Time for a change
I had the unique opportunity to visit a Nazi concentration camp. Our group guide was a Holocaust survivor. The visit had a dramatic emotional effect on me, which has stayed with me to this day.
I was tuned into Gov. Paul LePage’s Saturday morning address to the Maine people and was angered by his remark that tied the Internal Revenue Service to the Gestapo.
The last one-and-a-half years, many responsible Mainers have written Letters to the Editor, Op-Eds, and Editorials commenting on the governor’s lack of civility and statesmanship in his approach to governing. Yet the governor continues to be insensitive to the put-downs he uses to promote his personal agenda.
Discussion and debate are key components to maintaining a healthy, well-functioning democracy. When inflammatory remarks are interjected into that discussion, especially by the governor, the process takes on a strong negative tone and less is accomplished for the good of the people of Maine.
The governor’s latest remarks on his Saturday radio address were embarrassing, demeaning and insulting to the citizens of the great state of Maine.
At this time the governor needs to do what is best for the people of Maine: tender his resignation.
Bob Chaplin
Bar Harbor
Life of a lobsterman
This is in response to an article by Dudley Gray and his criticism of Maine lobstermen.
My niece’s husband is an extremely hard-working man who is trying to raise two children in tough economic times by lobster fishing. Most days he leaves his home at 3 a.m. and does not return until 7 p.m. He does this year-round even on the coldest winter days.
During his “off time” he must repair buoys and traps, get bait, deliver lobsters and do whatever else needs to be done to keep his business running, leaving precious little time to spend with his family. My niece does all the book work for the business in her “spare time,” of which
I can attest there is not much of with two children to raise.
Gray mentioned the high cost of bait, fuel and increasing costs for insurance, and let’s not leave out the boat payment. He forgot to mention repairs to said boat, which can be up to $30,000 when an engine is lost, the added cost of hiring a sternman because it’s too dangerous to be out on Maine waters alone and the fact that fishermen recently had to replace all their rope due to new regulations.
I have one question for Gray. Would you work these hours, risk your life daily and lose money just to give our visitors from away a treat? If your answer is yes, I encourage you to get into the lobster fishing industry. Something tells me your opinion would change once you experienced the life of a lobsterman.
Barbara Veilleux
Holden
King of the Hill
This November I will vote Angus King to serve in the U.S. Senate for three reasons.
First, of all the candidates, King’s views on contemporary issues most nearly resemble my own.
Second, I regard him as a man of integrity and careful thought and thus trust him to work toward principled, intelligent decisions.
My last reason is King’s independent status. On its own this would be unconvincing, but added to the above reasons it excites and electrifies my commitment. For me, as a young adult, the importance of that independence is not its potential effect on the Congressional arithmetic but its profound moral weight. My political thinking is influenced by ideas presently and historically at home in both major American parties, but I find little to admire in either as institutions. I know one election cannot meaningfully alter the nation’s polarization and sterility, yet to work for a better, more whole country we must believe such a future is possible, even inevitable.
Maine’s motto is Dirigo, I lead. This November it is my hope Maine will exemplify those words by becoming the first state to legislate equal marriage and in electing a moderate and truly independent senator. It is not only my hope but my belief that both decisions are on history’s just and rising tide.
Asher Reisman
Cooper
A bit confused
I’m a bit confused, and I’m hoping writing this letter will give me some clarity. My question is pretty basic and, to me, obvious, but I still don’t have an answer.
Here we go: How many people in the U.S. are saved from death or critical injury by someone with a gun, and how many people are killed in the U.S. by a gun? See, it’s pretty basic.
I’m wondering because I hear time and time again that we need to have access to guns and the right to carry them so that we can protect ourselves. Well? So tell me how we have protected ourselves? Truly, I want to know. (And of course I’m not referring to hunting rifles; I like good venison as much as the next person.) Unfortunately, I’m still confused.
Linda Freimuth
Penobscot
Affordable questions
In the BDN’s July 19 Editorial “Health Care Questions” you interpret the Affordable Health Care Act by writing, “Though the law says the federal government will cover the entire cost of expanding Medicaid for the first three years and then 90 percent of the cost after that. …”
That one sentence explanation is precisely what bothers many of us because the federal government doesn’t cover any costs. We, the taxpayers, will be covering the costs of the anticipated Medicaid expansion, and many of us who are already holding two and three jobs
wonder if we can afford it. My question is: When are we going to grow up and realize that neither the federal nor the state governments pay for anything; taxpayers pay. Similarly, we should learn that nothing is for free. When MaineCare advertises itself as being “… your low cost or free health care program …” that simply isn’t true.
Somebody is paying for it and it is us, the taxpayers. If we are going to have a discussion about health care and work toward honest solutions, we need our elected representatives to be honest in the discussion. Nothing is free, and the federal and state governments don’t pay for anything.
The sooner we realize that it is our money that is being spent, the sooner we will find a solution.
Walter Plaut
Trescott
Walter Plaut–You are partly correct in your statement. The money we spend on health care originates with us, the taxpayers, before it becomes government money. All the more reason to eliminate the insurance companies which consume over thirty cents of every healthcare dollar and provide virtually nothing in return. A universal single payer plan, or ‘Medicare for all’ is the only logical solution to the problem.
Medicare is broke, if you hadn’t noticed. The liability for Medicare far exceeds our capacity to pay for it. Health insurance companies base their premiums on Medicare’s artificially high fee structure. Then, they pay doctors less than that. That’s the profit that health insurance companies reap. It should be patently obvious that Medicare pays doctors and hospitals more than it needs to pay them. Doctors and hospitals routinely accept payments from Medicaid (MaineCare) and health insurance companies that are less than what Medicare pays them for the same services. In my opinion, the heavy subsidies from Medicare (paid for with money that we don’t have) is the reason for health care being so expensive in the United States.
It’s interesting that King is being discussed here on the LTE pages today. King hasn’t asked why health care is expensive. He’s simply going to try to figure out a way to keep it expensive and find a way to pay for it: TAXES.
Doctors and hospitals provide a service. It’s called healthcare. I’m not saying that there is no room for economizing in our health care providers but for the most part they are the good guys.
Insurance companies extract wealth and offer nothing in return. Their CEO’s reap obscene salaries for gaming the system in their favor. They fight to deny or minimize their payouts to their clients at the point when their clients are the most vulnerable. They are the bad guys.
Health insurance companies REAP the difference between the fees that Medicare has established and the fees that doctors and hospitals will accept. That’s the only way health insurance companies CAN make money. If Medicare didn’t have such an artificially and totally contrived (with the help of the AMA and the AHA) high fee structure (never market tested), then insurance companies couldn’t profit at all.
Medicare, in particular, has made healthcare expensive in the United States. It may be that insurance companies are “gaming the system”, but so are doctors, hospital administrators (who earn multiple times what doctors earn and NEVER take care of a patient), all the regulators in the federal Department of Health and Human Services, and even the nurses who go on strike for a bigger piece of the action. It’s the excess cash that Medicare pumps into the system that makes healthcare expensive.
Here’s a new part of the federal health care gravy train scam. Community Health Centers are being reimbursed for office visits. The more times you come back to the health care center, the more the health center can charge the government. If you’re a private pay patient, you get as much done as you can at one visit with the doctor. With the community health care centers, the incentive for the health care center is to get you to come back as many times as it can. Every visit is another charge that the government will pay for.
Linda Friemuth – You’re asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, “How many peoples’ lives have been saved by guns owned by responsible and legal gun owners, and how many people have been killed by illegal guns?” The debate, in the shadow of the shooting in Colorado, is going to be between responsible gun owners and those that want to take away the guns owned by the responsible gun owners. The fallacy of the debate, perpetrated by the left, is that by controlling guns, deaths will go down. They conveniently forget, however, that most of the gun murders are done with illegal guns. And you can’t control the criminals by punishing the responsible gun owners.
Walter Plant – Obamacare must be repealed. That repeal will begin on 11/6/2012 when we send Obama back to Chicago and take back the Senate.
That’s an important point: no amount of (reasonable) regulation can stop all crime or tragedies. I agree.
That said, there’s a place for responsible gun control. The line we use for what is and is not acceptable may be different, but I’d bet you (and most of the people reading this) would support some level of gun control. Do you think civilians should be able to buy missile launchers? Do you think convicted murderers who committed their crime with a gun should be able to possess weapons if they’re ever released from jail? That’s all regulation, too. The line we need to find is where there’s the balance between protection and tragedy that you mention – and personally, I don’t think it’s drawn in the right place as it stands now.
Justin I agree with you, we need some more gun control.
1. All gun sales need to be subject to back ground checks, the fact that anyone can go to a gun
show and buy a gun or order one on line or buy one from an individual with no check is crazy,
felons, mentally unstable etc. can purchase in these places.
2. If semi-automatic guns are sold then the ammunition clips should be limited to 8 to 10
bullets.
There may be other things but this would be a start. Are these things going to stop all gun violence, no but we need to try something. Let me finish by saying I am not against guns, hunters and those who like to shoot skeet, just target practice or use for protection certainly have that right and I would never wish to stop there ability to purchase guns.
You’ve stated some extremes here Justin. I do agree that the average citizen shouldn’t have access to missile launchers. HOWEVER, convicted felons are already restricted regarding firearm purchases. The problem is they will find a way to get a gun no matter how many controls we have in place because they simply don’t care about any laws.
The big problem is where exactly do we draw this line you want and still not stomp on our 2nd Amendment rights. We cannot give up our freedoms to gain security or we will lose both.
Very well said. Yes, they are extreme examples, but I thought they’d help illustrate that this isn’t an all-or-nothing issue. We have to find the right middle ground.
And yes, you’re right that there will always be people who disregard laws no matter what. That happens with just about any law: guns, drugs, property (robbery), etc. Would he (or any other criminal) have carried out the crime in the same way had the weapons been illegal? It’s near impossible to say. Instead I think our discussion should be based on what we as a country believe are acceptable arms for a civilian to possess.
Why is it that all anyone wants to talk about is the weapons? Holmes is was obviously mentally unstable. Sane people don’t do things like this.
I would wager that most of the gun advocates of the ‘conservative bent’ on here, are the same people who support the government in closing down mental hospitals and think it’s a waste of money to treat mental diseases.
The problem seems to be that instead of treating mental illness, we would rather warehouse those with mental illness in our prisons and jails. Where they stand little chance of ever getting proper treatment for their disease.
With this conservative, you would lose that wager. A problem we have with mental illnesses these days is that the system is tilted towards medications to control the illness, not institutional confinement and treatment. The old days of Nurse Ratchet and the Cuckoos Nest are gone, but people still think of institutional treatment as it was in those days. And, so many doctors are afraid to call a mental illness what it is for fear of lawsuits or bad press.
There are a lot of people walking around with mental illnesses that are on anti-depressants of other drugs that should be institutionalized. And I don’t mean in a prison.
You can thank Reagan for closing the Mental Institutions in the 1980’s and throwing the inmates out onto the streets.
