Advertisement

Archive for Friday, November 9, 2012

Letter: Poor decision

November 9, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

Once again, another of Gov. Brownback’s extremely poor decisions is coming back to haunt him. However the real losers are his constituents. First, Brownback refused to accept $31.5 million, which Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger was ready to use to develop our own insurance exchange. Then, when the U.S. Supreme Court validated the Affordable Care Act, Gov. Sam refused to have Praeger form our own exchange because he wagered once more that Gov. Willard Romney would win the election and somehow the so-called “Obamacare” would be changed. In the meantime wise state administrations, some Republican, have already begun to formulate their own exchanges while Kansans will be forced to accept a federal program with federal guidelines. In other words, we won’t have a choice.

Whether Gov Brownback will accept federal money available to expand our Medicaid is another matter he will have to decide. It is doubtful if he will use the opportunity to help the poor and disabled among us with this part of the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Brownback is the most ideological and destructive governor we have had in my lifetime. There are two more years left before we can collectively vote him out of office unless he resigns on his own.

Comments

Richard Heckler 1 year, 11 months ago

Time for the Feds to step in and monitor or audit this administration's spending of federal tax dollars across the board.

2

gr 1 year, 11 months ago

Wasn't the complaint that federal tax dollars were not being spent because they weren't received?

0

skinny 1 year, 11 months ago

How about you just go buy your own health insurance like everyone else and stop expecting eveyone else to pay your way!!

3

appleaday 1 year, 11 months ago

Not all employers include health insurance as a benefit. Insurance providers are not required to cover individuals outside of a group (employer-based) plan. I once had to scramble to find health insurance when self-employed. As an individual, no insurer would sell a policy. After setting up the small business as a corporation I was able to get health insurance for $1100.00 per month. And I'm healthy.

2

Hooligan_016 1 year, 11 months ago

@skinny, You clearly do not understand how the insurance exchange is supposed to operate.

3

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 11 months ago

You're right. Money doesn't grow on trees, it come from thin air. Where do banks get the money they loan? Fractional Reserve Banking. Where does the Federal Reserve Bank get money? Psst: the whole monetary system is a scam.

1

FlintlockRifle 1 year, 11 months ago

Wait tell you retire if you think you have it bad know, buddy

0

bearded_gnome 1 year, 11 months ago

the chief justice improperly reformed the obamacare as a tax scheme in order to pass it through the supreme court.

an army of IRS agents large enough to populate all of east lawrence is being hired to enforce it.

Brownback is right to still combat this.


seeing the 'h' in the LTE writer's name, I just guessed he was a wacked out liberal, in his last name ... I just knew he was another one who would have stupidly voted for obama thinking he will actually improve the national economy, LOL!

obamacare is killing jobs now. stop it.

0

voevoda 1 year, 11 months ago

That being the case, Liberty_One, are you now preparing to leave America and return the "stolen loot" of the continent to the Native Americans?

5

Alyosha 1 year, 11 months ago

Your definition of "use" is inadequate. What one person would wish to use as a farm could well have been used as a hunting ground by someone else (based on your "orderly plowed fields" part). The Europeans simply did not know how and when the lands were used by the native populations and took the land, believing it not to be used. Of course it was being used, not though as Europeans would. Different societies use land differently. You seem to presume that the European use at the time of land-taking was the only valid kind of "use" there was or is, and that's a faulty assumption.

2

voevoda 1 year, 11 months ago

The true libertarian position, Liberty_One, is that property belongs to the owner, inviolately. It is entirely up to the owner how he wishes to use it--develop it, farm it, leave it entirely wild, live on it or not live on it. Perhaps you think that it is all right to take "surplus" property from persons who aren't using it "productively" but exactly the same would apply to the expropriation of excess wealth from rich capitalists. How can you defend the sanctity of property now while refusing to acknowledge that the previous owners' claims ought to have been held sacrosanct, too? A true libertarian could not espouse the position you enunciated, but it is fully in keeping with anarcho-capitalist principles. As for the process of dispossessing the Native Americans, perhaps you should study history the way I have, from world-famous professors at leading universities and in world-class academic research libraries--instead relying upon Mises Institute outlines, which are nothing more than anarcho-capitalist propaganda.

2

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

It is interesting.

So, if I own some land, and I choose to leave it alone, and not farm it, or change it, I don't really own it?

Seems odd - one of the reasons I might want to own land is to simply let it be in it's natural state, and protect that.

1

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

But, I didn't "use" it before I owned it.

So my ownership doesn't derive from my use of it.

0

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

Yes, I thought of that after I posted - it was early.

The problem is several fold - first, it's biased towards activity and interference, so the folks that like to simply enjoy nature in it's natural state are sol. Second, given the preponderance of violence and conquest in our history, it's a rare piece of property that can be traced back to initial users who passed it on willingly to the next folks, and all the chains after that.

Basically, the libertarian concern with force and violence operates to undermine the idea of legitimate property rights based on first use.

Also, as I've said, the idea of ownership of nature is odd to me, as is the idea of ownership of animals. It's a rather artificial human construct, and doesn't really fit with my experience of them. The law considers pets property, but anybody who "has" one knows that's not the real relationship that makes sense there.

In the world that most of us live in, ownership precedes and confers the right to use stuff, not the other way around.

0

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

Except I don't agree that we have a "moral right" to kill animals, just because we have the power to do so. Or that catching and killing a fish means that somebody now "owns" it.

Let's say I agree that "first use" is a good way to determine legitimate property rights (which I'm not sure I agree) - even if that's true, the moment that somebody takes property by force, the legitimacy of those rights is questionable, if one believes that forcible taking isn't right. So, the whole idea of legitimate rights is undermined by the history of conquest and violence. The legitimacy can only extend from the first user through all mutually willing exchanges. That means that the whole question of legitimate property rights is quite theoretical, and really doesn't apply to the vast majority of currently owned property.

I could, but does that qualify as "first use" to you? Also, it still exhibits a certain mindset of activity and ownership to do that. What about folks who aren't culturally conditioned in that way? Perhaps they enjoy the nature around them without the idea of staking territory with fences and such. They're then vulnerable to the active, more Western folks who come in and do that.

1

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

Because the act of catching and killing the fish is a violent one.

You should object to it, given your often stated opposition to violence.

It's undermined because it doesn't apply to very much of modern ownership - in other words, you and I most likely have no legitimate property rights to the property we own, if first use and voluntary exchanges are what confer those.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not at all sure that our Western individual property rights ideas are universal. And, what about the animals that lived there? They were using the land, trees, water, etc. In your version, any human who comes along and wants to cut down the trees, dam the water, etc. has the right to do it, regardless of their prior use, even if it interferes with their ability to live.

0

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

Willing and "able" to pay for it.

Unless the distribution of money in society is much more equitable, and based on merit or other things I support, instead of entrenched moneyed interests, etc. I can't believe that having the resources to buy things is a "fair" thing to base much on.

0

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

Read my post again, for the answer to your question.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.