Massachusetts's pilot program has been a fiscal train wreck.
White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod hailed the Massachusetts health-care program as "the template" for the national health-care reform legislation the president signed into law earlier this week. That should be cause for serious concern about this law's ability to improve our health-care system at an affordable cost.
As state treasurer, I can speak with authority about the Massachusetts pilot program. It has been a fiscal train wreck.
The universal insurance coverage we adopted in 2006 was projected to cost taxpayers $88 million a year. However, since this program was adopted in 2006, our health-care costs have in total exceeded $4 billion. The cost of Massachusetts' plan has blown a hole in the Commonwealth's budget. Just last Thursday, Gov. Deval Patrick's office announced a $294 million shortfall related to health-care costs.
If not for federal Medicaid reimbursements and commitments from Washington to prop up this plan, Massachusetts would be broke. The only reason MassCare has survived is that we have been repeatedly bailed out by the federal government. But that raises the question: Who will bail America out if we implement a similar program?
While everyone should have access to affordable health care, our experience in Massachusetts tells us that the new federal entitlement will burden future taxpayers with unfunded liabilities they cannot afford. Health-care inflation will continue. Mandates will increase insurance premiums. And the deficit will reach frightening levels as the law's costs greatly exceed the projections of its advocates.
As lawmakers push for changes in the bill, they should start by being honest about its costs and focus on making health care more affordable without bankrupting the country.
Mr. Cahill is the state treasurer of Massachusetts. He is currently running as an independent for governor.
Cooperation between U.S. and Indian intelligence agencies has been a hallmark of the post-9/11 era, and rightly so: The two democracies both understand the existential fight the war on terror presents. But just as the U.S. expects India to be a good partner in the fight, so too does India expect the same of America.
That's why the case of David Coleman Headley, a Chicago-based American citizen of Pakistani origin who allegedly facilitated the Nov. 26, 2008 terrorist attacks on Mumbai, matters. Mr. Headley traveled to India five times, reportedly to scout targets for Pakistan-based terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET). He and his accomplice, Tahawwur Hussain Rana, were arrested by the FBI in October during an investigation into a plot of the LET and other Pakistan-based terrorists to attack a Danish newspaper. Their alleged links to the Mumbai attacks were discovered during the FBI interrogation.
Given Mr. Headley's potentially vital role in one of the most extreme terrorist acts in India's historyan attack that lasted four days and killed 166 peopleIndia understandably wants to extradite him for questioning. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake said Saturday during a trip to New Delhi that extradition won't happen, but Indian officials will eventually "get access" to Mr. Headley.
This is a remarkable double standard. When Al Qaeda terrorists Abu Zubaidah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and Abu Faraj al-Libi were arrested in Pakistan, and when Jemmah Islamiyah's Hambali was arrested in Thailand in the years following 9/11, U.S. intelligence officials insisted on taking them into U.S. custody to interrogate them on the future plans of their organizations and on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.
When Messrs. Headley and Rana were arrested, Indian authorities didn't insist on extradition, which they knew might be hard to do under U.S. law. They simply wanted Indian investigators to be given immediate access to the terrorists on U.S. soil. Given the growing antiterror cooperation between the two countries, an Indian investigative team traveled to the U.S. to question Mr. Headley after hearing of his arrest. They were taken by surprise when the FBI declined to grant them access and sent them back empty-handed.
Since then, the FBI has been dragging its feet in response to repeated Indian requests to interrogate Mr. Headleyeven in U.S. territory. The plea bargain that the FBI and Mr. Headley agreed to last week has created strong suspicions in India that the FBI wants to avoid a formal trial of Mr. Headley. There are even wild rumors that Indian investigators are being prevented from interrogating him because he was a deep penetration agent working for U.S. intelligence.
India isn't asking for much. Its intelligence officers are mature professionals. Their interest will be in questioning Mr. Headley on his role in the Mumbai attacks, LET's terrorist plans, its India-based sleeper cells, and the role of the Pakistani state in the attacks.
U.S.-India intelligence cooperation has been tested over the past few years, first in 2004 with accusations that an Indian intelligence officer, Rabinder Singh, had been recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency. (He was granted asylum in the U.S. just before he was about to be arrested by Indian counterintelligence officers.) The second blow came in 2006 with the discovery of another alleged CIA mole in India's National Security Council Secretariat, which is part of the Prime Minister's Office.
The rift forming over access to Mr. Headley is a serious problem. The intelligence communities of the two countries, which have a long history of cooperation, managed to get over the trust deficit created by the CIA's alleged penetration. It's time to get over this one, too.
Mr. Raman served in India's external intelligence agency from 1968 to 1994 and on the government of India's National Security Advisory Board from 2000 to 2002. He is currently director of the Institute for Topical Studies in Chennai.
Posted by: john frum ||
03/26/2010 06:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[12 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
There are those who think the US is behind the terrorist attacks on India; refusal to cooperate with India over Headley just lends credibility to their claims.
Is it because Headley is from Chicago, and knows the right people?
Me, I'd give him to India with no strings attached. Along with a water-boarding instruction manual.
[Asharq al-Aswat] Those who had initially thought that the crisis between Washington and Tel Aviv over Israel's announcement of a new settlement project in Jerusalem might result in a shift in Israeli government policy regarding settlement construction received a quick response from Benjamin Netanyahu himself during his address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington on Monday. Netanyahu stated clearly and explicitly and without any attempt to couch his words in diplomatic language, so as to not embarrass the Obama administration, that Israel has the right to build in any part of Jerusalem, saying that "Jerusalem is not a settlement. It's our capital," whilst those attending the conference applauded. Netanyahu used this speech to hit back at US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who in her own speech to AIPAC said that the continued policy of settlement construction was undermining US efforts to revive Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. However Clinton offset this by stating that US commitment to the security of Israel is "rock solid." However the Israeli Prime Minister said that there was a national consensus concerning the annexation of Jerusalem and Israeli settlement building there. He said, "The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 years ago and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today." Netanyahu said that every Israeli government since 1967 has carried out building work in what he described as the Jewish districts of Jerusalem.
Netanyahu was not just addressing the 8,000 delegates attending the annual AIPAC conference who constitute the pro-Israeli pressure mechanism in the US, but also hundreds of US members of Congress who were attending the conference. Some members of Congress issued statements criticizing any attempt to pressurize Israel on the grounds that this puts Israeli security in danger. Netanyahu wanted to inform the Obama administration that he would reply to the settlement issue, not just in Jerusalem, but also in Washington, through the Jewish pressure groups there and via the "friends of Israel" in the US corridors of power. Consequently, the speeches that were made at the AIPAC conference -- including speeches given by US members of Congress -- became something of a contest to announce a rejection of pressuring Israel and a confirmation of their commitment to the security of Israel.
Israel has set its sights on the US mid-term congressional elections that are due to take place in November, and this is from two standpoints; firstly politicians do not risk engaging in conflict with Israel during elections for fear of the influence of Jewish pressure groups, and secondly because projections indicate that the Democratic party may lose a number of seats during these elections. This is a defeat that could weaken the Obama administration and cause it to turn its focus to the domestic front as a result of the extreme polarization caused by some of its programs and projects, especially with the continuation of the economic crisis. Therefore we will see the Israeli government playing in order to win time and procrastinating, as usual, especially as it is not being compelled to make any significant concessions to the Palestinians at this moment in time. The Palestinian situation is now at its worst stage with division and conflict between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Even if reconciliation efforts are successful, mutual confidence between the two parties is something that may remain absent for a long time. This would mean continuation of a state of weakness and the absence of true bargaining power. To be clear, the Palestinians should not expect an Arab miracle that will result in all their dreams and aspirations being fulfilled. The current Arab situation is extremely frail, and even if there is a desire to take serious steps to support the Palestinian negotiator, this is something that would require the Arab position to derive its strength from the cohesion and strength of the Palestinian position.
It is not logical for the government of President Mahmoud Abbas to pin all of its negotiation hopes on the US effort, just as it is not acceptable for Hamas to stall reconciliation and subject the fate of the Palestinians in Gaza to the calculations of Tehran. While Fatah and Hamas fight over power, Palestinian suffering is increasing; their lands are being confiscated, and the dream of a Palestinian state is diminishing day by day. What is currently required of the Palestinian leadership is for it to rise to the level of responsibility and stop jeopardizing the rights of its people. Without complete reconciliation, neither the Arab states nor Washington will be able to do anything for the Palestinians.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/26/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What is currently required of the Palestinian leadership is for it to rise to the level of responsibility and stop jeopardizing the rights of its people. Without complete reconciliation, neither the Arab states nor Washington will be able to do anything for the Palestinians.
I think my boggle just broke.
Posted by: trailing wife on the other computer ||
03/26/2010 0:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Israel has set its sights on the US mid-term congressional elections that are due to take place in November
#3
The Palestinians will NEVER make "peace" with Israel. It will never happen. Talk of "peace' is an illusion, a total waste of time. Someone is going to have to win and someone is going to have to lose. The Palestinians have no future. They will all have to be broken and completely removed. There is no "nice" way to do that. There will be no nice sharing and dignified conclusion to all this. Someone has to win, there will be no kind human positive conclusion to all this.
The Palestinians will have to go...the smart ones should get out while they can. The stupid are doomed. There. is. NO. Future. for. the. Palestinians.
There are lots of Jews in Judea today. There are few to none of the the Paleshti..in Sidon, Askelon, and Tyre. And Hiram no longer exports cedars and no one remembers Dagon.
the Jews will eventually control everything from The Tigris-Euphrates to the Nile to the Syrian mountains. And the Temple will be rebuilt and everyone in the world will send gifts there to make the place beautiful. The al-Aqsah Mosque will be a small building in the Court of the Gentiles next to the souvenir stands.
Betcha! And I am an old man with a long beard who lives in the North Georgia mountains , has a large Garden, and raises chickens and two pigs and cuts his own firewood.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