As a conservative are you willing to pay the $25,000 per inmate per year to house them in secure facilities or would you be one of the people complaining about the huge costs of maintaining those facilities?
I’d say you hit that nail square on the head. Its not a gun problem, its a person problem.
Again I’ll stand with EJ here. I might be a conservative, but I don’t support taking away much needed institutional care for those who need it. But, the sad fact is that pills are cheaper than psyc. ward beds. Its wrong to put people on the street who SHOULD be institutionalized and trust them to take their meds everyday, but this is the direction our society has gone. If we need to place blame lets take a look at the pharmaceutical companies that make and push those pills on us.
All of the guns used by the (alleged) Aurora shooter were legal. The alleged shooter was a responsible gun owner, right up until he walked into the movie theater.
WRONG! That guy was a lunatic and was NEVER responsible. Stop trying to paint all gun owners as crazy killers. The truth is that there are far more Armed Law Abiding Citizens in the US than lunatics who hear voices. Sadly we only hear about the loony tunes.
Where in my post do you get the idea I “paint all gun owners as crazy killers”? I am also a gun owner, but I do not swallow the swill from the NRA as so many others do.
He legally purchased the guns and ammunition, and had no criminal record. Whether he is a “lunatic” is not supported by the fact he took considerable effort to plan this act in advance.
My apologies (sincerely) for making the wrong assumption. I guess I had a “knee jerk” reaction to your post, plus it was late and I was pretty tired.
I refuse to call that nutjob “alleged shooter” though. He IS the shooter. Yes he purchased his guns and gear legally, but that doesn’t mean he’s a responsible citizen. It only means he followed the law to perpetrate a heinous crime.
It still doesn’t lead us to a need for more gun controls though. If he could not have bought those weapons legally, I have no doubt he would have found them some other way as any determined criminal does or he simply would have bought whatever he could to do his thing.
I understand completely the desire to “do something” in the aftermath of this horrible incident, but in our mad rush to make it more difficult for things like Aurora to occur in the future we have to think about how it will impact those of us who are truly responsible, Law Abiding Citizens.
We as a society have to avoid a mass “knee jerk reaction” to these things and consider carefully what the consequences might be down the road.
It is a knee jerk reaction from both sides. If the alleged shooter (he has not been convicted yet) could not have bought guns legally or on the street illegally, he could have still made his own. I haven’t looked but I am sure there are instructions available on line. He was obviously capable of long term planning, so no doubt he would have been creative enough to make his own. On the other side, purchasing large quantities of ammo and several guns over a relatively short time, let’s say one year, should raise questions. I believe that is now done with the purchase of large quantities of fertilizer or other chemicals which can be used to make bombs.
The evidence of his ability for long term planning will probably render an insanity defense useless. I predict he will be convicted of multiple cases of premeditated first degree murder, unless the prosecuters whimp out.
The ACA will not be repealed with or without Mittens, so you had better get use to it.
If it isn’t repealed, get used to long waits, untrained doctors, added taxes and expenses, and panels that will meet and discuss your options if you are elderly or have rare diseases. It ain’t gonna’ be pretty, and it will eventually bankrupt this nation.
It will either be repealed or defunded piece by piece.
I notice your doomsday scenarios didn’t come true for other things, like DADT for example. Why should we believe you here?
You have no clue of the things that are going on in the military in order to appease the gays. And you don’t have a clue about the drop in moral that repealing DADT caused. It’s not good, but the left-wing media will cover up the problems for as long as they can.
Rather then posting empty claims why don’t you post actual facts and examples of what the military is doing ” in order to appease the gays” or the “drop in moral that repealing DADT caused”?
I live in the second largest military and retired military area in the country. I have children in uniform. I deal with retired and active duty military in all the services on a weekly basis. Believe me, repealing DADT has been a problem thus far, and it will get worse.
It hasn’t. None of the top leaders agree with you. All you have are your empty non-facts. “Trust me, I know the truth.” And yet you can never back it up.
So, tell me about the military community you live in. Tell me what your children in uniform are saying. Tell me what the retirees that you come in contact with are saying. And tell me about what the enlisted and officers you see on a regular basis are saying.
EJP, I’ve seen you consistently spread misinformation on here and ignore facts when presented with them. Do you honestly believe I’m going to take your word over the testimony of the military leaders? The Pentagon says the repeal is going very well and the Defense Secretary says they haven’t run into any snags at all. http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=116291
All you have is a clear bias against gay people and I think you’ll say and do anything to denounce and smear them.
Give me a break. Military leaders are severely restricted in what they can and can’t say in public. You really don’t have a clue how the military operates. Just ask the Marine who was recently discharged because he expressed his feelings, in a respectful way, about Obama on his Facebook. Just ask the Captain that was reprimanded because he wore an anti-Obama T-shirt to a company picnic.
The real truth comes from the troops on the ground and those in positions that have to deal with the new rules. The leaders know the truth, they just aren’t allowed to tell the truth.
So, I take by your comment that you don’t live in a military community or have children in uniform or talk to military members on a regular basis. I thought not.
Your “real truth” is always so far from reality. I don’t trust your testimony over the extensive and expensive studies that came before and after the repeal of DADT.
I do have family in the military so you can keep your condescension about that to yourself. Comments like that just prove you make ignorant assumptions.
You have a severe bias against gay people and I don’t find it surprising that your family has the same biases. Gay people don’t have to bend to prejudice. If you have a problem with people being gay, that’s on you. Gay soldiers shouldn’t have to shoulder your burdens.
Then present some facts not just your opinion.
The cases you provide were covered under military law long before DADT was repealed. It is against military policy for an active duty soldier, etc. to criticize their superiors.
Is there anything you can point to that shows what you say is true? An article? Decline in enlistments report? Decline in re-enlistment report? Maybe disciplinary action reports? Anythinf other than “believe me”?
I do. I’m an active duty Army officer. Nothing is being done to appease anyone. The world kept spinning, and the mission continues to get done. I’ve noticed no decline in moral. No one much cares. My sense EJ is that, while you point out that you don’t believe wolfndeer knows what is happening in our military, you don’t know either.
I’m assuming you served in the military, when was that? Was it after DADT? I just completed my 19th year of active duty, so, I’m qualified to state how the military is functioning with the repeal. No one cares that gays are serving. The younger generation that makes up the majority of our enlisted ranks don’t have any issues with it.
What are the options today for those without insurance who have rare diseases? How long do the uninsured have to wait for medical help? Who are the members of the panels at the insurance companies who decide to drop the individual policy when someone gets a serious disease? Your fable of the “death panel” written into the ACA has been proven to be a scare tactic by the toadies of the insurance industry.
Even if Obamacare gets fully implemented, there will still be 30 million people that will not have health insurance. If it is fully implemented, there will be a mass exodus from the medical fields. If it is fully implemented, wait times will go up, quality of care will fall, and more people will die that would have lived under a privately run system.
It has to be repealed. It is unsustainable as written. It is a government takeover that will fail. The government hasn’t run anything successfully, other than the military.
“There will be a mass exodus from the medical fields” That is clearly a lie. You said the same exact thing about DADT and it never happened. Don’t lie.
The Republican alternative is nothing. There have no proposals. They say repeal and replace and yet they can’t even answer what they’d replace it with. It’s an empty mantra. What we had before was unsustainable. So until Republicans come up with a REAL proposal or come to the table in good faith, Obamacare should stand.
http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2012/07/83-of-doctors-consider-leaving-because.html
LOL, so you scoured the net for something to affirm your claim and a blogspot is your source? Come on. You consistently denounce credible information and leaders in specific fields claiming they can’t be trusted, but you want me to trust the “prairie pundit” on blogspot? Get real.
That’s the exact reaction I expected from you. There were many other sources that confirmed what I wrote, but you wouldn’t accept any of them either. You have become a complete waste of my time.
You said earlier that Defense Secretary and extensive studies can’t be trusted as credible sources, yet you want me to take a blog post seriously?
I’m only a waste of your time because I don’t let you get away with your typical and blatant hypocrisy. I don’t let you get away with the misinformation you spread. So you’re right, I don’t accept what you write, because generally, it’s not truthful.
30 million will still be without insurance. That wouldn’t be because of the obstructionism by the republicans in Congress would it? Or perhaps because of the threat by republican governors to refuse to expand medicaid/medicare?
How much will those 30 million cost the government (which supplements hospitals in some form now) because they do not get regular care and wait until their medical problem becomes more than the emergency room can handle? Remember emergency room care is more expensive than preventive medicine in the long run.
“government takeover” is just another talking point of the republicans, without any basis in fact. Look at the program put forth by republicans during the Clinton administration, and by Rmoney in Mass. Compare it to the current ACA. There are few differences. Now since a democrat successfully got the program implemented it is socialism, government takeover, telling people what they must buy, and on and on.
Yep, just like Canada! It’s a miracle that they have a higher life expectancy in that God forsaken socialist leaning country to our north.
Did Rush tell you that we are going to retro back to the 19th century when anyone could claim to be a Doctor? God help us!
Odd how independent clinics that do not accept the single payer health plan and only accept cash for payment are popping up in Canada.
Odd how Canadian license plates can be seen in the border hospital ER parking lots and at Cancer Care of Maine.
Odd how Canadians travel to the States for “elective” surgery (which include hip and knee replacements) rather that wait for their “turn” in the system.
Odd how people in Canada are free to leave a lousy job that they are locked into because of the need for healthe benefits.
Odd that there are Canadian nurses working across the border in US hospitals.
Odd that those with money can travel anywhere in the world where they feel they can get whatever they want done medically.
Last time I checked no one in Canada or the United States was bound to anyone company for any one reason. Every single job I have held as an adult had health care benefits as part of the “package”. Don’t like your job or the benefits offered? Simple, find a new one.
And those nurses and doctors do not park in the ER parking lot. They park in employee parking which is away from the patient and visitor parking.
You will come to understand why people travel for medical care. When you need a knee or hip replacement and they tell you “you have to wait” because it isn’t medically necessary “yet”.
So what you are saying is that because you’ve seen some Canadain plates in the parking lot at a hospital on the US side of the border that they must be comming here for emergency work. I don’t know where you live but here in Calais there are a lot of people with relatives on both sides of the border. I took my wife to the ER a few months back and the next thing I knew her sisters showed up (from Saint Stephen). Now should they have hired an American taxi to bring them across the border or was it OK for them to drive their own vehicles here?
It’s just wonderful that you have had employment that you liked and good medical benefits always came with your job. Not all jobs are created equal. Some have good benefits and lousy working conditions. There are quite a few people in this state that would love to find a job of anysort that have benefits. They are getting scarcer all the time. As employers find it harder to afford the premiums to insure their employees.
Depending on what ails you, yes you may have to be on a waiting list in Canada for elective surgery. You may also have a hard time getting a hip or knee replacement here if you don’t have a regular Dr. and no insurance. The ER’s just don’t do that on demand if you are uninsured and show up on their door step wanting one.
Even with insurance here you may have to wait to see a specialist. About 5 years ago I had pretty bad pain in my shoulder. My primary Dr. sent me to a specialist who declared that I needed rotator cuff surgery without even taking an x-ray. I went back to my primary and told him what had transpired and what I had learned about the specialist from others. He told me that there was a 3 month wait to get to see the next closest specialist in Bangor. I waited and went to him. He ordered an MRI which he read and he prescribed theoropy. The theoropy worked like a charm and I didn’t have to go under the knife.
ACA isn’t perfect but it’s better than what we have today. I would much prefer we went to a single payer system that would eliminate all these various Insurance companies with their own private beauracracies. For the time being I’m going to have to wait till America wakes up and demands better. Quite frankly I have little faith that we will get a feasable replacement from the Republican/Tea Party if they win in Nov.
“So what you are saying is that because you’ve seen some Canadain plates
in the parking lot at a hospital on the US side of the border that they
must be comming here for emergency work.”
Not at all patom…I work in healthcare and have dating back to the mid to late 90’s. I see on a daily basis the Canadian plates in various parking lots in and northern Maine. I have spoken with Canadian citizens that explain that while they “like” their insurance they don’t “like to wait” for certain procedures. Those conversations have occurred all over Maine and have included Cancer Care of Maine. According to CCOM (this info is dated approx. 3-4 years old) fully 1/3 of their patient population are Canadian citizens.
Let’s take your MRI and let’s say you are either claustrophobic or obese and cannot have a “traditional” MRI and require an “open” MRI. If you live in the Atlantic Provinces of Canada and you require an “open” MRI you will need to travel to Toronto for that study. In Maine, you have access to multiple hospitals with “open” MRI service.
I don’t pretend that our system is perfect or right and none of my colleagues believe it is either. By the way, I would add the Democrats to your list of people not having the answers too.
I currently do not have health insurance and I was diagnosed as needing a rt knee replacement 3 years ago. At that time I was employed and had health insurance. I elected to wait a couple months to pay down some debt but lost my job unexpectedly before I could get the surgury.
How long will I need to wait for a knee replacement in the US without health insurance?
I would gladly be put on a waiting list for a knee replacement in Canada. I may have to wait 18 months but I have been waiting over 3 years now.
Please don’t interpret my position as being anti-healthcare or anti-providing for those that don’t have because it isn’t.
My beef is being told that I must purchase something from a private company as a requirement to live and breath here in the U.S.. Yes, I understand that the SCOTUS has called the individual mandate a “tax” but I am not paying that “tax” to the government but a private company.
But I digress, I believe the government should have required single payer healthcare if they were going to call it a tax. Single payer would have covered everyone and eliminated the individual mandate as an issue.
Either that or we have a true safety net for those (like yourself) that need healthcare and cannot afford it or purchase it on your own.
Do I have all the answer? No. I just know what we have created is not the answer.
Better than the Republican plan, oh wait they don’t have a plan. I guess die quickly is the plan.
According to Obama, there were a lot of Republican ideas put into Obamacare. So, which one is it? Is he lying? No, not BHO. He wouldn’t lie.
There are. Like the individual mandate and the insurance exchange. So no, he’s not lying. You on the other hand? Yes, usually.
The basic ideas for the ACa came from the Heritage Foundation and was touted by Republicans. http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2012/03/ironic_challenge_affordable_ca.html
As stated below basic ideas for ACA came from the Heritage Foundation, I don’t think they could be considered a progressive group, and your runner Mittens (R)money’s plan is a Republican plan which most of all the ACA was taken from that plan. So I don’t see how anybody could say there are no Republican ideas in the ACA. Now the R’s want to repeal it and they have NO plan to replace it, the R’s are a bunch of hypocrites.
In 2010 there were just under 9300 firearm murders. Compare that to nearly 33,000 (yes THOUSAND) vehicular deaths in the same period. Which is more dangerous? Anyone want to support car bans?
Ask the survivors of the Florida internet cafe robbery how THEY feel about Armed Law Abiding Citizens. In case you missed it on the back page, two armed thugs stormed into the cafe and got turned out and wounded by a 71 y/o retiree with his (legal) .380 auto. The tally is two wounded would be armed robbers (later captured) and no injuries to any innocents.
When seconds count the police are MINUTES away. You really want to disarm the ones who can save you? The crooks don’t care, they’ll get their guns no matter how many bans there are.
Or compare it to the firearm murders in other countries :S
That 71 y/o was lucky he did not accidently hit an innocent bystander.
Not lucky, PREPARED.
He was trained to use it safely and did a fine job. Even the police agree and back him for his quick action.
In a study I posted the link to in another post it is found that armed civilians have a significantly higher accuracy percentage than the police in regards to injured bystanders.
Bravo Bob! That is the first call for his resignation I have heard. May there be more.
Another young Maine voter heard from. And I support your sense that only Independents can make a difference in Washington. If there are a minority of legislators to caucus then Republicans and Democrats will have lost their ability to control our legislative body.
Angus has made himself independently wealthy feeding at the public trough at the state level. No telling how much damage he will do if he ever gets to the federal level.
Truth is — he got wealthy before he went to the public trough — and then he got elected – twice. In November, it will be thrice.
And Mitt has how many millions??
I thought good ol market capitalism was your mainstay? Why Mitt is a self made man, raised in a single parent household by his working mother, grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, and had to earn every penny to go to college,……
Oh wait, sorry, wrong guy.
Is that a sideways reference to the affirmative action president who was such a great student that he won’t release his transcripts? The Chicago community organizer who did such a great job organizing the community that there have been 300 murders in the city so far this year?
Does that thought carry through to all the established politicians of the Republican or Democrat party who have enriched themselves with insider trading deals while in office? I do believe that there are quite a few of them that far out shadow Angus King in wealth.
I have no love for the political weasels of either stripe, but King has saddled Maine with expensive, unreliable wind power and enriched himself at the ratepayers expense. People should spit on the ground in disgust whenever he walks by.
As opposed to Mitt who made himself very wealthy feeding off the carcasses of businesses he bought and destroyed at Bain Capital.
No telling how much damage Mitt would do if he gets to the Federal level.
Oh what happened to the argument that he is a savvy businessman? Not convenient at this time? We have a candidate that says his experience in business is what will turn this country around. And, some people actually believe him.
Angus is a Democrat. Just ask any Democrat. He supports Obama. He’ll caucus with the Democrats regardless of what he says now. He’ll do what Harry Reid tells him to do. Wanna bet?
He’ll do what he thinks will benefit the country best which just happens to be working with the Democratic Party.
As an Independent he can do whatever he feels is best for Maine and the country. Does not seem to be the kind of man that bows and defers to anyone in positions of power.
Cinthia Dill might jump to Harry Reids tune. Charlie Summers is already signed on to jump to Grover Norquists tune. That leaves Angus King.
King has already said that he supports the re-election of Obama. That sort of makes him a Democrat, doesn’t it?
What are his other options? He may not agree with Romneys stated aims. He may be supporting what he considers the lesser of two evils or the best of two deals in his mind. That is what independents do.
I personally don’t want any Senator from Maine signing pledges to an unelected ‘Grover Norquist’. I didn’t vote for Norquist and neither did you, because he is a self promoted power broker. Both Snowe and Collins have shown some gumption by not bowing to this puppet master. Unlike almost the entire Republican side of the aisle in Congress and the Senate. Nobody should have that kind of power.
Walter, we cannot afford not to. Have you heard what it will cost if ACA is repealed? Far more than implementing it.
Our nation is broke. We can’t afford to pay for any of this without borrowing from the Chinese, or without printing more money, or without borrowing from the future. The health care bubble, caused by massive government subsidies, mainly to Medicare, has made health care too expensive.
I think you better check some credible sources for your facts. And Medicare is not an entitlement. It is something you pay for out of every paycheck. Health care is expensive because it is privatized. Got to pay those multimillion dollar salaries and perks you know.
You’re simply wrong.
Hardly. It could not be more obvious. But things like malpractice insurance for the sue-happy do also drive up those costs, too. Can’t see how the government can drive up costs. They have to purchase from the same hospitals, doctors, pharmacies. Here is an example: does your surgeon accept Medicare assignment? The cost fixed by the government for a procedure. If not, you will pay the difference out of your pocket. Seems to me the government is holding down costs.
It doesn’t matter how many or how few rounds a magazine will hold if a criminal is holding the gun mate. And criminals will get their guns regardless of how many bans or controls or back ground checks we put in place.
Your just whistling on the dark if you really think otherwise.
It doesn’t matter how many or how few rounds a magazine holds if a criminal is holding the gun. And make no mistake, they WILL get their guns regardless of how many bans, controls or back ground checks we put in place.
I appreciate that you’re not against legal ownership and use of firearms, but more controls aren’t the answer.
There are already 44,000 gun laws on the books. And people still get killed. Why? Because the criminals don’t care about the law. But, you can’t tell that to a left wing, anti-gun lunatic.
Does that logic apply to voter fraud? It doesn’t matter how many laws are on the books, a fraudulent voter doesn’t care about the law — so why bother?
Also, do you really need to call someone you disagree with a lunatic? You screech about being bullied and victimized for your positions and yet you engage in that same behavior you complain about. That’s hypocrisy.
As much as we all like to bait EJ, the voter fraud bit is reaching Wolfie.
This is an intersting discussion, as it show how many Mainer are truly Independent, not D’s or R’s. Lot’s of folks who normaly lean D are very supportive of gun rights in this rural state.
I’m not reaching — it’s the same logic. The claim is that if someone is going to break the law, creating new laws won’t stop them.
People that are going to break laws don’t care about the law or believe the risk of apprehension is outweighed by the gain of the crime.
That’s my point. You hear that argument from gun advocates quite a bit, yet do you think those same people would ever dream of applying that logic to voting restrictions/regulations? I doubt it.
Fine. Let’s make things equal between purchasing a gun and voting. In order to purchase a gun, one has to have an ID and go through a background check. Same should go for voting.
My point, which you always have trouble comprehending, is that there are far too many laws already on the books when it comes to guns. More will only punish the responsible gun owners.
But, if you want to link voter laws, then an ID and pre-registration should be mandatory.
My point was just to highlight your hypocrisy. You’re willing to magnify tiny problems or ones that don’t even exist in order to validate more laws and restrictions on freedoms (usually on other people, not yourself) in some cases, but here in terms of guns, you’ll minimize the problem. I just find what you do transparent and unprincipled.
Voter ID and pre-registration are NOT restrictions of freedoms. They are tools to make sure the voting system is fair. But, the left doesn’t like fair, because fair doesn’t favor their cause.
I suppose you don’t think it’s fair to have to show a picture ID to cash a check, use a credit card, or get a driver’s license. I suppose you don’t think it’s fair for someone to have to shoe an ID to sign up for a college class or get medical treatment or prescriptions. I suppose you think it’s all right to buy a firearm, enter a government building or board an airplane without showing a picture ID.
The anti-voter ID crowd have nothing but empty arguments. And their intent is to scam and cheat the voting system.
If that’s not a restriction of a freedom, then why do you and others complain that the same procedures on guns is a restriction of freedoms? That’s the hypocrisy I’m talking about. At least gun control advocates can point to real harm when there are lax controls.
