james Patterson

james Patterson 3 weeks ago on Wallie Morris: Support Planned Parenthood

The obvious answer is it would depend on the alternate method and the conditions set for that funding. Because of my history, I do not trust the markets, religious or any other dogma driven source of funding for programs that are designed for the welfare of those in need. I realize this opens a huge can of worms. If, for example, education is profit driven then decisions are often made not in the best interest of the student but in the interest of the bottom line. When the "outside" motives are minimized, then decisions tend to be made in the best interest of those being served. If PP were to be funded by a "for profit", for example, would decisions be made in the best interest of the client or in the interest of profit? So I guess my answer to your No? question would be....probably not. IMHO

0

james Patterson 3 weeks ago on Wallie Morris: Support Planned Parenthood

Using your logic, could we please find another source of funding for war, which violates a lot of tax payers religious or other beliefs? Extraction industry funding? Weapons industry? Tax free religions, drug law enforcement, etc, etc. All of these can be seen as granting one freedom at the cost of another's. If we are going to look at "at the expense of another's freedom" as far as tax funding, that is going to limit tax funding for just about everything........ which I suspect would please some of the folks that post here. Instead, what if we look at the end cost to our society of not making these services readily available to everyone. I personally would prefer we look at most, if not all things, with the end cost in mind. Might lead us to a better functioning society/world.

0

james Patterson 1 month ago on Dennis D. Brust: President deserves a chance

Are you saying that you agree with Hansen in that the Paris agreement is bad because it doesn't go far enough and that the only "solution" is a world wide carbon tax? Just wondering?

0

james Patterson 1 month ago on Paul Wellman: Single-payer system is way to go

Would you be willing to accept the Swiss system? An internet search of the Swiss system: 1-companies can't profit from providing basic coverage, only supplemental plans. 2-all companies are required to offer basic coverage 3-premiums over 8% of personal income are subsidized by the government 4-Max yearly co-pay is roughly $2,000 5-everyone must have coverage.

0

james Patterson 3 months, 3 weeks ago on Steamboat Springs city government highlights and lowlights of 2016

Would you apply the same logic to policemen, fire fighters, teachers, health care workers and other service providers? I suspect not.

0

james Patterson 10 months ago on Ken Collins: A scary scenario

Listen to the callers responding to AM radio, read the comments on AOL. I don't care if they hate-I have no label, and whether they choose to be "civil" or not is their choice. I simple point out they seem to be very angry and have a lot of negativity. Is that a better word. I also never said I disagree with what they said. Some made sense to me, some didn't……..and for all you know I'm referring to Mike and Mike on ESPN radio….. sheessssh

0

james Patterson 10 months ago on Ken Collins: A scary scenario

George- So true. Starting with a conclusion then building a case for it is never a good idea. I was thinking about who/what wolud be impartial and knowledgeable in such a heated topic. My vote for 1 participant would be Colin Powell. A man of intelligence and honor that knows something about the good and the bad various weapons can do.
Brian-I'm not sure what broad brush you are referring to. If I am using it, it sure isn't to the profit Coulter is. If you are referencing my comment about AM talk radio, pls reread. I stated I don't know the relationship between fear/hate and gun ownership. I also did not state what political affiliation, if any, the radio host stated or displayed. I simply said they promote hate and fear seem to be very good at it. Again, pls reread.

0

james Patterson 10 months ago on Ken Collins: A scary scenario

George-That's why my post says forget the CDC. Just get anybody that will be as unbiased as possible. I don't have the inherent distrust of the Feds that a lot of folks have. Or should I say, I don't distrust them any more than I distrust anyone/thing else. My point is…… a business or an individual would not try to "solve" a problem without first identifying is it a problem? What makes it a problem? What dynamics are involved? Is there a solution? Is the solution realistic?….among other questions. This shooting from the hip-background checks, etc-are simply feel good actions that distract from any attempt to really assess, identify and resolve the gun violence issue. (if it needs resolution)

Brian-so that's where Karl Rove got that? I think both sides are guilty of that philosophy. The science re: climate change isn't settled yet is a good righty one……(I prefer ecological destruction over climate change, anyway) I don't know about the effects of fear on gun ownership, but I do know AM talk radio sure promotes fear/hate. I listen to it between Meeker and Rifle just for kicks and giggles and all they talk about is what folks should be afraid of and/or hate. Listening to the folks that call in, I would say those radio host are pretty effective.

Dan-I'm not sure other countries have background checks re: weapon ownership, esp. where ownership is considered a constitutional right. That makes any comparison of effectiveness sketchy at best. Why not try it? Because it distracts from addressing the issue (if it is one) in an effective, problem solving way. Increased penalties have never deterred any other crimes, why would they work here. In fact, when has prohibiting anything that the public wants ever worked in America?

0

james Patterson 10 months ago on Ken Collins: A scary scenario

Jeff-sonewhere over the last few years gun violence was identified (by whom????) as a health issue-thus the CDC. My health insurance began asking about the possession of a weapon in the house abt 10 yrs ago or so. They felt this increased my chances of needing their services and considered it a risk factor. Forget about the CDC. The only reason I bring it up is they are the entity tasked with reseaching health issues in the US. Let's get anybody (that can be as impartial as possible) to look at the dynamics of America's relationship with guns and gun violence. Until we understand why something of this magnitude is happening, any attempt to "resolve" it is peeing in the wind. BTW-"disease" has always included misbehavior, thus MH, alcoholism, addiction, effects of pollution, etc.

0

Prev