jhwkdoc1964 (John Graham)

Follow

Comment history

City commission candidates provide views on police headquarters project

Anyone working in healthcare (physicians, nurses, therapists, lab techs, cleaning crews etc) exposed to those same issues on a daily basis.

March 16, 2015 at 6:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Neutral site?

Take the games off campus and you lose the intensity of the crowd and consequently the game. Moving the games to Topeka would make things difficult for students to attend. Keep the games on campus to keep the atmosphere. Simply fine the school that allows court storming. If the fines are stiff enough, the schools will provide enough security to prevent the behavior. ESPN could help by not showing any court storming.

February 28, 2015 at 5:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Optional laws?

Amen.

February 26, 2015 at 5:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: ACA coverage

You can't even remember your prior chastising posts. You above claimed I didn't understand how insurance worked. You stated of course people pay more than what they use that is how insurance works. That excess money people have paid is used to artificially lower the rates of those that are higher users of insurance. Forcing me to pay for maternity care helps lower rates for women. That is a subsidy. When premiums and deductibles have gone up substantially for millions (I know not all) those dollars are used to help lower rates for others. Insurance is a zero some game. The insurance company gets 20% but at least 80% must be used for care. So when millions of us are paying more than we use that means others are getting a bargain. The fact that ACA did away with things like preexisting conditions to help determine rates and caps on benefits yet some people have seen their individual rates go down means that they are being subsidized by the rest of us. I like millions of others was subsidizing before ACA and now after ACA I like some millions that have seen their rates increase (mine 64%) are subsidizing even more than previous. But maybe you don't understand how insurance works.

February 16, 2015 at 6:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: ACA coverage

Once again pay attention to what I said not what you want to hear. I clearly stated that scholarships are typically earned, not student loans.

February 16, 2015 at 6:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: ACA coverage

If my ability didn't bother you so much you wouldn't repeatedly bring it up when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Deny all you want but actions speak louder than words and your actions cry out envy.

February 16, 2015 at 6:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: ACA coverage

You apparently think all the money just magically falls from heaven. If ACA doesn't affect the middle classes then there should be no increases in premiums or deductibles for any middle class. The fact is some (few million) in the middle class are seeing increases in premiums and or deductibles. While ACA may not negatively affect everyone in the middle class it does negatively affect millions. But in your idealistic world this doesn't matter because the money falls from heaven to be given as subsidies.

February 15, 2015 at 11:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: ACA coverage

Well if it's all paid by other sources then there should be no reason for premiums and or deductibles to go up. Oh that's right premiums and/or deductibles have gone up substantially for millions of people not all of which earn >$250K. Where are those people listed in your CBO numbers?

February 15, 2015 at 10:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: ACA coverage

I never stated I liked the student loan program. That is you once again putting words in my mouth. Since you are prone to criticize most everything I post, the least you can do is criticize what I actually wrote and not what words you want to put in my mouth.

February 15, 2015 at 10:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence commissioners voice support for tax break to expand Eldridge Hotel

The numbers don't make sense. They claim without the tax breaks the total profit over the 15 year period will be only $30k. This from a $12.5M investment? With the tax breaks (city values at $2.4M) the estimated total profit will be approx $2M over 15 years. So in summary the grand total profit of $2M is completely from tax breaks, the new facility will not otherwise make any profit over the 15 year period. How is this a good deal for anyone except for the developers? So the city gives them $2.4M in order for them to have a $2M profit over 15 years? Over 15 years the facilities will have to be updated at least once if not twice. Is this cost of updating included in the projections or will it have to come out of the $2M planned profit? I can't believe that smart business people are willing to risk $12.5M over a 15 year period of time for a net less than 2% return on investment. Why bother for such a lousy rate of return? There has to be some financial benefits that aren't being released to make this deal seem reasonable. If a smart businessman has access to $12.5M it would not seem that difficult to find an investment that returns more than a total profit of $2M over 15 years. If the total profit of the deal comes from the tax breaks I can't believe it is that viable of a project to begin with.

February 11, 2015 at 5:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous