George W. Bush goal of cutting $15 billion from Medicaid expenditures may be easier than he imaginied. Apparently medications are increasingly being found in our drinking water . These are apparently chemicals that pass unused through the humans taking the medications. Water companies are claiming the pharmaceuticals are in such low levels that there is no impact on humans. So, we just need to filter the water a little less and let that water build up the drugs to a clinical level. It’ll be good for what ails ya’. Not only will there be fewer prescriptions covered by Medicaid, we will be recyclying – everybody wins!
Archive for the ‘Humor’ Category
Posted by G.A. Napier on March 10, 2008
Posted by G.A. Napier on January 1, 2008
Here is a post by Bluegrass Business Law blog discussing enforceability of arbitration agreements. What the blogger fails to point out is that in the case discussed, Paul Miller Ford’s arbitration agreement calls for the Better Business Bureau to handle the arbitration. Interesting, Paul Miller Ford is a member of the BBB.
Now skeptics and naysayers would see an innate conflict in the BBB handling the arbitration of a dues paying business. Some would see a conspiracy or at least the implication that the BBB would favor their dues paying member over the customer with no ties to their agency. These cynics might cite to the overwhelming popularity of arbitration among businesses to suggest that arbitration tends to favor the businesses. It is this very cynicism that thwarts the capitalistic dreams of America and keeps these businesses struggling to make a dime. It’s downright unpatriotic! Forget arbitration clauses, the Federal government should just outlaw legal suits against businesses. While they are at it, they should just stop taxing businesses too – why should the oil industry be the only one with sweeping exemptions. But, I digress.
Posted by G.A. Napier on August 24, 2007
This article from today’s Herald Leader on The W loosening strip-mining regulations provides a perfect opportunity to show your patriotism and practice denial. Just try repeating this mantra: “Stip mining is good. More stip mining is better. No eastern Kentucky communities in the ‘hollers’ will be harmed by dumping debri in their streams. Flattened mountains are good: they allow more sunlight into the hollers. They can be replanted with non-indigenous plant species that local wildlife, such as deer and elk, will not eat but that grows fast to cover the scarred, barren landscape. Flattened mountains are good for the economy – you can build stip malls on the stip mines and boost the economy. Strip mining good.”
If this does not help right away, take two Xanax and keep repeating it. After awhile, you will feel so much better about The W making it easier for strip miners to maximize their profits and do less to protect the environment.
Posted by G.A. Napier on August 23, 2007
Ordinarily I would jump right in and take the opportunity to criticize The W, but when I read this article in today’s Lexington Herald Leader entitled “How they keep Bush from seeing protests” I had to come to The W’s defense. Lawsuits about first amendment free speech rights aside, this is really just a story about a man and his denial. The W’s folks have a comprehensive written plan to keep him from ever having to see protesters. So what! Let’s face it, we all partake of denial. To a large extent, denial is a proud principle which keeps our country going; keeps us strong! Who among us would want tangible reminders of our most stupid blunders? Leave The W alone!
Skyrocketing deficits, global warming, dependence on oil, health care and insurance, the increasing gap between the ultra-rich and the dirt poor, gays in the military, drilling in the artic, social security, the death penalty as practiced in Texas, torturing enemy combatants, and Lindsay Lohan all speak of our capacity at denial. My own denial involves weighing about 1/8th of a ton (short ton rather than the English tonne) but still indulging in ice cream as if an artery won’t clog off any second now. Our culture’s love-hate relationship with all things addictive is perpetuated by denial and advertising agencies are plenty grateful for that fact. We love denial.
So, why would we deny denial to The W? It is simply un-American; a tactic worthy of the Taliban. We had enough respect for The R (Ronald Reagan) to allow him denial about the whole trickle down economics thing. Heck, I knew that the only thing that ever really trickles down from the rich fella at the top of the hill is his pee, but I sure did not try to rub The R’s face in his miscalculation. Look further back and past President’s were given wide latitude in denying doings of badness. It used to be that the media looked the other way on such foibles as infidelity or well-intentioned misleadings – especially during times of war.
I guess the tide on presidential denial really turned with The Bill (Clinton that is)(Actually it began with The D___ (Richard Nixon), but some of my readers may not have been alive back then and would miss the reference – so I will practice a bit of denial and say it started with The Bill). Why wouldn’t we allow him the simple self-delusion of fellatio not being “sexual intercourse”? After all, on a purely technical level he was accurate. It has just gone down hill from there. Now we seem set on making The W look at all sorts of blunders. All I read about are subpoenas, threatened investigations and critical reports. Even the hand picked conservative Supreme Court is telling The W to back off with his terrorist tribunals. How in the world is The W supposed to get his denial on with this cacophony of critiques?
Now, in today’s confrontational culture, even when The W tries to do something good, like save millions of Medicare dollars, he still gets flack. Don’t believe me? Just take a gander at this scathing critique of the new Medicare directive by LawReader. Sure, LawReader is right that the most likely result is that poor patients will get stuck with the bill that Medicare refuses to pay. Sure, in this anti-litigation culture it would be hard for those poor people to successfully sue to make the negligent party compensate them for their damages. Sure, medical providers are so necessary they can dictate the terms of any consent so that the patient has to agree to pay for any charges not covered by Medicare. SO WHAT! The W does not need to be plagued by these petty concerns. He has a country to run and denial about such details allows him to stay efficient and focused on winning this war on terror before the next election. That is the important thing here and those pesky protesters would just get in the way.
Posted by G.A. Napier on July 24, 2007
After two years of investigation and months preparing an indictment, a huge fraud case against an even bigger insurance company went away – and it only rated page A3 in the Herald Leader: “Sensitive fraud investigation is shut down”. Oh, most likely this poor, underpaid federal prosecutor simply had excess time on his hands so he had some fun badgering the ever innocent insurance company. Those far more cynical than I speculate a conspiracy to block the case from going forward.
Essentialy, prosecutor David Maguire, in May of ’06, had felt:
strongly enough about his case to prepare a draft indictment accusing executives from a Virginia insurer, Reciprocal of America, of concocting a series of secret deals to hide its losses from regulators. Although he didn’t name anyone from Berkshire Hathaway’s subsidiary, he described the company as a participant in the scheme.
Maybe that feeling was just gas and it passed. The conspiracy minded saw it thusly:
Gober, a government-contracted investigator, concluded that the Justice Department had buckled under pressure from defense lawyers. Shortly before Maguire was removed, his supervisors were urging him to drop the case against General Reinsurance, Gober said.
Gober’s suspicions were fanned by allegations of politicization in the Justice Department after nine U.S. attorneys were fired. He took his complaints to the Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigates Justice Department misconduct.
“It just stinks,” he said. “You don’t come in out of nowhere and in no time kill three years of sophisticated effort.”
All I know is that two of my neighbors are getting entirely new roofs compliments of their home owner’s insurance while my insurance company won’t even replace the whole side of vinyl siding despite the quarter sized holes scattered about its surface (they seem to believe I can match 20 year old vinyl). Now, I realize this is not directly connected to reinsurance companies, except that it makes me wonder – hmmm, maybe there is a conspiracy after all.
Posted by G.A. Napier on June 21, 2007
Robert Bork, former nominee to the Supreme Court, filed suit against the Yale Club of New York City. The interesting thing here is that Bork was a strong reporter of tort reform. In this suit based on a fall as he approached a dais to speak at the club, he is even seeking punitive damages. I suppose this is a reminder to us all that we should avoid being judgmental over things we have not experienced ourselves. Bork was judgemental of all those plaintiffs filing suits and supposedly getting unjustifiable windfalls (see article in Herald Leader Opinion Section for June 20, 2007). Now, he is one of those plaintiffs.
Posted by G.A. Napier on June 3, 2007
I always read Scalia’s opinions with a bit of trepidation. This was because, as much as I often did not want to agree with him, sometimes his logic was inescapable. And yet, he usually wrote with just enough arrogance to tick me off even if he seemed right. So, I love it when he gets some of his own stuff tossed back on him – check out this post by Lawreader.
Posted by G.A. Napier on March 2, 2007
One Sunday morning, the pastor noticed little Alex standing in the foyer of the church staring up at a large plaque. It was covered with names with small American flags mounted on either side of it. The seven year old had been staring at the plaque for some time, so the pastor walked up, stood beside the little boy, and said quietly, “Good morning Alex.”
“Good morning Pastor,” he replied, still focused on the plaque. “Pastor, what is this?” he asked the pastor.
The pastor said, “Well, son, it’s a memorial to all the young men and women who died in the service.” Soberly, they just stood together, staring at the large plaque. Finally, little Alex’s voice, barely audible and trembling with fear, asked, “Which service, the 9:45 or the 11:15 ?”
This joke puts me in mind of an attorney I know whose favorite word is “clearly”. In his arguments, nearly every point is prefaced with “Clearly the facts . . .” or “Clearly the law . . .” I am either not nearly as bright as this fella or he has some power of prescience beyond my mere mortal limits because the things that are so “clear” to him always appear to be in just the opposite condition or very ambiguous to me. It occurs to me that taking time to be sure each party is talking about the same thing would greatly reduce the frequency and duration of arguments in or out of court.
Posted by G.A. Napier on February 28, 2007
I heard that even CNN was reporting that DNA had been used to show that Jesus’ burial place was discovered. This truly is amazing given that DNA TESTING DID NOT EVEN EXIST UNTIL THIS CENTURY! The most DNA testing could prove is that any bones found have DNA markers characteristic of markers found in a certain ethnic group. I call on CNN and other news agencies to join me in the fight against the exponential expansion of ignorance by filtering some of this “news” through basic common sense and logic.