Email letters, April 25, 2014

Obamacare still an improvement over previous system

Deanne Adamson’s “Obamacare will take down fragile economy” and Holly Van Helms’ “GOP originally put forth plan similar to Affordable Care Act” aptly illustrate the gradually improving tenor of the ongoing debate over the efficacy of Obamacare.
However, first, the fragility of our economy is the direct result of Republican obstructionism — cynically intended to gain partisan political advantage in the 2014 and 2016 elections.

Second, Adamson provides inadequate detail to make an “apples to apples” comparison of her previous family coverage to her ACA-compliant policy.
Nevertheless, the good news is that she found “affordable” (albeit more expensive) coverage and her family has not yet experienced any “serious illnesses” – which might have implicated annual/lifetime coverage limits in her previous policy and/or induced that insurer to investigate for “pre-existing conditions” and cancel coverage altogether.
Likewise, higher deductibles matter most when serious illness or injury strikes, and higher co-pays may be offset by the ACA’s free preventative care provisions.
Third, the proposition that “a policy is only socially just if its implementation doesn’t hurt other people” is wishful thinking.
Adamson forgets that the ACA was prompted by our “broken” health care system. Beginning in 1989 – as Van Helms correctly points out – even “conservatives” were recognizing that not fixing it was a “socially unjust” policy choice, because that profit-driven system “hurt” too many “other people.”

As of April 15, 8 million had signed up through either federal or state exchanges; 8.2 million may have obtained qualifying coverage through insurance brokers or directly from insurance companies; 5-7 million obtained coverage through Medicaid and/or CHIP expansion; and 1.6 to 3 million “under 26ers” remain covered on parents’ policies.
Thus, from 14.4 to 23.5 million Americans are now benefiting from the ACA – while 5+ million are waiting for recalcitrant “red states” to rediscover social justice.
Grand Junction

Pot celebrations on Easter Sunday prompt health care questions

Recent 4/20 celebrations of pot on Easter  Sunday made me think of the perspective of things here in the old hometown.

Colorado used to be quite conservative, but as of late the communist takeover of the state houses and the governor’s office have directed us in a whole new direction — one I’m not comfortable with. President Obama has chosen to ram Obamacare down our throats, and the state houses and liberals have seen fit to legalize recreational pot?

So, with all the hazards of smoking we have been hearing about for over 30 years, the cost that adds to health care, even under Obamacare, and the long- term health concerns how are we going to deal with the whole new set of circumstances that legalized pot has brought us? Out-of-state party hounds flying in on Easter to get high, food products with pot in them, drug testing for jobs and DUI offenses, personal safety on job sites — the list goes on and on.

The elected officials who profess to be “looking out for our welfare”  because apparently we are too stupid to do it for ourselves seem to be more guided by political motivation than actual known outcomes of use of the drug. I think they were just looking for something else to tax, and if we smoke enough of it, we probably just won’t care. Never fear; Choom is on the job.

Grand Junction

NASA report says man-made global warming is still debatable

Many should take issue with your editorial, “Hedging our bets on carbon emissions” printed Wednesday. 

No one doubts that the climate has changed, does change and is changing. What many people doubt is that:
• it is caused by man
• it is any different than any other of the drastic changes in global climate that have occurred already
• expensive, economy-destroying government policies will have any effect, aside from shifting wealth into the coffers of politicians and their cronies.

Everyone should check the report by retired NASA scientists published at The final report of these highly educated and experienced scientists and engineers was released on the web in February. Their first two conclusions are:

• The science that predicts the extent of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is not settled science. 
• Our U.S. government is overreacting to concerns about anthropogenic global warming

The behavior of the man-made global warming alarmists from the beginning has alerted me to the suspicion that they are not truthful. Throughout my engineering career, I have never dealt with a scientist or other expert who tried to shut down discussion by declaring that the “science is settled.” No true scientist would ever make such a statement because It is contrary to the way in which science is practiced.



Old math morphs into Obama-math

Under the old math, if a company had 15 people retire and only replaced 10 of them, this would be a loss of five jobs. However, under Obama-math this would count as 10 jobs created. It’s just a matter of who gives you the “facts.”


Grand Junction

Booth, other museum staffers lauded for dedication

I recently had the privilege of meeting and working with some of the staff members of the Museum of Western Colorado. As a volunteer on spring cleaning day at Dinosaur Journey Museum, I witnessed the passion, dedication and hard work of these fine folks.

Being a grandmother of a child who suffers from nut allergies, I was especially pleased with the replacement of the crushed walnut shells in the dig pit. I wish to thank Peter Booth, Ph.D., who, in his short 15 months as executive director, put forth much effort to find a suitable and safe substitute to replace the shells, which were donated many years before his time.

Along with that search for an alternative material came the challenge of how to finance it (no easy task for our nonprofit organizations). A special thank-you also goes to the city of Fruita for its financial support of this project.

Please visit and support this fun, educational, little gem in our valley and perhaps join me next year on spring-cleaning day. Participating in the “bathing of 40-foot dinosaurs” makes for an interesting topic of


Grand Junction


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 2

Mr. Hugenberg:  The ‘gradually improving tenor of the ongoing debate’ that you seem so proud to point out, is but a lull, at best.  The so-called ‘fragile economy’ was fragile before Obummer, and became worse yet in the last five years.  Republicans simply could not have been ‘obstructionists’ before Obummer began his spendthrift ways.  As for the ‘apples to apples’ comparisons in Adamson’s details - first off, generalities are good enough, and secondly, with all the numbers you quote, you sound as if you have at your disposal all the pages of the ACA, but, we can’t verify that.  Stay tuned.
“She found “affordable” (albeit, more expensive) coverage”... I seem to remember the claim by Obummer that “Insurance will cost $2500. per year less under the ACA”.  I also remember him saying there were 45 Million without health insurance, and “that’s why we need the ACA”.  Well, Mr. Hugenberg - here is yet another place where your numbers (or Obummer’s) don’t add up.  According to you:  “As of April 15, 8 million had signed up through federal or state exchanges; 8.2 million “may have”, through insurance brokers or companies; 5-7 million through Medicaid, or CHIP; and 1.6-3 million ‘under 26ers’ stayed on their parent’s plan.  Mr. Hugenberg:  “May have” isn’t a number we can count! 5 to 7 million:  Which is it, or is it something in-between?  And, “1.6 to 3 million ‘under 26ers’”.  That’s a 1.4 million person gap, if you hadn’t noticed.  Not a number we can count (again).  Did you get these numbers off the top of your head?  You seem to think you’re the numbers Guru.  In any case:  According to you, 14.4 to 23.5 million Americans are now “benefiting” from the ACA.  I’m sure all those who finally got covered feel like they are ‘benefiting’ from the higher costs, and fewer doctors.  Yeah - I know - you didn’t mention Doctors.  So, by your own numbers Mr. Hugenberg:  of the 23.5 million (the possible maximum) and the 14.4 million (the possible minimum) - that means that at least 61.27659% are now covered, possibly more.  Regarding that number, Mr Hugenberg, and the number of uninsured “we need to get covered” according to Obummer, which was 45 million in 2009 - shows just how badly the ACA fell on its face.  Against the ‘possible’ 23.5 million that you tout, and the 45 million that the ACA was supposed to get covered, that’s just a little more than half, or 52.222222%, using your highest number of possibles.  I don’t know where you get your numbers, (thin air, maybe?) but even your numbers show the ACA to be a failure.  “Apples to apples”, Mr Hugenberg.  I believe both you and Dr. Pramenko to be shills for the present administration, and the ACA in particular.

Mr Hugenburg, as usual, stomps all over our freedom of choice.

Mr. Sanders:  Mr. Hugenberg doesn’t “stomp all over my freedom of choice” - I won’t allow it - not from Mr. Hugenberg, or from this Socialistic administration.  I will speak up, (as I have done) and I will stand up, if it comes to that.  We all should be prepared to do just that, because I believe it is coming.  The Liar-in-Charge, and his minions will not give up on the inroads they have gained toward Socialism, unless and until they are but a bad memory in the history of America.  I just pray that happens sooner, rather than later.

Thanks to David Zulian for focusing readers’ attention on the facts—which is by itself an improvement in the tenor of the “debate” over the efficacy of the newly renamed  
“Ronald Reagan Memorial Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ReaganCare”).

First, Zulian impliedly admits that the U.S. economy was “fragile” before President Obama took office—and thus that Republicans had bequeathed him a $15 billion National Debt, two wars, and a collapsing financial system.

Second, Zulian is apparently regurgitating Mitt Romney’s false claim (refuted by every objective economist and the non-partisan CBO) that the economy became worse “in the last five years”—disregarding the success of the stimulus package, the rescue of the U.S. auto industry, and the declining dependence of oil imports.

Third, Zulian also conveniently forgets that—in 2010—the Republican-controlled House rhetorically claimed that their “number one priority” was “Jobs, jobs, jobs”—but that their first bill was an anti-abortion bill, that they’ve now voted 51+ times to repeal
“ReaganCare” (with no viable replacemet), and still have not yet voted on the American Jobs Act of 2011 (or 2013)or on job-creating S.744 (Comprehensive Immigration Reform).

Fourth, the entire text of “ReaganCare” is available on-line for anyone inclined to read it—which Zulian obviously is not.

Fifth, likewise, all the enrollment numbers are available on-line for anyone who actually cares about facts—which Zulian obviously does not. However, to clarify, because the number of folks obtaining coverage directly from insurers or through brokers is unknown (and thus not reportable by the government or compiled from the 1300 individual insurers), the best available estimate is provided by a Rand Corporation study (also available on-line).

Sixth, no one expected “ReaganCare” to cover all 45 million uninsured Americans in its first six months.  Indeed, it took several years for “RomneyCare” in Massachusetts to cover 90+% of that state’s population—but it eventually did, and still does.

So, either Zulian doesn’t have access to a computer (try the Mesa County Public Library) or he is just a willfully dishonest shill for ignorant opponents of the ACA—even after it was renamed “ReaganCare”!!

Mr. Hugenberg: 
    I didn’t ‘impliedly admit’ the fragility of our economy - I stated a fact.  Truths are truths, no matter how one sees them.  As for ‘ReaganCare’ - I don’t remember that passing into law, do you?  That makes it “ObummerCare”.

    Re: The “success of the Stimulus package”, and the “rescue of the US Auto Industry”:  Have you forgotten there were no ‘Shovel-ready’ jobs, and the Auto Industry was ‘taken over’ by government?  (At least GM and Chrysler Corp.)  Ford managed on their own!  If Oil dependency has subsided - why is gas still more than $3.50/gal.?

    Yes, the Republican House has voted numerous times to repeal ‘ObummerCare’.  Unfortunately, the left hates to give up their Socialistic scheme to control Healthcare, and they are in the majority in the Senate.  Hopefully, that will change…

    As for ‘Immigration Reform’, how does that raise the level of Americans employed, and additionally, I just don’t believe it is part of a ‘JOBS’ bill.  With Obummer having a ‘pen and a phone’, he’s doing his best to make illegal’s legal, already.  “We don’t need no stinkin’ immigration laws”!

    Finally, Mr. Hugenberg - although I do have a computer, and I do pay attention to what is said and done by government, and I do make up my own mind about what is right and equitable. What is being attempted by this administration doesn’t sit well with me.  As for my numbers facts:  I used the numbers supplied by you, Mr. Hugenberg, in the e-mail of April 25th.  Unless the math is wrong, or the quoted numbers are, that leaves only you, Mr. Hugenberg.

Thanks for the edit Daily Sentinel.

to Bill Hugenburg, you don’t even have Obamacare so why do you defend it. shut up, not Mrs. Bright

Try as he might, David Zulian remains unable to avoid facing the facts.

Because mindless critics like Zulian continue to insult President Obama, it is obvious that the biggest mistake that Nancy Pelosi made was not to name the health care law after the revered “conservative” buffoon Ronald Reagan.

In Kentucky, for example, the Affordable Care Act outpolls “ObamaCare” substantially—even though they’re the same thing.  Imagine how much better received that law would be if it were renamed “ReaganCare”.

Of course, the facts that there were fewer
“shovel ready” projects than thought and that Ford didn’t need a bailout are irrelevant to Zulian’s counterfactual insistence that the economy is worse now than it was when Bush left office. Rather, those exceptions prove the rule—as Zulian’s underused computer research skills would confirm, if he tried.

The fact is that “ReaganCare” is a market-based reform—first suggested in 1989 by the “conservative” Heritage Foundation—of the health insurance industry, intended to control rapidly rising health costs and health insurance premiums.

It is not—and never was—a “Socialist scheme to control Healthcare”.  Rather, it is the Republican alternative to a “single payer” (Medicare for all) alternative which would have entailed much greater government intervention in the e health care system, rather than just reform of health insurance.

Immigration reform would bring more foreign-trained doctors to the U.S.—but Americans prefer only white, U.S. trained physicians, regardless of their competency.

Immigration reform would also reduce deficits by some $1 trillion over twenty years—by bringing millions of workers into the Social Security and tax withholding system who are now working in the “shadows”.

And, as before, the “ReaganCare” enrollment numbers are accurate and verifiable, but are expressed in a range that seems too complex for Zulian’s arithmetic skills.  However, even one assumes that only the bottom of the range is reliable, “ReaganCare” is still exceeding the expectations of both its fact-free critics and its grateful supporters.

as usual when some one presents “facts” Mr. Hugenburg has a whole litany of BS to compromise the facts. Mr. Zulian must know something of economics and real business, unlike Mr. Hugenburg and all those jobs he created by being a lawyer? and adding to the drain on the economy. So Mr. Huegenburg what could this country have done without taking $136 million from Medicare and another $70 million indirectly and the over $648 million pounded down a rathole for the website to help Vets and indigent having problems with healtchcare coverage? Government adds cost, does nothing to improve the situation, and has no business running a private industry, especially if they are of the “like mind” such as yourself. Thank you to Mr Zulian for spanking your sad A$$
NOt Mrs Bright

Funny—I don’t feel “spanked” by the likes of Zulian and the not-too-Brights.

They keep changing the subject whenever they get cornered—so, we’ll just keep feeding them facts they don’t like until cognitive dissonance prevails.

oooo Not too very “original” name calling that the left seems to like to degrade to when dealing with facts, you don’t feel obviously any common sense or intellect of a satisfying nature so instead you choose to degrade and ignore facts. Your constant drivel as you are the Liberal reporter for the Sentinel it seems is just that, drivel. Get a job or better yet, pay for your Obamacare, then report the real facts. Oh I forget, you have government coverage, paid for by others. You blame everything on every one else, then criticize if some one disagrees. Legislate it out of existence is the Liberal battle cry. Frankly I’m tired of paying for your hair brained schemes.
Mr. Bright

Hey Hugenburg 1989 was 25 years ago. Duh. What is “ReaganCare?” Are you really as stupid as you sound? It must be that similar education to that of obama that you are so proud of? Better than “the previous system.” Really? Your incorrect facts do NOT bear that out. Typical democrap—just spew and spew. I am surprised you’ve not pulled out the race card yest? I have not forgotten your obsession with the male anatomy.

It is particularly revealing when bubbleheads like the “not-so-Brights” feel free to engage in incessant ad hominum disrespect for President Obama (perhaps, because he’s only half-white)—but take umbrage when the favor is returned.

While the “not so Brights” repeatedly refer to “facts” that I’ve ignored, they have never cited a single one.

Because the “not so Brights” rely solely on fact-free bubble-speak, Sentinel readers can judge for themselves what’s drivel and what’s not.

As a former corporate executive, I likely participated in the creation of more private sector jobs than the “not so Brights” have;
and as a Viet Nam-era, Veteran, I believe that everyone should have the same access to affordable quality health care that I do.

No one is asking the “not so Brights” to pay for “hair-brained schemes”.  Merely returning to the tax structure that applied during the Clinton years (when 22+ million jobs were created) would generate sufficient revenues to restore the social safety net, invest in our childrens’ future, strengthen national defense, and pay down the National Debt.

But TeaPublicans want to starve government out of existence—and blame “Liberals” for opposing their mindless downward spiral.

And they always get the last word!

Hey, Sad-sack Sanders—don’t you know when you and your like-minded bubbleheads are being mocked?

Yes, 1989 was 25 years ago—and that was when “conservative” Reagan-loving Republicans first introduced the words “Affordable Care” into the lexicon of health care system reform.

Meanwhile, you have still not identified a single “fact” that is “incorrect”.  Contrary to your fact-free ideological conviction, just because you say it doesn’t make it true.

Republicans were for the “Affordable Care Act” before they were against it, but were against its (and everything else that only half-white President Obama was for) when he embraced it.

Thus, as for the “race card” is concerned, there ample accumulating evidence t support the conclusion that—had Nancy Pelosi named the ACA the “Ronald Reagan Memorial Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care (for Whites only) Act”—“red states” would have been more likely to embrace it.

So, please continue spewing your fact-free bubble-speak and ad hominum disrespect for President Obama, because you are simply confirming what is already obvious to most discerning Sentinel readers.

wow Buffaloed Bill so many Republicans, so little time to corrupt the minds that disagree with the smug morons like yourself. last word last word last word. Shut Up Buffaloed Bill, you really don’t matter as much as you think you do and YOUR president is proving it to all of America. You want to associate with a known organizer, the stupidest woman in congress, and the most corrupt Senate leader in history, go right ahead. You just keep illustrating every ones point about you! Again, look what your boy did with over $648 million? pissed it away as the Liberals are famous for, they can’t do squat without everybody else’s money. I want a refund, neither I nor my great grand children can afford you vision of the future. Donkeys don’t rule. Mr. Bright

Mr. Hugenberg:  In my efforts to face ‘facts’ I must be presented with ‘facts’.  What you have presented for not only me, but for everyone who reads your drivel, is, at best “guesstimates” and ‘spreads’.  We all know there was a ‘deadline’ - numerous times.  Still, ‘8 million sign-ups’ does not equal 8 million paid sign-ups.
‘8.2 million “may have’s” through brokers and companies’ does not equate to a ‘fact’.  ‘5 to 7 million through Medicaid or CHIP’ is a spread, not a verifiable paid number.  Likewise, 1.6 to 3 million ‘26ers’ is a 1.4 million person spread that isn’t verifiable one way or the other.  Stating the above as ‘facts’ is not proof.  It is more like the magical “We hit 7 million” on April 1st.  You’d be hard-pressed to find someone who didn’t see that coming!  Magical!

“Fewer shovel-ready jobs”?  I have yet to hear of even one, but I may have missed one.  I know a lot of jobs were fast-tracked when it was learned there was free money available.  And, you are right about Ford not needing a bailout being ‘irrelevant’.  As for GM - they may need another one after the 10 year-old starter-switch
fiasco is finally adjudicated.  No problem, the union owns a part of GM now, (thanks to Obummer) so I am reasonably sure he will step up to the plate again.  Oh yes - I’m still waiting on your answer about oil:  If our dependency has subsided, why is gas still $3.50?

You can call it anything you like - It wasn’t passed into law when Reagan was at the helm, regardless who may have put it forth.  It has been with Obummer - so it is ObummerCare, and it belongs to the Democrats.  We know they would like us to ‘fix’ it - but we didn’t want it in the first place - why should we make them look good?

It is Socialistic in it’s design, and it is government-controlled and mandated. (although that is subject to change according to the whims of the Liar-in-Chief)  If the government picks up the tab for any of it with taxpayer funds - it is Socialist.

I must have missed something else; you say the government is trying to import foreign-trained Doctors?  The only thing I have read or seen about Immigration Reform is the 12 million illegal’s already in country, minus the DREAMERS, which Obummer has already cleared.

I am unsure about reducing deficits - how long would it take for 11 million illegal’s to catch up by paying taxes, for all the years of drawing benefits prior to paying taxes?  You got that number, too?

I am going to stop here.  I can get better reception talking to one of the posts in my fence line.  Of course - I doubt you will do the same - but you will blame Republicans for getting the last word.

Let’s see. I am “Sad Sack” according to Hugenburg. Hugenburg just cannot escape that peanus envy affliction for obummer and limpwilly. Clinton had a majority republican senate and house. Huseincare is a worthless failure. Recent Quinnipiac polling data shows Coloradans do not like it. 335,000 have lost coverage. Aren’t you just like obummer? You want everyone to have the same “health care” that you “earned” during your service during the “Vietnam Era.” Do you mean during the draft? Of course you want a similar health care system. That of single payer. That of depriving Americans our right of choice. Damn you should be commended. Your obummer “similar education” allowed you to create more jobs than obummer has in 5 years. Woo hoo. I see you may be recovering from that peanus envy problem. You and obummer are just alike.

There you go again, Jerry.

You offer the misleading “fact” that 335,000 Coloradans have “lost” coverage.  While it is true that some 250,000 plus Coloradans got cancellation letters in 2013, you beg the questions as to the quality of the “coverage” (with annual/lifetime caps and the right to cancel at any time and/or for “pre-existing conditions) they “lost”  and whether those folks were able to obtain equal or better coverage at an affordable premium.

Meanwhile, as of April 15, 2014, over 305,000 Coloradans had obtained qualifying coverage through ConnectColorado and/or Medicaide, which does not include those obtaining coverage directly from insurers or through brokers.

So, why don’t you want every American to have access to affordable health care?  Are you against it just because President Obama got the ball rolling in that direction?  Would you be for it if Reagan had proposed it?

I don’t care whether access to affordable health care is provided through Republicans’
market-based private insurance policies as in “ReaganCare” or through a single payer plan.  The former is more complex, but also protects the insurance industry, requires premiums, and costs taxpayers less. 

Imagine how much more popular “ReaganCare” would be today if Republicans had embraced and supported their own “individual mandate” idea, rather than cynically demagogued against it for partisan political advantage.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause.

Please explain the relevance of $648 million to your distaste for “ReaganCare”.  Now that 10+ million more Americans are covered by insurance policies or Medicaid and the 180 million more with insurance coverage are benefitting from the reforms of the insurance industry, at what point does $648 million become a good investment?

Do you feel the same way about Social Security and Medicare?

Dear Buffaloed Bill $648 million was the starting point of costs for the failed attempt at creating a website two college kids could have put together in a month. Couple that with the multi millions TAKEN from medicare and you,“mr. ignorant of reported facts” by your own Muslim in the whitehouse and you have the ignorance yet again of the Liberal left to face the truth. Michelle’s Canadian buddy got a good payday with that non HIPPA compliant piece of crappola, hmmm imagine that?
Hey, dummass how many of those “10 million” you quote were covered already by other plans, and why were they UNCONSTITUTIONALLY FORCED to comply with buying a “privately issued business product” by the federal government. If they determine you are a moron and moron’s have to register for federal aid that YOU have to buy is that fair and right? Every time you take keyboard to type you explain your stupidity, should you and Alec Baldwin care to leave the country together, please go to France, where you aren’t appreciated either. If this causes you to up your Meds it’s understandable. But then I’m sure you have a fine co-pay system for your Meds or does the Fed pay for all those for you as well?
Mr. Bright, coffee anytime soon?

Page 1 of 2

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Subscribe to print edition
eTear Sheets/ePayments

© 2017 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy