Messages

I am looking at all these posts and thinking to myself-----------The Government wants to decide what and how much health care you are entitled to-----------I think most insurance plans that exist now do the same thing, in that, they cover what they want to cover. 

The Government would have access to you financial accounts---------Don't they already?  Don't you think the IRS doesn't know where you bank and how much money you have?

The Government would issue a national I.D. health card-----------I can put that one next to my insurance card I have now.

It appears that a lot of these "restrictions" or "rules" or whatever you want to call them already exist to some degree in the private health insurance companies now.  There are differences in certain areas, but it begins to look the same.

I am not for Obama's plan, but I am not seeing a big difference here, other than the government wants to get into the health insurance business.  I don't see anything that says private insurance won't exist anymore, or is this just a step to get us to that point?

Larryj

Yes, the govt can get our financial info.. sad, but true.  Expanding that power, however, doesn't seem prudent, imho.

Remember, if a private company screws you, you have recourse in the courts and/or can take your business elsewhere.  If the government screws you... you're screwed!

The government 'getting into the insurance business' will eventually put the private concerns out of business.  How?  Government does NOT need to be profitable.  They can take money (at the point of a gun via the IRS) from the public any time they wish.  Private enterprise can not compete with that.  Moreover, such actions are in direct violation of our Constitution.  But who cares, right?  It was the founding principals in that document that allowed this country to become the most prosperous nation in recorded history.

No, you don't see a specific prohibition against private insurance.  But if you read the proposals carefully, and if you listen to the public quotes of people like Obama, his advisors, the likes of Barney Frank... you will hear exactly what their intention is:  Single Payor (government run without private options) healthcare.  The elimination of private insurance.  The proposals contain restraints that say if the plan you have (and like) now are changed (in any way)... you may NOT re-enroll in the changed plan... you MUST join the public option.  If you change jobs after a date certain, you will NOT be allowed to enroll in the private health plan offered by the new employer:  you MUST enroll in the public/government plan.

One of the big reasons that our choices in the private insurance sector are limited now is because of arcane laws the restrict all insurance companies from selling competitive products across state lines.  Open it up, like every other business is free to do, and the consumer will, by choices made, force increased competition.  Thus forcing price stability or reduction... just look at the price of technology.  New product, high price... more people compete, the price comes down.

Another problem is defensive practice.  Tests are done JUST to help in case of a lawsuit.  The trial lawyers make millions from doctors, hospitals, phara companies and their insurers (malpractice/liability insurance writers)... Just were *did* John Edwards make all his money?  Rework tort law, limit liability, etc... and defensive medicine is reduced (reducing costs for each patient and their insurance company).  Also, the reduced cost of medical malpractice insurance will drop as a result.  Further reducing costs (real health care costs, not just insurance policy costs).

The idea of having a bunch of unaccountable bureaucrats who can't be sued if I'm screwed just doesn't set well with me at all.  Bureaucrats & politicians, at large, know little or nothing about running anything.

Just a few thoughts.  The devil is always in the details!

As to the constitutional issues... here is a rather long quote that's worth reading (Credit to Neal Boortz, http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html ):

We are just adding to the list of people in Washington who see our Constitution as nothing but a limit to what they can do with the power of government. First it was Nancy Pelosi scoffing at a question from reporters about healthcare and how it is constitutional. Then we had Robert Gibbs who wasn't concerned in the least about the Constitution and didn't believe White House lawyers needed to look into the Constitutionality of Obamacare.

Now we have Illinois Senator Roland Burris. There's a waste of a Senate seat. He'll be gone soon, so maybe there will be an improvement. Burris was asked to specify which part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to implement an individual mandate on individuals to buy health insurance. Burris' answer? It is the responsibility of the federal government "to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country."

Here's the quote: "Well, that's under certainly the laws of the--protect the health, welfare of the country ... That's under the Constitution. We're not even dealing with any constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction? What does the Constitution say? To provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country."

Well guess what? The word "health" does not appear in the Constitution. The guy is wrong. Rather than worrying about reading 2,000 page healthcare bills, Roland Burris and his Democrat buddies should try and refresh themselves on our Constitution - the foundations of this country and what make this country great.

Has Kansas said what, if anything, they plan to do? Have any of you talked to anyone who would know? States don't have any money now either.

As of a week or two ago, the governor has asked and house committee is re-studying the issues of consolidation all over the state.  o Consolidation is seen as a way to save the state money in the long run.  It's gonna happen.  Just a matter of when.

I've been reading posts, studying "between the lines" and here is my opinion, for what it's worth.  Howard's voters carried most of the YES votes.  The majority of the NO's were from the other towns in the district.  Do you suppose they voted NO, not because of the raise in taxes or the cost of a new school, but because they did not want to lose the school in their town?? They may lose it anyhow, but can't blame them for being concerned about their communities, can we? If in fact this is the reason for voting the way they did.  I don't know, I'm only guessing, but makes sense to me.  Yes, Howard voted yes, but they had nothing to lose and everything to gain.  Some took into consideration the raise in their taxes, but I read that taxes took a jump higher this year and there isn't a new school to blame, is there?

Very possible you are right, flo.  But the higher taxes with the school bond might well have made matters even worse financially for the taxpayer.

On another matter, when do we begin to see that as government grows, the rest of us shrink.  This country was not built on the ability of the government to grow and 'make things happen', but on the ingenuity and drive of the citizenry to provide for itself.  Bureaucrats and elected officials sometimes think they have all the answers.  All they lack is more of the taxpayer's money and more bureaucrats/agencies/boards/plans/programs etc.  Ain't necessarily so.

I don't necessarily like walmart either but a wally world right here in elk or near elk would provide a LOT of jobs.

I vote for south of Severy (right inside Elk County) or just east of Longton.  Inside Elk Co, we get some sales tax revenue....

But, alas, with the population base here, methinks we need not worry about a WallyWorld.  Hey.... maybe an Alco!  lol

Speaking of fair hearing, good science and Chicago thuggery.....

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmVjNDEyYWRlN2ZlMmY5Mzc2NjBlMGE5MzBlM2JlNDI

Seems the president (Lower case intended) things that opponents to climate change just 'need to be dealt with.'

What a Stalinist putz!

There have been times that the board has asked for the public input during a meeting.  The board members are also open to you contacting them to discuss whatever matter.  The board did mail out a flier regarding the matter.  I know that it went out to parents of children first, then to the remainder of the public.  Yes, some were received after the voter registration deadline but this did not affect me as I have been registered to vote since I turned 18 many years ago.  Now I am depressed at the thought of how long ago it was that I was 18.   

Ok... the board mailed out a flier... if that was the slick foldover... it was LATE!  Should have been out weeks before the vote.  And since when is such a mailing from a governmental body who is responsible to ALL taxpayers given preference to 'folks with kids'.  While the families with children have a vested interest in the outcomes, the fiduciary and legal responsibility of the board is to ALL the taxpayers.

While it's nice that the board 'at times' asks for public input at its' meetings, that doesn't do much good on large issues if there is nobody there to give input.  As for contacting the board, that's a dodge.  The issue was board responsibility to make sure the affected taxpayers were aware of such a large issue well BEFORE decisions are made or votes are taken.  Not as an afterthought.  My suggestion stands.  Just because the board meets the minimum legal standards of publication in a recognized newspaper does not preclude them from going a bit further on such major issues.  I'm sure we expect the 'extra mile' from our kids, is it too much to expect the same from our elected folks?

I agree.  What other ideas did you have about how to get the information out there?  The best way to get information to the public is through the media, which in Elk County consists of the newspaper and bulletins put up in public places.  This was done by the district.  What other alternatives were there?  Just curious what you think, I'm not being judgemental by any means.

I gave a suggestion in an earlier post:  The US Mail.

Yes, 1700 registered voters x $0.44 is $748.00 (Assuming 1st class postage is used. There might be cheaper govt rates.)
That cost would allow the mailing of a 1st class letter consisting of up to 5 pages.

Maybe the board could budget for a couple of mailings a year at this rate for those times when something really big is being considered.  Knowing beforehand that public hearings/discussions are taking place on critical might engender some more attendance at the meetings.

Further, if pre-notice is required to speak at a board meeting, just attending 'at will' kinda short circuits public comment.  No?

All board minutes are posted in the paper.  Paula McAlister has even posted some on the forum.  Yes, I agree the meetings can seem rather long and "boring", but if you want the information it is up to you to go get it.

WHOA!.... I'm sorry, but that only goes do far.  Especially in a county with only 3000 residents.  The responsiblity to 'get the word out' on the biggest of issues (like spending 5.5 million dollars of the taxpayers money) rests primarily with our elected representatives.  Government works for US, remember?  NOT the other way around.

I have said this before, but I am going to say it again.  My husband drove from Severy to Wichita every day to work a job that paid good and still raise our kids in a better community and school.  He did this for 25 years until the children were grown and he didn't have 400 to drive on.  He drove the old 96 with it's hills and curves.  To me, not living in Elk County because of the lack of good paying jobs doesn't float.  Wichita is one hour and ten minutes from Howard.  Emporia is about the same.  Winfield and Independence, about 45 minutes.  I know the cost of gasoline is prohibitive now, but back then, the wages weren't so good either.  And there is this thing called car pooling.  My husband was very seldom alone on his trip to work.  Mostly the car was full.  That was our choice so that our kids could live the life of a small community.

But gas is 3 times higher now.  My husband did work in Wichita for awhile when we first moved out here and I'll tell you, almost half of his paycheck was eaten up in gas driving back and forth.  Not everyone can get a $40 an hour job at Boeing or Cessna.  

Sarah:

BINGO!  And in this economy even getting a $15 an hour job is getting tough.

I have said this before, but I am going to say it again.  My husband drove from Severy to Wichita every day to work a job that paid good and still raise our kids in a better community and school.  He did this for 25 years until the children were grown and he didn't have 400 to drive on.  He drove the old 96 with it's hills and curves.  To me, not living in Elk County because of the lack of good paying jobs doesn't float.  Wichita is one hour and ten minutes from Howard.  Emporia is about the same.  Winfield and Independence, about 45 minutes.  I know the cost of gasoline is prohibitive now, but back then, the wages weren't so good either.  And there is this thing called car pooling.  My husband was very seldom alone on his trip to work.  Mostly the car was full.  That was our choice so that our kids could live the life of a small community.

Wilma,

I admire the gumption that you and yours have/had to make the sacrifice of the commute.  But that does not change the real possibility that some economic growth here in the county might be a good thing.  How many more of our kids might choose to stay IF they could find work here?  And the commute is a choice.  Not all are going to make that choice.  Why can't we look at giving people the opportunity to make it?

On a similar note, I've heard rumors for years that 'some folks don't want new business in the county cuz they don't want the change'.  Well, that's just sad.  While I really don't want to see Elk become some kind of metropolis, I do think that without some kind of growth what we'll see is a continuation of the trends of the last 60 years... shrinking population of ALL ages.  Perhaps when there are only 10 folks left living out here then the job growth naysayers will be happy.  (Darn, *that* was an emotional rant, wasn't it?)