 sj |
||
|
||
BS: KatrinaGate
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 20 Sep 06 - 05:14 PM Hey, Oldster, I'm not the one who is insecure here... I have made the strong case and all you have done is nipped at my ankles like my grandmother's toothless and useless little flea bit hound while you absolutely refuse to accept the fact that it was Bush who gutted FEMA... In the words of Bruce Springsteen, "Sooner or later it all comes down to money..." And Bush wouldn't spend it... He underfunded the Army Corpes of Engineers on basic maintanance on the levee system... That is a fact that you seem not willing to accept as you have challenged me to prove that had Bush funded it fully that the levees wouldn't have been breached... That is a sophmorish rebuttal and any thinking person who has been around knows that, irregardless of the differences of opinions among engineers on the subject, it impossible to prove one way or another... I could just as easily ask you to prove that had the $100M annual request been fully funded in the 2 years prior to Katrina that the levees would have been breached... See??? You are not debating wityh any level of logic when you play the "prove it" game... The fact is that Bush funded the Army Corpes of Engineers at 17% and the levees were breached by what was no greater than a Cat 3 storm when it hit NO... Now as for FEMA... Same sophmorish arguments except you have now quit making the false statement that the Dems "demanded" that FEMA be demoted or gutted... That's a good first step for ya', Oldster, 'cause the main problem with yer arguments is that you are in serious denial of the facts... Then when you get all flustered you play the "hate" card... How many tuimes have tyou made the statement that I hate Buash??? I've told you over and over that I don't hate Bush... I hate a ot of his policies... There is a big difference... Yet you continue to pull out this old dog and ask it to hunt.... Well, for the umpteenth time, I don't hate George Bush but I sho nuff hate the job he is doing... What else??? Oh yeah, research... Hey, at least I'm doing it rather than dragin' editorial writer's opinions into the debate as being factual... Everything I've presented as facts are from actual "news" sources... Might of fact, in my Katrina folder there isn't one single editorial, not one single blog source... Nope, everything I've used in making my arguments is verifiable and based on the real facts... Talk about closed mind, Old Guy??? Whew!!! You wrote the book, my friend... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy Date: 21 Sep 06 - 12:27 AM Hey Bobert: I have never disputed any of your findings, only your conclusion. Something is making you blind to the facts. If it is not hatred, what is it. Do you agree that if the Democrats had kept their mouth shut, FEMA would have been left alone? You know it is true but you can't agree so you shift the focus on the fact that the result of their whining was less than satisfactory because of Bush. If the Democrats think FEMA could function poperly under DHS, why do they want to separate it again? The reason is it can't function the way it did when it is one of 22 agencys under FEMA. I come up with a satement by and official of the corps of engineers that even if bush had funded them 100% the levees would have failed. You ignore it and you just go back to harping that the levees faild because GWB underfunded the ACOE. Do you know more than the officials of the ACOE? There was a documentary that studied the failures from an engineering standpoint. I directed you to it. You did not pay any attention. It said in essence that the city was doomed, is still doomed, will always be doomed and it will have to be abandoned someday. It went into great detail about the soil and construction but you cannot be bothered with details. So just keep repeating over and over on about Bush and Brownie and all the paper you printed out ETC. Your conclusion is still wrong. Your research was objective and not subjective. Your objective is to heap it all on Bush. Ooooh that makes you feel good. All the while you and your business are benefiting form the economic climate created by the Bush administration after the bursting of the bubble during the Clinton administration. I could understand if your whining if your net worth was shrinking or your business was doing poorly. I recently talked to a man that owns a millwork company and he told me he has never seen such a good economy. To put it into his words "Business is better than I have ever seen it" Do you agree with that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 21 Sep 06 - 09:10 AM Who sends a budget to Congress, Oldster??? Who is responsible for spending allocated budgetary funds??? Need a hint??? (Rhymes with "tush" and has been know to pass out from eatin' pretzels...) You see, this ain't about who answers to whom in the organizational chart but who is funded and staffed to perform the job that they were initially organized to do... You have gotten yourself way bogged down in ***organizational-chart-speak*** to the point that you no longer can see there is any relationship with an organizations ability to perform with it's funding??? Tell ya' what you need to do, Oldster... Go to yer bank today and withdraw all yer dough and transfer it to me fir safe keepin'... Then I'll come an' check on you in a few months an' see how you been doing without any money... Get it now??? As for engineers... Yeah, there are engineers that say that a fully funded maintanence program wouldn't have made a difference and another group of engineers who say it would... This is not provable one way or another yet you continue to side with the ***wouldn't-have-changed-anything*** group as if they are the Holy Grail... BTW, there are also scientists who say that global warmin' ain't happenin'... As fir my net worth??? Actually I have made no real gain since Bush came into office because health insurance has gone up over 200%... That alone has eaten up my gains and now it looks as if the real estate market is going to take a hit and that's gonna chomp away at it further... So to answer your question: No, I'm not better off with Bush but just treding water... As fir yer friend with the millwork company??? Ask his workers if ***they*** are "better off"... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy Date: 21 Sep 06 - 10:31 AM Life is good = treadin water ????????????? How much did health insurance go up before Bush came into office? Here's a chart. What happened to his attempts to limit medical liability to keep health care costs down? ..The U.S. House of Representatives passed reform legislation last year, but failure to gain cloture on repeated attempts in the Senate blocked its passage, providing the personal injury lawyers lobby a major victory in the 108th Congress. "The President made it clear that he and the new Congress have a clear directive from Americans: put an end to runaway jury awards and frivolous lawsuits which force hospitals, doctors, and nursing homes to abandon their practices and patients," said Thomas. "Voters want healthcare access. They want it affordable. And the reforms we support -- the reforms the President is calling for -- are estimated to reduce the cost to Medicare by as much as $50 billion per year and to private payers by more than $100 billion per year." Medical malpractice awards have tripled since 1994, driving medical liability insurance premiums up over 500 percent and forcing hospitals and healthcare providers nationwide to close their doors. As a result, increasing numbers of American's are losing access to healthcare due to the shortage of physicians, especially in higher-risk specialties such as obstetrics... More here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 21 Sep 06 - 09:14 PM Another Old Guy ***red herring***... Actually, the added costs of health insurance from all personal injury lawsuits is 2%... Compare that to the othyer 198% increase an' you have adopted yet another dog that won't hunt... But it it makes you feel all warm and fuzy to blame Bush's failures in not being prepared to "protect the American people" from a disater on trial lawyers, then have it... Let's see... First it was the Dems fault... Now it's trial lawyers.... Who will it be tomorrow??? Doctor Spock??? Donald Duck??? George Soros??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy Date: 21 Sep 06 - 10:34 PM Bobert: You are the one that brought health insurance into the discussion. Now you object to the topic calling it a red herring. You threw in the red herring. As you can see from the chart. Health insurance was climibng under the Clinton administration. It has risen an average of 13.3% for the last nine years. It is another example of your blame it on Bush agenda. Depending on which trial lawyer organization you find they calim it is only 1 or 2 percent. Do ya think thay have a dog in the fight? Yep, their whole livelyhood depends on it, By the way I got two ex union bros in law who have been waiting 15 years or so for a big class action settlement on asbestos. They haven't gotten a dime but the lawyers are doing OK. There ain't a damned thing wrong with either one of them. The suit is about the possibility that they might develop something. Meanwhile the people that are really sick from asbestosis can't get a dime because the lawyers have it all tied up for their own benefit. What a bunch of vultures. Addressing the New Health Care Crisis: Reforming the Medical Litigation System to Improve the Quality of Health Care U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation March 3, 2003 ...Americans spend far more per person on the costs of litigation than any other country in the world. The excesses of the litigation system are an important contributor to "defensive medicine"--medical treatments provided for the purpose of avoiding litigation. Doctors' insurance premiums are increasing at a rapid rate, particularly in states that have not taken steps to make their legal systems function more predictably and effectively. Some doctors cannot obtain insurance despite having never had a single malpractice judgment or even faced a claim. As multimillion-dollar jury awards have become more common in recent years, these problems have reached crisis proportions. This is a threat to health care quality for all Americans. Increasingly, Americans are at risk of not being able to find a doctor when they most need one. Doctors have given up their practices, limited their practices to patients who do not have health conditions that are more likely to lead to lawsuits, or have moved to states with a fairer legal system where insurance can be obtained at a lower price. In addition, excessive litigation is impeding efforts to improve quality of care. Hospitals, doctors, and nurses are reluctant to report problems and participate in joint efforts to improve care because they fear being dragged into lawsuits, even if they did nothing wrong. This broken system of litigation also is raising the cost of health care that all Americans pay, through out-of-pocket payments, insurance premiums, and taxes. Judgments for very large amounts of non-economic damages in a small proportion of cases and the settlements they influence are driving this litigation crisis. At the same time, most injured patients receive no compensation. The current litigation system hurts everyone--injured patients and Americans seeking high-quality care. The only ones who benefit are those who operate the system--particularly the trial lawyers who bring these cases and those who defend them. Some states have already taken action to squeeze the excesses out of the litigation system. But federal action, in conjunction with further action by states, is essential to help Americans get high-quality care when they need it, at a more affordable cost... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy Date: 21 Sep 06 - 10:48 PM Bobert: It is worse than I thought. The Bush initiative that you discredited was to put caps on malpractice law suit non economic awards. The total costs added to health insurance is more than just the awards. The insurance is rising and it causes doctors to quit thae high risk practices and order more tests and proceedures for fear of frivilous lawsuits. This is causing your health insurance costs to go up. Here is a chart showing how malpractice insurance in Virginia went up 39% in 2001 and 51% in 2002 or 90% total. In California, which has a cap on non economic loss awards, it went up 20% in 2001 and 20% in 2002 or 40% total. All Bush wanted to do is the same thing that has already been done in California. I hope that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about your premiums. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 22 Sep 06 - 05:17 PM You are confusing cost of premiums for mal-pratcice insurance with the actual costs in the increase in the cost of health insurance for the conumer... But nice try... It is estimated that only 2% of the increase in health insurance and health care costs are attributed to law suits... In the year 2000 I paid $360 a month for the same basic Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan that now is hovering at right under $900 a month... And both me and the P-Vine are healthy, non smokers, etc... You do the math, Old Guy... According to the Wes Ginny Slide Rule of the $540 increase in costs of health insurance, about $15 bucks went toward law suits and the remaining $525 went to higher costs of health care... Like I siad, another Old Guy partisan red herring... Why won't you died in the wool Repubs answer me why health care has gone up over 100% under Bush witrh out having to beat down lawyers who account for less than 2% of the increase... Yeah, where the other 98% going??? Answer me that one... Yeah, there a re alot of other small businessmen who would love to hear your answer, too... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy Date: 23 Sep 06 - 12:11 AM So sorry Bobert but your favorite and only source of news, The El Pinko WAPO says you are wrong: Dispelling Malpractice Myths By William R. Brody Sunday, November 14, 2004; Page B07 ..Myth No. 4: Malpractice costs are not a big deal -- they amount to less than The number sounds insignificant until you stop to consider that U.S. health care spending was a staggering $1.66 trillion in 2003 -- so we are talking of costs on the order of $16 billion to $32 billion. In the case of Johns Hopkins Medicine, malpractice premiums as a percentage of physicians' total income have risen threefold over the past four years. In 2001 malpractice premiums were about 3 percent of total physician income at Johns Hopkins. They are nearly 10 percent today -- and growing. The irrationality of our current medical justice system leads to the practice of "defensive medicine," in which doctors try to stave off lawsuits by ordering more tests than are medically necessary. Got a headache? You are as likely to get a CAT scan as a couple of aspirin. The added costs of defensive medicine are estimated at $50 billion to $100 billion per year... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy Date: 23 Sep 06 - 08:21 PM Bobert: I am backin off of my claim that the Dems demanded that FEMA be made part of DHS because I can't find any proof. I still think I saw some articles to that effect. But I am still claiming that Dems demanded the creation of DHS and Fema couldn't have been made part of DHS if there was no DHS. Now getting back to the doomed levees or more accurately flood walls in New Orleans: Here is an article in NOLA or the Times Picayune, which doesn't cut anybody a lot of slack, about how sheet pilings, corrugated metal they drive down and pour a wall on top, 105 feet deep did not keep the walls from leaning over. I am going to spare you the anguish of cutting and pasting it here but please read subjectively it and tell me what you think: LIKE PUTTING BRICKS ON JELL-O'Everyone knows New Orleans sits on a former swamp. But floodwall designs apparently didn't take into account just how deep our mucky soil extends. When Katrina's intense pressure bore into the weak soils, the walls barely had a chance. Wednesday, November 09, 2005 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 23 Sep 06 - 09:32 PM Ahhhh, Old Guy.... It don't matter to me if something was written in the Washington Post if it's written as an editorial... I don't have too much respect for editorials no matter what side the folks are on and make no bones about it, the Washington Post has some righties as well as lefties who write editorial... Hey, is it asking too much for you to provide real news sources??? But no matter... Mr. Brody still hasn't provided any evidence that the ***actual*** increase in health care costs (including premiums) exceeeds the 2%.... He has, however, twisted numbers away from his client, the health care indusrty itself, and used smoke and mirrors to protect their 98% plus increase in costs since 2000.... But again, Oldster, nice try... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy Date: 24 Sep 06 - 01:35 AM Well well well Bobert. You agree with Chavez that Bush is El Diablo. I guess he is a credible news source. But you can't agree with the Washington Post editorial. Not a credible news source. Facinating. What was that you said? "Did you ever read a newspaper?" "I get all my news from the Washington Post" Now that you have chosen to skip over the credible news source, Nola: LIKE PUTTING BRICKS ON JELL-O'Everyone knows New Orleans sits on a former swamp. But floodwall designs apparently didn't take into account just how deep our mucky soil extends. When Katrina's intense pressure bore into the weak soils, the walls barely had a chance. Wednesday, November 09, 2005 By John McQuaid WASHINGTON -- When the Texas construction firm AquaTerra Contracting began work on an Army Corps of Engineers hurricane protection project on the West Bank, it encountered a serious problem: Its floodwalls wouldn't stand up straight in the mushy soil. AquaTerra workers tried driving steel sheet piling down to the 55-foot depth the design required for the walls' foundation, company CEO Clay Zollars said. But the piling, driven along a new drainage canal near the Cousins Pump Station, began to lean inward. Zollars said the corps went back to the drawing board and decided to better anchor the wall, nearly doubling the length of the steel foundation to 105 feet. That didn't work either. "Before we completed the wall, it began to lean and sink also," Zollars said. "The pilings were inadequate. The corps corrected that by installing some additional reinforcing steel in the concrete, but the wall still is leaning." The top of one section of the 10-foot concrete wall is more than a foot off the vertical, he said. AquaTerra is seeking $5 million it says the corps owes it for the extra work on the $11.1 million contract. Corps officials won't comment on the case because of the dispute. The company's problems illustrate one of the basic obstacles to building reliable levees -- or any heavy structure -- in south Louisiana: It's a swamp. Questions about soil are at the heart of investigations into why some of New Orleans' levees breached during Hurricane Katrina. Investigators say poor foundation conditions almost certainly led to the breaching of floodwalls along the 17th Street and London Avenue canals in New Orleans, flooding large parts of the city. The walls broke without being topped, suggesting a design or construction flaw. Data show layers of soft soils and organic matter under the wall foundations in breached areas that were not able to withstand the underground pressures generated by high waters in the canal, engineers say. 'A poor choice' "They were struck with a bad situation, and they made a poor choice with those floodwalls, trying to put a structural wall on plastic soils. It's like putting bricks on Jell-O. There isn't a lot of support," said J. David Rogers, a veteran forensic engineer who specializes in dam and floodwall failures. What is unclear is how the corps and its contractors went forward with designs that some engineers now say appear fundamentally flawed. A team of engineers at the University of California at Berkeley studying the levee failures said that the corps' design standards do not seem to have accounted for all the soil uncertainties, raising questions about the design of the entire levee system. The challenges of building floodwalls in weak, wet soils are well-known to engineers. A corps design manual warns that "by their very nature, floodwalls are usually built in a flood plain which may have poor foundation conditions." Unexpected problems with weak soil have cropped up before. The AquaTerra case resembles a 1990s dispute concerning the 17th Street Canal floodwall. Segments of that wall also tipped off-center when the concrete wall sections were poured, requiring additional work and sparking a legal tangle. As with AquaTerra, the corps left the leaning walls in place. A slightly tilted wall wouldn't necessarily be a safety hazard, engineers say, and it's not clear if the 17th Street Canal floodwall's early problems are directly linked to its ultimate failure. Soil is key Mississippi delta soil is notoriously unpredictable, both in composition and the ways it responds to stress. It's squishy and wet, with alternating layers of sand, silt, soft clays and peat, imbedded with the odd shells and decaying organic matter such as cypress trees. Engineers must figure out how to imbed stable structures in this gumbo that will remain upright and withstand occasional extreme pressures from hurricane storm surges, winds and waves. To do that, they depend on a delicate balancing of the forces of friction and gravity. Floodwalls, skyscrapers, homes and other structures are typically built on steel or concrete piles imbedded in the earth. They get some support from the bottom tip of the structure, the way legs hold up a table. But most of the work is done by friction. Pile foundations are held immobile by friction between the soil and the surface of the pile. Long piles offer more security because they have more surface area and generate more total frictional force. Multistory buildings in downtown New Orleans are anchored by concrete friction piles extending hundreds of feet below the surface. But a foundation is only as strong as the soil it's built in, and in engineering terms, strength is the soil's ability to resist forces acting on it and remain in place. Swamp, then subdivision The area around the breached canals was swamp before it was drained or filled to make way for the city's residential expansion in the early decades of the 20th century and after World War II. Before Katrina inundated it, it looked like any neighborhood. But a completely different landscape lurks just under the surface. "If you fly over the LaBranche Wetlands, (upriver from Kenner), you will see wet and dry areas, areas with vegetation and areas with none," said David Lourie of Lourie Construction, a New Orleans-based soil engineering firm. "If you imagine some of that occurring at depths of 50 or 100 feet underground, that's what we've got in New Orleans residential areas." Forces acting on the swamp for hundreds of years before humans decided to make it livable deformed it in peculiar ways, Lourie said, creating an unpredictable underground terrain. "Through the passage of time, changes in Gulf water levels, changes in river flows, some of those (soil) surfaces were eroded or cut away," he said. "There were natural variations in the surfaces. They weren't all flat like a tabletop. You can have variations block to block. . . . On one block you are over the center of a channel, and you could be only a block away and not over the same channel." That means the requirements to anchor a foundation can also vary block-by-block. That's why detailed soil testing is essential before building a levee, or any big structure, to identify exactly what's below ground. Looking for trouble Documents show that in the 17th Street and London Avenue floodwalls, original soil borings were done about every 300 feet. It's not clear if there were later surveys that collected more data, but investigators say the soil surveys could have missed spots of soil weakness, and that could have created unidentified weak points in the walls. In designing a wall, engineers weigh not only structural questions, but also issues of expense versus the high cost of failure. Floodwalls "must be designed for the most economical cross section per unit length of wall, because they often extend for great distances," a corps design manual says. "Added to this need for an economical cross section is the requirement for safety. The consequences of failure for a floodwall are normally very great since it protects valuable property and human life." Engineers say that the corps standards required an unusually low safety factor for the floodwalls, perhaps a remnant of a time when most levees protected sparsely populated rural areas, not cities and suburbs. A higher safety factor would require stronger walls -- and cost more. The AquaTerra, 17th Street and London Avenue walls are all "I-wall" designs, the least expensive type of concrete floodwall, consisting of linked concrete sections built on a sheet pile foundation. Other types of walls have additional horizontal bracing, either at the base of the concrete sections or in piles extending diagonally into the earth. After soil conditions are analyzed, designers use the data to decide on a wall's basic shape and dimensions. They go in with one piece of hard information -- how high the wall must be -- and must calculate the other numbers. One of the most important is how deep to drive the steel foundation. How low to go? Calculating sheet pile depths poses unique problems, as the AquaTerra case illustrates. Investigators say that the designers of the breached floodwalls also appear to have gone wrong on this front. Design documents show that sheet pile foundations in the two canals were not deep enough to prevent Katrina's storm surge from seeping under the walls. Some seepage is natural, engineers say, but it must be kept in check during a storm surge. When water rises in a canal it will push against the wall directly. Water pressure and movement through the soil also will increase. If the water gets high enough it can move the soil and the wall, a one-two punch that can rotate the bottom of the wall upward, or push the whole thing forward, or knock it out of alignment -- allowing water to get through -- creating a breach. Changes in water pressure from a storm surge can make clays and other soils grow temporarily weaker. Investigators say that sand, peat or rotting tree trunks could have provided a faster conduit for water penetrating under the sheet pile foundations, something that also would be difficult to account for in advance. At one of the London Avenue Canal breaches, investigators found uprooted trees near the base of the floodwall, according to the preliminary report by the American Society of Civil Engineers and National Science Foundation teams. Pulling out the tree root system could have provided an additional conduit for water flowing under the wall, engineers said, like a cork being pulled from a bottle. Once water under pressure found its way under the floodwall and pushed subterranean soils to the surface -- something called a sand boil that investigators discovered at several breach sites -- it likely triggered the large soil slides and heaves, literally knocking the walls off their shallow foundations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 24 Sep 06 - 09:04 AM While I might agree wsith Hugo that Bush is the Devil I would not use that ***opionion*** as a ***fact*** in arguing a position... As fir the long cut-n-post, yeah, like is any of this new news??? The engineers have long under4stood that the levee system could only hold but so much water due to the nature of the foudation soils... How is them having understood this prior to Katrina any rebuttal that Bush wouldn't spend the money that, inspite of what the Army Corpes of Enginners requests, to do the basic maintanence on the system??? Hey, the levees are federally owned and maintained and Bush flat out gutted the maintenane budget to 17% of what was requested... ...just as he gutted FEMA... That is the crux of the discussion... Yes, oldster, it's nice that you have spent some time bringing some additional information and even opinions into the discussion but none to date rebutt the basic positions I laid out a year ago on this thread... Can you address those issues??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy Date: 24 Sep 06 - 10:35 AM Bobert: So you are saying that if Bush had not cut the budget the levees would have held? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy Date: 24 Sep 06 - 10:42 AM "had Katrina come 'long durin' Clinton's years it would have been the other way 'round" Care to elaborate on that Bobert? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy Date: 25 Sep 06 - 12:07 AM Need a doctor? Call a lawyer The barriers to affordable health care in the U.S. have long included outdated government-run programs like Medicare and Medicaid and an over-abundance of mandates and regulations imposed on the health care industry. Now, we must include the titanic costs of malpractice insurance. Litigation is increasing the price of malpractice insurance for physicians, which in turn has increased the price of health insurance for consumers, reduced the supply of physicians, and made health care generally less affordable and less accessible. Attack on Care Providers Extreme financial judgments against health care providers work at cross-purposes with efforts to extend affordable health insurance to the uninsured population. Mega-bucks settlements have made malpractice insurance unaffordable and unavailable to many health care providers. As a result, many doctors are being compelled to retire at the peak of their careers, limit their medical practices to all but the most routine health care procedures, shift their energies into research rather than practice, or move to a state with reasonable malpractice laws. Nursing home care has been especially hard hit, in part because of the increase in the number of senior citizens served by those facilities. Both the number of lawsuits and the size of awards are trending up. Between 1995 and 2001, according to a February 2002 study by Aon Risk Consultants Inc., the national average of insurance costs for nursing homes increased from $240 per occupied skilled nursing bed to $2,360. From 1990 to 2001, the average dollar size of claims tripled and the number of claims per bed increased from 3.6 to 11 per 1,000 beds. Consumers Suffer The lack of affordable insurance for providers makes it more difficult for consumers to get affordable, accessible health care--especially for high-risk medical specialties, such as obstetrics and neurosurgery, and in underserved rural communities. With fewer doctors available, we are beginning to experience longer wait times for an appointment, queuing at hospitals, and a shortage of medical specialists trained to tackle the tough medical cases. We are also experiencing the price inflation caused by defensive medicine. The actions taken by physician-defendants — often years before a malpractice suit goes to trial — are carefully scrutinized and often judged on the basis of medical standards that were not in place at the time the alleged malpractice took place. Because they cannot be certain their usual procedures wont be judged by the litigation system as lacking some years into the future, physicians today are adjusting their treatment protocols to cover all the bases. The malpractice lottery thus inflates the cost of medical care by forcing doctors to over-treat and over-test their patients. In a Fear of Litigation survey conducted in mid-April 2002 by Harris Interactive, doctors reported they perform tests and provide treatments they would not ordinarily perform, simply to protect themselves against a potential lawsuit. Seventy-six percent of respondents to the Harris survey felt their ability to provide quality care to patients has been compromised as a result. This practice of defensive medicine, while useful in a courtroom, does little or nothing to enhance patient outcomes. Every test and treatment poses a risk to the patient. Those tests and treatments also cost money ... some health economists suggest the cost of defensive medicine now exceeds $100 billion a year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 25 Sep 06 - 08:37 AM Yet another ***editorial*** rebutttal... Second hand opinions is what I'm supposed to be debating???.... Firget it... Use some ***news sources*** and stay on topic, Olster... And, yeah, things very well would have been different had Katrina hit during Clinton's watch.... Can I prove that ther levees wouldn't have been breached??? Nah, but I can say that we wouldn't be looking back wondering "what if" the maintenance requests had been fully funded... Tell ya' what, Oldster, you keep throwing up this ratehr sophmorish "prove it" rebuttal as if it is the Holy Grail... Tell ya what, how 'bout you ***proving*** that the levees would have been breached during Katrina had the Army Corpes of Engineers gotten the money they requested for maintanence from Bush??? Yeah, do that, Oldster... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy Date: 25 Sep 06 - 09:04 AM "I can say that we wouldn't be looking back wondering "what if" the maintenance requests had been fully funded..." So if Katrina had come along during the Clinton years, the results would have been different some how? We wouldn't be wondering about things? How does that difference amount to anything tangible? How is that the other way around? And still, Do you claim that the levees would have held if GWB had given the Army Corps of Engineers all of the money they asked for? You keep knocking editorials as not fact and not to be taken seriously. Your whole thread is an based on your editorial opinion. Is it to be taken seriously? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 08 Oct 06 - 08:25 PM Well, well, well... Looks as if the next Katrinagate is allready in the makin' as Congress in it's DHS funding legislation has required Bush the Screwup to hire a ***qualified*** directotr of FEMA... Sounds reasonable to have the president hire someone who, ahhhhh, is qualified but... no... Bush, in essence, has said "Screw you, Congress" with his "signing statement" which in effect allows Bush do do business as usual and appoint any 25 year old Bushite who is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage to fun FEMA... Hmmmmmm??? No wonder Bush has lost the Iraq war... He did the same thing in hiring folks to oversee the war and subsequent occupation... Might of fact, a 24 kid was hired to rebuild tghe Iraqi stock market... His only credentials were that he was a Bush supporter and anti-abortion... This is why America is no safer now than before 9/11... And this is why if another Katrina hit tomorrow that we weould get a complete replay of the last time... Einstein said that "Insanity is repeating a behavior expecting a different result" and I'm sure that ol' Albert wouldn't have to study Bush too long before proclaimin' the boy "insane"... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy Date: 09 Oct 06 - 08:19 AM "Insanity is repeating a behavior expecting a different result" Is that why you keep blaming Katrina on Bush? Maybe that is why I keep asking you: Do you claim that the levees would have held if GWB had given the Army Corps of Engineers all of the money they asked for? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 09 Oct 06 - 05:33 PM No, the only reason you keep askin' this rather sophmorish question is because you have no defense and think that you might find this ol' hillbilly brain-dead enough one time to fall into your dumb little "prove-it trap"... But we've covered this ground before, Old Guy... BTW, maybe you'd like to "prove" the converse??? You know, like proving that the levees still would have been breeeched had Bush fully funded the Army Corpes of Engineers maintanace funding requests... Yeah, you first... Have at it, Oldster... I'll be awaitin' your proof with baited breath... BTW, what is your opinion on hiring less qualified people or completely unqualified for high level position based solely on political idealogy??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Barry Finn Date: 10 Oct 06 - 02:41 AM They (the levees) failed that's the result! It was on Busk's watch, he's been there for 6 years & he had reports! What else? If your man at FEMA fails it's the fault of the man who appointed him. He had 6 yrs to strenghen FEMA & the Levees. So I guess Clinton is blame, again? When some you trusted enough to appoint into a position then when they say we need money to fix something you should trust them, no? I was crew aboard a sailing vessel, sailing from Boston to the Bahamas, it was a planned 5 day voyage. The owner/captain turned the helm over to the hired captain, as we sailed out of Buzzard's Bay. When the 1st major decision came up right after we cleared Buzzard's Bay. The choice was to either stay close to shore or make for deep open sea. The owner did't like the captain's choice & took the helm & postion back. When we had to put into Alantic City 5 days later for repairs I took my pay & jumped ship. The rest of the voyage was a disaster & twice the time. When you put someone in charge make very sure first that they're damn well qualified & not just someone's mother & second they're the expert, let them run the show until they prove not to be as qualified as once thought. So who's fault is it, again? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 10 Oct 06 - 08:21 AM Exactly, Barry... And Katrina has given us a bird's-eye view of what makes George fail... Rather than seek out qulaified people to run programs and make decisions he has appointed people based on nuthin' but politics.. We noe learn that the major reason that we are failing inIraq is because of this very reason.. I mean, think about it... Bush appointed a 24 year old kid to oversee the rebuilding of the Iraqi stock market... The kid had no other qualifications other that being a Repub partisan and being against abortion and gay marriage... Yeah, things are startin' to add up now and the worst part about it that Goerge doesn't even learn from experience as he has now used a "sighing statement" to crush Congress's wishes that thwe director of FEMA has experience in disasters and be overall qualified.. Hmmmmmmmm??? And Katrinagate marches on, and on, and on... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy Date: 10 Oct 06 - 11:33 AM So you are laying a "prove-it trap" for me? I have presented articles that say the levees wouldn't have held. How many can you find that says they would have held? Neither one of us are engineers so we have to depend on the writings of others and look at their credentials and motivations to try to see if they know what they are talking about. From what I have read and seen, which you refuse to read and see, is that they wouldn't have held unless the construction was started 20 years ago. Even then they might not have known about the underlying weakness of the soil and the CAT 5 proof levees might have still failed. "Zollars said the corps went back to the drawing board and decided to better anchor the wall, nearly doubling the length of the steel foundation to 105 feet. That didn't work either." So would 200 feet have been deep enough? Get out the "Ol Wes' Ginny slide rool and cipher that one. You are so unsure of the validity of your assertion that the levees failed because GWB cut the Army Corps of Engineers request to 17% that you will not turn it into a statement. I can say that the levees wouldn't have held. What is your statement? You are treading water and adding more posts to your "Katrinagate" tribute to Bobert by dodging questions. Soon you will be able to brag "800 posts and I still haven't answered the old guy about how the levees would have held if GWB had funded the USACE 100%" You are 100% right about GWB gutting FEMA. I have said so many times. Where you are wrong is that Bush is not responsible for the death and destruction in New Orleans even though you are using the gutting of FEMA as a reason to blame it on GWB. That death and destruction was the result of years of corruption in the state and local government, combined with the incompetency of state and local government to protect their own people. What you are attempting to do is shift that blame over to your arch enemy, GWB and you don't mind using innocent people's pain, suffering and death as a political tool for your purposes. Were you hoping for another one this year so you could heap even more animosity on Bush? Were you disappointed? Such biased thinking lets the real culprits escape any blame. You refuse to distribute the blame where it belongs which is mean spirited, wrong thinking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Barry Finn Date: 10 Oct 06 - 03:57 PM "You are 100% right about GWB gutting FEMA. I have said so many times". The difference is: he knew & as usual sat back & did nothing (remember 9/11) & let/watched folks die. In the case of Katrina though he put the money back in his pocket before he did nohing. Trust him to find the silver linning. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy Date: 10 Oct 06 - 04:25 PM What did the Mayor of New Orleans and the Govener of Louisianna do while folks were dying? After they bragged "we are prepared"? Here is a hint: Miles O'Brien: What what day did you ask for Federal troops? Blanco: "I don't even know what day it is." "I really need to call for the military, I mean, I really should have started that in the first call." WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — It was Gov. Blanco's first big disaster — and less than 48 hours before Katrina hit, she reassured the state. "I believe we are prepared," she said in Jefferson Parish on Aug. 27. "That's the one thing that I've always been able to brag about." Story continues below ↓ advertisement Though experts had warned it would take 48 hours to evacuate New Orleans, Blanco did not order a mandatory evacuation that Saturday. "We're going to pray that the impact will soften," she said. Blanco and the mayor waited until Sunday, Aug. 28 — only 20 hours before Katrina came ashore — to order a mandatory evacuation, the first of what disaster experts and Louisiana insiders say were serious mistakes by the governor. "It certainly appeared that there was a lot of indecisiveness exhibited by the governor in the early stages of the disaster," says Louisiana State Democratic Senator Donald Cravins. A key criticism: the governor's slowness in requesting federal troops. She told the president she needed help, but it wasn't until Wednesday, Aug. 31 that she specifically asked for 40,000 troops. That day, in a whispered conversation with her staff caught on camera, the governor appears to second-guess herself. "I really need to call for the military," Blanco tells an aide. "Yes you do, yes you do," is the reply. "And I should have started that in the first call," Blanco adds. What is your rhetoric "he put the money back in his pocket" based on? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 10 Oct 06 - 06:45 PM No, OLd Guy, you have ****presented**** editorials... I'm not going to debate some partisan editorial writer's opinions... You still don't get it, do you??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 10 Oct 06 - 07:59 PM And further more, while Bush continues to sandbag on what he did in rwesponse to Katrina, Governor Blanko has released ****all**** of her notes, emails, phone records, letters, etc., etc... I'd just be happy if Bush would do the same but he has a major credibility problem and every time he screws up "executive priveldge" ain't too far behind... Might of fact, "executive privelidge" oughtta me the hallmark of this corrupt administration... And, BTW, Oldster, you have referred to Cat 5 storms in yer danged unteenth un-rebuttal... Are you aware that Katrina was a Cat 3 when it hit New Orleans??? And hjow do you feel about Bush thumbin' his nose at a Repub controlled Congress in tellin' Congress that, in essence, it's none of their friggin' business if he wants to hire Donald Duck to run FEMA??? Yeah, answer me that one... And can you point out to the first post where you agreed with me that that Bush, not the Dems, is "100% responsible for guttin' FEMA"??? Seems as if yer finally coming 'round but sho nuff would have been nice if you'd come 'round before that seemingly endess un-rebuttal of blamin' the Dems for screwin' up FEMA... Sho nuff would... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy Date: 11 Oct 06 - 12:57 PM What I get is your refusal to recognize facts and now you are dodging the question again. It is not difficult, just a yes or no. Can you "get" that? Are you saying the levees would not have failed if Bush had funded the USACE 100% YES___ NO ___ How many editorials or anything can you present that supports your insinuation that the levees failed because Bush underfunded the USACE? Show me something that says Bush thumbed his nose at a Repub controlled Congress in tellin' Congress that, in essence, it's none of their friggin' business if he wants to hire Donald Duck to run FEMA. That is another example of your rhetoric to make up for the fact that you have no facts. Yes I am aware that Katrina was a cat 3 storm. I have mentioned Katrina and I have mentioned cat 5 but I have never said Katrina was a cat 5. As I said before "Please point to where I said Katrina was a cat 5 storm Oh fact filled rancorous one?" As to your claim that "I am finally coming 'round": Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy - PM Date: 21 Sep 06 - 12:27 AM Hey Bobert: I have never disputed any of your findings, only your conclusion. Now see it you can avoid a rebuttal of this: GOV. KATHLEEN BLANCO, LOUISIANA: 8/28/05 Thank you, Mayor. I want to reiterate what the mayor has said. This is a very dangerous time. Just before we walked into this room, President Bush called and told me to share with all of you that he is very concerned about the citizens. He is concerned about the impact that this hurricane would have on our people. And he asked me to please ensure that there would be a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans. The leaders at the highest ranks of our nation have recognized the destructive forces and the possible awesome danger that we are in. And I just want to say, we need to get as many people out as possible. And still if the Democrats had not demanded the creation of DHS, FEMA would have been left alone. "But Old Guy, The democrats didn't ask for Fema to be gutted" I have asked Bobert if FEMA could have been made sister or brother to 22 other federal agencys and still remained as effective. What was the answer? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 11 Oct 06 - 06:36 PM Old Guy, You can give up on yer "prove it" line of defense... I think that anyone with an I.Q. greater than that of a box of animal crackers fully understands that there is no way I can prove it and there's no way that you can prove the converse... Kinda like smoking cigarettes... If Joe Blow smokes 2 packs of cigarettes for 30 years and dies of lung cancer there isn't any way to "prove" he got lung cancer from smoking cigarettes... This is a rather weak line of defense on your part and from here out, rather than try to re-explain what is apparent to any thinking person to you, when you make this very juvililistic argument I', just going to respond simply by sayin' "No, you prove it...", something that you have been unable to do so far... Now as to Bush thumbin' his nose at his Republican controled Congress: Read "Bush Balks at Criteria for FEMA Director, Signing Statement Asserts Right to Ignore Parts of the New Homeland Security Law", by Spencer Hsu, Washington Post, October 7th"... "Ignoring Law(s)"??? Hmmmmmmmmm??? Seesm that Bush ain't never met a law not worth breakin'... As for me usin' editorials in may case against Bush's handling of Katrina, Old Guy, show me one post where I have quoted an editorial writer... Unlike you, I use real news sources, form my own judegments and make my own arguments... Might of fact, in the years I have battled nuckleheads like you over various failures of the Bush folks I have never rersorted to using any editorialist's material... And lastly, Old Guy, FEMA failed because it was gutted and mismanged... It didn't fail becasue of the shufflin' of seats... That happens all the time... It could have been more effective had it had resources, vender contracts in place and a boss intellegent enough to know when he was told 2 full days before the storm that it was gonna be "the big one" that it was time to get to work... But, no, not only didn't Bush get to work but he continued vacationin' away and ****then**** went to California for some politicin' and fund raisin'????????????????? I mean, this is a friggin' *****slam dunk***** here against yer hero, Old Guy... Everyone else who has shown up here to defend "George the Crook" has quickly seen that there is no real defense of yer hero... Yet you continue to play these childish arguments???????????? I have now figurated exactly why you like Bush so much... You two are peas in a pod... Joined at the lip.... Nip 'n Tuck... Lucy and Ethel... The Hardy Boys... Sherlock and Watson... Amos 'n Andy... Twiddledee and Twiddledumb.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy Date: 12 Oct 06 - 10:58 AM George Bush is not my hero but Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong-il are your heros. "Hugo is da' man" "I'm so happy that North Korea has a bomb!!!" How crooked are they compared to GWB? "Neither has killed one American i nt ehlast 6 years" How may Venezuelens and North Koreans have they killed in the last 6 years? At least I have the courage to say the levees would have failed even if George Bush had funded USACE 100%. Do you have the courage to come out from behind your editorial shield and state in writing what you have been hinting at? This is OK with Bobert:Jan. 15, 2003 - In the far north of North Korea, in remote locations not far from the borders with China and Russia, a gulag not unlike the worst labor camps built by Mao and Stalin in the last century holds some 200,000 men, women and children accused of political crimes... ..."And then, from time to time there a living infant is delivered. And then if someone delivers a live infant, then the guards kick the bloody baby and kill it. And I saw an infant who was crying with pain. I have to express this in words, that I witnessed such an inhumane hell."... ..."I saw so many poor victims," she said. "Hundreds of people became victims of biochemical testing. She tearfully described how in one instance about 50 inmates were taken to an auditorium and given a piece of boiled cabbage to eat. Within a half hour, they began vomiting blood and quickly died. "I saw that in 20 or 30 minutes they died like this in that place. Looking at that scene, I lost my mind... ...2 million people have died of starvation while Kim has amassed the world's largest collection of Daffy Duck cartoons... Yeah Bobert, This buddy of yours, Kim Jong-il, is much better than GWB. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:06 AM "Bush Balks at Criteria for FEMA Director, Signing Statement Asserts Right to Ignore Parts of the New Homeland Security Law", by Spencer Hsu, Washington Post, October 7th"... Why are you refering me to editorials? Does it say anything in there about Donald Duck? Are you saying the levees would not have failed if Bush had funded the USACE 100% YES___ NO ___ You don't have to provide any proof, just an honest statement of what you believe. I have stated what I honestly believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 12 Oct 06 - 09:20 PM No, you prove it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 12 Oct 06 - 09:39 PM BTW, what do you honetly believe, Olsdter??? Do you beileve that, contrary to Hunter Johnston, of Johnston & Associates, who stated "If then Army Corps capabilities for the SELA program had been fully funded, theres is no question that Jefferson Parish and New Orleans would be in a much better position", that even had the maintenance been fully funded that we would have had the axact same results??? Is that what you believe, Old Guy??? Maybe you'd like to tell us why someone who knows much more about the levee sytem, it's maintance and its shortcomings from being unerfunded than either of us would make such a public pronouncement??? Maybe you'd like to grag a flat-earther so-called scientist in to proclaim that the levees would have failed anyway, no matter... Maybe you'd just like to say, "That's what I belive, even if it isn't based on facts other than the flat-eart scientists opinion..." I can live with that, Olster, but to continue your 3rd grade-ish "prove it" argument is a tad thread-bare.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy Date: 12 Oct 06 - 10:45 PM "That even had the maintenance been fully funded that we would have had the axact same results" Bingo, You have reinforced my belief again. "3rd grade-ish "prove it" argument" Where did I ask you to prove it? Again, you don't have to prove it. Now what do you believe? You like make insinuations but you won't put your name on them. Now who is the cowardly one? I believe the levees would have failed even if GWB had funded the USACE 100%. Are you saying the levees would not have failed if Bush had funded the USACE 100% YES___ NO ___ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 13 Oct 06 - 08:45 AM The yes-no question is the *bait* and the "prove it" ain't far behind... Actually, I was the first to set up the "prove it" trap a long time go on you and if you were smart enough not to fall for it I'm sho nuff smart enough to stay the heck outtta it... But since you say that that you "believe" that the levees would have failed would you now like to offer up what evidence you have collected from reliable news sources??? And, keep in mind, that we are talkin' Katrina here and not a Cat 5 storm... And keep in mind that part of the levee "system" isn't just the walls but also the pumping system... Now, Oldster, bring on your evidence... And, please... no editirialists. por favor'... BTW, if you reread your last post you use the the word "believe" in describing yer position but in your little yes-no trap you take the "believe" option for me out... Hmmmmmm??? Why do you expect to hold me to a higher standard than yourself??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy Date: 13 Oct 06 - 10:18 AM Well, I never said you had to prove it but you demand that I prove it. Standard method of operation for a crybaby liberal that is too chicken to say what he believes. The Liberal double standard. Your opponents have to prove things but you don't. In addition you don't even have to make any firm statements to be proven or disproven. Because everything I have heard and read, I believe that the levees would have failed even if GWB had funded the USACE 100% Are you saying the levees would not have failed if Bush had funded the USACE 100% YES___ NO ___ Turn that bluster into something firm. You acuse me of dodging questions while you refuse to answer on the grounds that it may stand to prove your insincerity and facetiousness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 13 Oct 06 - 08:27 PM Refresh my last post... But read it this time, Oldster... You keep askin' questions that have been answered... But a new battery in yer *readin' aid* 'cuase you ain't readeratin' too good... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy Date: 13 Oct 06 - 11:25 PM Bobert: You have not answered this question: Are you saying the levees would not have failed if Bush had funded the USACE 100% YES___ NO ___ If you have, point it out. And for the umpteenth time, you don't have to prove it. You insinuate things but you won't state them like a drive by shooter, a sniper that is too chicken to expose himself to scrutiny of his convictions. You have no beliefs. You just like to sling mud without getting your hands dirty. You have painted yourself in a corner and all you can do is claim I can't read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 14 Oct 06 - 09:31 AM No, I haven't answerwed that particular question, Old Guy, and nor will I... It is a trap question... I've explained the trap to you and explained why I won't answer it... You won't answer the same converse question yourself but you will say that you "believe" that the levees still would have been breeched... Believing and stating as fact are two different statements... If, however, you'd like to answer the converse question then fine... Then I'll spring the "prove it" trap on you... Considerin' how many times you have now asked the same "trap question" makes me think of how Einstien defined "insanity" when he observed that "insanity is repeating a behavior expecting different results"... Seems to fit you purdy well... If you want to play yes-no, yer gonna have to take the "trap" out of the questions 'cause I mighta been born at night but it weren't last night... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Old Guy Date: 14 Oct 06 - 12:47 PM Bobert won't say what he believes. He makes insinuations but he won't say he believes his insinuations are true. This means he doesn't believe them himself. He takes a cheap shot and ducks. Brave courageous and bold eh wot? Bobert: "Seems the real disaster was that Bush was too busy carnking up the funding his new shiney war in Iraq to be bothered with covering up the rear... And Katrina out flanked him... 17% of the what was requested for maintinance of the levee system by the Corps of Engineers is all that Bush coughed up the year before Katrina..." Do you believe that the levees, or the levee system, failed because GWB cut the USACOE maintenence funding to 17%? YES ___ NO ___ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: bobad Date: 18 Mar 07 - 02:50 PM The truth is finally revealed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 18 Mar 07 - 03:48 PM Thanks, bobad.... Everything makes sense now... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Amos Date: 28 Mar 07 - 12:36 PM Still Trying to House Katrina's Victims |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Donuel Date: 28 Mar 07 - 01:07 PM With any luck the Bush administration will be able to blame and shame the victims for failing to do something about finding a home before now without begging from good honest folks like the Bush family and friends at this late date. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Amos Date: 17 Apr 07 - 10:28 AM Broken Promises to a Broken Gulf (NY Times editorial) Published: April 17, 2007 President Bush has reneged on his promises to Katrina's victims. Shamefully, the president has chosen the interests of bureaucracy over those of American towns on the brink of failure. Over a year and a half later, there are 64,000 people still sleeping in trailers in Louisiana and far too many communities without schools, hospitals and other basics. These are unacceptable failures. At least part of the problem is a law that requires states to contribute 10 percent of the cost of most federally financed reconstruction projects. Mr. Bush waived that requirement after the Sept. 11 attacks (as his father did after Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki) but he refuses to do so for the Gulf Coast. A law written to deal with isolated tornadoes does not fit the total devastation of an entire region, and particularly the drowning of a major city like New Orleans. But municipalities are still being asked to pony up by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, even when they are broke. Louisiana has tried to ease the problem by covering the local share out of a separate pot of money (from Housing and Urban Development block grants) only to find the conflicting demands of the two federal bureaucracies nearly insurmountable. In Louisiana, this bureaucratic nightmare has left the financing for roughly 20,000 projects in limbo, while generating 2.6 million documents and the attendant overhead costs. Recognizing the urgency of the situation, both the House and the Senate have passed versions of the cost-sharing waiver, but they are attached to the spending bill for Iraq, which President Bush has vowed to veto if it includes a deadline for a troop withdrawal. The administration also argues that Congress has already committed over $110 billion for Gulf Coast relief and reconstruction. That is certainly a large sum. But so much money was spent on immediate needs, like housing victims in hotels, that only a relatively small share was left for rebuilding the shattered coastal areas across five states. The State of Louisiana estimates the gap between the devastation there and the federal and private payouts at $34 billion. It is particularly unfortunate because New Orleans — where the failure of the federally built levee system led to the most damage and suffering — has finally come up with a limited, practicable rebuilding program that requires the waiver. Led by a respected disaster recovery expert, Edward Blakely, the $1.1 billion plan focuses on 17 areas for rebuilding, including the city's historic centers, old markets and key traffic junctures. The city says it will finance its plan mostly through a pair of bond issues and partly with federal funds. Even then it expects to come up $324 million short. New Orleans could get the money from the state — if the matching requirement were waived. Those state funds are currently waiting to be used to cover the 10 percent share of those 20,000 projects. In a lofty speech soon after Katrina, Mr. Bush vowed that "we will do what it takes" to rebuild the damaged communities. He did not say, "Unless easily waived regulatory restrictions prohibit us." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Dickey Date: 18 Apr 07 - 01:00 AM "the failure of the federally built levee system" Not true. It is a product of the Levee board using local and federal money. in December of 1995, the Orleans Levee Board, the local government entity that oversees the levees and floodgates designed to protect New Orleans and the surrounding areas from rising waters, bragged in a supplement to the Times-Picayune newspaper about federal money received to protect the region from hurricanes. "In the past four years, the Orleans Levee Board has built up its arsenal. The additional defenses are so critical that Levee Commissioners marched into Congress and brought back almost $60 million to help pay for protection," the pamphlet declared. "The most ambitious flood-fighting plan in generations was drafted. An unprecedented $140 million building campaign launched 41 projects." The levee board promised Times-Picayune readers that the "few manageable gaps" in the walls protecting the city from Mother Nature's waters "will be sealed within four years (1999) completing our circle of protection." But less than a year later, that same levee board was denied the authority to refinance its debts. Legislative Auditor Dan Kyle "repeatedly faulted the Levee Board for the way it awards contracts, spends money and ignores public bid laws," according to the Times-Picayune. The newspaper quoted Kyle as saying that the board was near bankruptcy and should not be allowed to refinance any bonds, or issue new ones, until it submitted an acceptable plan to achieve solvency. Blocked from financing the local portion of the flood fighting efforts, the levee board was unable to spend the federal matching funds that had been designated for the project. By 1998, Louisiana's state government had a $2 billion construction budget, but less than one tenth of one percent of that -- $1.98 million -- was dedicated to levee improvements in the New Orleans area. State appropriators were able to find $22 million that year to renovate a new home for the Louisiana Supreme Court and $35 million for one phase of an expansion to the New Orleans convention center. The following year, the state legislature did appropriate $49.5 million for levee improvements, but the proposed spending had to be allocated by the State Bond Commission before the projects could receive financing. The commission placed the levee improvements in the "Priority 5" category, among the projects least likely to receive full or immediate funding. The Orleans Levee Board was also forced to defer $3.7 million in capital improvement projects in its 2001 budget after residents of the area rejected a proposed tax increase to fund its expanding operations. Long term deferments to nearly 60 projects, based on the revenue shortfall, totaled $47 million worth of work, including projects to shore up the floodwalls. No new state money had been allocated to the area's hurricane protection projects as of October of 2002, leaving the available 65 percent federal matching funds for such construction untouched. "The problem is money is real tight in Baton Rouge right now," state Sen. Francis Heitmeier (D-Algiers) told the Times-Picayune. "We have to do with what we can get." Louisiana Commissioner of Administration Mark Drennen told local officials that, if they reduced their requests for state funding in other, less critical areas, they would have a better chance of getting the requested funds for levee improvements. The newspaper reported that in 2000 and 2001, "the Bond Commission has approved or pledged millions of dollars for projects in Jefferson Parish, including construction of the Tournament Players Club golf course near Westwego, the relocation of Hickory Avenue in Jefferson (Parish) and historic district development in Westwego." There is no record of such discretionary funding requests being reduced or withdrawn, but in October of 2003, nearby St. Charles Parish did receive a federal grant for $475,000 to build bike paths on top of its levees. Earlier this year, the levee board did complete a $2.5 million restoration project. After months of delays, officials rolled away fencing to reveal the restored 1962 Mardi Gras fountain in a four-acre park featuring a new 600-foot plaza between famous Lakeshore Drive and the sea wall. Financing for the renovation came from a property tax passed by New Orleans voters in 1983. The tax, which generates more than $6 million each year for the levee board, is dedicated to capital projects. Levee board officials defended more than $600,000 in cost overruns for the Mardi Gras fountain project, according to the Times-Picayune, "citing their responsibility to maintain the vast green space they have jurisdiction over along the lakefront." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Peace Date: 18 Apr 07 - 01:10 AM Sounds like Bush, Amos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 28 Aug 07 - 09:12 PM Well, here we are on the eve of what is one of the largest national disasters in our conutry's history... As I have pointed out, Bush and Co. ***failed*** to provide the necessary resources for FEMA... They were hoping that nuthin' like Katrina would hit but ti did and it showed just how poorly the Bushites were prepared to actually deal with a disadter... It would be one thing if 9/11 hadn't occured but 9/11 did occur and what Katrina showed was that all that chwest pounding that Buish and Co. did about how that had the bases covered was all just that: chest pounding and nuthin' else... Here we are on the eve of the 2nd anniversary of Katrina and Bush has made some 13 visits there but has to date not come up with a real plan on what our country does if anm large area goes down... This is why I have always felt there was a cover-up... If the Bush peo[ple had the bases covered after 9/11 then the response to Katrina wouldn't have been so slow, so ill-thought-out or totally ineffective... No, the Bush folks were real good at talklin' the talk but not so good on walkin' the walk... 2 years after Katrina and New Orleans is something out of a sci-fi movie... There is no plan other than... ...run out the clock... Yeah, runnin' out the clock seems to be the Bushite strategy for surviving the last year and few months of his administration... But runnin' out the clock in Bush's case is probably the best thing to do seein' how totally incompetant he is at fixing anything... So, George, just go off and play... The next administration will deal with it... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate... From: Bobert Date: 28 Aug 07 - 09:14 PM Awwwwww, what the heck.... 800!!! |