Also, it’s kind of silly for you to compare voting to using a credit card. Unless I’m mistaken, the use of credit isn’t a constitutional right.
Not one of the pro-gun comments has complained about the system in place for purchasing guns. Not one of us have said there shouldn’t be a background check or ID required. We have plainly stated that there are already laws in place, and that no more are needed that punish the law-abiding gun owner. That’s what the left wants: more control. Well, they ain’t gonna get it.
You need to learn to read what is written, not what your twisted logic translates it into.
I didn’t say what you are saying I did, so why don’t take your own advice on this one?
EJ, what kind of ID would you want voters to present? A State ID card? A Driver’s License? A Library Card? All those ID’s show that you live in the state in which you present yourself as a voter. A Driver’s license proofs that you can drive. A Library card shows that you can read. But what do all these documents not proof? That you are a legal citizen of these United States and therefore eligible to cast your vote. Therefore, a US birth certificate or a Naturalization certificate should be required to prove that you are a US citizen who has the legal right to vote. Anything else is just a piece of paper.
That seems to be the ‘Troll’ creed.
And the vast majority of guns used in crimes where purchased legally.
Criminals will steal poorly stored guns. How many responsible gun owners keep a gun in their glove compartment or store them in unlock storage areas at home for their safety?
Or buy them at gun shows or from private sellers who either do not know the laws or chose not to follow them.
Hunting weapons and handguns are one thing and people should be allow to have those, but assault weapons I don’t believe are necessary. I find it funny that many talk about the intentions of the founding fathers, but they kind of conveniently ignore that logic when it comes to talking about semi-automatics. You think the founding fathers ever envisioned those kinds of weapons?
I think they envisioned the weapons necessary to defend themselves from their government, which was exactly what they were doing at the time.
That’s fine, but that’s a liberal (small l) interpretation. I’d hope people who opt to use that liberal interpretation to justify assault weapons would be principled in their application of that logic.
When this nation prohibited alcohol through a Constitutional Amendment did it stop people from obtaining alcohol?
Of course not. We determined prohibition didn’t work, but that reasonable restrictions would. The stakes are a bit higher here, so I don’t know why people get so fanatic when regulations are proposed for guns. No one is talking about a full on ban, yet some get so paranoid that even a tragedy like what happened last week in Colorado spurs huge gun sales. I don’t understand where that paranoia comes from.
And likewise we’ve seen that firearm bans don’t really work in many cities across the US.
I do agree the stakes are much higher in regards to firearms and do appreciate that you aren’t calling for an all out ban. I just think we need to be very careful about making more or new laws about firearm ownership.In case you didn’t know it, the moonshine industry is still alive and well in many places. Just sayin.
But how would “reasonable restrictions” have stopped the mass murder in Colorado?
He was not a convicted felon. He had no criminal charges pending. He had not been diagnosed as mentally ill.
So how do we stop the diabolical (and that seems to be what he was) murderer from doing what he/she planned and carried out like what happened in Colorado?
I don’t think anyone can come to an answer to that alone, but a good first step could come from an honest and good faith discussion of the matter. I don’t want to be pessimistic, but it doesn’t seem like that can possibily happen amongst our politicians given the political climate.
IMHO the problem is (and you haven’t done this) the left wants to ban certain weapons or parts/pieces of weapons (i.e. certain magazines, etc…) and the right wants no restrictions at all. How do we reach the middle ground?
The only types of weapons available at the time of the writing of the Constitution were shotguns which fired multiple lead balls, muskets that fired one lead ball at a time, the Kentucky Long Rifle (the “assault” weapon of its day) which fired one lead ball at a time but from 2-3 times the distance of the musket and pistol which fired one shot at a time. All of the above had to be reloaded by hand.
I don’t think the Founding Fathers envisioned many of the advances we have today.
That’s my point though. I think the same people who use “the founders would have never envisioned this!” for other issues would refuse to use it in this case.
Actually, I think they did envision assault weapons and NOT hunting rifles.
Wolf, I think many also ignore the fact that the so called assault weapons are only used in a small fraction of the total firearm murders. They do however, garner the lion’s share of press in sensationalized reports like we just experienced in Aurora CO.
The term assault weapon is also a misnomer and would imply a fully automatic rifle, etc. The Ar 15 and popular AK 47 are both legally available in semi-auto only, meaning one pull of the trigger will produce one bang and set up the next round in the chamber for another pull on the trigger. Yes, someone who knows how can by the parts and alter them to be fully automatic, but that is also a rare occurrence.
The massacre in Aurora was horrible and we all feel terrible about what happened and our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the lost and the survivors. But blaming a particular type of gun is not going to produce the result we want.
As for our founding Fathers, they worded the Constitution and the Amendments exactly right to allow the law to adapt to the times and available equipment. Did they envision automatic and semiautomatic guns then? Probably not, but they did have the foresight to leave the laws fairly open ended to remain applicable in an unforeseen future.
You seem even-handed, but I think many who constantly cite “the founders” aren’t like you. You are arguing that the Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted with the times and I think many pro 2nd Amendment advocate would agree with that liberal (small l) analysis — however, most of them seem staunchly against that kind of analysis when applied to other aspects in the Constitution. I have a problem with that kind of hypocrisy.
wolf “most of them seem staunchly against that kind of analysis when applied to other aspects in the Constitution”. Could you please cite some examples in relation to the Bill of Rights?
Protests at military funerals. Economic boycotts of businesses (recent example: Chik Fil A). Defense of Marriage Act. Patriot Act. Arizona’s “show me your papers” law. Etc.
Linda Freimuth;Perhaps you could read “the armed citizen” section in any NRA magazine, which details instances monthly on law abiding armed citizens who have legally defended themselves or family with a weapon. The only instances printed are the “legally defended” ones, where no charges were filed against the citizen.
There are thousands of documented instances, but of course the liberal media is not going to report them.
Ok Swift, Silent, Deadly….What I don’t understand are assault rifles. Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle unless you are perhaps in the Marines or other armed services (key work armed)? Ummmmm you’re at home alone one night and 300 burglars break into your home in unison then MAYBE an assault rifle might come in handy. Or you’re out hunting deer and see a herd of 45…you could shoot all 45 at once or you have those pesky gray squirrels on your lawn again *poof* all 67 of them gone in one fell swoop with your handy dandy assault rifle. Aside from target practice (and I guess I would ask what are we ‘practicing’ for?) assault rifles are used to hunt other human beings ….why do we need assault rifles in this country??
“Assault” rifles that are available to the general public are no more than semi-automatic rifles, no different than what many people hunt with. They look tactical, and have space to mount optional equipment, but none of them are full automatic weapons like the military issue. Maximum legal magazine capacity for hunting is a 5 round mag. That leaves shooting sports and whatever it is that I’m practicing for, to use the high capacity mags. There are thousands of high capacity mags out there, and they could never be rounded up and banned. Even little 22 caliber rifles have 100 round mags available, and you don’t have to buy them from a firearms dealer. Take a look in your Cabelas catalog.
Assault rifles are here to stay, and I would challenge the government to take them away, it will never happen.
That darn liberal media. Perpetually victimizing conservatives!
Walter Plaut, have you noticed that whatever the government subsidizes (with borrowed money) ends up costing more for everyone else who doesn’t receive the subsidy?
Like the internet, BM?
Dudley Brown is the executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, which advocates for firearms owners’ rights. This is what he had to say: “We’re different than other cultures. We DO allow Americans to possess the accoutrements that our military generally has.””
Accoutrements.” What a pleasant way of describing the weapons and ammunition and body armor that James Holmes had accumulated over a period of a few months.
Doesn’t ANYONE find this just a bit disturbing?
Someone who wants to own a handgun for the protection of his family and property, and/or a rifle to go hunting with, who is also willing to go through background checks and reasonable registration requirements? THAT’S what I would call a responsible gun owner.
But to suggest that the Second Amendment guarantees that anyone can have an arsenal, stocked with as many guns as he wants, of any type of gun and ammunition that he wants, just because it’s his HOBBY? That’s just nuts.
All can say is, if this is the way it’s going to be, then we should simply dispense with the hand-wringing when the next massacre takes place. James Holmes did not have a criminal record before he opened fire on a crowded theater. He went about accumulating his weapons and “accoutrements” the same way gun hobbyists everywhere do. We might as well get used to it, because no one has the guts to stand up to the NRA.
Linda, I found the following article that may give you a satisfactory answer.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp
Its from 1999, but still very applicable today. Here’s an excerpt you might find interesting.
That means that firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to shoot with criminal intent. Of these defensive shootings, more than 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. About half a million times a year, a citizen carrying a gun away from home uses it in self-defense. Again, according to Kleck amd Gertz, “Citizens shoot and kill more criminals than police do every year [2,819 times versus 303].” Moreover, as George Will pointed out in an article entitled “Are We a Nation of Cowards?” in the November 15, 1993, issue of Newsweek, while police have an error rate of 11 percent when it comes to the accidental shooting of innocent civilians, the armed citizens’ error rate is only 2 percent, making them five times safer than police.
Bob Chaplin, your anger at the governor or his remark for his comparison of the IRS agency’s past mistreatment of taxpayers to the Gestapo is misplaced. The governor did not as you stated “tied the Internal Revenue Service to the Gestapo”. His remark was merely intended as a comparison to alert listeners of the danger of using the IRS as an agency to enforce Obamacare (obviously not everyone shares this view). Some people have even attempted to say the governor’s comparison was comprehensive, that the mistreatment by the IRS was as serious as the mistreatment inflicted on the Jews by the Gestapo. This is simply ludicrous. This is a very adolescent rendering. Comparisons are rarely comprehensive, and when they are, one can usually tell by the context. Nothing in the context of the governor’s remark even remotely suggests the comparison was intended to be the same in all significant details of mistreatment.
This comment was in response to Adler42:
I’m retired Air Force living in one of the largest military regions in the states. I interact with military quite often in my job as an insurance adjuster. And I have children in uniform and in civil service.
While in uniform, I came in contact with several gay members, and didn’t have any problems interacting or working with them. I never ratted anyone out, nor would I now. The allegations that I have a problem with gays is simply not true.
But, there is a change that’s happening in the military since DADT was repealed. There is a decline in morale, even though it may not be widespread. Time will tell about enlistment and reenlistment numbers, but they will change. The changes, however, will be a combination of factors, one of which will be the repeal of DADT. Of course, that factor will not be in the mainstream media equation.What a lot boils down to is simple: it might be that people feel more comfortable expressing their thoughts to a retired enlisted man rather than an officer still in uniform. No offense to you, but that’s the way it’s been for decades.
By the way, thank you for your service.
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=116291
“It’s not impacting on morale. It’s not impacting on unit cohesion. It is not impacting on readiness,” Panetta said he credits military leaders for effective repeal planning.
“Very frankly, my view is that the military has kind of moved beyond it,” he said. “It’s become part and parcel of what they’ve accepted within the military.”
Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he has not seen “any negative effect on good order and discipline” resulting from the repeal.