Archive for Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Health reform forum lively
Jenkins draws crowds both for, against public option
Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kan., left, listens to Nancy Hamilton, an associate professor of psychology at Kansas University, as Hamilton expresses her doubts concerning our current health care system during a town hall-style meeting Tuesday at the Dole Institute of Politics.
September 2, 2009
Advertisement
'Great white hope' issue resurfaces
Read the latest news from Jenkins' comment about a "great white hope."
Jenkins speaks to both sides of issue at KU
U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins addressed both sides of the health care issue at the Dole Institute of Politics of the KU campus Tuesday. Jenkins heads back to Washington next week. Enlarge video
Some of the 150 people at the Dole Institute of Politics erupted into cheers Tuesday when Kent Henson voiced his support for a public health insurance option.
And during her town hall-style forum, U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kan., supported a different view regarding government involvement in major health care reform, but she also received applause from other members of the crowd.
“People continue to be very passionate about their issues, as well they should,” Jenkins said. “These are tough times and tough decisions. I’m just delighted that this many people care about what’s happening in Washington that they’d come out to share their views with me.”
The first-term congresswoman’s lively forum in Lawrence was a snapshot of the enthusiastic and divisive health care debate members of Congress have faced during their summer recess. It was Jenkins’ 26th listening tour event in the 2nd District, which includes western Lawrence.
Henson, a KU graduate student, chided private insurance companies and said administrative expenses were too high, driving up costs. He favors a public option because he says it will allow for more risk-pooling to protect certain groups.
“Without a public option, there is no way that that administrative expense is going to come down to a reasonable level,” Henson said.
In Congress, health care reform has become a highly partisan issue. Jenkins does not support a public option and instead said any changes should address tort reform, help people with pre-existing medical conditions and offer more portability of health care plans.
She also criticized House Democrats for not reaching out to Republicans on the debate. Democrats hold overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate.
A man asked her about claims of “death panels” in proposed legislation. Jenkins said she didn’t think there was any truth to that specifically but said one concern might be if the federal government might have to make a decision about “your grandmother (being) worthy of a pacemaker” and not getting one.
“To her that might feel like a death sentence,” she said.
She also criticized the main proposed House health reform bill.
“I do believe it could put a government bureaucrat between you and your doctor,” Jenkins said getting a loud response from the crowd.
The crowd often reacted loudly with applause and cheers to people who spoke and disagreed with Jenkins. She also received applause several times on her own statements.
Before Jenkins arrived, members of the crowd cheered when someone put up a sign on the Simons Media Room wall that said “Health Care for All.” Others also cheered when someone put a sign “No Obama Care” next to it.
The event was standing room only, and Jenkins spoke for 20 minutes before letting more than a dozen people give comments or ask questions for 30 minutes. Members of her staff also collected yellow comment cards.
Before the event, Sharon Antes, of Olathe, stood outside with a sign urging Congress to pass a plan with a public option.
“It is so important, and we feel the Republicans aren’t listening. They are just fighting,” she said.
Jenkins did say she heard some statistics and information that piqued her curiosity.
“That’s the beauty of these town hall forums. You get new ideas, new information,” she said. “And hopefully we’ll make the right choices when we actually get around to passing health reform.”
More like this
- Health care reform a key concern as Moore addresses chamber of commerce audience 55 comments / August 25, 2009
- Dole hopes health care forum will stimulate bipartisan action 3 comments / July 31, 2008
- Anti-Democrat feelings evident, but tempers held in check at Jenkins' town hall health forum 132 comments / August 12, 2009
- Jenkins’ stand 3 comments / September 12, 2009
- Jenkins: Congress far from agreement on health-care reform 48 comments / October 5, 2009
Top ads RSS
- Schwans Home Service now hiring starting at $32,000 a yr. ...
- NEUVANT HOUSE of Lawrence Personal Memory Care Seeking Administrator for ...
- IT Manager Medium sized, multi-state service company has opening for ...
- Googols of Learning Child Development Center is now hiring for ...
- Cleaning Technician- 5 eves. per wk, 3 hrs per night; ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Blog: If This Is The End, How Will Mangino Be Remembered? November 29, 2009 · 42 comments
- Woman sees image of Jesus on her iron November 28, 2009 · 46 comments
- Obama is a unique president for a unique time November 29, 2009 · 12 comments
- Blog: Computer Ideas I Need & Best Tab Manager Add On For Firefox. November 29, 2009 · 8 comments
- Poll: Should the Kansas Legislature pursue opportunities to privatize or outsource some government services? November 27, 2009 · 30 comments
- Moore’s departure leaves seat up for grabs by GOP November 29, 2009 · 11 comments
- Suicide numbers climbing November 29, 2009 · 26 comments
- Jobless recovery will haunt Democrats November 29, 2009 · 36 comments
- Miserable ending November 29, 2009 · 31 comments
- Blog: A Snootful Of E-Mails November 23, 2009 · 38 comments
- Lawrence church continues offering joy of the nativity November 29, 2009
- Two arrested after altercation at Henry's November 29, 2009
- 'Science as a Contact Sport' probes global warming battle November 29, 2009
- Lawrence women's chorale announces holiday concert November 29, 2009
- Behind the Lens: Zoom lenses drop in price and shed some pounds November 29, 2009
- Miserable ending November 29, 2009
- KU teams hone ultimate Frisbee skills November 29, 2009
- Suicide numbers climbing November 29, 2009
- Victim ID’d in fatal car-cycle crash November 29, 2009
- Long, winding road leads to 'family' March 11, 2001
2 September 2009
at 4:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kusp8 (Anonymous) says…
I highly doubt any of this will change her mind.
2 September 2009
at 6:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LogicMan (Anonymous) says…
“I highly doubt any of this will change her mind.”
Maybe, maybe not.
But at least she's brave enough to face and talk with the voters, unlike Moore.
2 September 2009
at 7:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SWGlassPit (Anonymous) says…
I don't understand why so many are wharrgarbling about putting government bureaucrats in between people and their doctors. Private insurance companies already do that!
2 September 2009
at 7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
This article makes it sound like the crowd was somewhat evenly split between those who support a public option, and those who don't (most of whom seem not to have any idea how to fix a badly broken system, and therefore prefer doing nothing.) According to attendees I've spoken to, supporters of a public option (or single payer) outnumbered others by 10 to 1.
2 September 2009
at 7:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cait48 (Anonymous) says…
On July 27 at a town hall forum Jenkins told a young working mother who was concerned about not having insurance, “Go be a grown up!” (I have the video link of this exchange if you wish to see it.) This is arrogance beyond belief.
2 September 2009
at 7:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
overthemoon (Anonymous) says…
Lame article. I hope some people who were there can fill in more.
This woman is still talking death panels (though not wanting to use the term) and bureaucrats between doctors and patients These problems exist now with private health care insurance. She is not paying attention and she's not doing her homework and obviously isn't interested in doing much of anything.
2 September 2009
at 8:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
edjayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Republicans don't have a plan but rather a couple of tweaks that are suppose to be a cure-all to the crisis, but will have minimal results at best.
2 September 2009
at 8:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
exhawktown (Anonymous) says…
Two people can read a bill and come up with many, many different opinions about what it will do. Republicans who see problems with “this” health care reform, whatever the latest version is, do not have to lie about it. There are many problems a public option can cause. There are many problems with the government dictating what insurance coverage must cover. People who believe a bill like HR3200 will solve all health care problems for all Americans are naive. This is not a simple issue. I can understand criticism of Republicans for disagreeing, but I think criticism of a republican for “not doing her homework” etc. is a mistake. Finally, just because someone disagrees with you on an issue does not mean they are ignorant or uncaring. This “debate” is getting old. Much of the media (NPR last Friday, for instance) indicated “fear trumps logic” about the debate, stating that republicans are using fear to mold public opinion. Both sides are using fear. Which side is actually encouraging people to do the research and read the bill?
2 September 2009
at 8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Practicality (Anonymous) says…
I commend Jenkins for having the courage to come to Looneyville and have this meeting. Say what you want about her, but at least she didn't find whatever reason under the sun to cancel it.
2 September 2009
at 8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
charliejohnson (Anonymous) says…
Jenkins is crazy.
2 September 2009
at 8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Practicality— It isn't courage. It's the knowledge that those who support a public option, of whom there are many everywhere, especially in Lawrence, aren't going to come strapped and ready for action against anyone who suggests a “socialistic slide to hell.”
2 September 2009
at 9 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Much of the media (NPR last Friday, for instance) indicated “fear trumps logic” about the debate, stating that republicans are using fear to mold public opinion. Both sides are using fear. Which side is actually encouraging people to do the research and read the bill?”
Exhawktown— It's not just the Republicans who are trying to avoid anything like a real debate. Plenty of Democrats have also been paid handsomely to be willfully ignorant fearmongers, and Obama is unwilling to challenge them, even though he knows they are wrong, wrong, wrong.
You wanna know why our healthcare system is so screwed up, and seemingly unfixable? Read the following.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009…
2 September 2009
at 9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
overthemoon (Anonymous) says…
When I say Jenkins is not doing her homework I mean that she is not well versed and up to date on her facts. She keeps repeating old scare mongering (repackaged with neat phrase like 'not specifically, but') She says everyone's care will be subsidized, it will not. She does not understand the correlation between income and medicaid eligibility. Saying that the young woman in Ottawa should get a tax credit for purchasing private insurance is ludicrous. That gal probably doesn't make enough money to pay any taxes so tax credits don't mean a thing to her, the 'affordable' private plans out there have huge deductibles and copays. To tell her to 'grow up' was incredibly condescending.
She does not give any information that is based in fact. She is a party shill, and nothing more.
2 September 2009
at 9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Practicality (Anonymous) says…
bozo,
Give me a break. The man is a public figure. Why is it other Dems are having townhall meetings if the threat is so real? So is he never going to leave his house because some nutjob said something? I am sure the police or some other security would be available at his beck and call if he wanted to have a meeting.
Moore is in a difficult position and it appears he is trying to avoid meeting with the people. That is because his constituents are divided over the issue and he can't win either way, so he avoids the people to avoid saying something that will alienate some voters in the future. That is all he is doing. Finding reasons to avoid these meetings until he can go back to Washington and hide out without having really commented and listened to his constituents.
Again, the man votes to send men and women to combat zones, he can at least find the huevos to show up in Overland Park, Ks or Looneyville, Ks.
2 September 2009
at 9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Practicality (Anonymous) says…
bozo,
Should have said,
Give me a break. The man (Moore) is a public figure.
Confusing I know, didn't get much sleep.
2 September 2009
at 9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Practicality—
I'm not going to defend Moore— I agree with much of what you say about him. That said, I don't really know anything about the nature and seriousness of the threats. Do you? And with the Limbaughs of the world whipping up the gun nuts into showing up at town hall meetings, guns in tow, I can't say that I blame him for erring on the side of caution.
And I still disagree that Jenkins displayed courage in having town-hall meeting here in Lawrence, the second largest city in her district. If she was unprepared for the reception she got, it was due to her general cluelessness, not courage. And unlike most of the town meetings in which conservatives have accosted liberal lawmakers, even though this one was at times somewhat contentious, it was a mostly civilized airing of facts and opinions, even if Jenkins didn't like what she was hearing.
2 September 2009
at 9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stain (Anonymous) says…
Moore received specific threats and unfortunately he was right to cancel any forum where someone might get hurt.
I was at Jenkins' town hall and while she held it in a bit, realizing who her audience was (more than ten to one in favor of reform judging from signs), she still disappointed me.
First, she was 10 minutes late for a 60 minute forum. Then she spent 20 minutes talking about whatever she wanted, not health care. She wasted half the hour, on purpose.
The event was scheduled in a venue that everybody knew would be too small. It was scheduled at 4:00 when most people are at work.
It was a civilized airing. She was interrupted twice: once when she was stalling and talking about unrelated subjects people raised hands which she ignored and finally called out “health care” - and again when she claimed not to have those statistics about the U.S. being #37 etc. people shouted “they are everywhere” and “you should have them.”
Unfortunately because it was civilized this overwhelming pro reform event will not get national press.
2 September 2009
at 9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stain (Anonymous) says…
This says 150 people were there. The Topeka Capital-Journal wrote 250. There was an overflow crowd and a video screen outside. I believe the 250.
2 September 2009
at 10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stain (Anonymous) says…
I was there and this does not even scratch the surface of what went on there.
A few missing points:
She was 10 minutes late to a 60 minute meeting. It was scheduled in a room that everybody knew was too small. The Topeka newspaper estimated 250 and this seems more like it than the 150 this article mentions.
The support was overwhelmingly for reform. There was mixed applause but the signs and the questions were almost 100% for reform.
There was MUCH support for single payer health care and HR 676.
A doctor and a pharmacist spoke. Where are their quotes?
The statistics hinted at in the article were the ones that have been quoted everywhere - U.S.#37 in quality, lousy in mortality, almost worst in the developed world in infant mortality - and Jenkins' response was that she “didn't have” those statistics. Unbelievable. Shocking. She does not have the statistics on the most important issue of the day.
While she was stalling, talking about unrelated subjects, she made divisive remarks to the effect that “they” (Pelosi, et al) are not like “us” in Kansas because they go from apartment to subway while we drive a long way to work, we drive tractors and they don't… it was divisive politics that was breathtakingly insulting. We have different opinions about drilling that having nothing to do with whether we personally take the subway or a tractor to work. This stuff may work before uneducated audiences but I doubt even they have reduced everything to something so simplistic.
Note to Jenkins: Not everybody bases every thought and opinion on their personal lifestyle. Not everybody is as selfish and myopic as you think.
2 September 2009
at 10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stain (Anonymous) says…
One sign said “Republicans for Health Care Reform”
Another said “Health care is a moral issue.”
Only one sign was anti reform, I guess, something about the government should not get between you and your doctor. And there was the little cardboard hastily made “No Obama Care” sign that went up after the big pro reform signs went up on the windowsill and got big cheers.
This article misses how pro reform, even pro single payer, the crowd was. It misses how on the defensive Jenkins was.
2 September 2009
at 10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
puddleglum (Anonymous) says…
did she find the great white hope yet?
2 September 2009
at 10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stain (Anonymous) says…
The Topeka Capital-Journal did a better job describing this event.
2 September 2009
at 10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LogicMan (Anonymous) says…
“I'm not going to defend Moore”
Neither I nor you can defend the undefenable. He should do the right thing and resign immediately, and allow the people to select a replacement who will not hide from them.
His excuse for resigning could be to run for the Senate. But that would be too logical.
2 September 2009
at 10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stain (Anonymous) says…
About courage:
Moore received specific death threats. He was right not to hold a meeting.
Jenkins did not get threats, that I know of. It is her job to face her constituents in Lawrence.
It is the right that has been showing up at political events with guns, hinting that it is ok to kill the President, and killing doctors. Moore had real violence to fear. Jenkins had only to fear the opinions of her constituents.
2 September 2009
at 10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Practicality (Anonymous) says…
Stain,
You are right about the Topeka Capital Journal. Here is the link.
http://cjonline.com/news/local/2009-0…
What Gives LJW?
2 September 2009
at 10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
NoSpin (Anonymous) says…
Good luck. The only threat Moore will really be facing is re-election if he votes for the bill. Remember he cannot survive on East Lawrence alone.
2 September 2009
at 10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
toe (Anonymous) says…
If left alone, most insurers and health care companies will go bankrupt. This is a good idea and will invite more efficient providers to move in. The industry is for reform because they know they will be gone in just a few years if they cannot tap into the public treasury. Doing nothing is a pretty good option.
2 September 2009
at 10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stain (Anonymous) says…
Other newspapers covered this event better.
http://www.kansan.com/stories/2009/se…
Huffington Post covered it well:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ne…
2 September 2009
at 10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tbaker (Anonymous) says…
Rep. Jenkins is not very polished in the delivery of her message, but she does stand against the socialization of our health care system. I'm glad for that. One could say elections have consequences.
The simple fact is no one is entitled to a piece of my life or my property. When the government can take by force the fruits of my labor, which represent that portion of my life I devoted to earning them, and give them to someone else, my individual liberty is gone.
John Adams said “The moment that idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist.”
Thats what Obama Care is my friends. Taking from one and giving to another. Now I know many well-meaning folks will say that trampling a person's liberty like this is one of those “ends justify the means” situations; that health care for all is such a laudable goal it's worth it.
So where does it end? Where is the line finally drawn? When is “not laudable enough to justify trampling the liberty of Americans” finally defined?
2 September 2009
at 10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stain (Anonymous) says…
Practicality:
I have been told the Journal-World is owned by huge Republicans. I guess I did not expect unbiased coverage.
http://cjonline.com/news/state/2009-0…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ne…
http://www.kansan.com/stories/2009/se…
2 September 2009
at 10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
overthemoon (Anonymous) says…
t baker.
we pay for taking care of everyone whether it is obvious taxation or simply higher costs on goods, services, and insurance. When you think about it as giving, instead of taking, maybe your heart will be a bit more open and your mind less narrow.
2 September 2009
at 10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lounger (Anonymous) says…
Maybe a “Great white Hope” will help here decide.
2 September 2009
at 10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stain (Anonymous) says…
tbaker:
Do you understand how government works?
Some things work better when we pool resources. Things that are hard to accomplish in small numbers. Things that cost too much.
Education
Roads
Police protection
Army
Health care is in this group in every other developed country.
U.S. is #27, #37 and #50 in various ways of measuring health care quality. We are #1 in cost.
The insurance industry takes $400 billion a year from the system.
Insurance industry profits are up 400% in 10 years, and premiums are up 87%.
Health care costs so much that even with insurance, an illness can cause a family to lose everything.
Tell me how is that a good system.
2 September 2009
at 10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boosh (Anonymous) says…
“Taking from one and giving to another. Now I know many well-meaning folks will say that trampling a person's liberty like this is one of those “ends justify the means” situations” - tbaker
Kind of like the supreme courts dicision regarding eminent domain? Where they ruled it appropriate for a city to take private property and give it to a business to increase tax revenue.
2 September 2009
at 10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stain (Anonymous) says…
Jenkins is slick and cheeky but it did not work for the Lawrence audience.
She did not have the facts and information to face that crowd. She did not even know the statistics on health insurance costs, U.S. standing among developed nations, etc. - she admitted it.
2 September 2009
at 10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
tbaker— if health insurance becomes a government-run single-payer program rather than a private one (whose primary purpose is to deliver profits, not healthcare,) and you are a middle-income taxpayer, your healthcare expenditures will at worst stay the same, and quite likely even decrease. If you are wealthy, you may see a slight increase in what you pay out, but likely nothing that will have the slightest effect on your privileged lifestyle.
So quit the whining about socialism (if for no other reason than single-payer is NOT socialism.)
2 September 2009
at 10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
1029 (Anonymous) says…
Jenkins doesn't really care about the opinions of her constituency. Her only purpose is to fight for her “team” (the republican party) and preserve it's dying ideological foundation (and probaly also to collect a paycheck). Her party seems to think this all some big game (not just heath c. It's sick. Look at her. She just reiterates republican talking points that are aimed at exploiting the (sadly) simple mind of the average American.
And look at her fake expression in that picture. She looks ridiculous, too over-the-top in trying to appear that she's seriously analyzing the speaker's words. She's hearing the words, but she's not really listening—probably just trying to keep her simple republican talking points organized in her head as she waits for the speaker to shut her mouth.
2 September 2009
at 10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
swan_diver (Anonymous) says…
Jenkins is a right-wing shill for the insurance and banking industries, and a one-term member of Congress. She should be drawn and quartered, like the rest of her ilk in government and the private sector, who are waging a veritable war upon working-class Americans.
2 September 2009
at 10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jengaman (Anonymous) says…
Easy with the smug, b*tch-face look Jenkins.
2 September 2009
at 10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
1029 (Anonymous) says…
for my comment above: “and preserve it's dying” should have been “and do her part to preserve its dying”
Also, I love the socialism scare tactic. “Hey, undereducated simpletons, you ever hear of socialism? Yeah, that's a concept you think you understand, isn't it? Scary and “un-American”, isn't it? Well, that's what you're going to get if our “team” doesn't win.”
2 September 2009
at 11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boosh (Anonymous) says…
My question is…
why does this crap always happen while Jon Stewart is on vacation?
2 September 2009
at 11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stain (Anonymous) says…
BuenaVista:
Did you catch that article today, about how the stimulus is keeping the U.S. this side of total economic collapse?
Who do you think broke the economy? Think very hard.
Even Jenkins admitted yesterday that Obama inherited a huge mess of problems from the administration before.
2 September 2009
at 11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
exhawktown (Anonymous) says…
A good system is when you can choose the type of care you want and work to pay for it yourself. A good system is not forcing a doctor or other health care professional to perform services with a gun to his/her head. A good system is not putting a gun to anyone's head to pay for health care for someone else if that someone else is capable of working to pay for it himself.
Education, roads, police protection, and the army. None of these provides individualized treatment or protection for an individual American. “Universal health care” would attempt to effect change in the area of individualized treatment. The “greater good” of the “society” will be placed ahead of the rights and health of the individual with “universal health care.”
I would like to better understand when the collectivist attitude took over so many of your minds. Maybe some of you were born that way. That's nice for you, until you start noticing your rights being trampled. At what point would you fight for your individual rights for the kind of individualized health care you may someday need? Are you willing to sacrifice your own treatment for someone else's? Have you actually thought about the implications of bills like HR3200? Or are you just blind sheep?
2 September 2009
at 11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Practicality (Anonymous) says…
Stain,
I don't think I have ever heard anyone accuse the LJW of being a conservative newspaper before.
I like this quote in the CJonline article.
“We will get there,” Jenkins said, and then added that she had done 26 town hall meetings so far and had never had a group treat her with such disrespect.
http://cjonline.com/news/local/2009-0…
That kind of quiets the argument about how civil the left in Lawrence really is.
Again, I think she put her foot in her mouth about the “great white hope” statement, but I do think she showed courage in facing the “most disrespect” she ever faced in these town hall forums. She had to know what it was going to be like, and she still showed up.
2 September 2009
at 11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Irish (Irish Swearingen) says…
Jenkins looks angry with her mouth turned down and the women back of her look frankly disbelieving.
2 September 2009
at 11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Practicality (Anonymous) says…
I am also disappointed with the coverage by LJW. This was an event in Lawrence. Why did the Topeka Capital Journal do a better job covering the story? IMHO, they did a better job showing how contentious this meeting really was.
2 September 2009
at 11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tbaker (Anonymous) says…
There is a vast difference between “giving” and “taking.” What the government does is “take.” Its very difficult to think of what the IRS is doing to me as being generous when one contemplates what happens when you don't pay your taxes. The fact is men with guns will come and take you to jail, and auction-off your belongings.
Over 50% of the health care provided in this country today is already “single payer” government health care of the sort the President wants for 100% of our health care. So hows that working?
Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - The government has had 44 years to get it right; they're both broke. This is no surprise. There's a track-record here:
The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. Congress has had 234 years to get it right; its broke.
Social Security was established in 1935. Congress has had 74 years to get it right; its broke.
Fannie Mae was established in 1938. Congress has had 71 years to get it right; it's broke.
The War on Poverty started in 1964. The government, through a veritable buffet of hand-outs has had 45 years to get it right. Hundreds of billions of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor” and it hasn't worked.
Freddie Mac was established in 1970. The government has had 39 years to get it right; its broke.
Trillions of dollars in the massive political payoffs called TARP / Stimulus / Auto bail-out show NO sign of working.
Need I go into 'Cash for Clunkers' or Amtrak, or do you see a pattern here?
So with a perfect 100% failure rate that proves “services” the government shoves down our throats are failing faster and faster, they now want Americans to believe they can be trusted with a government-run health care system / 16% of our economy?
The inmates are running the asylum and WE are to blame. If we fail to speak out against this madness and stop it, then we deserve exactly what we get.
“”If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
— Samuel Adams
2 September 2009
at 11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cdc (Anonymous) says…
Wow, this article seems biased, and gives Lynn far more credit than she deserves.
I was at the forum for the entire time, and Lynn came off as terribly un-informed, and lacking any compassion for those needing health care. It’s scary that she is representing people in Washington. I’m quite certain many, many of her constituents have a better grasp on the health care issue than she does. She just pled ignorance when faced with opposition.
When Professor Hamilton (pictured) quoted statistics from the CIA, CDC, and WHO, Lynn responded saying she wasn’t aware of any of those statistics and quoted another constituent who told her at another town forum that these statistics weren’t true. Quoting one random person when faced with stats from the CIA, CDC and WHO isn’t very valid. Lynn didn’t even know where this constituent was getting his information (she said so)!
In general, Lynn is wonderful at NOT answering any questions. If she’s so against a public option, why wouldn’t she answer the question about if she was against Medicare?!
2 September 2009
at 11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mtn_david (Anonymous) says…
lets not forget we already have a public health care system. Its called the VA, ask any vet and get their opion on waiting 6-8 months to see your doctor.
2 September 2009
at noon
Suggest removal
Permalink
mistygreen (Anonymous) says…
Sorry LJ World - you got spanked again by the Capital Journal.
2 September 2009
at 12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tbaker (Anonymous) says…
I'm a Vet. If I call before 8:00am, I get in the same day. I have the option of switching to a private physician much closer to home in Lawrence. I prefer to drive to Leavenworth. You get same-day service, and the care is excellent.
2 September 2009
at 12:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
verity (Anonymous) says…
Boosh says… “My question is…
why does this crap always happen while Jon Stewart is on vacation?”
Would it be crediting people with too much intelligence to think that they might wait until he is on vacation to do this stuff? I really, really miss him. But I watch the BBC News when he is gone, so at least I get some idea of what's really going on.
“I don't think I have ever heard anyone accuse the LJW of being a conservative newspaper before.” Huh??
2 September 2009
at 12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Over The Moon and Stain were both accurate accounts. The crowd was largely pro single payer. She was not prepared to discuss the issue.
She does need to do a lot of homework. She was not aware of HR 676 …… a house bill.
Saying the repubs will address the all of the problems of:
*pre existing conditions
*dropping clients at will
*other problems
This will only increase the cost of insurance.
Of course elected officials accepting special interest campaign money increases the cost of insurance. Lynn Jenkins increases the cost of insurance. So do share holders. She talked a lot about the “Free Market” while at the same time she accepts special interest campaign money AND government employees are costing we taxpayers $1.2 trillion tax dollars. The free market is smoke and mirrors.
How does HR 676 and only HR 676 reduce the cost of insurance substantially?
* Eliminates high dollar medical insurance spending on what 2,000 health insurers add to the actual cost of medical insurance:
• its bureaucracy
• profits
• high corporate salaries
• advertising
* over charges
• sales commissions
• Shareholders ! are the primary clients of for-profit insurance companies, not patients
• Special interest campaign dollars
• Golden parachutes
* Eliminates Politicians as shareholders:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/…
* Eliminates Insurers Wrongfully Charging Consumers Billions = big time corruption
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/…
Go To: http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr-676/
2 September 2009
at 12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“A good system is when you can choose the type of care you want and work to pay for it yourself.”
Why do you think that under public option or single-payer healthcare will be free? it will be paid for by the same people who are paying for it now. In addition to tens of millions of people who don't currently have insurance will begin paying into the system.
There will be a very small percentage of people who won't pay in, because they can't for one reason or another (and I guarantee that anyone who is well enough off to be paying into the system wouldn't want to trade places with them— even if they do get “free” healthcare.)
“A good system is not forcing a doctor or other health care professional to perform services with a gun to his/her head.”
Can you name any industrialized democracy where this happens? Are there any of these countries in which medical practitioners aren't among the highest paid people in their respective economies?
“A good system is not putting a gun to anyone's head to pay for health care for someone else if that someone else is capable of working to pay for it himself.”
Nobody will put a gun to your head. You'll be assessed according to your ability to pay, and you will receive access to decent healthcare anywhere in the country. You won't have to pre-approve the practitioner or the facility with your insurance company.
There is no perfect system in the world, but many countries are way ahead of us in delivering decent, affordable healthcar, and ours system is broken very badly. So if you have any actual ideas of how to improve access to healthcare, and reduce costs, please let us know what they are so that we may consider them.
Merely throwing up silly scare tactics about methods and systems that are working mostly pretty well elsewhere will get us nowhere.
2 September 2009
at 12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llama726 (Anonymous) says…
@ tbaker, you said “Thats what Obama Care is my friends. Taking from one and giving to another. Now I know many well-meaning folks will say that trampling a person's liberty like this is one of those “ends justify the means” situations; that health care for all is such a laudable goal it's worth it.”
Most of your taxes go to the military. Do you feel that the military spends all of your tax dollars well?
The private sector's solution is not covering over 40 million people. How is that a solution? What's your counterproposal?
2 September 2009
at 12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“I'm a Vet. If I call before 8:00am, I get in the same day. I have the option of switching to a private physician much closer to home in Lawrence. I prefer to drive to Leavenworth. You get same-day service, and the care is excellent. ”
Make up your mind, tbaker— does govt. healthcare work, or not? Or do you just want to deprive others of decent care out of pure spite?
2 September 2009
at 12:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
exhawktown (Anonymous) says…
Bozo, you're aptly named. I've put up ideas about health care reform before. If you want, click on my username and read them. I'm not using scare tactics. I'm asking people to think. Sorry if you think that's scary.
2 September 2009
at 12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
exhawktown (Anonymous) says…
One more thing: The phrase “putting a gun to your head” is an expression illustrating the effects of requiring something by law.
2 September 2009
at 12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tbaker (Anonymous) says…
llama726 get your facts straight - Only 16% of the US budget is spent on DoD. Before you you tell me I'm leaving out the costs of the wars, understand this isn't something DoD has any say about. These are costs associated with political decisions. Whether or not money continues to be spent on the wars is not up to DoD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2…
40 million people are not “uninsured.” (47 million is what the President says) Consider the number already drawing government health care benefits under Medicare, Medicade, and the VA who have been erroneously included in this number. Consider those who can afford to buy insurance but chose not to, consider those who are illegal aliens, those cannot be considered “Americans without health care.” A more accurate figure is approximately 12 million.
Don't get me wrong, in my utopian libertarian world, these folks would have a path cleared for them by the government so the obstacles currently preventing them from acquiring health care on their own would be removed, but thats simply not realistic. As much as I hate the idea, tax money will have to be looted from the productive part of society and given to those who for what ever reason cannot take care of themselves.
Those who qualify would simply be given a Health Care Debit Card good for some politically acceptable amount of money. Folks could then shop around and find the best price and take charge of their own health care choices. You don't need a massive new government bureaucracy, and a huge, crippling out-lay of more government deficit spending to accomplish the simple task of ensuring the least fortunate among us have access to basic health care services.
2 September 2009
at 12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tbaker (Anonymous) says…
Be careful Bozo - your fallacies are showing.
Health care provided to military veterans works. Period.
2 September 2009
at 12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cait48 (Anonymous) says…
Dear tbaker,
The next time your house catches on fire be sure not to call that dirty “socialized” fire department. Your property is so precious to you, protect it yourself.
Your post at 11:43 was a repeat of a post you ran yesterday. Several people refuted all of your allegations yesterday, proving what lies you're willing to swallow. I too wonder what right wingnut blog you copy/pasted it from?
I guess what I find the most ironic about your posts is your post at 12:01. You participate in the only, truly “socialized” medical program the US runs. So you were in the military. That gives you the right to lifetime health care on MY dollar?
2 September 2009
at 12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
” I'm not using scare tactics. ”
Yes, you are, and I responded to them in the post above.
2 September 2009
at 12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…
toe (Anonymous) says…
“If left alone, most insurers and health care companies will go bankrupt. This is a good idea and will invite more efficient providers to move in.”
What? You've got to be kidding. Just take a look at how the stocks in those segments are doing on Wall Street. Do you really think that investors would be further leveraging themselves if there was an indication that they would fail? If nothing is done, they'll continue to bank double-digit annual increases and record profits like they have for decades. So, how exactly do you suppose this capitulation would occur? Follow the money.
2 September 2009
at 12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
exhawktown (Anonymous) says…
cAIT48: “So you were in the military. That gives you the right to lifetime health care on MY dollar?”
Yeah, it pretty much does. I'm going to go against something I've been trying very hard to not do this one time. Here goes. Some of you people are complete and total idiots. You claim to be compassionate, and yet, your true colors do come out. I'm happy to pay for a vet's health care. He/she performed a service for me and whether you like it or not, you. He/she worked for it. He/she earned it. Can't you find something more productive to do than call out someone who at one point, was willing to die for your right to b1tch?
Probably not.
2 September 2009
at 12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
exhawktown (Anonymous) says…
Bozo, I really can't help it if you're easily spooked.
2 September 2009
at 12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
exhawktown (Anonymous) says…
Bozo, it comes down to this: you and I have a huge difference in interpretation of “universal health care.” That's it. My interpretation is more realistic than yours. I simply don't believe a bill like HR3200 will work the way the majority of people who support it will. I don't see how it's going to result in lower costs. Incidentally, neither did the CBO. I see it as an infringement upon personal liberties, etc. You don't. That's your interpretation. It's simply wrong.
2 September 2009
at 12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jimo (Anonymous) says…
tbaker: “The simple fact is no one is entitled to a piece of my life or my property.”
I invite you to get the heck out of this country then. We don't need a succubus like you mooching off the taxpayer and then turning around a spewing forth drivel on the sacredness of property. In this country buckaroo, we pay our taxes or find ourselves at the wrong end of the barrel of a gun. Jeez! Pres. Washington provided the answer to your beef when he took personal command of the military, declared martial law, scattered the scofflaws refusing to pay tax using the same “you can't touch my property” foolishness of yours, and ordered a few hanged (although generously pardoned the traitors before that point). Sorry but our system isn't a smorgasbord where you get to cherry pick the benefits you like but refuse to deal with the rest.
Note: I understand Somalia currently lacks this government thing and won't take anything from you. I can get you some emigration info if you'd like. I hear it has a pleasant winter-time climate with average daily temps of 102. You'd be free to live out your grand experiment in libertarian anarchism there.
2 September 2009
at 12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
exhawktown (Anonymous) says…
The ignorance runs rampant. . .
2 September 2009
at 1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
Stain says:
The support was overwhelmingly for reform. There was mixed applause but the signs and the questions were almost 100% for reform.
Signs and yelling does not make a majority. The national statistics show a majority against 3200 and nobody has a single payer system on the real table - some in the wings.
I bet there were a lot of people from Mr. Moore's district there denying those of us from Ms. Jenkins district the right to express ourselves to our congressperson.
2 September 2009
at 1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
People denounce Medicare as some evil kind of medical insurance without acknowledging what great service it has provided to millions of senior citizens and millions more who lost their retirement plans.
White collar criminals will steal away your retirement/medical care plan without blinking an eye.
Think savings and loan rip off, ENRON, the high tech scandal, the cookin' the books scandal and the recent Maddoff ripoff.
Does anyone believe that all of the white collar criminals waiting to steal retirement plans are in jail? Get real.
This is how Rep John Conyers perceives HR 676 aka Medicare Insurance for All. Which BTW is the most comprehensive and fiscally responsible insurance ever offered to Americans.
* long term care such that cancer would require
* prescription drugs
* hospital
* surgical
* outpatient services
* primary and preventive care
* emergency services
* dental
* mental health
* home health
* physical therapy
* rehabilitation (including for substance abuse)
* vision care
* hearing services including hearing aids
* chiropractic
* durable medical equipment
* palliative care
A family of four making the median income of $56,200 would pay about $2,700 in payroll tax for all health care costs. About $225 per month. Today the above insurance coverage actually costs about $1,100 per month.
HR 676 ends deductibles and co-payments. If a deductible and/or co-pay policy is in effect this usually indicates under-insured.
Go To: http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr-676/
HR 676 would save hundreds of billions annually by eliminating the high overhead of the private health insurance industry and HMOs. The privatized medical insurance industry is anything but efficient.
2 September 2009
at 1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Why is Lynn Jenkins protecting the most expensive medical insurance in the world? Is it good for business? No it is anti business and anti new jobs and industry
Is protecting the most expensive medical insurance in the world good for keeping the cost of of just about everything we buy in reasonable check? Absolutely not it increases our cost of living across the board just like high dollar gasoline.
Did we elect people to office to protect the most expensive medical insurance in the world from a more reasonable and fiscally responsible insurance program? No way jose' That is corrupt.
Go To: http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr-676/
Did we send elected officials to Washington to accept special interest campaign money from the most expensive medical insurance program in the world? Heck NO that increases the cost of insurance!
So it seems the loudest voices against Smart Medicare Insurance for All are those who are profiting from the misfortune of others.
Why is it $1.2 trillion tax dollars are paid out on the most expensive medical insurance in the world to cover a wide variety of government employees including elected officials? Yet these same officials say NO to all of the rest of taxpayers.
HR 676 Medicare Insurance for All is not free as some like to say. How in the world can anything be free when paid with OUR tax dollars aka OUR money? Allowing our Medical Insurance to be paid with OUR tax dollars is like bringing YOUR money back home to improve YOUR quality of life.
Lynn Jenkins in essence was saying government cannot afford to pay for OUR health insurance. Then why are WE taxpayers paying for her health insurance?
2 September 2009
at 1:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Bozo, I really can't help it if you're easily spooked.”
I not “spooked” about the mis- and disinformation you spread. But I am “spooked” that you and many others actually believe your own BS, and that it may prevent actual improvements to the healthcare system, which is precisely what the Industrial/Medical/Insurance Complex would like to see happen.
BTW, I don't necessarily support any of the as-yet non-existent bills that may or may not come out of Congress. Up to now it's just talk, most of which leads me to believe that it will be reform in name only, and the $billions spent by the Industrial/Medical/Insurance Complex to bribe Congress and all recent presidents will ensure that there's plenty of candy in there for them, and very little for people who actually have to work for a living.
2 September 2009
at 1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
webmocker (Anonymous) says…
Is there more than one “tbaker” posting?
At 11:43 a.m. tbaker says:
“Over 50% of the health care provided in this country today is already “single payer” government health care of the sort the President wants for 100% of our health care. So hows that working?”
The many paragraphs that follow suggest that tbaker thinks government health care is not working so well.
At 12:01 p.m. tbaker says:
“I'm a Vet. If I call before 8:00am, I get in the same day. I have the option of switching to a private physician much closer to home in Lawrence. I prefer to drive to Leavenworth. You get same-day service, and the care is excellent.”
2 September 2009
at 1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tbaker (Anonymous) says…
The liberal (actually “statist” is a better term) embrace of the socialist welfare state is born of a genuine sympathy for the plight of the less fortunate, whose condition they hoped to improve through social legislation; the latest incarnation being Obamacare – which many of you obviously support out of some feeling of compassion. I believe it is terribly misguided to assume that compulsory compassion administered under the supervision of government is somehow more likely to be effective than the charitable efforts of private individuals. This is simply a false premise. Charity ceases to be charitable when it is no longer a gift but a right. You can’t be generous with other people’s money. Examples abound of private charitable organizations consistently delivering far better care to the indigent than any government program ever did. Ever-expanding government services do not foster compassion. The poor and suffering are manipulated to deliver votes and preserve political power. They end up worse off than they started. Socializing our health care system is a great way to lower the quality, raise the price, cut promised benefits to those who have worked and paid-in to the system their entire lives, and generally diminish the medical care currently available in the attempt to provide service for all. The idea we must make something worse so we can provide more it is simply dumb. Making sure every American has access to quality health care is certainly an admirable goal that I wholeheartedly support, but to do it through much greater coercion by the state makes the cure worse than the disease. By the way, it’s pretty easy to spot those who know they are losing the argument on the merits. They lash-out with juvenile tantrums of name-calling because somewhere deep in their soul they suddenly realize they’re wrong. P.S. I’m glad some of you read my other blog posts as well. That’s awesome. Thanks
2 September 2009
at 1:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Danimal (Anonymous) says…
tbaker must have read Mark Levin's book.
Jenkins was a huge step down from Boyda.
2 September 2009
at 2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bookemdano (Anonymous) says…
tbaker you had me until you admitted that not only do you get free health care (not just insurance but actual care) from the government for the rest of your life, but that apparently you also really like it.
Really puts a dent in your argument that the government can't do anything right.
2 September 2009
at 2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Practicality (Anonymous) says…
tbaker doesn't receive “free” healthcare. That was the agreement he made with the government to supplement risk and low pay. Maybe everone who doesn't have healthcare should join the military if it is so important to them, then they can have “free” heathcare too, just like tbaker did. See the difference?
2 September 2009
at 2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bookemdano (Anonymous) says…
No, I don't. Under a public insurance plan, *very few* of this nation's citizens would receive free health care. Most of them would pay premiums just like we do now with private insurers.
My point about tbaker's hypocrisy is not that the fact that he receives free health care from the government but that his other posts indicate his position that the government *can't* do health care right and furthermore has no business even trying, when the fact is that he receives government health care now and likes it.
Sort of like all the senior citizens who are so fiercely against a public option but “hands off my medicare!”.
Sort of like all the republicans in office who are so fiercely against any government involvement in health insurance but none support getting rid of medicare.
2 September 2009
at 2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
I don't want “free” healthcare, Practicality— I just want to get what I pay for, and if I help subsidize healthcare for the relatively few among us who can't afford to contribute, I'm not so ideologically uptight that it worries me all that much.
Besides, any of us could very easily be in that position someday, including all you smug, I-did-it-all-by-myself, libertarian John Waynes.
2 September 2009
at 2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says…
After reading some of the comments on here, it is quite obvious there is a serious disconnect between perceptions and reality.
I can see what people mean by government failure but at the same time we are still here and still function overall as a democratic society. I find it perplexing when someone starts out by saying “my life”, “my property”, or “my freedoms” and not understand that the only reason why these situations exist is because of a government elected by the people for the people. The United States has roads for you to drive in, they protect you from crime, rescue and help you from fires or natural disasters, defend your right to exist as a country and educate you so that you can make informed choices.
The United States government provide services that you approve of even though they are clearly “socialized” services. Why do we do this? Why would we create a government that does these things. Sure, we do find ourselves in economically unfeasible situations such as being “broke” but hey I guess the Somalian government isn't broke so maybe we should all move there.
So as I read these comments about how the government is failing everything and quotes about Big Brother coming soon, I think to myself, Boy am I sure glad I live in such a failed police-state and think I wouldn't trade my life, my property, and my freedoms for any other place in the world.
2 September 2009
at 2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tbaker (Anonymous) says…
Thanks Practical. I appreciate it.
Booke - Health care for military vets isn't free. Depending on the year you retired (the law changes all the time) Vets have an annual co-pay. Last year mine was $1800, and yes, legislation currently pending in congress wants to dramatically increase that. I know this is a very cheap price to pay compared to what a lot of civilians have to pay for health insurance (that would not include congress or federal government employees I might add) but what can I tell ya. The contract I signed in 1977 said it would be “free” for life. Its just another example of how government programs never fail to cost more and deliver less than they originally promise.
When I looked over the law that makes Vets pay for something that was contractually promised to be free, I also wasn't very surprised to see the government hold itself not liable from previous contractual obligations by citing their right of imminent domain. I suspect (sadly) the same tactic will soon be used on Medicare recipients who have paid in their entire working lives for a promised benefit in return when that program goes bankrupt in a few years. There won't be enough of us paying-in to cover the costs of all the baby boomers. They'll either have to borrow more money from the Chinese or cut promised benefits.
In the same law I found it astonishing that if a person is covered by veterans health care benefits, it is actually illegal for them (me) to receive health care benefits from an employer-sponsored health care plan. I tried to get some health care benefits from my employer to cover some costs for my family the VA doesn't cover, and the HR person read me the same law. Amazing.
BTW, when I reach 65 and apply for social security - which the law requires me to do - what ever I receive in social security payments will be deducted from my military pension. Yes, technically I'll get a social security check, but financially speaking military retirees do not receive a social security benefit that we paid into our entire lives. Since we'll never see a dime of that money, the least they could have done is given us a charitable deduction for our payments into social security. Can you imagine what it costs to maintain this Rube Goldberg bureaucracy that takes from one government agency and gives to another? For what it's worth, when I turn 65, I have to enroll in Medicare - I'm off the VA health care rolls all together at that point (another broken promise). After you turn 65, all the VA does is cover out of pocket expenses not covered by Medicare.
Like I said before, socializing our health care system is a great way to lower the quality, raise the price, cut promised benefits to those who have worked and paid-in to the system their entire lives, and generally diminish the medical care currently available in the attempt to provide service for all. I'm living proof.
2 September 2009
at 3:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
exhawktown (Anonymous) says…
Bozo, I'm not spreading mis and dis information. I happen to disagree with you. I could easily say the same thing about you—that you're spreading BS as well.
I'm simply tired of the argument that just because I don't blindly support a democrat-sponsored health care reform bill, and that I comment on it, that I am spreading misinformation. I'm tired of that argument when referring to any dissent on this possible legislation. Everything is open to interpretation, and if you don't “necessarily support any of the as-yet non-existent bills that may or may not come out of Congress” well, good for you. You must have interpreted something you may or may not have read, that you may or may not have liked… I don't know.
So, it seems, you support, in general, health care reform. Well hey, me too!
2 September 2009
at 3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rbwaa (Anonymous) says…
Responding to a University of Kansas student who said Republicans continually ask Democrats to compromise on health care reform but then don't hold up their end of the deal, Jenkins said: “The Democrats have unfettered power in Washington. My opinion is not needed.”
http://cjonline.com/news/local/2009-0…
If Jenkins' opinion is not needed (in Washington), does that mean her constituents' opinions are not needed either?
2 September 2009
at 3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tbaker (Anonymous) says…
I can't decide if Rep. Jenkin's remark about her “opinion not being needed in Washington” is a rookie gaff from a freshman member of congress, or an indication of some deep character flaw that's far more sinister. Shes only been in office eight months. Maybe I shouldn't rush to judgment and just give her a chance.
2 September 2009
at 3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Rod Boshart
des moines - The largest organization representing Iowa seniors says a survey of its members found they want Congress to make major changes this year to improve Medicare and reform the nation's health-care system.
Bruce Koeppl, Iowa state director for AARP, said a survey of 500 members in Iowa aged 50 and older indicated strong backing for Congress to take action to curb health-care costs and strengthen Medicare.
“This survey is a firm rebuttal of the notion that older Americans don't want health-care reform this year, and in fact, it shows our members believe just the opposite,” Koeppl told a Statehouse news conference today.
“After the past few weeks of well-documented concerns, myths, town hall protests, and far too often uncivil debate, this survey shows majorities of Iowa AARP members still believe change is necessary and the status quo is not sustainable.”
According to results of a telephone poll that AARP commissioned RDD Field Surveys to conduct of voting Iowa AARP members last week, 63 percent of the respondents said the health-care system needs major changes or a complete overhaul and another 28 percent favored at least minor changes.
2 September 2009
at 3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
exhawktown (Anonymous) says…
I think the comment was tongue in cheek, as her opinion is probably that the dems have indicated they don't “need her opinion” — that kind of thing. It's a guess.
I wonder about the context of the remark, and what the university student meant by the dems' comment on repubs who “don't hold up their end of the deal.” Not sure what exactly that means.
2 September 2009
at 3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Practicality (Anonymous) says…
In reference to that quote, I think she could have used a better choice of words, but rbwaa didn't put the last part of that statement in his/her post.
“The Democrats have unfettered power in Washington. My opinion is not needed.”
She said that if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wants something, she gets it.
http://cjonline.com/news/local/2009-0…
I thought this was interesting too.
“The Topeka Capital-Journal attempted to interview three people who were supporters of Jenkins' stance on health care reform, but they declined to comment.”
Basically, the liberal mob that descended on the Dole center effectively scared the opposition into silence. And you guys thought that only libs were afraid of conservatives.
2 September 2009
at 4:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…
BuenaVista (Anonymous) says…
“Fine by me just lower my taxes. City firefighters are a bunch of overpaid welfare cases anyway.”
File this one under the “famous last words” category. Seriously, if you ever need the jaws of life and there are none or no one that knows how to use them, but you saved a few dollars on your taxes…just remember that you can't take it with you, wherever you are going.
Some people can't imagine anything more than 4 feet from them.
2 September 2009
at 4:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
Please see:
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/loyal…
2 September 2009
at 4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tbaker (Anonymous) says…
Supertramp - the “rights” you speak of did not come from our government. By virtue of being born a human being on this planet, you came into this world with those rights already a part of you. Thats what the founders meant when they referred to them as “inalienable.” Our federal government was quite deliberately created with very narrow, very specific “enumerated” powers with one end in mind: to protect these rights, and guard against any infringement on them. We have a federal government in the first place to ensure our individual liberty is guaranteed - not taken from us. Sadly our government has long-ago strayed from this charter. Now our individual liberties and personal property mean nothing if they conflict with the plans of the federal government for some higher purpose. The founders felt it was the power of the state that must be limited. The “greater good” could never trump individual rights and liberties. Unfortunately, it has and the more we depart from that ethos, the more evident it becomes this is at the very root of most of the problems we have in this country today.
2 September 2009
at 5:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stain (Anonymous) says…
Nobody is asking for free health care.
Nothing is free.
We work and pay taxes, and we would like to have all that money go to health care and not the $400 billion a year that goes to insurance companies.
There is waste in the system and most of it goes to insurance company overhead and profits.
2 September 2009
at 5:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stain (Anonymous) says…
Practicality:
Were you there? No you were not. Or you could not describe that civil audience as a “mob” or claim anybody was scared by them.
They may have been challenged by the facts and statistics that were presented by the questioners. The doctor, the pharmacist, the mayor, the student, the psychology instructor, all had their facts at hand and presented compelling arguments for health care reform.
2 September 2009
at 5:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“I'm simply tired of the argument that just because I don't blindly support a democrat-sponsored health care reform bill, and that I comment on it, that I am spreading misinformation.”
Really? Then where are the “guns” you claim are going to be held to people's heads?
2 September 2009
at 5:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Practicality (Anonymous) says…
Stain,
No I was not there. But, he was.
Moderate (George Lippencott)
Please see:
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/loyal…
And, what I read in CJonline did not sound so orderly if you ask me.
2 September 2009
at 5:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Practicality (Anonymous) says…
Or, they could have been intimidated into silence Stain. Possible? I think so. I think it is quite possible that they were afraid of being shouted down, or accosted verbally or physically, who knows. Do you know why they didn't comment?
2 September 2009
at 6:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Practicality (Anonymous) says…
Taken from Moderate (George Lippencott)'s blog. Who is commenting on the Lynn Jenkins town forum.
“My wife and I went to hear our Congressperson speak yesterday. We had three specific questions about how the ongoing health care reform would affect our Medicare. We ended up in the hallway with no real way to ask those questions.
There were a lot of people there from the far left pushing a single payer system. To our knowledge even the Democrats are not pushing that solution. There was clearly much passion in the “performance” of the advocates for that solution. There seemed to be little tolerance for any other opinion. The tactics of interrupting people and pushing signs around are reminiscent of the tactics employed by the “Reds” against the Trotskyites way back then. Could our far left be adopting such tactics? ”
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/loyal…
Taken from cjonline
“After 15 minutes, some audience members grew restless and spoke over Jenkins, telling her they wanted to talk about health care.”
AND
“We will get there,” Jenkins said, and then added that she had done 26 town hall meetings so far and had never had a group treat her with such disrespect.
“You need to be respectful to us,” an audience member countered.
AND
Jenkins continued, talking about how cap-and-trade legisation was “dead on arrival” in the Senate, as well as other energy issues.
“C'mon,” someone in the crowd said.
AND
The Topeka Capital-Journal attempted to interview three people who were supporters of Jenkins' stance on health care reform, but they declined to comment.
http://cjonline.com/news/local/2009-0…
Still sound like a civil discourse to you Stain? Or, do you believe it was civil because your side yelled the loudest?
2 September 2009
at 6:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mr_right_wing (Anonymous) says…
Let's just go ahead and call it what it is…it's not a matter of health care, but health control!
I'm not sure who originally said this; but it nails our situation exactly!!
“Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it and whose members will be exempt from it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke.”
That is not the last time you'll see that…I feel it bears repeating in future blogs.
2 September 2009
at 6:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…
What, no guns or people shouting her down, or spewing Nazi epithets, or shoving people around or toting bullhorns? No three ring circus?
Sounds pretty civil compared to the hijacking of the issue that reform opponents had on prominent display the past several weeks.
2 September 2009
at 6:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
tbaker (Anonymous) says…
I do not think you are right about Social Security. When I went on it there was no reduction in my pension.
The deduction occurs in any VA payments you receive for service connected medical issues. Your pension (if you get one) will be offset by those payments.
If you are a retired vet you have no choice but to go on Medicare when you turn 65 if you want Tricare fro Life. I am not certain if you can avoid Part B and use space available VA care but I don't think you can.
2 September 2009
at 6:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
Dear stupid:
Is it possible to disagree with both 3200 and Ms. Jenkins?? Sounds like those are the only acknowledged options???
2 September 2009
at 6:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…
Let's get the best bill. I would urge Ms. Jenkins to convince her party to come back to the table.
It's not in the cards, though.
2 September 2009
at 7:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bookemdano (Anonymous) says…
“The tactics of interrupting people and pushing signs around are reminiscent of the tactics employed by the [far right against their congresspeople and health reform supporters last month]. Could our far left be adopting such tactics?”
See, now wouldn't that be a tad more “moderate” way to put it, George? Comparing it to a Russian communist rally seems a tad overdramatic to *this* moderate.
2 September 2009
at 8:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
CherylHudspeth (Anonymous) says…
The Republican plan is materializing. They want health insurance for everyone, but you have to buy it from their friends in the private health insurance industry. Of course since they oppose the government intruding into the lives of individuals-they will have to put up a good fight against those nasty Democrats and blame it on them.
Lynn Jenkins needs to go and I am ready to help her out the door.
2 September 2009
at 9:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…
Practicality:
You'd be laughed out of the room if you spoke to anybody who was there and you claimed it was not civil.
Have you read about the forums where the anti reformers dominate? That is what you call uncivil.
Don't comment if you were not there.
2 September 2009
at 9:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…
The town hall in Lawrence was civil. Lively is a good description. It was impassioned but orderly. Even though Jenkins managed to make the hour shrink into only 30 minutes on the topic of health care.
Another beautifully positive and civil event on health care reform took place tonight. There was a candlelight vigil in South Park for reform. Several spoke eloquently.
These Lawrence events are a cut above many of the ones that are making the news. If you are civil you don't get any attention from the media.
2 September 2009
at 11:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stain (Anonymous) says…
Practicality:
Again, you were not there. You did not even see a video. You don't have enough information to be making the accusations you are making. You are inferring things that were not true.
Nobody intimidated anybody. Nobody prevented anybody else from speaking. Nobody booed anybody. The interruptions of Jenkins you describe were very brief and civil - all three of them. It was a political event, not a church, for God's sake. As tame as they get.
Those right wingers are probably not used to being in a crowd where they are not the majority. He complained about their opinions, as if they had no right to advocate single payer. It was a ridiculous letter.
Again, if you were not there, you don't know what you're talking about.
2 September 2009
at 11:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EmJones (Anonymous) says…
There was not a single moment at that event that could be called anything but civil.
The pro reformers were civil. The anti reformers were civil.
Jenkins was the most insulting one there, if you want to know the truth. She seemed to forget that she works for her constituents - not the other way around.
2 September 2009
at 11:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EmJones (Anonymous) says…
Moderate says:
I bet there were a lot of people from Mr. Moore's district there denying those of us from Ms. Jenkins district the right to express ourselves to our congressperson.
–––––-
Oh no you don't. I was there. Nobody denied anybody else the right to speak. Not for one second did anybody do that. Nobody shouted anybody down, nobody booed anyone, nobody brought a gun or used body language to threaten anybody - all tactics I have seen anti reformers use in videos from various town halls. That did not happen in Lawrence.
Jenkins arranged things so that there were only 30 minutes for her spiel on health care and for the questions and discussion, all combined. She short-changed all of us. I think she did this on purpose.
I do not think she wanted to give Lawrence a forum. First she was late, then she refused to talk about health care for at least 15 minutes.
What prevented you, George LIppencott, from getting in line when she finally asked people to line up behind the microphone? Too many people and too little time? Guess what. I did not get a chance to ask my question either.
A dozen people out of 250 got to speak. That's because Jenkins gave barely any time to Lawrence on the subject of health care. Nobody else is complaining but you.
3 September 2009
at 12:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EmJones (Anonymous) says…
Practicality said (even though he was not at the forum):
Basically, the liberal mob that descended on the Dole center effectively scared the opposition into silence. And you guys thought that only libs were afraid of conservatives.
–––––––––––
Scared the opposition? And how do you think they scared the opposition? What did they use - guns? I will tell you what George is scared of: the barrage of facts supporting the speakers' arguments.
I saw reporters asking for comments outside the Dole Center after the event. People were dispersing. There is no way any “liberal” was hanging around intimidating any anti-reformer or preventing them from speaking to a reporter. If they did not want to express their opinion to a reporter, perhaps they were intimidated by the arguments that had been presented a few minutes earlier, inside.
3 September 2009
at 11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says…
tbaker,
What exactly are “natural” or “inalienable” rights? Who determines these? What is the difference between rights and abilities?
What is capitalism? Is it possible to have continuous economic growth? What causes economic collapse?
Anyone can wax lyrical for the golden past but you do recognize that anytime we form a government regardless of very narrow, very specific “enumerated” powers, there is always a degree of limitation. It is matter of finding that delicate balance between what we want as individuals and what is needed to function as a society.
As Jonathan Wallace says:
“We are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe.”
My final comment tbaker, Change happens and if we are to survive as a society, we must change.
3 September 2009
at 11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
EmJones (Anonymous) says…
We were in the hall. The line was already too long to allow comments from all before we could even “leap” out of our seats let along climb over a full room. At my age I kind of avoid elbow contact!
If there were reporters outside when we left we did not see him/her and were not asked for comments. Could the reporters have been drawn to those who expressed an opinions in the meeting?
3 September 2009
at 11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
“Health reform forum lively.”
Interesting headline, since without health care reform, for some it will be deadly.
4 September 2009
at 4:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Keeping the insurance industry involved will most certainly increase your cost of living and your cost of medical insurance. That has been proven for at least 50 years.
All politicians protecting the insurance industry are also protecting shareholders,are also protecting special interest campaign money,are also protecting the reckless spending of health care dollars($100 million) which are being spent to kill reform all and I mean all of which increase the cost of YOUR medical insurance.
So many politicians speaking about the rising costs are themselves increasing the cost as they receive campaign money,are shareholders or have a close relative sitting on a board collecting $200,000 a year.
Lynn Jenkins it was noted is receiving campaign dollars as are Tihart,Moran,Brownback,Roberts and Moore. Think how many other polticians are on this special interest campaign dollar give away aka bribery band wagon.
How can all of these politicians be objective?
Pull this matter away from politicians and let the nation vote on the matter. HR 676/HR 3200 would pass in a flash.
It would also eliminate one large source of special interest campaign money that has been corrupting the system since the 1940's. Medical insurance should NOT be equated with a can of beans on a retail shelf.
Health care should be a right. Healthy humans are more productive. National Health Insurance would be a lovely and healthy gift to small and large business.
National Health Insurance would make america more attractive to new industry. The USA lost 8 million jobs in the last few years of the Bush/Cheney admin alone. I say the the USA needs 16-20 million new jobs to help replace those which have been lost to nations that which do provide health care to their populations.
4 September 2009
at 5:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
What do you have against competition merril?
4 September 2009
at 5:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
There is no competition anyway. Insurance clients do not have budgets of $100,000,000 to spend recklessly on politicians and BS campaigns. Clients have to spend their health care dollars more carefully. Meanwhile the insurance industry squanders health care dollars on politicians = corruption. They also squander plenty on shareholders. This money should be spent on health care.
I love competition but maintenance of someone's good health should not be based on competition. It should be based on immediate availability not on how much one can afford to spend with a corrupt insurance corporation.
The thing I love about National Health Insurance is that it allows MY tax dollars to provide health care to my family.
AND it brings MY tax dollars back to Lawrence,Kansas
AND it allows anyone to choose which doctor or clinic they choose. No booklet of of choices would be necessary ever again.
AND National Health Insurance would be there 365 days a year,24 hours a day and 7 days a week no matter what.
AND no more deductibles and co pays that in reality relieve the insurance industry of their responsibility.
The nice side of HR 676 is that those $1.2 trillion medical insurance tax dollars that covers a wide variety of government employees will actually be enough to provide insurance to all in the USA….yes under HR 676. That is certainly far more efficient use of OUR money aka tax dollars. It's about time.
National Health Insurance does not remove competition from the actual health care industry. It will be alive and well. Profits will be based on customer service and clinic performance based on the clients experience. This is my perception of competition.
4 September 2009
at 5:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
There may be competion between Insurance companies to try and have a better deal than another. Down the food chain, there is competion between those that are 'in the loop' for Insurance companies that provide the services in demand. Many providers offer many opportunities/ “hope and choices” for consumers 'in the loop'.
The progressive government offers 'zip' for opportunities to compete against.
no free lunch
Darwin's theories live.
Darwin bless you,
4 September 2009
at 6:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
The nice side of HR 676 is that those $1.2 trillion medical insurance tax dollars that covers a wide variety of government employees will actually be enough to provide insurance to all in the USA….yes under HR 676. That is certainly far more efficient use of OUR money aka tax dollars. It's about time.
This is no free lunch. Those tax dollars belong to US. That is no free lunch. How in the world do OUR tax dollars represent a free lunch? RINO's such as Sen Roberts have a strange perception of OUR tax dollars.
4 September 2009
at 7:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
They are our tax dollars and the sweat and upset tummy to earn them.
keep earning and keeping
Darwin bless you