As a disabled vet with a retired wife and a damn good insurance plan I've been skeptical about ColoradoCare. I voiced some concerns and received a very intelligent, compassionate, personal reply from Bill Semple from the ColoradoCareYES management team that allayed some of my concerns. After doing the math on what part of my income would be taxed and how much CC would save me, and how beneficial it would be to "the least among us", to borrow from the Christian philosophy, I've decide to vote for Amendment 69.
I left the VA HealthCare system years ago after they made some inexcusable gaffes with my health. I have paid for my own insurance ever since. I have lobbied for single-payer health insurance for veterans modeled after Tri-Care since 1989, and I was in favor of a national single-payer plan during the debate about the Affordable Heathcare Act (I refuse to be baited into calling it Obamacare).
If I were injured or to fall ill while, say, in France, even as an American citizen I would receive free (that's right - FREE) health care that would not forward any charges to my insurance carrier or to me. My earlier post about the conversion of not-for-profit health insurance to for-profit health insurance stands as my primary argument for ColoradoCare, coupled with my savings, and the end of health-related bankruptcies.
Oh, and swing state votes are 10 times as significant as solidly red/blue state votes. If you want Trump to win the split the vote here. If you want another option then swap your vote with someone in a state that's already solidly held and you'll do no damage. Call someone in New York or California and have them vote for Johnson for you, and vote for Clinton...because the alternative is (and I'll do this again) TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!!
When Richard Nixon was president the health care insurance system was converted from a not-for-profit system to a for profit system. On one of the Nixon tapes the question was asked how that conversion would work and the reply from the CEO of Blue Cross/Blue Shield was heard to reply that BC/BS would continue collect premiums but in order make a profit they would deny service to members. Nixon replied "that sounds like that would work", and the for-profit industry was off to the races. There is about a 30% disparity in the amount that is collected that goes to bonuses for CEOs and profits for shareholders and the amount that is paid out for actual care. The biggest problem for providers (doctors, nurses) has always been the insurers. There is no reason for them to take less - they actually could do better under ColoradoCare, but that's a guess.
To summarily compare ColoradoCare to other poorly run government health care systems (the VA comes to mind) is inaccurate and unfair and smacks of Reaganesque "the government is the problem" rhetoric. Government can work for the people - no - SHOULD work for the people. We simply cannot allow continued mismanagement and cronyism, and we do that by un-electing the schmucks and electing statesmen/women.
Tannim...What's Aleppo? And what does that level of international ignorance mean to you? I was a Bernie supporter, but I'm also a realist - Johnson can't win, Stein can't win, and under no circumstances I can imagine can or should Trump win. Look up the clinical definition of sociopathy/narcissism anywhere you choose - if there was a picture next to it that picture would be of Donald Trump.
I have no desire to live in the police state he proposes. I have heard nothing constructive in any of his divisive rants, I haven't seen his tax returns yet (he has business dealings all over the world - who really owns him and what would that mean to our democracy?), I have no desire to see his family-style primped and airbrushed nepotism in the White House, and his stance on nuclear weapons is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.
This egocentric buffoon needs to have his ass handed to him on election day by Hillary Clinton. I'm not a huge fan of hers, but damn, son, use your head! The Ship of State will continue to sail regardless of who wins the election, but there are going to be casualties overboard...let's try to minimize the damage.
Passing Amendment 69 will have two immediate effects: an exodus of health care providers who don't wish to work for a medical "minimum wage", and an immediate and potentially unfair increase in state taxes/fees - even on income items that weren't previously taxed. Living on a fixed income? Too bad - they're coming for it. Oh and don't forget those 512,000 people currently getting SNAP benefits, as you'll be paying for their health care too.
I'm with you on the PBMP. Here's the homework... Name three governor's and two senators that would do Uncle Teddy proud!
ColoradoCare (amendment 69) was designed by a group of Coloradans with no connection to any corporation, industry or political party. It would create a non-profit cooperative owned by the people of Colorado and run by a 21-member board of trustees elected by the people of Colorado. It would simplify our healthcare payment system while keeping our doctors, specialists, clinics and hospitals as independent businesses competing for your business.
ColoradoCare is our chance to get the big insurance companies and their bureaucracy, waste, profits, lobbyists and campaign contributions out of our healthcare. ColoradoCare would cover every Coloradan with top quality healthcare, with no deductibles, while costing us less than we pay now.
