Gale Ball-Brown: Health care for all

Advertisement

I am the owner of a small business of 33 years in Colorado. Until this last year, health care was an option I offered to all our employees. With our 2009 renewal with PacifiCare, our business health care costs increased by 40 percent. The excessive increase in costs was prohibitive to ourselves and our employees.

Naively, I was forced to cancel our business plan to pursue individual policies.

In 2000, I was diagnosed with breast cancer. Following surgery and chemotherapy, I now have been cancer-free for nine years. I did not think this would affect my ability to find an individual policy. Oh boy, was I ever wrong. I was turned down by all the companies I applied to because of my pre-existing condition.

How long does a person have to be healthy in order to qualify for health insurance once again? Fortunately, I was older than 50, so I was able to join AARP and its Aetna plan. My question is, what if I had been younger?

I want to thank Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall for supporting health care for all. Is it not in the interest of our country to have healthier, more productive citizens and work force?

Gale Ball-Brown

Steamboat Springs

Comments

sledneck 4 years, 8 months ago

Sure, a healthier,more productive population is good for America.

Golfing on Wednesday, skiing all winter, free beer, a 100/ hr job, a new car, free groceries, free gas and sunshine are great too. However, not one damn bit of it, including health care, is within the domain of government.

No matter how much someone may need or merit something. No matter how much they earn or don't earn. Despite what your emotions tell you; regardless of how comfortable you are using the government as a tool of plunder; no American has a right to put a gun to the head of another and demand any of theese things.

0

trump_suit 4 years, 8 months ago

The only Guns I wee in this debate are in the hands of the militia and Tea Party members. Sorry sled, you are wrong.

0

kathy foos 4 years, 8 months ago

By not giving her insurance they are putting a gun to her head first.I dont like the health care bill, they could have made the insurance companys cover these people without telling,the rest of the country they must purchase insurance (unconstitutional)Two separate issues lumped together and that is why it will be defeated someday.

0

seeuski 4 years, 8 months ago

I wonder if there isn't more to the stories of denial we keep getting from people like Gale and Trump-suit. The HIPAA laws protect against what is being claimed over and over. There is a 12 month waiting period if one was without insurance for over 63 consecutive days. If the issue is just costs, what were the premiums before and what did they elevate to? What will you get from the Government/taxpayers in place of the soon to be dead private sector? Will you be writing a letter to the Pilot in 4 years when the reality slaps us upside the head. We are looking at rationing whether we want to admit it or not. It is in the bill. The bill has already been passed so it becomes obvious the motives of these letter dripping campaigns we are receiving through the Pilot. The November elections, and we are well aware of this Democrat strategy, it has been the norm with the Obama Administration. Just look at the SEC action that was publicized the same day a Scathing report on the failures of the SEC in it's job to protect the investors and how such an SEC action against Goldman Sachs is being used to influence public opinion towards the White House's designs on the Financial sector. So Gale, hold your letters until October when some sheeple may be influenced but as far as your health I am sincerely glad you came through your ordeal with flying colors. Stay healthy. Politics and personal health should never be intermingled. That is the Alinsky way.

0

seeuski 4 years, 8 months ago

Also, Those of us who contended that the Healthcare battle was about political power through the entitlement process and keeping that power into the foreseeable future are being vindicated by these letter dripping campaigns.

0

trump_suit 4 years, 8 months ago

The Bill does not "require" you to purchased health insurance.. What is does is impose an extra "tax" on you if you fail to do so.

Pay your FICA, Medicare, or Self-Employment tax lately? Good luck with that unconstitutional argument.

I know you have all worked yourselves up with scary stories about the evil things in this bill but when you get right down to it, this is no where near the socialist reform that you contend it is, and is mostly center-left. This bill is mostly about regulating how private industry operates in the health insurance industry and does not represent a "takeover" of healthcare.

0

seeuski 4 years, 8 months ago

"The Bill does not "require" you to purchased health insurance.. What is does is impose an extra "tax" on you if you fail to do so."

Wrong! It imposes penalties that will be collected by the IRS but you still must comply with the purchase requirements or you continue to get penalized and run the risk of the IRS flexing it's powerful muscles. Liens on property, destroying ones credit ratings etc. are at the disposal of the IRS. I can even envision some eminent domain tactics on business owners that fail to comply, you know, the benefit of the public taking of property. trump, you seem to have more info than Obama does. Very impressive, your definitive statements are not so convincing or soothing though. You obviously won't acknowledge what the bill does say so what is the point in this back and forth? I have spoken with some small business owners and as a former small business owner myself I would strongly state that this bill is going to make it impossible for many to remain in business. The payroll taxes and the double social security tax, liability insurance, unemployment insurance etc. etc. is bad enough but now this bill requires owners to cover employees with Government acceptable health insurance. We don't yet know what will be acceptable as Obama said "first pass it and then we will find out whats in it". Good luck squeezing blood from a rock. Again, there is no debate anymore, you guys got what you wanted. It's on your side now. If in 4 years down the road we see great things from this legislation I swear I will fall on my sword on this site. So I stand by my earlier accusation that these letters are a coordinated dripping campaign aimed at the November elections.

0

Steve Lewis 4 years, 8 months ago

If there is no room for hearing a fellow human's experience, such that you need to bar its relevance beforehand... and if all becomes politically either black or white, all is sorted as either an evil part of the conspiracy or an innocent part of the right minded...

... then you have to consider you just might need some help.

0

Cooke 4 years, 8 months ago

"I have spoken with some small business owners and as a former small business owner myself I would strongly state that this bill is going to make it impossible for many to remain in business."

See -- it is my limited understanding of the bill that only businesses of a certain # of employees will be required to provide insurance. Is your understanding different?

0

seeuski 4 years, 8 months ago

My understanding is that your statement applies but there is nothing written in the bill as to how smaller businesses are treated. There are paragraphs regarding personal responsibility and there are paragraphs regarding the Government protection of employees who make complaints to the Government against their employers as to whether the employer is providing adequate health coverage. Good luck in deciphering what the bill actually says though because it is so large and the rules, as written throughout, effect one another. Basically it means the Government can do what it wants down the road and that is why I believe Obama made the statement " we will have to pass it fist to know what it does". The bill also somewhat describes individuals below the poverty level and others who don't make enough to pay their premiums and that they will have some kind of minimum coverage or a bronze plan. Don't know what the bronze plan gets you. It also does say that certain, as decided by the Secretary whom is appointed by the POTUS and who administers the rules, religious members of sects can be excluded and it also mentions that illegals and non US residents won't have to comply with the laws that this bill puts all of us under but implies they will receive coverage. The bill also has a paragraph that boasts of how it mirrors the Massachusetts plan, we know how well that has worked out. I recommend you go online and read the thing. If you do good luck and see you back here in a few days at best. lewi, This is not the first tear jerking thank you Congressman and Senator letter to be printed since the passage of the bill and we shall see if it is the last. One thing is for sure, Gale won't receive any benefits from the bill for at least 4 years or longer down the road. That is in the bill for sure, I read it there. So thanks for what Mr. Senator? We won't know for many years. Also, No tort reform in this health bill is like this new Wall Street reform/takeover bill without any restrictions on Fannie/Freddie. Here we go again.

0

sledneck 4 years, 8 months ago

Trump, Perhaps you dont see the gun to our head for the same reason a bank-robber cant find a cop.

There is a gun to the head of all Americans. Government IS FORCE! Don't pay the tax they say you owe and what happens? Eventually someone with guns will come to your house. Dis-regard any one of the utterly stupid rules government makes for you and eventually an armed government official will visit you. Government IS FORCE! I know you understand this; admitting it is the first step in being cured, Trump.

The guns in the hands of the militia are in their proper, constitutional place. ..."a well regulated (that meant well stocked in those days) militia being NECESSARY to the security of a FREE state, the right of the PEOPLE (not jack-booted government thugs) to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed." It just doesn't get much simpler than that friend.

0

trump_suit 4 years, 8 months ago

I for one would rather live in country with laws and taxes than in a lawless taxless land like Somalia or the old west .

You claim to be a Patriot but are speaking of active revolt against your duly elected representatives. Sorry Sled but those are crackpot words. You have insinuated and called for such action before and I say that you are part of the problem not the solution.

Yes, I have my guns and no one will be taking them. I will protect myself and my family if necessary but I would sure rather have the Sheriff's Department to take that action for me if God forbid that kind of action shoudl be necessary in my life.

Your words are a call to revolution against the Goverment that we all elected and that is simply wrong regardless of how you want to spin it. Put your guns away for an evening and attend a local event to help your community and you might end up accomplishing something positive.

0

seeuski 4 years, 8 months ago

The truth that we will all be facing with this health care law down the road a piece.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_law_costs

"But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.

It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats."

That's what we have been saying to the euphoric crowd like this letter writer all along. Dang, I must be one of the fear mongers.

0

seeuski 4 years, 8 months ago

And to those of you who feel so comfy with what the Obama Administration promises them and does to them/us here is a little tidbit about what our stimulus money is being used for. This is what makes the Government takeover of private industry so dangerous, the use of our money for political gain. "Grassley Slams GM, Administration Over Loans Repaid With Bailout Money" "The TARP loans were not repaid from money GM is earning selling cars, as GM and the administration have claimed in their speeches, press releases and television commercials," he wrote." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/22/grassley-slams-gm-administration-loans-repaid-bailout-money/ This is a ponsi scheme being perpetrated on the American taxpayer by this White House and a peek at what is to come as the same type of scam will be attempted with the health car deficits. This stinks to high heaven people and if it were Bush at the helm...... well fill in the blank.

0

seeuski 4 years, 8 months ago

LOL housepoor, we own GM because they were too big to fail as Obama scared us to believe, remember? So it is our money our dear leader is manipulating here. But enjoy the commercials that we're now paying for with the GM CEO claiming great things, soooo bogus. And FYI, It is one thing for the Government to loan money to a Corporation like GM or Chrysler when they present a plan for repayment based on sound economic principles, Chrysler did so under Lee Iacocca in the 80's, but totally something else for the takeover that has occurred under Obama. And we now see what the intention was. Can you say unions and power?

0

housepoor 4 years, 8 months ago

When Bush gave the money to GM there was there was no commitment to restructuring, to making them a viable enterprises of any kind. The Bush administration simply handed them money and shoved the problem onto the next guy. Much like alot of lame duck Pres. do. I still can't figure out why the tea paty was silent when a white conservative did it???? Same deal with the 06 Bush Drug Plan.........no outrage I know the Tea Party is not racist but..........

0

blue_spruce 4 years, 8 months ago

"...Sled...you are part of the problem not the solution..."

AMEN

0

seeuski 4 years, 8 months ago

housepoor, Again, have to respond to your lack of knowledge. The conservatives were all over Bush for being suckered by the Dems in Congress like Kennedy who he reached out to and did these Liberal bills with. The problem with any President bailing out the US automakers is the mafia style theft of that money by the Unions. As of this moment the pension funds of the Unions are depleted from the unlawful use of funds for influence and power, even after Obama stole GM and Chrysler and gave some $54 billion of our cash. Where is it? And as far as the new Tea Party movement, it was not in existence until Obama added steroids to the abuse and inflation of BIG GOVERNMENT. For your info, the Tea Party is comprised of all voting blocs, not just Republicans.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 8 months ago

So show one non-Republican candidate the Tea Party is endorsing over other spendthrift Republicans. Just one. (At least I know Karzai's name shouldn't come up this time as a surprise to me! LOL!)

0

seeuski 4 years, 8 months ago

Thanks Jeff. Got it Matt? And there was the Candidate in NY that was an Independent who was supported over the Republican.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 8 months ago

Rubio over Crist in FLA, Toomey over Specter in PA, off the top of my head. I think Specter is a Dem these days, but conservatives (who, along with Libertarians, are the core tea partiers) were furious with W for endorsing then-Republican Specter over Toomey in 2004.

Next question?

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 8 months ago

Seeuski- As always, did you read the article passed along? Of course you didn't. That's a given, when it comes to you. So within the last 7 days, the Tea Party Express and not the local Idaho chapter of TP'ers endorsed Minnick. The local group was quoted as being "baffled" by the Express's endorsement & wasn't told ahead of time. (And yes- thank you Jeff. I go on vaca next week so watching the news this week has been of little importance to me. So you did what I challenged and showed me...just one. Thank you!) Maybe if you did actually read it & researched Minnick, you'd see he votes 70% of the time with Dems on most issues that TP'ers would scream about. Interesting, since Palin (often associated with TP'ers) endorsed Minnick's opponent & she was endorsing McCain at his AZ rally just a few weeks ago. Funny, since the TP'ers on TaxDayTeaParty.com have thrown support behind Hayworth and even funnier, they are targeting Minnick in their "50 Seats, No Incumbents" area. So, is Minnick endorsed or not?

So that begs the questions: 1) Is Sarah Palin not as close to Tea Party-minded people as everyone seems to think? (Remember your own disdain for McCain in many of your posts? Your babe, Sarah, seems to think he's the bee's knees, evidently. She just isn't very good at showing it, even at his rally.) If she could vote in AZ, she'd pull a Hermacinski- endorse McCain & vote Hayworth. 2) Or is the Tea Party not reading their own mantra for fiscal responsibilities by endorsing Minnick on the basis of about 4-5 of his most recent votes? 3) Or is the Tea Party just so all over the place with what they believe, that they won't be able to truly affect any national race because not everyone agrees on the same principles and endorses different candidates from one TP segment to the next? It's already sounding like the Reform Party of old, as I noted on the other thread. Imagine that.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 8 months ago

And seeuski- They endorsed a Libertarian over the Republican. Not quite the same thing as an Independent, since most Libs vote Republican and not their own party out that whole "who's electable" thing.

0

seeuski 4 years, 8 months ago

What a waste of a rant Matt. Since you don't hold the Tea Party principles not much that you say matters. We are what we are, Americans who want to stop this Big Government power grab and a return to limited Government as the Constitution prescribes.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 8 months ago

Health and Human Services Department sez: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_law_costs;_ylt=Av3ZBzS5NQb8WEBazpB2ENes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNvaDA5c2s2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDIzL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX2xhd19jb3N0cwRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzIEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3JlcG9ydGhlYWx0aA-- The Numbers Were A Lie

From Medicare's Office of the Actuary (via AP):

"Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned."

You mean to tell me the "pass the bill to find out what's in it" plan may not have been the the smartest strategery? I'm shocked. Shocked!

"The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors."

There's clearly only one explanation: HHS is racist.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 8 months ago

LMAO! (Sounds like someone didn't wake up this morning cuz you talk like you're still dreamin'!) Everything you just said-- well, so does the Constitution Party. Where are their endorsements from TP'ers? You're just bummed because it's so hard to now pull the wool back over your eyes so as not to have your little world, wherever it may be in this or any other universe, turned around. Do the research yourself. Tea Party A doesn't counter-endorses Tea Party B. Seems like I know a bit more about the TP'ers than you do...because I actually read. Go ahead and take the week to think up a rebuttal that actually addresses the points I brought up. Of course, we all know that you'll instead just pull something else out of left field so people might forget you can't address any issue. (Hey Rocky! Watch me pull a Tea Bag outta my hat!)

0

seeuski 4 years, 8 months ago

You are commenting on things from stuff that you are reading, I am telling you that as someone who is involved in the movement you are pi$$ing up a rope. Your unhinged rants against me, as usual, don't mean jack. If the Tea Party is so meaningless then why is everyone from your buddy Bill Clinton to your hero Keith Olberman constantly spending valuable air time telling everyone that we are of no consequence and warning that WE are the ones who are of violence? None to date from our side. We shall see this November if the Progressives like yourself are going to hold onto that dream of big pappa taking care of everything or do the American people reject what we now know is the Obama agenda. And you have brought up no issue to address as usual, you have decided to make a stammering account of the Tea Party movement as you wish it to be. There is no rebuttal to a pile of whooey. Do you ever have anything bright to say or any opinion that is of value? No. You choose to try and create controversy by puking out your reasons why others don't measure up to your ideals. I don't even know, after all these months of blogging, what you stand for as all you do is find fault in others. What do you stand for? And leave the Bush bashing out of this, kinda know what to expect from you.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 8 months ago

Yep. Just as I thought. The wool is back on! Unfortunately, you don't read. Good for you! So, the TP is a bunch of people just like yourself? Yep! I feel a whole lot better about the Tea Party now knowing they are all like you. I think you just helped re-elect Obama. I'll be voting 3rd party again.

(And where did Olberman come into play? What the heck were you reading...or not?)

But let's look at the facts:

1) Did Sarah Palin endorse McCain at his rally just a few weeks ago? 2) Isn't Palin the star of all TP'ers? 3) Isn't TDTP endorsing Minnick and the TPX is endorsing his opponent? 4) Isn't McCain in the "crosshairs" of the TPX? 5) Did Seeuski even name of the "independent" in NY that was supported? (Warren Redlich maybe, who is a Libertarian in registered Republican clothing? For the life of me, I can't find a NY Independent that the TP has endorsed. Enlighten us, please.)

The first 4 answers are yes & #5 is no- just a colloquial some guy as "the Candidate in New York". It's not disputable because it's on those TP websites. Or don't the TP'ers agree with their own websites? See? You don't even know what your darlings are espousing. I'm sure you're not alone in that.

Tea Party = Reform Party, plain and simple. I hear spilled milk goes great with sour grapes. Breakfast of Champions, if I'm to believe it.

0

seeuski 4 years, 8 months ago

You should go back into hibernation matthew for your own well being but the only question I wish to answer for you from above is the NY 23rd special election. The rest is just gobbledy goop gotcha bologna. And I do like making you work a little for answers. Since you think you are the maven.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 8 months ago

"Gotcha bologna" = "It's the truth, but you won't hear me admit it." And no, you like making other people do the work for you. Kinda like your political decisions.

0

sledneck 4 years, 8 months ago

Spruce, If opposing tyranny is a problem I'm happy to be part of the "problem".

0

ybul 4 years, 7 months ago

1) Did Sarah Palin endorse McCain at his rally just a few weeks ago?

Palin was probably put in a position to derail the movement.

2) Isn't Palin the star of all TP'ers?

A plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html)

3) Isn't TDTP endorsing Minnick and the TPX is endorsing his opponent?

Creating division is a great way to defeat an enemy. Which the tea party is to the establishment.

4) Isn't McCain in the "crosshairs" of the TPX?

Should be, yet Palin really does not represent the views of most people who would associate with the attempt to bring back sanity to our government.

5) Did Seeuski even name of the "independent" in NY that was supported?

Ron Paul has espoused many views that many, including democrats (really in DC it is the Demopublican party), latched on to prior to the 2008 election beginning in 2007. He stated that it would be better to try and retake the limited government philosophies from within the Republican party. So while there may be few endorsements outside the party that is because many of those who are striving for the change that is espoused by the core of the tea party movement have decided that change should come from within the repub party.

sorry to have answered for you SeeuSki. However, I think that there is more alignment in what those who wish to see a return to limited government and the Obamites would believe. Finding the common ground is what is needed. Those in power have relied on wedge issues to move this country towards their goals than to a better society and that needs realized prior to fixing what ails the country.

The Bill passed does little to bring down health care costs. A 2500 page bill that adds in college loans is what is wrong in DC. Less tends to be more in my books. Why not figure out what are causing our health care woes and working to fix them? The passed legislation did nothing to do that.

0

seeuski 4 years, 7 months ago

ybul, I find no need to answer the list of questions posed by matthew as we need not explain outside issues when it is all about 5 core issues. To those that would diminish the energy of the Tea Party movement such tactics are used as a weapon and are really unimportant. What is important is the awakening of Americans to what the Federal Government is becoming under the progressives who are currently in power and the actions that will stop this "fundamental transformation" towards Socialism. Voting it down in November. Who Sarah Palin wants to endorse or whether or not she represents the whole movement is a ploy to be used by those that have nowhere else to turn in their campaigns to throw a monkey wrench in things. So thanks for responding in my stead but it is an intended sidebar to the real issues.
1.Limited Government 2.Lower spending/Constitutional spending which would result in reasonable taxes 3.Free market principles 4.Strong national defense 5.Individual rights and responsibilities

Vote out the Progressives in November.

0

ybul 4 years, 7 months ago

See, it is going to take all of us to return this country to what it was founded upon. Finding common ground will get us back there.

0

seeuski 4 years, 7 months ago

y, The common ground that has brought the Tea Party members together is listed above. Opinions about outside issues are personal and will always be there, whether it's about Sarah Palin, Ron Paul or someone else who best espouses ones beliefs and ideals that is for each to decide. The core issues are what matters most. The test should be, does a candidate or leader uphold the core issues, or do they stand for something else? Our current POTUS has expressed himself and acted on his ideals in his "fundamental transformation" and they don't fit into any category I have ever believed in, not even when I was a loyal Democrat.

0

NamVet 4 years, 7 months ago

I fundamentally agree with what the Tea Party stands for however when they are asked how to achieve their goals of bringing government spending down and balancing the budget they are a joke. The only honest way to accomplish this is by increasing revenues and cut spending. Almost 75% of all government spending is in mainly 3 areas which are defense , medicare/medicaid and social security. Then add in the interest on the national debt and you are at almost 80%. Cutting Earmarks and Congressional salaries which the Tea Party wants just won't do it. Putting Republicans back in control will do absolutely nothing to solve this country's problems. I know according to Seeuski the Bush regime did not exist but ask the 35000 plus dead and disabled of his Iraq disaster and they may have a different opinion. And don't forget the 6 trillion of deficit spending his regime threw away that our children and grand children now have to pay for. Where was the Tea Party when our country was sold out to Wall St. and the Defense Contractors? Why did they only materialize after the last election? Former Congressman Dick Armey(R-Tex) who is one of the Tea Party leaders was one of the biggest spenders Congress ever had. As for Palin another leader all she does is give the same hoopey doopey speech and laughs all the way to the the bank. There is only one way to balance the budget and that will cause a whole bunch of pain for everyone and neither the Republicans or Democrats have the guts to do it nor does the Tea Party. When I see the Tea Party people holding signs that say Balance the Budget, CUT DEFENSE SPENDING,. CUT SOCIAL SECURITY, CUT MEDICARE then they will be for real. Don't hold your breath. It is not going to happen because most of them are on Medicare and Social Security and they are not willing to give up anything.

0

ybul 4 years, 7 months ago

I really think that the idea of the tea party has been hijacked by the neocons.

I do not disagree that putting Rs back in control will do a darn thing to solve our problems. What we need to do is to put the people back in control. In control of their lives and decision making process.

On spending many of those who first associated with the beliefs within the tea party would like to see a reduction in our military presence worldwide. Not the Palin Train, which the above NY times article articulates that most of us think she is a joke.

Medicare, you need to put people in charge of their health and have rewards for people staying healthy. Potentially taxing those things which harm our health (diesel emissions, mercury, many endocrine disruptors which are in the environment causing untold harm) to help fund health care. This flies in my eyes as it works towards protecting our private property rights to clean air water etc..

The Health care/insurance industry today is a total mess and leaves no one watching the hen house as the patient is largely removed from any knowledge of costs or concerns about them.

social security -that is a mess and a major ponzi scheme, which helps to remove the personal responsibility from the individual and cedes it somewhat to the government.

What we need from government is to stop trying to socially engineer the world. Stop guaranteeing home loans so that banks reap profits and face no downside risk (to have everyone own a home). Think about programs which might be beneficial and ponder wether you are actually causing more harm through them than you are solving. Grain subsidies have helped to encourage soil erosion, dead zones in major water bodies, use massive amounts of energy and cause health problems. Unemployment insurance which taxes employers of US based employees to fund it and yet gives a free pass to those products mfgd with technology or out of the country. Both of which help to reduce the domestic labor force.

There are so many other things that we can speak about that as an individual who wants responsible government and the D's offer less hope of getting there than the alternative.

There is much common ground out there. Most want a clean environment, the question is how to get there. The current EPA system allows companies to pollute to the maximum of the law without penalty all the while taking from others, health or something else.

0

ybul 4 years, 7 months ago

Most think our health care system is jacked up and needs help as costs are out of control. What can be done to control costs, the passed legislation does nothing.

Most would think a 10+ million dollar income is excessive. What has made these income levels possible? Stocks, Debt, Energy (as it allows entertainers to be in multiple places at the same time), etc.. We subsidize the purchase of stocks through IRAs, pension guarantees (etc), which gives corporations an unfair advantage over the mom and pop store via cheap capital and debt (bonds) which pensions can hold but individuals can not sell. Government is part of the problem here and the failure to realize that will push us further into the abyss and away from a country which has produced some of the most amazing results in world history. We can not afford to not come together to work together to fix the problems we face together! Leave the wedge issues out as they help to divide us and move us from what we all want.

0

seeuski 4 years, 7 months ago

It is always amazing to me that people who have no involvement with the Tea Party movement will define what we are about for us. Thanks but we are more informed than you believe and are paying close attention to what is going down under the Obama regime and the Socialist takeover of OUR tax money through the continuing absorption by Obama of our private industry. But go ahead and continue to look back and blame Bush, what a great strategy namvet and why not, it got Obama elected once. And if you need reassurance Saddam Hussein is still dead and no more of his money is going towards paying for worldwide terrorist attacks. I will post this remembrance every time the revisionists pop their heads out of the mole hole. http://www.husseinandterror.com/

0

seeuski 4 years, 7 months ago

ybul, While I respect what you are saying about wedge issues and coming together, I think people need to open their minds as to what is about to happen to the USA if this Administration keeps their momentum. There is some very startling information coming to light with regards to the Cap and Tax bill and who is involved. We Americans are at odds with each other because the players are using peoples emotions to drive the popularity of the legislation. People do care about the environment and it is important to all of us but so is eating and living.The facts that are coming to light is that people are going to get rich from the carbon credits that will be traded on the Chicago Climate Exchange which Obama has been a board member of for about ten years. The CEO of that board is on video saying that it will generate 10 trillion dollars a year in revenue. Goldman Sachs has an ownership stake in that exchange along with one major owner, Al Gore, and Fannie Mae purchased the software programs required for the trading of the issues. This continuation of spreading the wealth is going to end the American dream for ever. I hope we can find common ground and that many more Americans will decide to leave the politics aside and seek the truth for themselves. Thank God for Glenn Beck and the folks who are quietly bringing the truth to light.

0

ybul 4 years, 7 months ago

Yep, taxing that carbon. Seems to me that if one actually looked inside the issue of excess carbon in the atmosphere, they might come to the conclusion that current agricultural practices are largely responsible for the excess carbon in the atmosphere. This as any time you till a field you expose the soil carbon to oxygen, leading to its subsequent oxidization and release back into the air.

The quickest and easiest way to reduce carbon in the atmosphere is to put it back in our soil via no till farming and more importantly doing away with grain subsidies (government intervention again) which typically use standard row cropping which are depleting our soils and providing us with nutritionally depleted foods. Our topsoil has lost well over 50% of its organic matter in the last 100 years. This organic matter was carbon that was not in the atmosphere, some suggest that a paltry increase of 1% organic matter in our soil would eliminate all excess carbon in the atmosphere.

Fact is there is an awful lot of carbon in the atmosphere. This is a component in oil, organic matter, etc.. Maybe as opposed to ranting about this is going to kill the economy, cap and trade (it will actually benefit me as I sequester over 4000 tons of carbon a year (I think in the long term it will hit 8,000) that would not otherwise be sequestered without human intervention). Do I agree with what is being proposed, no, but I have an alternative to an issue that is real, wether or not it is warming the environment (eliminating subsidies for grain production, which have other other unintended consequences - an unconstitutional use of the federal government).

Maybe as opposed to throwing up our arms and saying this is going to destroy the country we try to find common ground. Taxing mercury emissions from power plants is another matter as I believe that should be done to fund health care as that has a very real negative impact on us and the environment as does the acid rain that come from emissions. The world is not black and white and while the global warming issue is debatable, there are ways to find common ground with all parties as down deep almost all humans have the same desires.

While I am not for taxing much and moving that income to someone else, there is a place in protecting the private property rights of others. That is where the tea party should stand as opposed to some of the other wing nuts that are trying to ride on the coat tails of a sound movement which crosses party lines.

0

trump_suit 4 years, 7 months ago

Finally, something we can agree on See. Thank goodness for Glenn Beck. His show is keeping all the wackos lined up on one side of the room so we can keep track of them. Thanks Glenn.

0

seeuski 4 years, 7 months ago

It would be considered "from wackos" to you and those with their heads in the sand that turn a blind eye to whatever Obama does. Information that you should take time to investigate and if need be dispute with evidence just gets tossed aside, great, we will see how that works out down the road. Otherwise sit back and let those that care about the truth and our future do the heavy lifting and continue to keep our powerful leaders feet to the fire. More to come......

And I may have misunderstood who you are referring to as wackos, If it is Obama and all his co/conspirators then I take back my above response but I doubt it. Also, Glenn Beck backs up all of his data with proof, like the Joyce foundation and the Tides foundation and isn't it quite interesting that the CEO of Goldman Sachs has been quoted today as endorsing the Financial Reform bill, I guess the behind closed door meetings with Obama has worked out the details of the beneficiaries of the future trading of Carbon credits, don't forget, Goldman owns 10% of the UK trading group that Al Gore also owns. Ooh this stinks. Wish Bush had done it then we would all be on the same page in opposition today.

0

seeuski 4 years, 7 months ago

ybul, While we seem to have a lot in common when it comes to pollution and responsible business practices by our manufacturers I think we may be at odds over the human toll on AGW. The scientific data that I have come to trust indicates that the amount of CO2 as a total % of the overall emitted by humans is about 3% and even if we went back to the middle ages with zero fossil fuel emissions the effect on global temps would not even be 1 degree. Secondly, all the true data indicates, as was admitted to by scientists, that there is no warming. “There has been no [surface-measured] warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995,” observes MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen. “According to satellite data, global warming stopped about 10 years ago and there’s no way to know whether it’s happening now,” says Roy Spencer, former NASA senior scientist for climate studies." http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/02/14/scientist-at-center-of-email-scandal-admits-no-recent-warming/

So why would we want our power bills doubled and the cost of gas at the pumps doubled for something that does NOTHING for this imaginary hoax? Everything we buy including food will cost a lot more, the UN will disburse our tax money as they see fit. Are we nuts? Lets do more to keep pollution in check but lets expose this AGW and the Cap and Tax scam for what it is, a global spread the wealth ripoff of our hard earned money and the downfall of society as we know it.

0

ybul 4 years, 7 months ago

I think that you missed the point. I think that I suggested there is reputable science and data that show that increasing the organic matter within our soil would achieve the goal of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. It is the only way of bringing it down quickly.

Another point being made was that grain subsidies have helped to increase the levels of CO2 which are not retained within out topsoil. By eliminating grain subsidies we can move in a direction that appeases those seeking its reduction (wether or not it has any effect on climate, I am not debating that fact, simply pointing out that one can work towards that and LESS government by seeking the reduction of atmospheric carbon). This also moves us away from government intervention in our markets, though as entrenched as the SUDA is there would probably be no staff reductions, which would be a shame as we do not need the USDA acting in all of the roles it does (mapping all land under tillage, what crops and how much).

Whatever, I was trying to point out that if you opened your mind to the possibility that you could help to achieve their goal a reduction in CO2, without a cap and trade system. Simply by undoing government intervention into the marketplace. I guess you would prefer to live the Faux News Rants (and yes it is faux news as their reporters have been fired for not representing their version of the news, well documented).

0

seeuski 4 years, 7 months ago

ybul, You assume that the Obama Administration wants to lower co2 emmissions, I see evidence otherwise. They want to hold sway over a larger part of our wealth through enrgy taxation and then send that wealth where they see fit. But it was going so well until you chose your departing shot. Oh well, I guess you spend your nights with the MSNBC half wits. And it would do well for your favorite news program to fire em all, bunch of sell outs to the Obama crew. Enjoy. Bye Bye.

0

ybul 4 years, 7 months ago

I am not talking about the Obama administration. I am talking about we the people, we the people need to come together and tackle issues in a unified way. There are things that can be done in a unified fashion that will not and potentially could reduce taxes to reduce greenhouse gasses.

I am not enamored with the current admin and thing it is just more of the demopublican corporatist rule.

Nor do I watch MSNBC, can't stand the bias and 15 second sound bite that does not actually cover the news. I prefer to read the news and find out both sides of the argument.

0

trump_suit 4 years, 7 months ago

ybul makes good sense here, and is offering well thought out research into a issue related to current events and debate.

See, why do you constantly attack the messenger? Ybul is making some excellent points and observations about the cause/effect of CO2 emissions and potential ways to address or alleviate the problem and you attack MSNBC and Obama while including ybul in the mix.

Stand down your attack dogs, put away your partisan rhetoric and learn to listen. I see much common ground here and have read with interest what ybul has to say on this issue. As a city boy, I was personally unaware of what ybul is discussing here and have had much interest in the points that are being made. Looking at the ybul's posts above, it is hard to see where your attack is coming from.

MSNBC really does suck. You all got that right but the Tea party needs to start listening and building consensus if you ever want to succeed. Always attacking is not going to accomplish that!

0

seeuski 4 years, 7 months ago

Come on trump, Why did ybul feel the need to insinuate that I am a "faux news" ranter? I back up my arguments with reports about the data. There are also reports that the co2 generated from farming dissipates from warm temperatures but I would have to spend time finding the report I read on that one. It suggested that while the co2 levels increase as ybul indicated they then sharply decrease soon after. All of ybuls ideas are great in a fair universe but my point is that the powers to be are after something else and we can come together here but we are missing the point as to what the true intentions are behind the Cap and Trade legislation. Believe me, while I trust FOX news over the others I spend a fair amount of time moving around the web for info also. So in conclusion I responded to the crass comment from ybul. Sorry for the confusion trump. I think in the end we want the same things but my filter is sensing deviousness, why wouldn't it when the Congress is quietly trying to add Peurto Rico as the 51st state today, we had health care forced on us, immigration/amnesty and DC statehood are all on the radar screen. Oh, and voting rights for convicts. Power baby.

0

NamVet 4 years, 7 months ago

Lets be honest Seeuski you get all your news from the Fair and Balanced Republican Opinion Network at FOX. That is why you quote them so often. This is why Palin, Rove etc. all work for them. If a reporter does not put forth the Republican talking points they are fired. FOX believes if you tell a lie often enough people believe it as truth like Sadam was part of 9/11 which you believe. I would not believe nor do I watch MSNBC or CNN either. The problem with the Republican party which I had been a part of till W screwed everything up is just like Goldman Sacks, they refuse to take responsibility for all they did wrong and the mess they left the country in. They bailed out the S & L's in the 1980's and it was Bush and Paulson(ex CEO of Goldman Sacks) who bailed out the banks not Obama in 2008. According to FOX it was Obama who is at fault for all the bailouts. Until we throw out all the present politicians both Republican and Democrats nothing will change. All your Tea Party wants to do is put back in office the same idiot Republicans that caused the whole mess. That is just a recipe for more disasters in the future. .

0

seeuski 4 years, 7 months ago

You know namvet I would have been completely in agreement with you at one point in time but I am not mentally disabling my mind for one party or another or particular candidates these days. You and the others that share your views in this back and forth discourse with me constantly use the same ole Fox News attacks etc. to answer my positions. From your side the Republicans are all to fault and you continue to claim that I say all Democrats are at fault. WRONG, I am open to blame those that are truly at fault. What got us into this current financial crisis is one thing and we have argued about it long enough that we know where each of us stands but, what is being done as we speak is something completely different and you must decide for yourself if you shall seek the truth because the media WON'T give that to the public or do that leg work for you. One last thing, I did not, I repeat, I did not form my opinions on Saddam Hussein because of any news network. NEVER. I did my own personal research from different investigative resources who proved their research with other source materials. As like any crime the evidence may not be overwhelming for many reasons like, the perp was hiding the truth or, others carried out crimes for someone or in unison with someone. Either way, what I found and what I witnessed over the course of a couple of decades makes more reasonable sense than the "blood for oil" rants you all have brought forth. Where is the oil or the money? How did that little anecdote work out? So I am sorry we won't agree on much these days but it is always interesting seeing what drives others to believe false and misleading information. And please, put up the info on the reporters that were fired, I'm interested.

0

ybul 4 years, 7 months ago

Do not know why see, just was tired of your throwing arguments as to why global warming is not happening and how it is a great conspiracy (might just be, don't deny that). I would stand to actually have an income if the climate bill was passed.

Though my point was trying to find common ground with your fellow countrymen and women. That is what needs to happen, as the status quo is still the divide and concur, is simply pushing us further from the vision for this country. WHich I might add is a great one.

Believe it or not I agree with you on most points, even that global warming is more likely solar induced than CO2 or methane related. That many will use this as an excuse to further extract money from the average joes pocket book. That the current administration seems h bent on pushing their agenda no matter what to finally destroy the great experiment that it was.

That is WHY you need to sit back and try to find common ground with your fellow countrymen. There is common ground out there to be had if you simply look.

0

seeuski 4 years, 7 months ago

ybul, We have common ground, we are being played by some big time players while they scheme and prepare to take us to the cleaners. It doesn't matter whether people agree on the climate, that is not what is motivating people like Joel Rogers, Van Jones, Wade Rathke, Al Gore etc and the ex Goldman Sachs people who will profit hugely off the people. Info is coming to a keypad near you soon.

0

seeuski 4 years, 7 months ago

namvet, The Congress voted on Peurto Rico today, they are going to be the 51st State soon, other than Fox News can you find the story? There goes the left wing media not reporting and controlling the message again, they don't want us to know. I wonder why?

0

ybul 4 years, 7 months ago

The left wing and the right wing of the media are the same. Both sides seek to divide us and push their agenda while we worry about issues that in reality should be non-issues.

They are all motivated by control and their belief that the world needs governed from the top down. Does not matter if it is the left or the right the blow the same smoke and move their agenda forward.

Just as you will not find any story on Puerto Rico in most news locals. You will not find the story about the FDA and their rebuttal to a lawsuit to allow people to choose what they desire to eat. Hope you read the most recent blog about FDA's response to FTCLDF's lawsuit.

http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2010/4/28/food-regulators-as-benign-dictatorsfda-says-it-could-be-toug.html It is breathtakingly arrogant, saying we do not have the right to choose the foods we eat, nor any freedom to bodily or physical health.

0

seeuski 4 years, 7 months ago

ybul, I totally agree but there is a bit of a difference between the fight with the FDA and yesterdays Congressional vote all but guaranteeing that we will soon have a 51st state. 51st STATE and NO news? Are you kidding me?(not directed at you). We are close on the media issue but I see a much friendlier approach by the MSM as they relate and report on Obama in comparison to the way things went under Bush. Can you imagine if Bush had been connected to the Chicago Climate exchange and the Emerald Cities Collaborative along with Franklyn Raines, Al Gore, Van Jones et al through Fannie Mae and the traders at Goldman Sachs awaiting the new Cap and Tax laws that will make them rich and how the daily press meetings would go? The media would kill Bush's spokesman. Any one of many other issues Obama has would cause media examinations of huge proportions if it were Bush, and that is the way it should be. But it isn't and we are in peril for it. As far as raw milk, I am very interested in this story as I am a proponent of unadulterated raw foods and love raw milk. The Big business of pasteurization has a stranglehold through the Government bullies on the little guys and the average Joe on the street. Another good reason for limited Government and common sense leaders who will listen to the people. I spent some time a few years ago researching stories on raw milk and whether there was any truth to the rumors being spread by those same bullies about people being sickened by raw milk. I found that the only reports of sickness were from milk products that were mass produced and pasteurized. I personally like my milk with living enzymes still intact.

0

trump_suit 4 years, 7 months ago

This Peurto Rico thing is definitely not new, and is also not really a Dem/Rep. kind of issue. Did you know?

Citizens of Peurto Rico have been US citizens since 1917 Statehood has been voted on in Puerto Rico 3 different times. Congress and the Senate have both voted on this issue a multitude or times.

Not really trying to argue whether it is right or wrong for Puerto Rico to become a full state, but it is already a quasi state and has been for a long time. This issue raised in this way is just another partisan attack campaign. If you go back in history, you will find that the Conservatives have supported this issue as often as not.

Whatever your opinion on this issue, it is definitely not new.

0

seeuski 4 years, 7 months ago

trump, If you were to understand what the tactics being used are here you might have a different opinion. I know those things you are quoting about the basic history but that is not what this secreted vote was about yesterday. What will be on the ballot and what it will mean to both the Peurto Rican citizens and the US citizens is what matters. Here is some answers for you. And yes, both sides were duped in this vote yesterday, this is a Progressives agenda.

[Hans A. von Spakovsky] "I have to profoundly disagree with Alex Castellanos and agree with Ramesh Ponnuru on the Puerto Rico plebiscite bill. I have been working in elections for two decades, and there is no question in my mind that Rigging an Election in Puerto Rico t H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act scheduled for a vote tomorrow in the House, is rigged to foist an unwanted and unsolicited 51st state on Americans.

Contrary to Castellanos’ claim, there is nothing “vague” about Puerto Rico’s current political status. And he fails to mention that Puerto Ricans have rejected statehood in three prior referenda. Why is another one needed? Yet this bill would force another vote — and if Puerto Ricans reject statehood again, the Puerto Rican government (which is controlled by the rabidly pro-statehood New Progressive Party) would be authorized to conduct additional plebiscites every eight years, forever — in other words, until they finally get the results they want. There would only be two choices in the first new plebiscite: continuation of the status quo or “a different political status.” If the “different political status” choice wins, then a second plebiscite will be held in which the only choices will be statehood, independence, or “Sovereignty in Association with the United States,” whatever that is supposed to mean........cont'd

0

seeuski 4 years, 7 months ago

....."As Ramesh notes, no majority is required to win this second vote, just a plurality. So Puerto Ricans could be forced into statehood (or independence) even if only a minority of voters are in favor of it. And the vote is further rigged by specifying that anyone born in Puerto Rico will be able to vote — even if they are not residents. There are more expatriate Puerto Ricans living in the U.S. than there are in Puerto Rico. According to ProEnglish, the cost of additional federal benefits and entitlements to Puerto Ricans if the island becomes a state would be more than $7 billion a year.

Robert DePosada, a senior adviser to the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, says that if the NPP gets what it wants in the plebiscites, it will then elect senators and congressmen and send them to Washington to “demand” their seats the same way Tennessee did in 1796 (this is in the party’s platform). The party’s leader and former island governor has said that members of Congress will then be forced to support statehood to “avoid being accused of bigotry against Hispanics.” So the plan is to rig an election and then extort approval from Congress of Puerto Rico as the 51st state.

Ordinary citizens have already been hit in the past year with an unconstitutional takeover by the federal government of our health-care system. Americans have watched with growing frustration and anger as the president and his party have exponentially grown the government, the federal budget, and the country’s debt in a completely unsustainable manner with seemingly no concern over the future economic wellbeing of the country. Now those same citizens are faced with a manipulative bill that political observers will recognize as designed to create millions of new votes at a time when certain political actors fear their election prospects are diminishing. This is nothing more than a transparent attempt to rig election rules to favor the outcome they want.04/28 05:40 PM Share"

0

seeuski 4 years, 7 months ago

So trump, being that neither of us are from Peurto Rico I assume, why should we use our personal filters on this issue? The way this vote is being conducted stinks. It's like giving US citizens a required binding vote between Socialism,Communism or Marxism but not the status quo because the first vote already asked if you liked the status quo and you voted no not knowing that then you were agreeing to changing to the following alternatives. If it was one ballot and the wording was understandable to the average Peurto Rican then OK, but that is not what is being presented here. Its a trick.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.