Midnight on Monday is the deadline for seniors to sign up for prescription drug coverage through Medicare Part D. Once the enrollment period ends, seniors seeking access to the program will face higher premiums.
Medicare was written by and for the benefit of the big insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and passed in the middle of the night after a three hour vote that saw significant arm-twisting by the Republican leadership.
[...]
Yesterday, 5th district congresswoman Nancy Johnson appeared with Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt at the New Britain Senior Center to support the program and urge seniors to join up. But Johnson, perhaps seeing the writing on the wall, couldn't resist distancing herself from part of the bill.
But Johnson said she does support the elimination of penalties for those who delay enrollment. Under current rules, those who wait for the next sign-up period in November face a higher Medicare drug premium.
Who is Nancy trying to fool? She WROTE the damn bill, and now she's complaining about the effects? She knows why that provision is there: to push people into the program as quickly as possible, and make an extra profit for the insurance companies in the process. She's raised over half a million dollars in the last six years from the big drug companies; does she actually think she can convince us that she's acting in the best interests of seniors?
Nancy Johnson thinks she's pulling a fast one...we know better.
Appreciate your blog,mental health consumers are the least capable of self advocacy,my doctors made me take zyprexa for 4 years which was ineffective for my symptoms.I now have a victims support page against Eli Lilly for it's Zyprexa product causing my diabetes.--Daniel Haszard www.zyprexa-victims.com
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
Danny Haszard, 4:51 PM
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
