourism problem. So off-duty policemen shot street kids who slept on the streets during the night. It was known as the Candelaria massacre of 1993. Vigilante groups were also hired by business owners to "clean up the streets."
If this law is not modifies, illegal immigrants and the homeless with serious illness may have few choices. Would the cold barrel of a gun pressed against their head ultimately bring more comfort than depending on our compassionate-conservative president to give a damn about people who are too weak to fight in Iraq or too poor to qualify as pioneer fund raisers? You tell me.
From: comments@whitehouse.gov
Date: June 7, 2006 1:16:35 AM CDT
To: guzmatom@mac.com
On behalf of President Bush, thank you for your correspondence.
We appreciate hearing your views and welcome your suggestions.
Due to the large volume of e-mail received, the White House is
unable to respond to every message, and therefore this response
is an autoreply.
Thank you again for taking the time to write.