You owe it to yourself and your fellow Coloradans to learn more about ColoradoCare and vote for it in November. www.ColoradoCare.org
Kudos...Kudos...Kudos to asawatcher, thank you for that well written and factual response :)
Tannim...WTF!!! What an unfactual....undefendable comment!! Legislation to promote women's rights is not political or gender exploitation, it is indeed to promote equality.
"Odin brings up a very good question. My question to Odin, ok, what is the Second Amendment about?" - Lil Mick
The Second is about the ability to keep and bear arms. This right is an extension of our inherent AKA natural or fundamental right to self-defense and community defense and it exists with or without the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment merely protects this existing right. One of the reasons it protects this right is because of community defense.
"it was originally about protecting the rights of citizens to arm themselves as a militia, keeping the militia, or military at that time separate from the government, enabling the citizenry to protect themselves from a oppressive government."
The military was never intended to be separate from the government. Please, read the Constitution. Being able to defend against an oppressive government is just one facet of a militia -- they were also for providing for immediate defense against invasions and insurrections, among other things.
"The Supreme Court and those who oppose gun legislation have made it clear, the need for a militia separate from the government is no longer necessary,"
Please, point to where the Supreme Court has said this.
" therefore that part of the Second Amendment can be ignored, it is not necessary.
So, since that is no longer the purpose, I argue, there is no longer a purpose for the Second Amendment."
You confuse the first 13 words of the Second Amendment with the reason the right exists. They are not the same thing. The first 13 words give one reason the right must be protected, not the reason it exists. Remember, the Bill of Rights does not grant any rights, it recognizes rights we already have.
"What we now have is a constitutional protection on a privately manufactured and privately marketed product. We have no such protection for any other privately manufactured and privately marketed products."
Except for the whole unreasonable search and seizure bit. Seems to me that homes are privately manufactured and privately marketed, yet there are Constitutional protections about when they can be searched, when they can be taken, and if we can be forced to share them. And even if true, so what? It doesn't mean that we can have any arms we please. It doesn't mean there cannot be any laws, restrictions, or limitations.
Therefore, I find your arguments to be extremely flawed and therefore not worth the electrons used to express them.
Your opinion does not create truth, and has little connection with reality.
Democrats are largely responsible for passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, (the FIRST bill Obama signed as President)
Democrats have supported the Paycheck Fairness Act. (repeatedly blocked by Republicans)
Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, (some call it “Obamacare”) insurance companies can no-longer discriminate against women on account of their gender.
The Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) has provided over 47 million women with guaranteed access to free preventive services, such as cancer screenings.
Going back to 1994, then Senator Biden shepherded through Congress the Violence Against Women Act…reauthorized with Democratic support in 2013.
A Democratic Administration ended discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity for federal contractors.
Democrats urged ratification of the “Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women”, and Obama issued an Executive order: “United States National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security”.
The current Democratic Candidate has a long, established history of promoting women’s and families’ best interests, going back to 1993 and the
“Family Medical Leave Act”. (and before as first lady of Arkansas)
If there is a political party in America with a better history of promoting the interests of women, you’ll have to show it to me.
I’m of the notion that “Emerge Colorado” is a great idea, as there are far too few women in elected office.
Jennie Willford: You might want to try a political party that doesn't exploit gender for political purposes and instead focuses on true equality. You won't find that in the Democrats.
I rely on the wisdom of the Founders and the Bill of Rights on this one. I'm not interested in revisiting any of those moments that were necessary to getting all states on board to sign the Constitution. The impracticality of repealing the 2nd Amendment seems to be the biggest hurdle. A supermajority of Congress and ratification by 75% of state legislatures is a pretty big obstacle. In today's reality it could never happen, so we have to work with what we have. Revenue killers like the Federal sequester and TABOR limit the funding we have for police protection, so, in my case, I rely on my ability to defend myself and my family. I generally only have a firearm handy when I travel or when I hunt. I don't spend time on the range, I don't have a concealed carry permit (but that may change if the crazies get crazier, and I'm not talking about the "tweakers" and other drug addled mentally ill out there).
I agree in substance with your argument that the 2nd Amendment bolsters modern gun ownership and that seems contrary to a level playing field for all other industries...but since the Chinese first invented gunpowder the arms race has been going full tilt. If we want to keep up with the Joneses or the North Koreans should we all be looking around for personal nukes? No, but the most imprinted of all of our genetic makeup has to do with survival. Your argument that militias have been deemed unnecessary by the Supremes, et al, has not stopped militias from cropping up under the guise of fending off an unjust Government. As long as someone else has a gun, be it a government official or a private citizen, then that right should be available to all. I don't see any of the folks in the multitude of militias stating that militias are no longer necessary. And I certainly don't see any large scale sweeps going on to remove them from the landscape, so I really don't get your premise that the Court and the gun nuts have deemed ileitis unnecessary. My current feeling is that we need to enforce current laws, stiffen regs on assault weapons and do a better job of keeping guns away from crazies or other irresponsible types.
The vagueness of the Second and the changes that have come down the pike make repeal virtually impossible. I would concentrate more on enforcing laws we do have on the books and adding some common sense restrictions on assault weapons and background checks.
Vietnamized, I appreciated your comments, I would like to know though, what argument do you have against my logic as to why you are not in favor of repealing the Second Amendment?
I have yet to hear a logical rebuttal. I usually hear what you wrote "I'm not for repealing the Second, but ...".
Something like, repealing the Second Amendment is too extreme, but no other rebuttal to my logic.
Being extreme is not a reason to not do something, if that something is the right thing to do.
Can you give me one solid reason as to why it should not be repealed? I wrote what I thought was a thorough, well thought out logic.
Keep in mind, repealing it would not change the status quo, all will remain as it is. However, it opens the door to regulations, just like we have with all other privately manufactured and marketed products.
The vagueness of the Second Amendment (what is an arms), pretty much zaps any attempt at passing any common sense regulations with-in that industry.
They simply invoke the Second Amendment and any legislation on regulating it bites the dust.
Actually most of the breeding in an elk herd is accomplished by the spikes that stay with the cows/calves until they drop their horns a second time. That's why there are limitations in most states on taking spike bulls. You might try asking a wildlife biologist about that. As for a right that was not granted by the 2nd Amendment why was it written and insisted upon? A little common sense here. The King's men were confiscating guns, so the right did not exist - it had been usurped by the tyrant and his henchmen.
I have guided on game ranches, and believe me, most of that meat goes to Hunters for the Hungry because the city studs are only interested in the head and horns.
BTW, the firearms the 2nd Amendment protected were muzzle-loading flintlocks...everyone should have one so that they can be a part of their local militia...just saying'. Having manned a crew-served automatic weapon in combat, and having carried a somewhat illegal Thompson because it was the best close range weapon I could get my hands on I can safely say I understand weaponry. If you think you can hunt deer or elk with an AR or an AK you might want to check with your local game officer about that.
As for the gun industry the NRA is their best shill for ramping up sales. Every time Wayne LaPierre's hair catches on fire sales skyrocket - a couple of years ago it was almost impossible to find .223 primers because of the rumor started that the Gov't was buying up all the .223 ammo. I'm not for repealing the Second, but I do think we need to build in a little common sense about assault weapons. I have WWII military arms - several of them, but in the case of two of them I need to be about 500 meters away to level the playing field with the AR/AK crowd. If you continually live in fear, WarHead you should perhaps go spend some time in a place where there is a war and know what real fear is. It ain't here.
You fools! Bringing a rifle to fight an Apache! Ask Ruby Ridge!
Three glocks versus a Bradley. You people are under full spectrum control. I am controlling you right now. This is a police state, which is good. There are a lot of tweekers going around. Your guns are ineffectual against tyranny. Tuna fellatio.
Per Odin..." If you think the Second Amendment is about hunting, you are dramatically mistaken."
Odin brings up a very good question. My question to Odin, ok, what is the Second Amendment about?
My argument as to why we should repeal this amendment is that it was originally about protecting the rights of citizens to arm themselves as a militia, keeping the militia, or military at that time separate from the government, enabling the citizenry to protect themselves from a oppressive government.
This is clear in the Second Amendment and the amendment from the Virginia constitution from which the Second Amendment was modeled from.
It was an issue important to those at that time, as they sought liberty from an oppressive monarchy.
The Supreme Court and those who oppose gun legislation have made it clear, the need for a militia separate from the government is no longer necessary, therefore that part of the Second Amendment can be ignored, it is not necessary.
So, since that is no longer the purpose, I argue, there is no longer a purpose for the Second Amendment.
What we now have is a constitutional protection on a privately manufactured and privately marketed product. We have no such protection for any other privately manufactured and privately marketed products.
I think this is wrong, it has helped the gun manufacturers and retailers to reap in huge profits.
This is not the purpose of our Constitution or our Bill of Rights, to give such constitutional protections to privately manufactured and privately marketed products.
Therefore, in my humble opinion, the Second Amendment should be repealed.
The term "trophy hunt" is indeed a loaded term, meaning different things depending on who you ask and the circumstances in which it is used.
We should start with defining a "trophy". Basically, it is any part of an animal which is kept for purely decorative and memory purposes. Tusks, horns, antlers, etc kept on a wall are a prime example of trophies. Trophies are not bad thing, as I will explain in a minute.
As Odin stated, trophy hunting in its worst form is when the animal is taken merely for the trophy bits and the rest of the animal is not used. And this is what most people think of when they here the term "trophy" associated with hunting.
Now let's go to the other end of the trophy hunt spectrum. If a hunter takes an animal and uses nearly every bit of the animal including meat, hide, and bones, but keeps an antler for a memento, perhaps it was the first hunt with a child or the first such animal taken, or maybe just to remember a great hunt, then by definition they have kept a trophy and by extension the person is a trophy hunter.
Those that practice the former are very rare and are generally considered unethical at the least and quite possibly criminal.
Most hunters fall more towards the latter end of the spectrum. If you go into the home of most hunters, you will find at least one such trophy. As author, hunter, and TV personality Steven Rinella opines, these trophies are usually more to remind the hunter of the event than they are to brag to people about how great a hunter they are.
"If gun ownership pre-existed the Constitution why did the Founders insist on the 2nd Amendment?" - Vietnamized
To protect the pre-existing right. The Bill of Rights does not grant any rights to people, it recognizes rights we already have and protects them.
"As far as hunting for horns, the meaning was a little unclear - maybe trophy hunting says it better. "
Trophy hunting is a loaded term and is actually says it worse. To most people it invokes visions of people who kill an animal for a symbolic part to display, such as horns or antlers, but then leave the rest of the animal to go to waste. These types of hunters are very uncommon and again, this kind of hunting is often illegal. In reality, many hunters who try to take a really nice buck or bull based on the antlers, use the meat, and keep the antlers as a trophy are considered trophy hunters.
"and those guys aren't interested in the tenderloin. "
Yeah, actually, they are. They are after both the meat and the chance to take an exotic or trophy animal. The meat gets used and usually is divided between the outfitter and the hunter.
"If it were illegal to trophy hunt then all these Boone and Crockett lists would be meaningless."
Again, that will depend on your definition of a trophy hunt. Hunters who get nice B&C animals don't just leave the meat to rot, they use much of the animal.
"I prefer the youngest, tastiest elk I can find, "
So, you prefer to take an elk before it has a chance to contribute to the elk population, removing its genetics from the gene pool, thereby hurting the elk population overall; instead of taking a management bull which is no longer contributing, already passed on its genes, and is merely using up resources. Maybe the management bull isn't as tasty, but as far as ethics go, it is far more ethical to take the management bull than the young elk.
If gun ownership pre-existed the Constitution why did the Founders insist on the 2nd Amendment? Amendments followed the original Constitution, if memory serves. I called it a privilege because it is a privilege to live here. As far as hunting for horns, the meaning was a little unclear - maybe trophy hunting says it better. There are game ranches in Texas where you can pay $2000/day/per gun to hunt trophy whitetail, Blacktail (mule deer to us), elk (yes, elk in Texas - saw the biggest 8x8 bull I've ever seen on my project), as well as numerous exotic species...and those guys aren't interested in the tenderloin. If it were illegal to trophy hunt then all these Boone and Crockett lists would be meaningless. I prefer the youngest, tastiest elk I can find, and I don't shoot deer anymore - ate enough venison in my life, though it does make pretty good chili when mixed 50-50 with pork. I gave you a like because you stimulated conversation, even thou IMHO you were only partially right.
All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation