Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

No thanks

August 12, 2011

Advertisement

To the editor:

Sam and I were walking down Massachusetts Street, and a fellow from Washington comes up and says, “Hey, here’s $31.5 million to help Kansans with their health insurance.”

Sam says, “Not so fast. I’ll have to pay it back and I bet there are lots of strings.”

The fellow says “No, it’s a grant and there are very few strings attached.”

Sam says, “But my big-money conservative friends might think I’m getting soft with big government money. No thanks.”

The fellow from Washington says, “But I heard, sir, that here in Kansas, people try to take care of each other.”

“No thanks, anyway.” says Sam.

I look at Sam, and say, “Good job, Brownie.”

Comments

socialintelligencecounts 3 years ago

People in Kansas like to flatter themselves they take care of each other, but the truth is that without knowledge and understanding good intentions will not get you very far. In the name of putting on self-flattering do-gooder dramas a lot of harm of done. Sensitive and aware people realize that many do not welcome having their privacy disturbed and their boundaries violated by strangers in public. To bother strangers for ignorant reasons is street harassment, and a world-wide movement to resist this discriminatory mistreatment is now afoot. So get with the times, and if the shoe fits consider fixing yourself before you start mobbing and molesting strangers.

0

Richard Heckler 3 years ago

The GOP party is dead. Republicans do not think like Brownback.

Meanwhile...

Quit Voting RINO

These RINO's care about money and power. Yes Koch Bros are nut jobs just like the Wal-Mart family and both are billionaires through no fault of their own. Yet both are funding think tanks and other PAC"s that represent lower wages for most all americans blue and white collar.

STOP electing RINO’s ! My My father in law left the RINO party because he is a fiscal conservative republican with at least 50 years under his belt. Evermore stunning he is working with the democrat party in Pennsylvania.

RINO's focus is privatization of as much government as possible. Not because private industry can do anything better or more efficient. It is because these private industry nut jobs want OUR trillions of tax dollars in their bank accounts.

Then OUR trillions of tax dollars can be spent evermore recklessly after all the most reliable source of fraud against consumers and taxpayers is private industry. Case in point: remember Sen Bill Frist? He and his family own a few HMO's that which ripped Medicare for billions. These white collar criminals should be in jail and never allowed to have access to medicare dollars again.

Privatization = expansion of government by way of YOUR tax dollars

Do you want MORE of your tax dollars spent on:

  1. CEO's
  2. Stock options
  3. Shareholders
  4. golden parachutes
  5. special interest campaign contributions
  6. corp jets
  7. 3 martini dinners
  8. lawyers defending against fraud charges
  9. dishonest campaign commercials
  10. homes in Aspen,Colorado

Republicans should quit voting for RINO's!

0

Flap Doodle 3 years ago

"..And there is another type of Caps Lock user who doesn’t capitalize whole sentences but INSTEAD capitalizes a few SPECIFIC words for EMPHASIS. Now read a sentence like that aloud, shouting every time you come to a capitalized word, and tell me you do not sound like an absolute freakin’ lunatic. This method can turn even basic known facts into crazy-sounding gibberish (“The SQUARE of the HYPOTENUSE of a RIGHT triangle equals the SUM of the squares of the OTHER two sides”)...." http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/tips-for-not-appearing-crazy-on-the-internet/ BTW, merrill, politically, you are off to the left of Trotsky, where do you get off judging who is a real Republican?

0

3 years ago

Dude, I found this in the CJonline - someone is stealing your material.

. Blame on the RINO Brownbacknew

By Earth Doctor | 08/12/11 - 05:45 am

Kansas is dying quickly. Jenkins can see that. Too bad he spent so much money bringing MARS. That deal may never pay back because the tax dollar give away on the MARS deal is not over.

Quit Voting RINO = there is no republican party

These RINO's care about money and power. Yes Koch Bros are nut jobs just like the Wal-Mart family and both are billionaires through no fault of their own. Yet both are funding think tanks and other PAC"s that represent lower wages for most all americans blue and white collar.

RINO's focus is privatization of as much government as possible. Not because private industry can do anything better or more efficient. It is because these private industry nut jobs want OUR trillions of tax dollars in their bank accounts.

Then OUR trillions of tax dollars can be spent evermore recklessly after all the most reliable source of fraud against consumers and taxpayers is private industry.

Case in point: remember Sen Bill Frist? He and his family own a few HMO's that which ripped Medicare for billions. These white collar criminals should be in jail and never allowed to have access to medicare dollars again.

Privatization = expansion of government by way of YOUR tax dollars

Do you want MORE of your tax dollars spent on:

  1. CEO's
  2. Stock options
  3. Shareholders
  4. golden parachutes
  5. special interest campaign contributions
  6. corp jets
  7. 3 martini dinners
  8. lawyers defending against fraud charges
  9. dishonest campaign commercials
  10. homes in Aspen,Colorado

Republicans should quit voting for RINO's!

Earth Doctor

0

beatrice 3 years ago

Yes. They keep it next to the server filled with comments by people complaining about Merrill exercising his right to free speach.

0

3 years ago

Oh I don't think that is the issue at all. I just pass over all of his comments because as you said he has the right to post them and I have the right to ignore long repetative drivel.

I do wonder why someone bothers to post the same thing over and over and it appears going so far as to post the same cut and paste on other sites too.

What is the purpose? I can understand those that post here to prove how smart they are, or to make sport out of bashing others or to engage in a discussion on current events, but why someone would constantly paste the same long posts is a mystery to me.

0

Ron Holzwarth 3 years ago

It appears that fred-mertz is wondering: Why would someone constantly paste the same long posts?

The answer is, it's his hobby. I have a somewhat similar one. But, my hobby is to write my own original posts.

And I am willing to admit, some of mine are rather long also.

0

3 years ago

And nothing wrong with your hobby or Merrills, I just wonder what is the point? Your's I can understand; it is fun to construct a well-thought out response to something you agree or disagree with. Kind of a mental exercise and we all like seeing our words in print. But how much fun can it be just pasting the same thing over and over?

0

gl0ck0wn3r 3 years ago

You are probably right because one could compress Merrill's posts more effectively because most of them are essentially the same. Similarity = better compression. The complaints are typically typed originals and wouldn't be as easily compressed. Thus they'd take up more drive space.

0

gl0ck0wn3r 3 years ago

One doesn't have a right to free speech on a private web server. Try again.

0

jafs 3 years ago

Yep.

But it's up to the moderators of the forum, not you/other people who don't like Merrill's posts, whether or not it's ok for him to post them.

0

gl0ck0wn3r 3 years ago

I agree, but that doesn't mean I can't make fun of him for his endless out of date rants.

0

Dan Eyler 3 years ago

I guess when the housing market and real estate gets so bad in Lawrence and the cash flow slows you start looking for handouts from those you duped into buying over inflated houses that many can no longer afford. I can see why you don't like Brownie.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years ago

Burock is a man of many talents, including writing laughable letters such as this one.

0

fourkitties 3 years ago

wow next time you want to try to be funny....spell a persons name correctly. Yes I'm talking about Mr. Grubers.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years ago

Did I not spell "Burock" correctly? If so, how should it be spelled?

0

cato_the_elder 3 years ago

"Sam and I were walking down Massachusetts Street, and a fellow from Washington comes up and says, 'Hey, here’s $31.5 million specifically earmarked to help Obama, Sebelius, and Praeger get Obamacare up and running in Kansas before the U.S. Supreme Court has even determined whether it's constitutional.'”

Fixed. You're welcome.

0

saraj 3 years ago

Excellent letter, Mr. Gruber. Nice to see some sanity in KS.....

0

Getaroom 3 years ago

Get a life Cato and Snappy, this one is worn out for you two.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years ago

Not as worn out as it will be if Obamacare isn't snuffed.

0

nativeson 3 years ago

There are definitely costs associated with this federal funding, but the Governor owes taxpayers in Kansas an analysis of how he believes this grant will not pay for itself.

0

jafs 3 years ago

He doesn't provide those sorts of analyses until after the fact, and then they're frequently flawed.

0

jafs 3 years ago

That's not the full, or accurate quote.

0

3 years ago

But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Nancy Pelosi

0

jafs 3 years ago

That's the quote.

Thank you.

0

3 years ago

I can understand the logic that you cannot be against the health care act and accept a grant to implement it. I can understand it symbolizes compromising your principles to some, but I think a more appropriate way to look at it is hedging your bets.

I believe that the health care act is unconstitutional and should be overturned, but even if it is indeed unconstitutional, there is no guarantee that the SCOTUS will overturn it and so the grant made sense.

Kansas had an opportunity to develop an exchange that is required under the act using funds that came from a grant that Kansas sought and whose actions were endorsed by Brownback. Not only would Kansas' work benefit our state, it would also help other states in the future as our work was intended to serve as a model for other states.

Now, we will have to create an exchange on our own dime or even worse we will have to accept the federal government's exchange model. I believe we know what is best for our state so we should have built a customize exchange best suited for us instead of having to opt for one off the federal shelf intended to be a one size fits all exchange.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years ago

I don't know if it's unconstitutional or not. And even if the SCOTUS rules on it, the court has become so politicized these days, the term "unconstitutional" has lost much of its meaning. I think it would be more accurate to say that a law is "repealed" by the SCOTUS than to say "ruled unconstitutional."

Regardless, with the power the insurance industry wields in Washington, the requirement that everyone buy insurance is the only way to achieve anything like universal coverage. The insurance companies would be just fine if the entire "Obamacare" program were to be repealed, but they won't be happy if only the requirement to purchase their products is removed, and that's about the only provision that the SCOTUS is likely to review. So my guess is that the steam against Obamacare will dissipate because insurance companies would rather not risk the 9/10 of a cake they get with Obamacare just to return to the whole cake they used to get, knowing that if a real debate on healthcare ever happens (and it didn't happen with Obamacare) they could easily end up with 1/2 a cake or less.

0

3 years ago

As usual, excellent analysis - amazing how you get right to the heart of complicated matters. Great job!

0

jafs 3 years ago

That's because that's the provision that may be unconstitutional.

The Interstate Commerce Clause wasn't designed to allow the federal government to mandate individual purchases, in my view.

And, if that part is repealed, much of the rest of it falls apart - it's one of the only ways in which the bill is trying to keep costs down, by increasing the risk pool and including people who aren't likely to need much in the way of health care while they pay into it for some years.

0

3 years ago

I just read on this on the internet.

"The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also reversed a lower court decision that threw out the entire healthcare law."

As you pointed out it really doesn't matter if they allow the law to stand if they throw out the individual mandate. I am sure the SCOTUS doesn't want to touch this, but it really needs to be decided sooner than later.

0

jafs 3 years ago

I'm sure it'll get there.

And, it'll be interesting to see what this court says about it.

If they throw out the mandate based on the idea that one should narrowly interpret the ICC, then that will conflict with laws that allow the federal government to prosecute folks for using marijuana in states that have legalized it, since that's based on a similarly broad interpretation of it.

But I don't expect the court to be consistent, even though it would be nice.

0

3 years ago

Ah you hit on a pet peeve of mine - inconsistancy. Be consistent and apply the logic from one issue to another similar one - is it really that hard?

Actually it is, because it makes one have to accept issues they don't agree with. Many conservatives believe strongly in individual rights with limited government interference, but then they do like strippers so they throw consistency out the window so they can try to ban them.

That is the problem with the Constitution, it protects your rights and the rights of others, even those with whom you disagree and for some that sucks.

0

jaywalker 3 years ago

All true. But what so many here fail to realize is we can get the money back if future considerations dictate. While not popular, Brownback's move was prudent.

0

jafs 3 years ago

Really?

I thought it was for an early program of exchanges. By definition, if we wait a while, we won't be in the "early" group of states.

Do you have a source for the idea that we can just wait and get the money later?

0

jafs 3 years ago

This demonstrates the mob mentality quite nicely.

It's a good thing that our founding fathers designed a system which is supposed to prevent the majority from simply running the minority out of town.

And, I will repeat the facts - about 1/3 of eligible voters in KS elected the governor. There's simply no way to know what the "majority opinion" is in KS.

We do know that about 1/2 of the eligible voters don't vote.

0

jafs 3 years ago

I agree, and I've said so a number of times.

0

jafs 3 years ago

And it's not "my logic", it's simple arithmetic.

0

beatrice 3 years ago

Can we apply the same "logic" to President Obama haters?

0

3 years ago

It depends on the issue, but generally I fall in the conservative camp so this isn't some tree hugging Pelosi loving liberal saying this - you're wrong to tell those that disagree with Brownback to leave. First, I agree strongly with Obama, should I leave the US? I don't think so. I think I am right and just in attacking his wrong policies. Don't you?

So, if I am right in pushing back against Obama doesn't the same apply to those that oppose Brownback's policies? One's ability to dissent is not just a right, it is an obligation and responsibility. Our country was designed on checks and balances and dissent and alternative viewpoints serve to keep us from blindly following charasmatic leaders (like Obama) over the cliff. We need those who can stand against the crowd and say that the emperor has no clothes and those brave individuals that can stand against the majority deserve our praise, not a bus ticket out of here.

0

3 years ago

Darn, didn't proof it...should be Disagree strongly with Obama.

0

Katara 3 years ago

Heehee. It was the charisma of Obama that made you say that.

0

Jimo 3 years ago

A minority viewpoint in an asylum is called sanity.

By my calculations, GDP per person in Berkeley is 158% of GDP per person in Kansas. How in the world can they produce so much wealth when so packed with high tax, high regulation liberals? Yet Brownback continues to pursue his retread policy of no taxes, no regulation, make Kansas a hellhole as a means of ... wait for it ... wait for it ... wait for it ... ... producing jobs!

0

fourkitties 3 years ago

All you Obama haters..........Closet Racists......

0

rtwngr 3 years ago

Those that can't compete in the arena of ideas resort to name calling.

0

Sylvie Rueff 3 years ago

I would be interested in knowing the ratio of tax dollars collected in Kansas to government dollars spent in Kansas. I suspect we are bleeding money out, which would weaken our state.

0

jafs 3 years ago

Actually, according to the governor himself, about 1/2 of our state revenue comes from the federal government.

So, it's much more likely that we're taking more than we're giving.

Which is ironically true of many Republican states, from what I've heard.

0

jafs 3 years ago

And, personally, I've paid far more in taxes over my lifetime than I've benefited from - please don't call me names.

0

jafs 3 years ago

Nicely missing the point about Republican hypocrisy when they rail against federal government spending and dependence on that.

0

3 years ago

It is always disappointing to see someone resort to name calling, but I guess it is easier to hurl insults than to consider the point.

I believe it was Shakespeare that wote, 'to thy own self be true." Sage advice that everyone should heed. As you said, you shouldn't rail against those things you embrace.

0

tbaker 3 years ago

Obamacare is bad law. There are lots of way to make healthcare better, more affordable, and available to more people that don't cost a fraction of what it does, and also does not bring the federal government into such a big role in our healthcare system. I'm glad the governor turned down the plunder he was offered.

Of course the liberal moon bats on this blog think that anytime someone objects to Obamacare, that means they want people laying dead in the streets. Wrong of course, but watch the responses to this. Sane dialog about reasonable alternatives will be in the minority.

0

beatrice 3 years ago

Sane dialog doesn't include calling people "moon bats" just because they don't see the world as you do. Also, it isn't "Obamacare," it is the "Affordable Care Act."

So I agree with you. I suspect sane dialog will continue to be in the minority.

0

notanota 3 years ago

Yeah, most of us over here on the "moon bat" seat would have gone with something other than Mitt Romney's fairly conservative health care plan, aka "Obamacare."

0

Corey Williams 3 years ago

And of course, it's heartening to see that you actually describe some of these ways "... to make healthcare better, more affordable, and available to more people..." Care to share?

And yes, it is a little tea partyish to complain about a lack of "Sane dialog..." and then to call names. Maybe if you were a little more mature, then the adult conversation wouldn't be so far above your head.

0

tbaker 3 years ago

So I'm a Tea Party guy huh? Nice. What else do your psychic powers tell you about me? By the way, which is worse, name calling or those people self-identifying? Like I said, try some "sane dialog."

At the risk is being over my head, consider these ideas. Yes, everyone of them was introduced in a bill that would have made them part of Obamacare and they were all defeated. None of them cost a penny of tax money, and none of them grow the federal government.

  1. Deregulate state health insurance commissions which (in many cases) oversee monopolies which severely limit who can sell health insurance , and severely limit what can or has to be sold. For example, a state may mandate that any health policy sold must cover well-baby care, pregnancy testing, high school physicals, etc. A lot of people don't want / need this stuff. People should be able to pick and chose what they want (Cafeteria Plan) like congress gets. (consumer choice improves quality, drives down price)

  2. Deregulate medical "clinics" (and state medical board licensing) such that PA's or nurse practitioners could deliver limited primary care in a walk-in clinc setting. You don't need an MD for most primary care situations. (reduces cost / increases access)

  3. Allow health insurance companies to sell nation-wide. (competition drives down price)

  4. Allow individuals the exact same tax break for healthcare expenses that business gets. Business gets to deduct the first $1, individuals have to run up $10,000 before they can deduct any healthcare expense. (makes healthcare cheaper if people can deduct the cost from their taxes)

  5. Mandate that all providers of healthcare goods and services (doctors and pharmacies) advertise their prices both in their place of business, and on the internet. (Florida did this three years ago, and now has the cheapest prescription drugs in the country. People will shop / drive down price)

  6. Tort reform (speaks for itself) Most especially, pass a federal law that makes a hold-harmless liability waiver really bullet proof. There is no reason why a doctor shouldn't be able to decide not to carry malpractice insurance, but instead offer his patients the chance to sign a waiver saying he would do his best not to hurt them, but he could not be held liable in the end. If both parties were OK with that, then let the healing begin. If people didn't like this arrangement, they could move on and chose another doctor. Let the market decide if this approach works or not.Forcing people in the medical profession to buy malpractice insurance is nothing but corrupt collusion between the government, lawyers, and insurance companies . What is wrong with letting two adults enter into a mutual agreement that cuts these parasites out of the equation and greatly lowers costs? (increasing availability of healthcare). Malpractice insurance is the single largest cost component of healthcare next to payroll.

0

jafs 3 years ago

Deregulation and tort reform seem like a bad idea to me, in general, although your last idea is intriguing. Would you sign such a waiver?

Insurance companies are allowed to sell across state lines if the states agree to it - are you suggesting that the federal government require all states to agree to that?

4 and 5 are good ideas - I wonder which side of the aisle defeated them.

0

chootspa 3 years ago

Tort reform did nothing to lower costs in McAllen Texas, currently the most expensive place in the US to receive care.

The problem there is that doctors have an ownership stake in hospitals and run up a lot of unnecessary tests. None of tbaker's suggestions would address that.

0

Corey Williams 3 years ago

Actually, I said "tea partyish", I didn't infer you were a member of the tea party.

As to your points, they all sound good on paper, but they also assume that the insurance companies and hospitals will play along to lower costs. Why not go after the real causes of health care costs?
One of the reasons America spends more per person on health care is prescription medication. Companies spend around 24% of their money on advertising. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm) Why? "Ask your doctor." Most of those commercials, it's hard to tell what exactly the drug is supposed to do. Why do doctors complain about it so much? (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/10/us-drug-ads-idUSTRE75960M20110610)
Another cost is the cost of the uninsured. (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-05-28-hiddentax_N.htm) What do we do with them?
What about people who go to a doctor for a cold? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11020678)
What about obesity? (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158948.php) Even when there is a link between a particular product and obesity (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/164497.php), why can't there be something to recoup the costs associated? (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/all-we-can-eat/food-politics/usda-says-soda-tax-would-cut-o.html) Why is it that our only answers involve more or less government/corporate control?

0

Jimo 3 years ago

"There are lots of way to make healthcare better, more affordable, and available to more people that don't cost a fraction of what it does, and also does not bring the federal government into such a big role in our healthcare system."

Yes, which the GOP passed and implemented when they controlled the Presidency, Senate, House, and the Courts. We went from having the most expensive but poorly executed health care in the developed world to being a shining beacon to the globe.

..... ..... .....

Okay, I'm done day dreaming now. How about you?

0

tbaker 3 years ago

You are contradicting yourself.

0

thebigspoon 3 years ago

OK, TB, let's hear it: what are the "lots of ways to make health care better'?

The Federal government's role in society, as I understand it, is to help the country's citizens pursue a life of liberty, free from tyrany, free from fear, free from the daily possibility of unwarranted damage to themselves, and free from want. I don't agree that this is a bad healthcare plan, but I do agree it could be better. The problem is that we have left it to the very people who profit--enormously--from the fear of sickness. Even you must agree that there needs to be a measure of regulatiopn by the overseeing government, and that the insurance industry has become an out-of-control monster dictating prices and costs to noone's benefit but their own. Come up with a socially responsible, fiscally responsible plan that benefits each and every citizen of the country, and I promise everyone, including that evil Obama, will rejoice and make you a natiownal hero.

Until then, quietly refrain from name-calling, add only constructive criticism, or, God forbid, even praise where due. That will be perfectly acceptable.

0

usnsnp 3 years ago

I do not know if the Health Care law will make things better, have not read the whole thing, but of people that have read it the comments they make depends what political party they are from. My one question too everybody is,, why can this country not provide affordable health care insurance for everybody, or is the amount of health care going to be depending on how much money you make. People say let the insurance companies take care of it, why after 30 or 40 years have they not. Whenever one of these people on TV says that we cant afford it, they should be asked who pays for most of their health care, in the case of a Federal politician the tax payer pays 70% of the policy.

0

verity 3 years ago

Mr. Mertz, sometimes I agree with you and often I don't. You are more on the conservative side than I am on many issues.

However, I am happy to see that you try to observe the facts and to be logical rather than twisting the facts to fit into a preconceived ideology. Most of us can take a lesson from that.

0

Rusty Thomas 3 years ago

Giving back federal $$$$ -----pretty darn stupid! An influx of that kind of money would have helped in many ways: jobs, more insurance options, jobs, possible lower health insurance costs, jobs, helping the Kansas Insurance Department implement needed services, jobs...what more can I say? Oh, yeah, let's elect somebody else for Governor next time. After all, this is the Land of Oz and I am sure there is a scarecrow with a brain somewhere out there over the rainbow. Brownback doesn't even have a heart. So sad for our wonderful state.

0

tbaker 3 years ago

It seems to me you feel it would be best for Kansas to have an extra $31.5 million? I agree. How about we lower the tax bill on Kansans such the people who work and earn the money in the first place are able to keep an additional $31.5 million of what is rightfully theirs? Sound good to you, or is making sure the government gets the money to redistribute what concerns you? Remember: its' not "federal" money. It belongs to the people who worked for and earned it. To "give back" something one must first have rightfull ownership of it. The federal government does not create wealth - it takes it. Kansas has no more rightful claim to this money than any other state does.

Who can spend money "better?" The person who earned it, or the government?

0

thebigspoon 3 years ago

Your dichotomy is showing:

"Remember: it's not "federal" money. It belongs to the people who worked for and earned it." Followed immedialtely by: "Kansas has no more rightful claim to this money than any other state does."

So, you are saying Kansans didn't earn this money? What do you really believe?

0

Shane Garrett 3 years ago

I still have a grudge with Brownback for the 1976 student body president election at K-State. Therefore all my opinions of him are biased.

0

BigAl 3 years ago

I would still like for someone to explain to me why it is ok for Brownback to accept farm subsidies? I guess it is ok for him to receive federal money but not for others? How does that sit with you right wingers? Isn't that just a bit two-faced and hypocritical?

0

3 years ago

What you fail to report is that the court said that the other provisions of the law can remain. Also, you need to keep in mind other courts have ruled the law constitutional so the issue is not moot and won't be decided until the SCOTUS rules on it.

I agree that the law violates the Constitution and that, despite whatever good the law creates, that makes it a bad law.

0

Corey Williams 3 years ago

Actually, the insult was "Personally, I think you're bankrupt on both counts." But then, that would require reading and comprehension.

0

thebigspoon 3 years ago

Perfectly proves th point that you have no real answer to the real question. Name-calling--from any quarter, makes the argument pretty well moot.

0

verity 3 years ago

Chalk77, I am puzzled as to why you hate social justice. (11:45 am post)

Social Justice
The fair and proper administration of laws conforming to the natural law that all persons, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc., are to be treated equally and without prejudice. (from BusinessDictionary.com)

0

tbaker 3 years ago

You described something close to the definition of equal rights in an attempt to obfuscate the definition of equal outcome. Each of us is born with equal rights. According to the founding principles of our country, those rights are native to our existence as human beings. You are born with them. They are inalienable.

What is not guaranteed by our republic; what is not native to our existence is that each of our lives will turn out the same (equal outcome) We are each a unique individual whose life will be the sum of the choices we make as unique individuals. Some of us will choose wisely and prosper, others will choose poorly and not prosper.

The question is, should those who prosper be made to surrender their liberty for those who do not. Personal property rights are the cornerstone of individual liberty. The singular expression of personal property is the fruit of one's own labor (money).

Social justice is a liberal statist euphemism for state-sanctioned plunder.

0

rtwngr 3 years ago

Booyah! Well said Tbaker. verity just got schooled.

0

verity 3 years ago

Yes, verity got schooled in just how far some people will go in distorting and twisting the truth and dissing liberals at every opportunity. I stand by the definition I posted above.

"Some of us will choose wisely and prosper, others will choose poorly and not prosper."

Oh, that everything was so simple. Then we could divide everybody into two classes. Those that deserve and those that don't. Some will choose wisely and not prosper and others will choose poorly and still prosper. Many of our current economic problems are due to the fact that some have prospered on the backs of others.

"The singular expression of personal property is the fruit of one's own labor (money)."

Or the labor of someone else, perhaps one's ancestors---or those illegals working for a pittance. No one ever succeeded solely on their own.

0

tbaker 3 years ago

You didn't read what I wrote. Liberals divide people into groups. I see them as distinct indivduals responsible for their own lives and the choices they make. What truth did I twist? Name it. No one ever succeeded solely on their own? Really? You have to be kiding, right? You might be wearing something with an immigrant who worked for a pittance name on it. Look up the bio of Levi Strauss. Are you familiar with the last Governor of California? Have you ever heard of Madeleine Albright, former Secratary of State? Albert Einstein? Andrew Carnegie? Henry Kissinger? Its never too late to seek help....

0

jafs 3 years ago

People are both individuals, and members of various groups, ethnic, socio-economic, geographic, etc.

Their lives turn out the way they do because of a combination of things within their control, like the choices they make, and things outside their control, like where they were born, the structure/biases in our legal system, etc.

It's not an either-or thing - liberals want to correct the inequalities, so that people have equal opportunity, and conservatives want people to make good choices.

I want both.

0

verity 3 years ago

I sure am glad I had the wisdom and foresight to choose my parents wisely. My life would have been much different had I not done so.

0

jayhawxrok 3 years ago

Brownback is an idiot, a disgrace to this State.

0

tomatogrower 3 years ago

Wow. An exchange that would force insurance companies to compete with each other and make it simpler to find a better policy. Even if people weren't going to be required to buy insurance, it sounds like a great idea. Of course, the new style conservatives promote a psuedo capitalism, where they say companies should compete, but then make sure the corporations are big enough that no one can compete. It would be interesting to find out how many of the people opposed to the insurance exchange are invested in insurance companies?

A while back several of the Obama haters insisted that if Kansas would just allow all insurance companies to sell here, then the prices would drop. Creating this exchange could have led to just that, but that's not really the tea party's goals. First, bring down Obama. Second, make sure corporations are raking in the dough and getting as much taxpayer's money as possible. Third, take away support to the needy, disabled, and elderly, so they will just die and they won't have to be subjected to ugly, poor people anymore. I mean isn't that why you all love Michelle and Sarah, because they are pretty? Brains and talent aren't important if you are beautiful.

0

tbaker 3 years ago

Tomato - just because someone is against the government getting involved in healthcare does not mean they want to see them dead in the streets. I'm against farm subsidies, but I don't want anyone to starve. Can you fathom that contradiction? Check your fallacies. You'll make a lot more sense.

0

purplesage 3 years ago

Control always follows money.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.