[20892] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Medicare enrollment period for 2013. Compare plans before the deadline...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Senior Health)
Tue Oct 29 13:04:38 2013
From: "Senior Health" <SeniorHealth@dbfwaifwint.us>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:04:38 -0700
To: mit-talk-mtg@charon.mit.edu
------=Part.341.1756.1383066278
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Medicare enrollment period for 2013. Compare plans before the deadline...
http://www.dbfwaifwint.us/2789/159/347/1297/2752.10tt65731829AAF9.php
Unsub- http://www.dbfwaifwint.us/2789/159/347/1297/2752.10tt65731829AAF10.html
Sept. 4, 2011: Shown here is the main plant facility at the
Navajo Generating Station, as seen from Lake Powell in Page, Ariz.APPresident
Obama, in each of his last three State of the Union addresses,
spoke urgently of the need to cut through the "red tape" in
Washington.But regulatory costs for the American public and business community,
it turns out, soared during his first term. A new report by
the conservative Heritage Foundation estimates that annual regulatory costs
increased during Obama's first four years by nearly $70 billion -- with
more regulations in store for term two."While historical records are incomplete,
that magnitude of regulation is likely unmatched by any administration in
the nation's history," the report said.The analysis by Heritage did not
count every single regulation issued in Obama's first term, but looked at
"major" regulations impacting the private sector. It came up with 131 over
the past four years -- many of them environmental. In addition to
the $70 billion in annual costs from those rules, the report estimated
that new regulations from the first term led to roughly $12 billion
in one-time "implementation costs."The math is up for debate. Even Heritage
acknowledges there is no "official accounting" for federal regulatory costs.
But government agencies, as well as think tanks like Heritage, have tried
to track the price tag by looking at records maintained by the
Government Accountability Office and age
Shown here is an iceberg off Ammassalik Island in Eastern Greenland.APA
recent video from a President Obama-aligned group is under fire from fact-checkers
for claiming hundreds of House members voted to call climate change a
"hoax" -- namely, because they didn't.The video from Organizing for Action
cleverly splices together quotes from Republican climate change skeptics
while building up to the factoid about the vote, which was on
an amendment to a broader bill in 2011.The video then includes the
following text: "Number of House members who voted in 2011 that climate
change was a 'hoax': 240."The amendment, though, did not include the word
hoax, and the circumstances of the vote were far more complicated than
the video portrayed. FactCheck.org and The Washington Post have both called
out the claim as inaccurate, with the Post giving it four "Pinocchios,"
which is the worst score for the truthfulness the paper gives out."In
this case, the Obama group has twisted the meaning of a relatively
minor amendment -- which was clearly intended to become fodder for future
campaign ads," the Post wrote.The amendment in question was introduced by
Democrats, in the course of debate over a Republican bill that dealt
with regulation, not the science of climate change itself. The Republican
bill was aimed at barring the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and
other gases and giving that power to Congress.But, in an effort to
pressure Republicans, Democra
------=Part.341.1756.1383066278
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<html>
<head></head>
<body>
<strong><center><a href="http://www.dbfwaifwint.us/2789/159/347/1297/2752.10tt65731829AAF1.php"><H3>Medicare enrollment period for 2013. Compare plans before the deadline...</a></H3></strong>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0">
<tr>
<td style="width: 550px">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" style="font-family: arial, verdana; font-size: 16px; color: #333;">
<tr>
<td colspan="5" style="font-size: 12px; text-align: center"><br>If you cannot see the below image, please visit us <a href="http://www.dbfwaifwint.us/2789/159/347/1297/2752.10tt65731829AAF2.php" target="_blank" style="color: #000">HERE</a><br><br><br></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="5"><br><a href="http://www.dbfwaifwint.us/2789/159/347/1297/2752.10tt65731829AAF3.php" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.dbfwaifwint.us/2789/159/347/65731829/1297.2752/img015934743.jpg" alt="The 2011-12 Medicare Annual Enrollment Period Is Here" border="0" style="display: block"></a></td>
</tr>
<td colspan="5"><center><a href="http://www.dbfwaifwint.us/2789/159/347/1297/2752.10tt65731829AAF4.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.dbfwaifwint.us/2789/159/347/65731829/1297.2752/img115934743.jpg" alt="" border="0" style="display: block"></a></center></td>
</tr>
</table><br><br>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</center>
<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br />
<br /><br />
<br />
<center>This email was intended for mit-talk-mtg@charon.mit.edu
<br />
<a href="http://www.dbfwaifwint.us/u/2789/1297/2752/10/65731829/mit-talk-mtg@charon.mit.edu" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="http://www.dbfwaifwint.us/2789/159/347/65731829/1297.2752/img215934743.jpg"></a>
</center>
</body>
</p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p>
</br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br>
</br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></center>
<p style="font-size:xx-small;">to see more, they want to learn more
and maybe theyre not watching for the kind of drama or hair
pulling that we see on Jersey Shore, but you know theyre watching
for other reasons.Although Duck Dynasty has millions of viewers audiences
tend to be fickle which means the shows success may be short
lived, Myer said.I think that Duck Dynasty will be here for a
little while but I have no doubt that Duck Dynasty will slowly
loose ratings, but not necessarily because of the show, because of all
of the other networks seeing it and going, Oh my gosh, we
have to start doing [this], he said.Myer suggested shows like MTVs
now cancelled Buckwild are more attractive to networks.Doing [Buckwild]
types of shows, thats whats hot right now. I have no doubt
that within a year [Duck Dynasty] will probably drop a little bit.
It wont be gone but it definitely wont hit 10 million people
an episode. It wont top American Idol, Meyer said.Cascerceri agreed with
her fellow expert, Duck Dynasty is going to fizzle out just like
any other reality show. The thing about television in general is a
lot of times there is a lot of hype, a lot of
buzz. You know a few seasons are produced. A lot of people
are loving it but eventually everything jumps the shark.Still, she said
overall she things reality TV is getting a better reputation among viewers.Reality
TV, when it started out, it kind of had a bad name
and now its kind of evolved where there is a way it
can edu
get said many
of the claimed benefits from EPA clean air regulations "are mostly attributable
to the reduction in public exposure to a single air pollutant: fine
particulate matter."The EPA claims that changes made to emissions standards
and other areas will save billions in health costs for the public.The
same report estimated that in fiscal 2012, 14 major rules came with
between $14.8 billion and $19.5 billion in annual costs, but with between
$53.2 billion and $114.6 billion in annual benefits.The Heritage report's
estimate of the annual costs imposed in 2012 were not that far
off -- Heritage pegged the annual cost of 2012 rules at $23.5
billion.The Heritage report did not delve deeply into the benefits of all
these regulations, though suggested the administration has exaggerated those
numbers. The analysis said the "particulate matter" pollutant EPA often
cites is already subject to EPA regulations, calling the claimed benefits
of additional reductions "speculative."
</p>
</html>
------=Part.341.1756.1383066278--
