Sunday, October 17, 2004

Good People Supporting a Bad President

"How can anyone support Bush," we ask.

FOX News is the common denominator.

My neighbor is a wonderful person. She sends her teenage daughter over most afternoons to help out with my two young boys. While I've been laid up with a back injury, she's made dinners for us once a week. She is a college professor and cares about a lot of things I care about, but defines herself as a "conservative.". She is voting for Bush. Fox News is on all the time in their home. I mean all the time.

My father and step-mom are strong Kerry supporters. My dad just finished reading Richard Clarke's book and is starting Kevin Phillips'. My step-mom worked for Planned Parenthood in the 1980s. She is really close to her two sisters. One is a reseacher for NIH, the other is a doctor. Fox News is on in their homes All The Time.

My husband recently wrote a story for our local paper about how people feel about the election in our county here in central PA. Among the Bush supporters were sweet little old ladies worried about prescription drug costs, hard working guys in construction who have a hard time paying for health insurance for their workers, veterns whose benefits are eroding, and moms who note that the schools are getting worse and worse. They're voting for Bush because "he's a strong leader," etc. But all of those reasons sounded word-for-word, like BC04 talking points, and everyone of them told him that their main source of news and information was FOX news. In fact, they told him that they usually had FOX on ALL THE TIME.

FOX is everywhere. If you make a pit stop at a travel center on an interstate highway, and run in for a cup of coffee and maybe a sandwich, FOX is on. If you work out at a health club, FOX is on. My husband told me that it is even on in the newsroom at the paper. It always bothered him, but after seeing "OutFOXed", he is starting to demand that they switch back to CNN or MSNBC,, which are much better.  

When (not if) Kerry wins in November, our job is not over. No Way. We don't get our country back until we put FOX News out of business.


Anonymous said...

paul harvey on the radio is another reason. if you listen to him, he is way to the right, acting as if he is reporting news. when you have listened to news other than fox, you can see what he is doing very easily. i can't even listen to him anymore and don't believe a word he says.

Anonymous said...

The message I send to veterans….

I have been involved since March 2002 in a dispute with the VA over their billing procedures, which is in violation of 38 USC 1722a, specifically paragraph 2. The message I send to veterans. Which reads…

Title 38 USC Sec. 1722A. “Paragraph (a)(1) subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary shall require a veteran to pay the United States $7.00 for each 30 day supply of medicine…if the amount supplied is less than a 30 day supply the amount of the charge may not be reduced.”

Paragraph 2. “The Secretary may not require a veteran to pay an amount in excess of the cost to the Secretary for medication as described in paragraph 1.”

Veterans who receive VA medication requiring pill splitting, you are being over-charged. Look up and read 38 USC 1722a, if your interested. Paragraph 2 will tell you, veterans’ do not have to pay, “an excess of the cost” for medication. However, for over two years I had deducted these excess over-charges from my VA payments, all the while continuously and vigorously protesting this penalty. After my participation on GCN radio’s, “The Veterans Hour” the Treasury Department advised they would “off-set” this alleged indebtedness. I coughed up. The VA seized these over-charges, my property, without explanation or due process, in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Briefly the violation. Paragraph 2 will tell you, veterans are not required to pay “an excess of the cost” for medication. Example; two(2) exact prescription supplies. The first 30-day supply, 30 pills, $7.00 co-pay. The second 30-day supply. 30 pills, $14.00 co-pay, (2 month, split pill supply). There is something wrong with this picture! An “excess of the cost” does exist.

Take this same example, and to put it in another way. 1 pill each day for 30-days @ $7.00 co-pay. The cost per pill, .23 cents. Because a veteran may be required by prescription to split that exact same pill, the cost now increases by 50% to .46 cents.

I advised Hines VA hospital I am going to file an appeal with the Veterans Board of Appeals and as required, a denial of my claim is needed from them. With laws, factors, and regulations in making their determination. Also, the veterans advocate, advised me that the VA billing system does not recognize paragraph 2. In other words, the VA knowingly cheats, defrauds, ignores, and violates the law by taking your money illegally. To date, I have not received a reply as to my request from the Hines VA legal Department. Their silence, should dispel any doubts you may have regarding this dispute. In violation of the 1st Amendment (my right to petition the government to redress grievances), they have not answered or explained. I find I am at a point where I have, as well as all veteran’s, lost all Constitutional rights, as I had just described.

“In a nation governed by the rule of law, we assume that the government will honour its obligations unless it explicitly exercises its power not to. In the absence of a clear express intent to abrogate rights and obligations, rights of the highest importance to the individual, those rights remain in force. To argue the opposite is to say that the government is bound only by its whim, not its word." Reference: Reasons for Judgment of the Court of Appeal dated March 13, 2003

Having been invited by Chicago 11th Ward Aldermen James Balcer, I provided testimony regarding this matter on Dec. 14th 2004before the Chicago City Council Committee on Health matters concerning benefits provided to Illinois disabled veterans by the Veterans Administration. Information to be presented to the VA Secretary upon visit to Chicago.

What you can do. On your next VA split pill prescription payment, indicate, “payment in protest” and indicate prescription number involved. This will help.

William H. Heino Sr.
522 Lincoln Lane Apt. 2 South
Frankfort, Illinois 60423

haiki said...

Alimony award of disability question settled.

The State of Tennessee in following up on the United States Supreme Court's Rose v. Rose ruling, the following 2 paragraphs of veterans' benefits references are 'notes based on decisions', having been included in Tennessee Title 36, Domestic Relations. To clarify the understanding of veterans benefits decisions in divorce actions, according to the ruling in Rose v. Rose.

44. - Veterans' Benefits.
There is no indication that congress intended the veterans' administration to make child support determinations contrary to the determinations of state courts. The interest in uniform administration of veterans' benefits focuses, instead, on the technical interpretations of the statutes granting entitlements, particularly on the definitions and degrees of recognized disabilities and the application of the graduated benefits schedules. Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, 107 S. Ct. 2029, 95 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1987).

An exception to the federal prohibition against attachment, levy, or seizure of veterans' benefits would not undermine the federal purpose in providing these benefits. Therefore,...we conclude 3101(a) [5307]does not extend to protect a veteran's disability benefits from seizure where the veteran invokes that provision to avoid an otherwise valid order of child support. Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, 107 S. Ct. 2029, 95 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1987).

Title 38 USC Section 5301 is explicit, as to Congress' intent, and does appear to protect veterans' disability benefits. "Nonassignability and exempt status of benefits (a) Payments of benefits due or to become due under any law administered by the Secretary shall not be assignable except to the extent specifically authorized by law, and such payments made to, or on account of, a beneficiary shall be exempt from taxation, shall be exempt from the claim of creditors, and shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary. The preceding sentence shall not apply to claims of the United States arising under such laws nor..."

Under 38 USC 5301 Congress indicates that the Supremacy Clause does indeed apply. By reference to the paragraph, sentence, and reading of, "The preceding sentence shall not apply to claims of the United States..." If benefits that are not assignable, shall be exempt, from seizure, etc., shall not apply to claims of the United States under such laws, who's claims, other than the United States are they referring to?

Yes, 5301 says the United States can claim owed taxes, and debts from the veteran, this is the exception. But Congress had written this as law for someone other than the United States, explaining, except for the United States, this law applies. And the question is, applies to who? Clearly, the States, and anybody else. 5301 refers to State actions that are not authorized by Congress, This... was the intent of Congress!

Because of the United States Supreme Court's ruling hinged on the reference of the "intent of Congress" in Rose V. Rose, finally, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear to state courts this intent. That payments, administered by the Secretary to the veteran shall not be assignable, except to the extent specifically authorized by law, are exempt from attachment, or seizure, under any legal or equitable process. This is no longer an argument veterans have to fight over.

As you see, 5301 provides the criteria, and the proof that Congress had specifically provided that veterans' disability compensation is exempt.

When the U.S. Supreme Court argued Rose v. Rose, they got it wrong. How wrong? 5301 was not even mentioned in Rose v. Rose, and strangely left out of the brief for the United States in the Amicus Curiae supporting appellant. However, it doesn't make any difference, as 5301 is, and has been the intent of Congress. Tennessee, in arguing, conveniently left out 5301. Which included, "The preceding sentence shall not apply to claims of the United States..." The only thing that can be done in future cases is to bring up, and argue strongly, and correctly 5301, and against the Supreme Court's and Tennessee' version of Rose v. Rose. We must remind those with whom we argue, it was the United States Supreme Court... in Rose v. Rose that brought up "the intent of Congress". 38 USC 5301 is the law of the land, therefore... the intent of Congress.

Now, we have the ammunition, to fight these state judges and their awarding of veterans' disability compensation as part of any divorce decree. This is now every veterans’ argument. We did not bring up “intent“. The United States Supreme Court in arguing Rose v. Rose, looking for the "intent of Congress" brought it up. Finally explaining definitively for veterans’ once and for all, what was missing. They gave it to us. 38 USC 5301, was there all the time. And all the time the U.S. Supreme Court claiming, "we are not persuaded", and Tennessee suggesting "there is no indication".