To the editor:
Rep. Dennis Moore deserves all of our thanks for voting to begin the long-awaited process of reforming America’s health care system. This is at least the first step in creating an equitable and eventually affordable health care process for all Americans. Although there is much work left to do and there will be much pressure left to resist from corporate and political detractors, it is important that we recognize those who had the courage to take this first step.
Health care reform has never been this close to reality. No other developed nation’s health care process ignores so many citizens, varies not due to age or health but because of place of employment, and costs so much to citizens and business. Thank you, Congressman Moore, for one giant step for mankind.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
grammaddy (anonymous) says…
Thank you Congressman Moore for having the courage to take the first step. You've got my vote (again) next time you need it.
commuter (anonymous) says…
Thank you Congressman Moore for voting but being too scared to face your voters to discuss health care reform. Not only have you violated my trust, you have ensured I would never vote for you in any type of election and I feel it is my responsibility to help raise money for anyone who runs against you.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Enjoy the private sector after the next election, bub.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) says…
This one vote would ensure Moore's defeat in the next election were it not for the Republicans' perennial failure to field an electable, mainstream conservative candidate that most Republicans could support. Republicans in Johnson County are again fretting mightily over this as we speak. Moore, who is average at best, is very vulnerable to defeat by a good candidate, and yet may continue to waltz though the doors of office unchecked by any meaningful opposition.
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
Moore = Pelosi/Reid/Obama lapdog.
devobrun (anonymous) says…
Thank you congressman Moore for transferring more influence on my life to yourself and your colleagues. I'm a poor wretch and I need some one to take care of me.
Now, pass the climate bill. Please help me solve my problems. I cannot do it myself.
Please pass a law to ban Twinkies. I can't stop them myself.
Please pass a law to ban tobacco. I can't quit.
Please pass a law to ban hamburger stands, cheap discount stores, big cars, and flatulence.
I can't quit them by myself.
I love you Mr. Moore. I love you Barry. I need you to keep me safe and warm.
jason2007 (anonymous) says…
Dennis Moore was on a local talk radio morning show yesterday to discuss the reasons he voted "yes" Saturday night. The interviewers knew more about the bill than our representative did. He frequently responded with, "I'm not sure how that is structured in the bill" or, "I'll have to look into that and get back with you."
This is sad. He obviously didn't read the bill and was voting down party lines based on Pelosi cracking the whip within the Democratic ranks. Can't wait to see the House version go down in flames in the Senate.
With Lieberman defecting so early from the "rock solid" 60 vote Dem majority, this bill truly is DOA.
labmonkey (anonymous) says…
Moore will always get elected because too many people suckle the government teat in his district. They won't vote out someone who votes in more entitlement programs for them.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
The thing is, the Johnson County conservatives are more fiscally conservative but socially liberal--I think that's why the GOP candidates that have run have not been successful against Moore. That makes me think a quality Libertarian candidate might be able to get a decent % of votes--enough perhaps to have an effect on the election one way or the other.
toe (anonymous) says…
Moore is less.
imastinker (anonymous) says…
If they are going to make health care equitable as well?
What about income taxes? Those should be equitable also. The average household income is about 36k/year, so this april I'll send in 18% of that and we'll see who's happy.
imastinker (anonymous) says…
People only want "equitable' if they are getting something they are not paying for.
puddleglum (anonymous) says…
thankyou Mr. Moore
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
Notice the underlying theme of Mr. Altman's letter.
"voting to begin"
"at least the first step"
"there is much work left to do"
"the courage to take this first step"
"one giant step"
It's clear that the Far Left has every intention of using this health care bill as a mere stepping stone to their grander plan of single-payer, socialized medicine. And I pity those at the AMA, the AARP and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops who have been lulled into belieiving a lie. This legislation is not the end.
This legislation is only the beginning.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
STRS, keen observation. Why can't we just have an open debate about socialism vs. free markets? Why death by a thousand cuts?
Because they know it would never pass in the US, so they have to get in through the back door, socializing medicine one small step at a time. Each step only makes the problems worse, thus giving them a reason to claim we "need" to take yet more government action to correct the problems which were in fact created by past government action.
remember_username (anonymous) says…
Should there ever be any limitations placed upon a free market economy?
kmat (anonymous) says…
Healthcare Moocher shows the ignorance of the average voter. You're upset that you couldn't talk directly to Moore on the phone? Yes you sir are so important that Congressman Moore drops everything he is doing to speak to you.
I called his office many times over the last couple of weeks expressing my feelings on the health care bill. Every time, I spoke to someone that was very knowledgable about the bill and took the time to go over any questions I had.
And each time I asked if the calls and emails they were getting were in favor or opposed to the bill and was told that the majority were for the bill. Moore voted the way the people he represents asked him to vote.
Moore won't be defeated because republicans like my parents in JoCo will vote for him every time. They have taken the time to meet him and know that he is a good congressman.
Just the typical hate Obama crowd on here spouting off as usual.
If the republicans plan is so good, why don't the republican candidates spend time working to get it through the house and senate instead of just fighting anything the dems do? Take a little bit to study what the repubs have proposed, which is a worthless piece of ...... that doesn't even protect those with pre-existing conditions. The repubs just want to let the insurance companies maintain the status quo, which is ripping off the American people.
Thanks Moore!!
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
remember_username (Anonymous) says…
"Should there ever be any limitations placed upon a free market economy?"
Sure. There are many common law limitations that worked just fine. Things like not enforcing cartel agreements, not allowing people to sell themselves into slavery etc. The real threat is government, not free enterprise. That's where limitations need to be placed.
staff04 (anonymous) says…
Moore did the right thing. It might cost him his job, but he did the right thing.
And to the poster above wondering where the "mainstream conservaitive" candidates were that could challenge him--in the same place the Republican party keeps their rainbows and pots-o-gold....
remember_username (anonymous) says…
Liberty - Who enforces the common law limitations you presented?
tbaker (anonymous) says…
"equitable and eventually affordable health care process"
For who Jack?
Do you honestly believe this health care bill passed in the house actually provides health care to people who don't have it right now? Do you think its going to lower costs? Do you honestly believe it's a good idea for our country to take-on trilllions more in additional debt?
Do you realize that NEVER in our 230+ years has the federal government had the power to force the American people to purchase any consumer item or service. Now, if Obama care passes, you can be jailed for five years for refusing to buy health insurance. Did you miss all this? Does this form of government sound like a representative republic to you?
Change you can believe in - if you are a communist!
You poor deluded soul....
preebo (anonymous) says…
Everone! Stop the presses...
Tom Shewmon has switched sides and now supports the Democratic Party agenda...
When it comes to the House Health Care bill passed last weekend, he replies, "fine by me."
When it comes to Cap and Trade legislation, he is quoted as saying, "Again, fine by me."
Welcome aboard, Mr. Shewmon. There is plenty of room for you under the big tent of the Democratic Party.
Jimo (anonymous) says…
Liberty: what makes you conclude that JoCo Republicans are socially liberal (and therefore amenable to libertarianism)? (Or for that matter, fiscally conservative?)
remember_username (anonymous) says…
Liberty - You stated in your 9:58 "There are many common law limitations that worked just fine. Things like not enforcing cartel agreements"... I'm unsure of what you meant by "not enforcing cartel agreements". Did you mean there was common law that limited the ability of cartels to form agreements that could be imposed upon the consumers?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
remember_username (Anonymous) says…
"Liberty - Who enforces the common law limitations you presented?"
Individuals via private lawsuits.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
"Did you mean there was common law that limited the ability of cartels to form agreements that could be imposed upon the consumers?"
What would happen, for example. would be ten iron producers would form an agreement to fix prices. One of them would break the agreement and undercut the others (cartels never work in a free society). The others would sue saying they had an agreement to fix prices and the courts would not enforce the cartel agreement.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Jimo--just personal experience. Maybe I'm wrong--what's your explanation for Moore's success in a county that so strongly supports GOP presidential candidates?
remember_username (anonymous) says…
Liberty - I disagree my impression is that cartels work very well together in a laissez faire economy when they are fairly balanced, as cooperation via price fixing maximizes profits or all. In your example of iron producers one would only break the agreement if there was financial advantage in doing so. If that one were a small producer who undercuts the fix he can be driven out business by the groups ability to control shared resources and wages. If he was a significant member, large enough to defy the entire cartel and be successful, he will soon establish a monopoly. As for enforcement by private lawsuit? I don't think that has ever been an adequate method of limiting corporate excess.
rhd99 (anonymous) says…
Thanks for nothing, Dennis. You, who call conservatives tea baggers because you don't like our opinions. Have you read the bill, I think not. Hope you like pink, because that's the color of your unemployment papers for next year. Good Bye & Good Riddance.
landb (anonymous) says…
We are both on Medicare now, but before that we had to give up medical insurance for a period of years because it had become too expensive (the cost of retiree insurance had exceeded the amount of the pension). We have been paying Lawrence Memorial Hospital monthly now since 2000 with 3 or 4 years to go. We could certainly have used some affordable insurance during the period between 2000 and 2007 when even work on a temporary contract basis was no longer available. There were probably 100 experienced people for every contract opening in my field after the "Year 2000" problem was taken solved.
We wish that we were still in Moore's district so we could still vote for him. Jenkins certainly isn't going to be any help.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
remember_username (Anonymous) says…
"I disagree my impression is that cartels work very well together in a laissez faire economy when they are fairly balanced, as cooperation via price fixing maximizes profits for all."
Well, I would correct that statement by saying that it maximizes profits for the group as a whole, but not for each individual business. What happened was that individual businesses would undercut the cartel prices in secret. It only works as long as they cooperate, but why be satisfied with your market share when you know you're more efficient then the other members and you can outdo them on price? In addition, high prices means new competitors. The problem is, these new competitors are going to have the latest facilities built with the best technology. The cartel's foundries never needed to be updated because they were restricting output and fixing prices. They didn't need to produce more or have any incentive to spend lots of money to improve efficiency. Now they are facing stiff competition and a huge increase in capacity. Cartels just don't work in free markets. What actually happened was several industries got the government to create cartels and enforce them. For example, one of the first acts of the Interstate Commerce Commission was to forbid secret pricing so that the members couldn't undercut each other in secret. Also, stiff regulations were put in place--with exemptions to grandfather in existing businesses of course--in order to prevent new competitors from entering the market.
"As for enforcement by private lawsuit? I don't think that has ever been an adequate method of limiting corporate excess."
The reason for that isn't because of free enterprise. Remember, corporations are fictional entities created by government permission. You file a corporate charter with the state and are granted privileges and immunities that you couldn't get running your business as a partnership or sole proprietorship. One of those immunities is that a lawsuit can't reach the private assets of the corporations' shareholders. Now when you buy 100 shares of Exxon-Mobile, are you going to be a lot more aware of what kinds of things they might be doing if not just your investment, but your personal assets are at risk? Of course. Shareholders, as it is now, are only in it for the profit and risk very little, thus they don't care about corporate excesses. Whatever risks management can take to make a profit and drive up the stock price is all the owners care about. If you want to curb corporate excess, trying to create regulations for every specific scenario is going to be overbroad, inefficient and ultimately will be enforced unevenly with favored parties getting favored treatment. Make the actual owners, the shareholders, personally liable for the company's actions just like they would be for any other business--then you'll see much more responsible acts.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
landb,
While every personal story is touching, the broader principle is that no one should be forced to pay for someone elses's pet project or special interest.
And yes, nationalizing health care for 300 million Americans so that the 30 million presently without coverage are insured is ridiculous and completely unnecessary.
remember_username (anonymous) says…
Liberty - Second part first: "Make the actual owners, the shareholders, personally liable for the company's actions just like they would be for any other business—then you'll see much more responsible acts." - I agree that would be better. But how do you counter the current axiom "those with the money are more likely to win?"
Left_handed (anonymous) says…
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore, galloping through the sward.
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore, and his horse Concord.
He steals from the rich, and gives to the poor,
Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore.
With apologies to Monty Python's Flying Circus
kmat (anonymous) says…
The obama haters are out in force today. I'm sorry that the only way you can vent your frustration is through your posts. That's what you get for living in a liberal city.
My parents have met Moore many times. He holds a lot of functions, but you have to be invited to them. That was the situation with his last deal that got cancelled. That was by reservation only. It got cancelled because looney teabaggers wanted to make it a protest. @ whackos from my work tried to go protest it and then called the news media about it. Let's see - they didn't make a reservation for it and then were upset they couldn't attend.
JoCo people are socially liberal. That's why they keep Moore. That's why normal people like my parents vote for him. They represent what republicans used to be - normal, fically conservative people. Now the party is nothing but nutjob whackos that want to take away people's freedoms. That's why there are only 19% of you left in the country and people are bailing left and right changing their status to independent.
How does it feel being in the minority? You white republicans are working yourselfs ragged now that you realize you are the minority and will always be. People of all colors are taking over. Run for your lives. I think there's still a place for you somewhere down south.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
remember_username (Anonymous) says…
"But how do you counter the current axiom “those with the money are more likely to win?”"
Well, that's another issue entirely, but if you want to know, the libertarian position is to have strict liability instead of the slippery negligence standard. This significantly lowers the bar for plaintiffs and would make lawsuits much more straightforward. Negligence is about what is "reasonable," which means if you have a skilled team of lawyers you can arguing just about anything is "reasonable." Strict liability is simply proving the facts. There are other issues regarding this, but just to address your question that's how we could do.
In addition, working within our current framework, the law is not wholly unresponsive. Minor changes could be made to give plaintiffs more access and better odds.
remember_username (anonymous) says…
Liberty - First part: Going back to your example of the ten iron producers. There is no way that one of them is going to undercut the others without the rest knowing. In addition, the group will keep prices just low enough to keep other competitors out of the industry. Usually this is fairly easy with products with high initial investment. If however a competitor does collect enough venture to proceed into the market what protection does laissez faire offer without anti-trust laws? Corporate protectionism is an art form. The new competitor might find that contracts for needed resources now exist, critical workers are hired away, or rail cars are all occupied. These hurdles are all allowed under the free market economy. FMI - What is the libertarian view on tariffs?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
remember_username (Anonymous) says…
"There is no way that one of them is going to undercut the others without the rest knowing."
That's why they would do it in secret. What incentive would the customer have to report the price cutting supplier?
"the group will keep prices just low enough to keep other competitors out of the industry"
That will only work for so long. Remember their capital assets are deteriorating over time. While they should be seeking ways to expand production by increasing efficiency and purchasing new capital assets they are taking in their monopoly profits. Imagine an airline cartel that's still flying DC-8s. A new airline with new capital assets in the form of efficient, larger, modern planes would quickly be able to capture a large share of the market. Cartels just don't last in a free society.
"The new competitor might find that contracts for needed resources now exist, critical workers are hired away, or rail cars are all occupied."
These things have been tried and they failed. Remember the law of supply and demand. When supplies are decreasing prices go up, so it costs the monopolist or cartel more and more to secure those resources. In addition, those higher prices drive more entrepreneurs into those industries, so now there's more and more rail cars available etc., creating an increase in capacity and causing more supplies the cartel has to buy up to prevent market access. American Can tried to do something like this, buying up all the can factories and then closing the plant down so they could decrease production and increase prices. What happened is they made can making profitable enough that everybody started making cans, even with old, worn-out machines that were fifty years old. American Can simply ran out of money and just couldn't continue to buy up everything. In a free economy, it just doesn't work.
Regarding tariffs, they hurt more than they help, and are just protectionism for special interests. For example, putting a tariff on steel may save steel jobs in the US, but what about downstream industries for which steel is an input? It ends up costing more jobs than it saves.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch, what's the point? You aren't going to defend your statements or explain yourself. You refuse to answer questions, you resort to name-calling the first chance you get with your favorite being "garfinkeler." You'll twist my words to find meaningless contradictions and if that fails you'll start making guesses about my family or where I go to school. I've been on the porch merry-go-round before and I'll save my tickets for a better ride.
remember_username (anonymous) says…
Liberty - You haven't convinced me. However, I will say I'm not as confident in my arguments and will have to do some more reading to understand more on the subject. Thanks for the discourse.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
jason2007 (Anonymous) says…
"Dennis Moore was on a local talk radio morning show yesterday to discuss the reasons he voted “yes” Saturday night. The interviewers knew more about the bill than our representative did."
I especially liked the part where he said he was unaware of the $1.2 trillion dollar price tag, that he'd never seen that figure. Not only did he fail to read the bill, apparently he hasn't read a newspaper, either.
*******************************************************
kmat (Anonymous) says…
"I called his office many times over the last couple of weeks expressing my feelings on the health care bill."
['Hello, uncle Dennis?']
"Every time, I spoke to someone that was very knowledgable about the bill and took the time to go over any questions I had."
Then it's a good thing you didn't get the congressman directly, since apparently he couldn't have answered any of them.
"And each time I asked if the calls and emails they were getting were in favor or opposed to the bill and was told that the majority were for the bill. Moore voted the way the people he represents asked him to vote."
And I'll bet every time you called you identified yourself up front as a supporter of the bill.
I, and many others I know, called too, kmat, and each time found an incompetent person who knew even less about the bull (sorry, I meant bill - I think) than the alleged
'Rrepresentative', and each time was told they didn't know the proportion of calls for or against.
So either they were lying to you, lying to us, or you're lying. (Wanna' bet which one my money's on?)
"How does it feel being in the minority?"
Since conservatives outnumber liberals in every state of the union, kmat, why don't you tell us? (You *DID* know there's actually more of this country outside the People's Republic of Looneyville, didn't you?)
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
Liberty One: Your argument on tariffs holds as a general rule. Where it fails is when one is dealing with a situation where a product is being sold below its cost to manufacture. Now while I realize that you are speaking of the theoretical state, in practice governments often subsidize an industry so that it can undersell its overseas competitors. Thus, when those items enter the US market they are artificially below what they should be. This practice is often referred to as "dumping" and has had very damaging impacts on industries within the US. That is why Congress authorized retalitory tariffs for use when "dumping" occurs.
citizen1 (anonymous) says…
Tell me which of the 17 specific items the US Constitution specifically authorizes our Federal Government to do allows our Federal Government to enact such an onerous piece of legislation?
Seniors who have paid into Medicare for 40 plus years are getting their benefits cut to pay 1/3 of the cost of this new health plan. This is Mr. Moore's gift to his constituents.
Mr. Moore exhibited his lack of spin earlier this summer by refusing to meet with constituents. All Moore does is vote the "part Line". When are those who vote for him going to realize all he is doing is "nothing" for you!!!!
Mr. Moore no thanks for the help!
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Garner--that's fine with me. If some other country wants to pay for us to have cheap TVs or whatever let them--no need for tariffs to protect specific industries. We'll take the consumer surplus and direct our labor and capital towards other pursuits. If the Japanese people want to pay so we can have cheap electronics let them.
staff04 (anonymous) says…
"Since conservatives outnumber liberals in every state of the union"
Please, someone who has taken social psych more recently than me remind me of the syndrome where minority opinions tend to greatly overestimate reality? Or is it intelligence?
-----------------------
citizen1, just what exactly is the "part line" you speak of? Please, be detailed.
sunny (anonymous) says…
Moore is a coward!
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
staff04 (Anonymous) says…
"Please, someone who has taken social psych more recently than me remind me of the syndrome where minority opinions tend to greatly overestimate reality? Or is it intelligence?"
Gee, staph, not only does it appear my education is more recent (and of infinitely better quality) than yours, but I seem to have read a newspaper more recently, also.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/Con...
You may be right about those in the minority over-estimating reality, however - and thank you for serving as such an excellent example.
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
Liberty One: The problem with letting a foreign gov't "pay", as you state, for our "cheap" goods is that the tactic is engaged in only for the short term, i.e., as long as it takes to capture market share in the targetted country. Then the subsidies are eased off but only after having destroyed or seriously disrupted the competition in the targetted country. It is a very aggressive form of economic warfare and should be countered. I am all in favor of competition when the playing field is more or less level--this is recognizing that the level playing field is a myth, but we can try to get close--but when the field is not level there needs to be an equalizer. Otherwise predatory behavior is rewarded and domestic companies who could otherwise compete against their foreign opponents are driven out of existence.
Jimo (anonymous) says…
"what's your explanation for Moore's success in a county that so strongly supports GOP presidential candidates?"
1. actual personal familiarity with Moore from his DA days
2. massive Democratic voting in Wyandotte and Douglas Cos.
3. an initial GOP incumbent who was the epitome of a corrupt, fat cat, let them eat cake radical (Snowbarger)
4. a succession in the early elections of ever more extremist opponents that piss off core Republican voters
I suspect that if you subtract out the moderating influence from outside JoCo, you'll find that the typical JoCo Republican is socially conservative (by which I mean radical) and fiscally liberal (as in 'cut taxes, spend, and borrow')
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Garner--it certainly would be harmful to those individual companies and their owners and employees, but for the nation as a whole it would be quite beneficial. The purchasing power of the average person would increase at the expense of the citizens of another country. As far as it being only a short term tactic, there's a Supreme Court case on point for this issue: Matsush*ta Electric v. Zenith Radio. Justice Powell does a pretty good job of explaining why this theory of price cutting, destroy the competition, then rake in profits fails in practice. The dissent doesn't rebut this directly, but instead says that they have other goals than raking in profits that might be illegal under US law.
http://www.ahcuah.com/lawsuit/ussc/ma...
Replace * with i (stupid computer censor)
Link won't work either--have to replace the i in there too.