Letters to the Editor

Letter: Puppet leaders

September 28, 2013


To the editor:

When Kansas Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer recently complained that the federal online health insurance exchange for Kansas did not provide enough competition or choices, he must have forgotten that Gov. Brownback sent $31.5 million back to the federal government that Kansas had received to create our own insurance exchange exclusively for the benefit of Kansans. This administration also refused federal money already in the budget to expand state Medicaid so that all poor Kansans receive basic health care. We need to get rid of this Koch-brother puppet administration to stop the harm it is inflicting on Kansans.    


FarleyM 2 years, 2 months ago

Short sighted pin point reasoning, without regard to sustainability options lacking encouraged self awareness for diverse, cogent solutions, is the hallmark of instigators. Koch's are an easy target because they create so much wealth for employees and the government.

The bottom line Mr. Rockwell. There are way too many people, that are too expensive, that constantly require Koch generated tax money, to be taken care of.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 2 months ago

Translation: "I got mine. To heck with you."
The last line is almost a comedy sketch in itself. How much do you think the Kochs REALLY pay in taxes? (And it's "Kochs" plural, not "Koch's" possessive, unless Charlie and David are conjoined twins and I wasn't aware of it.)

Ken Lassman 2 years, 2 months ago

Koch needs those people to be the wind beneath their wings during the "glide to zero" income taxes" project of Sam's, don't you remember? Koch Industries just announced expanding their headquarters and creating 150 new jobs so they can keep better track of their over 100 billion they earned last year.

Paul Wilson 2 years, 2 months ago

Except that it would take $50+ million to set up a proper exchange (if such a thing exists) and Medicaid has been a losing bet since it's inception. Because it is based on emotion instead of logic, your single paragraph advertisement is worthless.

JohnBrown 2 years, 2 months ago

As we all know, so-called republicans are experts at being able to predict future economic activity...at least since O'Bama took office.


stevieboy 2 years, 2 months ago

No one deserves free insurance coverage..

hillsandtrees 2 years, 2 months ago

We all pay for those who don't have health insurance/can't or don't pay for care with higher health insurance premiums and higher charges from doctors and hospitals.

We, as Americans, also lose by not having healthier, more productive citizens.

Paul Wilson 2 years, 2 months ago

It doesn't matter who's in office. If they spend money they don't have and continue to steal from earners to give to non-earners...it doesn't take an economist to "predict future economic activity". There's just not enough of us to tap for your charity John.

Ken Lassman 2 years, 2 months ago

So you define a child merely as a "non-earner?" Seems to me that spending money on children is an investment in the future, money that is money well spent, indeed. And you define an elderly retired person merely as another "non-earner?" Isn't the productivity of the current "earners" often the product of standing on the shoulders of those retired earners; the teachers, co-workers, civic employees that were instrumental to the success of the current crop "earners?"

Sheesh! I guess you were never a child, will work your tail off your entire career, and immediately fall on a sword when you retire. And please put the sword in the bottom of your grave, rigged up to the dirt suspended over the grave so nobody has to bury you. Otherwise you're just a freeloader, I guess.

Paul Wilson 2 years, 2 months ago

Thanks. So you are all for only allowing children and elderly to be covered? Good. I'm glad you are taking a stand against the 'freeloaders' you referred to.

Ken Lassman 2 years, 2 months ago

The only freeloader I referred to was you, using your own definition. Children and the unemployed elderly are a significant fraction of tax revenue recipients, in case you hadn't noticed, and neither pay into the tax coffers, so I am curious how you would define the segment of the population you define as a freeloader if you also exclude said children and non-income earning elderly from your definition.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.