Advertisement

notajayhawk

Follow

Comment history

Lawrence scientist a witness to Voyager 1's history-making journey

V'ger will be back. And there'd better be whales here.

September 23, 2013 at 9:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

KU journalism professor condemned by administrators for tweet about NRA

Well, at least we know why the mainstream media is the way it is, with professors like this teaching journalism.

September 20, 2013 at 10:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

County asked to fund children's services after change in state policy

From their website:

"DCCCA began operations in Lawrence, Kansas in the summer of 1974 as the Douglas County Citizens Committee on Alcoholism. Over the years, we became known locally as DCCCA. In 1989, our legal name was changed to DCCCA by our Board of Directors. This change was prompted by our program delivery outside of Douglas County and our program growth to include services for problems other than alcoholism."

Although it's where the name originally came from, at the present time "DCCCA" doesn't stand for Douglas County, Alcoholism, or anything else - it's simply the agency's name. The agency as a whole does have experience working with at-risk youth, including a residential program for juvenile offenders in Pittsburg and foster care/child placement & family preservation services offered in several locations, including Lawrence.

July 26, 2013 at 12:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence anti-hunger advocates worried by proposed food stamp cuts

I absolutely agree. The difference of opinion, in the simplest terms in which I see it, is a restatement of the 'give a man a fish vs. teach him to fish' idea. But here's the thing: While teaching a man to fish is a better way to go about it, as it improves everyone's lot and is more sustainable, the problem is his kids still have to eat that day.

July 20, 2013 at 9:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence anti-hunger advocates worried by proposed food stamp cuts

There is no such thing as a perfect system, and there never will be. As should be obvious just from the smattering of comments here, there is no such thing as a system that will make everyone happy. All we can do is try to find a balance point that everyone can live with.

I'd like to think that all conservatives are not represented by the comments here such as "Most people are poor because they are to lazy to go to school and or work two or three jobs to make ends meet," or "If the program ended today, poor folk would find a way to eat". I believe the vast majority of us recognize that there ARE people in need, people who, because of age or disability or other circumstances, can not sufficiently take care of themselves. And that while we may not "owe" anybody anything, in a civilized society we see it as our duty to help those who are less fortunate. I would also like to think that most liberals do recognize that there ARE some people taking advantage of the system, there ARE some people who choose to live off the labors of others. (For what it's worth, in my own experience, I have been a mental health professional working in state operated, state funded, or community mental health facilities for my entire career, and I have found the percentage of those in need who fall into the latter category to be very small.)

Those who receive cash assistance have had a work requirement since the Welfare to Work legislation was signed into law by Clinton (a requirement that does not apply to children, the disabled, etc.). If you live in subsidized housing in Douglas County you have to participate in a similar work search program. I see no reason why that same requirement should not be applied to those receiving other forms of assistance, including food stamps. (Other than, that is, the cost effectiveness - it's somewhat silly, IMHO, to pay more in child care to allow a parent to work/look for work than they'd be receiving in assistance.) Again, in my own experience, I believe it helps lift people out of their circumstances, that it restores a sense of personal responsibility and, more importantly, a sense of hope.

But at the end of the day, if the balance point isn't perfect (and it almost never is), we have to err in the direction where we are not cutting off the lifeline for people, for children, who depend on us for their very lives. What kind of society, what kind of human beings would we be, if we turn our backs on those who need our help?

July 20, 2013 at 2:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence anti-hunger advocates worried by proposed food stamp cuts

"Work and live within your means." Excellent advice. Now - how much work should a, say, four year old with developmental delays work in order to stay within his means?

July 20, 2013 at 1:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence anti-hunger advocates worried by proposed food stamp cuts

"Why should taxpayers subsidize cheap food domestically or globally?"

Perhaps when a gallon of milk starts costing you $15 you'll figure it out.

July 20, 2013 at 1:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence anti-hunger advocates worried by proposed food stamp cuts

Then the requirements won't be a problem, will they?

Neither Jenkins nor anyone else suggested cutting off food stamps for everyone, just for those who shouldn't be getting them. Putting such requirements in place doesn't affect children, the working poor, the disabled, etc.

July 20, 2013 at 1:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansans to receive $4 million in insurance refunds under Affordable Care Act, White House reports

The administration has been making these claims since that abomination was forced down the throats of the American people against their will. One question they have never answered: Is the amount of these rebates higher or lower than it was BEFORE Obamacare passed? Mutual insurance companies already rebated the excess they took in - not that I think this administration would take credit for something that was already being done ...

"Officials said the Medical Loss Ratio provision also reduces premiums as insurance companies operate more efficiently."

And yet premiums continue to rise. And faster than they were before Obamacare.

The loss-ratio mandate in the absence of a premium cap is a disaster. Before Obamacare, neither the provider nor the consumer had any incentive to hold down the actual cost of CARE, the only ones that had that incentive were the insurance companies. Now the insurance companies have lost that incentive, since it only takes a very small reduction in reimbursement rates to completely eliminate their profit. On the other hand, it only takes a small INCREASE in their reimbursement rates to DOUBLE their profits. This is the prime factor which is currently driving up the cost of care, since the equation has been reversed - it used to be the insurance companies' profit incentive was to hold down costs, now their profit incentive is to inflate them as much as possible. Incidentally, this wouldn't be possible without the individual mandate, because eventually it would get so expensive people would simply stop buying insurance - but now we can't.

"In New York, officials approved rates for 2014 that are 50 percent lower on average than current rates for those buying insurance on their own."

This same spurious claim was made in California. Problem is they were comparing apples to oranges, and in reality the cost of insurance has doubled for similar policies. Also, the 2014 rates were - by requirement - set according to PROJECTIONS, not actual costs, so it has no connection to what the true cost will be once fully implemented.

July 19, 2013 at 9:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback will not disclose names of applicants for court position

Oh, I just love seeing all the same people who fawn on their Lord and Savior Obama, despite his record of lies and broken campaign promises (particularly when it comes to "transparency"), whining and moaning because our governor is - appropriately - respecting the privacy of job applicants. Tell you what: When I see you all demanding that Obama releases the names of all applicants to all federal benches so we can see who HE rejected in favor of his politically-preferred choices, then you might have a leg to stand on while you're griping.

July 12, 2013 at 12:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous