[BBC.CO.UK] Troubled Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has apologised for obscene comments he made on live TV while denying he made vulgar overtures to a female staff member.
The Canadian politician used what he called "unforgivable language" about oral sex, in remarks to news hounds.
He also threatened to take legal action against former employees who made claims about his drinking and drug use.
It is the latest scandal to engulf 44-year-old Mr Ford, who last week admitted smoking crack cocaine.
Police documents released on Wednesday quoted Ford associates as saying that the mayor had driven drunk, used racially abusive language, threatened staff, consorted with a woman suspected of being a hooker and made a sexual proposition to a female staff member.
'Particularly disappointing' On Thursday morning, he told news hounds the allegations were "outright lies", although he conceded he might have driven after taking alcohol.
However, some people cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go... news hounds were left gasping by his lewd outburst as he denied having once told a former female employee that he wanted to have oral sex.
The father of two young children said that he was "happily married" and crudely commented that he enjoyed enough oral sex at home.
Later on Thursday, Mr Ford was flanked by his wife, Renata, as he expressed regret for the "graphic" language, the latest in a string of apologies.
Where is the legislation ( from anybody, either side of the aisle) requiring background checks on these folks? if the Pubs were smart, they would start that just to give Champ another ball to keep in the air.
but then again.....
The State insurance commissions are now in a position of either complying with policy or regulations. If they choose the former, the insurance companies would have to worry about their legal liability if they issue a policy that does not comply with the Code of Federal regulations.
Of course, the Obama team will try to now say the ball is in someone else's court. If by court they mean law court, they may be right.
Earlier today, we advised that President Obama announced that insurers can extend current plans into 2014.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have now released additional clarification on this announcement, advising that small groups are also included in the extension into 2014.
We have just released small group renewal letters that do not include this recent information, so please be aware that you may be getting questions from your small groups who receive their renewal letters.
We will be evaluating the impacts to the small group segment and will keep you informed.
The following message from earlier today remains relevant:
We can tell members with plans scheduled to close on January 1, 2014 that we will continue their policy into 2014. Florida Blue will send information to affected members in the next few days explaining in detail the changes and how it affects them.
We can tell members with plans scheduled to close on July 1 or August 1, 2014 that were still evaluating how this impacts them and are waiting for detailed information from the federal and state government. We will also let these members know as soon as possible how this affects them.
Florida Blue will continue to work closely with our policyholders to help them find plans that meet the new requirements under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). By allowing our members to remain in their current plans through 2014, they will have additional time to ascertain if they qualify for a subsidy and to find new plans for 2015 that meet the ACA requirements.
We will work as quickly as possible to make the needed changes. The company will continue to reach out to members to offer guidance related to their health care needs.
Seems like a pretty clever political manuever here - insurance companies are now 'free' to continue old 'substandard' policies, but of course the insurance companies won't be willing to do that because it would violate different laws and policies, and open them up to lawsuits. So now the cancellations can be fully 'blamed' on the insurance companies rather than Zero-care.
1) If you were an insurance company would you take Barak Obama, a guy lies to your face and then denies it in the face of video evidence, at his word not to prosecute?
2) That same Barack Obama might think he has the authority to set aside laws - but the Supreme Court in a future ruling might disagree. And besides while Bumbles might think he can ignore the law of the land - insurnace companies simply cannot.
Aikido in 20 seconds: as a former insurance comissioners Sebelius should know better, and her history of circumventing law and procedure (attempting to raid protected accounts when she failed to approve the budget in her final year as governor of Kansas).
(Pacific Rim trailor voice)
"Sebelius...Let's look behind the curtain. As a former Insurance Comissioner she should know the laws and regulations required. As a Governor she should know legal procedures. In her final year in Kansas she ran an illegal business out of her governor's mansion and attempted to raid retirement accounts and volunteer fire fighter pensions when she neglected the Kansas budget for the trappings of Oz. Ask yourself: is she fit for your health decisions?"
they could allow more grandfathering of policies
This is a legalistic and panicky pre-emption of Senator Landrieu's and Rep. Upton's proposed bills.
