hcg drops diet

wdown of ten thousand troops by the end of the year - but the savings from that move will be a drop in the bucket. The Center for a New American Security estimates if Obama was to bring home 15,000 troops, the taxpayers would only see $7 billion returned this year. That's $7 out of $118 billion. And that's just the wars in Afghanistan. Including Iraq, total spending over the last decade is nearly $1.5 trillion - or almost the entire deficit for a year. No one is going to begrudge our men and women in uniform the money they need to succeed in their mission and to keep them safe. But these dollars aren't just for our military. Much of it goes to the Afghan government and Afghan forces. And that has people at home fired up! Back in 2005 the U.S. spent only a little over a billion dollars on Afghan security forces, and this year we're heading to $12 billion. That money isn't producing results economically either - the GDP of Afghanistan was only $27 billion in 2010. That's less than a quarter of what we spent on the country this year. That has pushed the mayors of this country's biggest cities into a foreign policy fight for the first time since the war in Vietnam. The U.S. Conference of Mayors this week says the money spent overseas might have stopped them from having to lay off 28,000 Americans last month alone. Plus even if every troop comes home - the costs aren't going to stop there. An International Relations Professor at Boston University says, "The total cost of the war... should not be measured solely by the costs of financing the troops... it should also include long-term costs of the war, primarily veterans' benefits for the returning soldiers, who will require medical and mental health services for many years to come." ernment. It also said the law mirrors federal restrictions on abortion funding in most cases. "HEA 1210 . . . is not targeted at managed care organizations, nor is it directed at family planning choice. It is targeted at preventing indirect subsidy of abortions, which Congress expressly excludes as a form of 'family planning' payable by Medicaid," the state's brief said. While the federal government had said patients' choice could only be limited for reasons related to billing or the availability of care, the state cited cases in which the U.S. Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services had approved restrictions for other reasons. One of them was an Indiana case in which CMS allowed the state to refuse to qualify additional beds in nursing facilities for Medicaid in certain circumstances. "It is hard to understand why Indiana can restrict recipient choice for the sake of limiting nursing home capacity but not for the sake of preventing indirect Medicaid subsidy of such non-Medicaid services as abortion," the state said. But Ken Falk, an American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana attorney who is representing Planned Parenthood, said allowing states to regulate choice would "turn Medicaid on its head." "You could have free choice only in the providers the state said you could choose. Which does not sound like free choice," he said. If the state wanted to limit Medicaid patients to a single provider, it could do so under its argument, he said. Planned Parenthood of Indiana has been without Medicaid funding since the law took effect May 10. The group stopped seeing Medicaid patients this week after private donations that had paid those patients' bills ran out. The Indiana attorney general's office said the state submitted a request Thursday for a rehearing by