Senator Landrieu's bill would impel compel state regulators to allow grandfathering and reinstatement of policies for a year. Such allowances would be illegal. Rep Upton's permits insurance companies to continue selling 'noncompliant policies' for a year, but doesn't compel state insurance regulators to allow it.
it seems as if, for policies already cancelled, any reinstatement would almost certainly illegal and someone who got a policy and was ticked off that it didn't cover something would have a good chance of prevailing in court
at the other end, for policies that have not been cancelled and are in states where policies that comply with state insurance laws are protected from lawsuits (I don't know how many there are like that) and where the insurance commission makes an affirmation that continuing a policy is legal under state law, the insurance company is probably safe from lawsuits of the type noted in the earlier paragraph. As, however, implied by others, a company that does issue policies that do not comply with the ACA could be sued by the feds on other grounds which the feds would claim are not related to the ACA but actually would be.
Posted by: lord garth ||
11/15/2013 15:03 Comments ||
Trying to shift the blame to the insurance companies who really are in no position to change directions 180 degrees. It might work for awhile, then the disaster will intensify.
If you had an condition under your insurance (say Diabetes) and your insurance in cancelled due to ObumbleCare and Obama waves his little -er- finger and your insurnace is back... can they (the insurance company) refuse to cover you citing a 'pre-existing condition'?
Considering the insurance companies a) agreed to this monstrosity (why turn down a federally-mandated customer base to buy your products?), and b) had no problem with cancelling customer's polices to "comply with Federal regulations", I've not much sympathy.
In the main time please all of you son of a conservative bitches please look at these FACTs:
1- Sale of private jets costing $50Mill and more were at record levels YTD
2- Sale of homes costing $10Mill and more are going as briskly as ever
3- One Apartment complex in New York were apartments sold at $2.5Mill and more sold out in less than 30 days
4- One Google exec just bought a $25Mill mansion in south of France and a $14Mill condo in NYC
5- One Silicon Valley VC just built a $125M Super Yacht in Istanbul and sailed it with entourage of 100 to Nice
6- Not one major Military program has been cut
7- We are building F35s at cost of $200Mill each as if we are the richest country/people on earth
8- Not one 4 Star General has been layed off or has had his pay cut by even 10%
9- $10s of Billions of Dollars of our Taxes are still being sent, in various form, to Israel.
10- We just built a new Military base in Romania at cost of $12Bill+ staffing it with 1000s of soldiers. Of course why not! After all Romania, about 10000 Miles from US, is so vital to our security needs. Not. This would be analogous to if Russia had built a military base in Mexico. In fact we have Military bases in 150 different countries, a feet that NO other country on this Earth comes even close to duplicating in numbers and costs. In fact we have a Military budget that is LARGER than the Military budget of ALL other countries on Earth combined, indicating beyond a shadow of doubt that we are either the richest people on earth or being bankrupted by our Military budget.
As Jonah Goldberg noted yesterday, suppose for a moment that the O-Care website rollout for the individual mandate had been a smashing success. Does anyone think that Champ and the Democrats would have generously shared credit with the Pubs?
No, me neither.
Besoeker is correct: Champ and the Dems own this.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/15/2013 7:38 Comments ||
#1 ignores above all else the military size and costs are driven by politicians everyone elects. They create the 'missions' for which the force is designed for.
The present confusion in the civilian mind and the true military mind respecting the purposes of armies and limits of warfare is attributable to many circumstances. Among them, no doubt, is the character of military history as it has commonly been written. Ordinary citizens are lacking in the raw experience of combat, or deficient in technical knowledge, and inclined to leave the compilation of military records to experts in such affairs. Writers on general history have tended to neglect the broader aspects of military issues; confining themselves to accounts of campaigns and battles, handled often in a cursory fashion, they have usually written on the wars of their respective countries in order to glorify their prowess, with little or no reference to the question whether these wars were conducted in the military way of high efficiency or in the militaristic way, which wastes blood and treasure.
Even more often, in recent times, general historians have neglected military affairs and restricted their reflections to what they are pleased to call the causes and consequences of wars; or they have even omitted them altogether. This neglect may be ascribed to many sources. The first is, perhaps, a recognition of the brutal fact that the old descriptions of campaigns are actually of so little value civilian and military alike. Another has been the growing emphasis on economic and social fields deemed normal and the distaste of economic and social historians for war, which appears so disturbing to the normal course of events. Although Adam Smith included a chapter on the subject of military defense in his Wealth of Nations as a regular part of the subject, modern economists concentrate on capital, wages, interest, rent, and other features of peaceful pursuits, largely forgetting war as a phase of all economy, ancient or modern. When the mention the subject of armies and military defense, these are commonly referred to as institutions and actions which interrupt the regular balance of economic life. And the third source of indifference is the effort of pacifists and peace advocates to exclude wars and military affairs from general histories, with the view to uprooting any military or militaristic tendencies from the public mind, on the curious assumption that by ignoring realties the realties themselves will disappear.
This lack of a general fund of widely disseminated military information is perilous to the maintenance of civilian power in government. The civilian mind, presumably concerned with the maintenance of peace and the shaping of policies by the limits of efficient military defense, can derive no instruction from acrimonious disputes between militarists, limitless in their demands, and pacifists, lost in utopian visions. Where the civilians fail to comprehend and guide military policy, the true military men, distinguished from the militarists, are also imperiled. For these the executioners of civilian will, dedicated to the preparation of defense and war with the utmost regard for efficiency, are dependent upon the former.
Again, and again, the military men have seen themselves hurled into war by ambitions, passions, and blunders of civilian governments, almost wholly uninformed as to the limits of their military potentials and almost recklessly indifferent to the military requirements of the wars they let loose. Aware that they may again be thrown by civilians into an unforeseen conflict, perhaps with a foe they have not envisaged, these realistic military men find themselves unable to do anything save demand all the men, guns, and supplies they can possibly wring from the civilians, in the hope that they may be prepared or half prepared for whatever may befall them. In so doing they inevitably find themselves associated with militaristic military men who demand all they can get merely for the sake of having it without reference to ends.
Vagts, Alfred, History of Militarism, rev. 1959, Free Press, NY, pp 33-34.
"In fact we have a Military budget that is LARGER than the Military budget of ALL other countries on Earth combined.."
In fact you have your so far up your ass you can't see daylight. The US % is about 40 % of the total. Even with your head up and locked you can see that 40 is smaller than 60.
I'll bet there are hundreds of thousand of Filipinos that are very happy we can park an aircraft carrier just about anywhere in the world we damn well please WHEN we please. Nobody can do that shit head.
Posted by: Bangkok Billy ||
11/15/2013 8:47 Comments ||
Gentlemen can easily settle this:
'ranters are idiots' and Bangkok Billy at 15 meters and closing, with entrenching tools. Last man standing buys breakfast on the grounds.
Y'all wanna be careful not to confuse the troll with facts.
As for the airplanes, houses, condos and yachts; there are people who are employed making such items so whenever anybody plunks down money to buy them it helps the economy and provides jobs. I know that's confusing but please try to understand. Besides that you have to consider that some of the purchasers are likely to be beneficiaries of lucrative no-bid contracts to design and build failed websites. Of course, it helps to be an old friend and classmate of Moochelle to land such a contract. Either that or they received government loans to the tune of half a billion dollars to produce solar energy and then went bankrupt. I still don't understand how you go bankrupt when you have a half billion dollars in the bank but then, did we ever get a full and detailed accounting of that incident? We do know that contributors to the Champ's election campaign get an inside track when it comes to securing these loans.
It's the Upton bill that has "bipartisan support" that the President is threatening to veto.
No mention of whether the President will veto the proposed Landrieu bill coming out of the Senate, which has some potentially serious legal issues with regards to interfering with the powers of state insurance commissions, while leaving intact the HHS regulations. It also directs insurance companies to violate those same regulations.
The Upton bill skirts the insurance commissions but also effectively nullifies the HHS regulations for a year. It also potentially throws a wrench into the ACA process, which the White House realizes.
Hence the White House's proposed "solution," which is a attempt to weave through the self-laid political minefield.
under Bush, the 1% captured 65 cents of every dollar created, Under Obama the 1% got 93 cents of every dollar created. In the transition from Bush to Obama, inequality got worse, faster.
- Matt Stoller a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.
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.