Email Letters: September 9, 2016

Colorado Care represents true progress for universal health care

ProgressNow Colorado, which recently came out against Amendment 69 (universal health care for all Coloradans) should change its name to RegressNow Colorado. I suggest as a symbol they create a car stuck in reverse and unable to go forward. Their pronouncement ignores their parent organization ProgressNow statement that their mission is to promote progressive causes.

ProgressNow Colorado fails to address the facts of U.S. healthcare today. Obamacare has been a step in the right direction, but doesn’t cover everyone and has insurance companies in charge of U.S. health care. Not only are the insurance companies restricting health care, but in many cases refusing to pay for treatment or drugs prescribed by your doctors. A universal health care system is the only answer; thank you Bernie Sanders for promoting it, as more Americans are now demanding it.

These are the facts:
1. More than 80 percent of all Coloradans will be paying less than they are paying now by eliminating the private insurance companies.
2. All medically necessary care will be funded through a ColoradoCare cooperative, such as doctor visits, hospitalizations, prescriptions, mental health care, rehab, home care, eye care, and dental care.
3. By eliminating the health insurers, billions will be saved in administrative costs.

I suggest every Coloradan look at the cost of their health care from five years ago and compare it to the cost today. Every Coloradan should be aware that the U.S. is the only industrialized nation in the world where two thirds of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills.

Don’t listen to the naysayers like RegressNow (aka ProgressNow Colorado). Vote Yes for Amendment 69 in November. Once Coloradans obtain universal health care by its passage, Colorado will lead other states to do the same.

Worcester, Mass.

Enemy nations would be more restrained with Trump as president

In the news, Hillary Clinton vowed not to send American ground troops to Iraq or Syria. If elected, Clinton would follow in the same foots steps of deteriorating America’s military, as President Obama has done in the name of equalization. Most of the problems in the Middle East, North Korea, and Iran could have been prevented if the president had pulled his head out of the sand and accepted the truth about these countries being enemy nations.

Obama never showed any courage to stand up to these nations; instead he made excuses for them. He has spent most of his time on global warming, which is not an immediate danger like the terrorists in the cities etc. All the enemy nations have Obama figured out in the moves he makes beforehand.

I would take my chances with Donald Trump. The enemy nations would be a lot more careful with him as president.

Grand Junction

Politicians should lead by consent of the governed, not by bullying

Donald Trump, Commander-in-Chief, what a scary thought. Like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, he would get rid of the generals not loyal to him. The United States military serves the people of the United States, not one individual. Every dictator, including Donald’s pal Putin, surrounds himself with flunkies who don’t dare question their master. Fortunately, Trump will be blocked in his intent due to the need to get the Congress to go along.

We need a true leader who understands that government in the USA leads by consent of the governed, not by bullying. In business, you do not need your employees to agree with your actions. Sorry Donald, if running over people is your management style, go back to running casinos (except for Atlantic City where you failed).

As to military spending, as the Republicans are always fond of pointing out, throwing more money at the problem (if there is one) will not solve the problem. How about we concentrate on those in active service and not the defense contractors? If spending $600 billion a year, more than the next seven countries combined isn’t working, what guarantee will we get that more will solve the problem? If increasing spending can be shown to be the solution, how about raising taxes on the 1 percent who benefit from living in the USA?


Sentinel should abandon ‘no endorsement’ stance in favor of Clinton

Sentinel readers should laugh-out-loud at Mesa’s Republican apologist Dave Kearsley’s fatuous search for reasons to support Donald Trump for president (“Trump will rebuild military, put American jobs first”).

While Kearsley asserts that “a better way to make a judgment about” a candidate who is both temperamentally and experientially unfit to be president “is to look at his children,” all five (like Trump) were born with “silver spoons in their mouths.”

Donald Jr. has done quite well for himself within the Trump Organization, and reportedly supports both marriage equality and marijuana legalization – “to the disgust of his father’s right-wing followers.”

Trump has publicly “ogled” his “favorite daughter” Ivanka (a former teen model) – who nonsensically excuses his racist and sexist appeals as being merely “blunt and direct.”

While vintner Eric’s Foundation gave $30 million to the St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in California, his father’s surrogates falsely credited that philanthropy to the candidate. Meanwhile, Eric has been brazenly spouting the obvious falsehood that his father’s still undisclosed tax returns are too complicated for Americans to understand (“like father, like son”), and makes light of his father’s alleged erstwhile mob connections.

Trump avoids talking about his other “hot” daughter Tiffany, a Manhattan “playgirl’ and “one of the Rich Kids of Instagram – a group of girls and guys in their early twenties who record every moment of their extravagant parent-funded lifestyles online.”

While Trump promises to “put American jobs first,” he fails to practice what he preaches. While Trump promises to “rebuild our weakened military,” he offers no way to pay for it and his tax proposals would balloon the national debt and enrich himself.

While Kearsley’s oil and gas investment products may have “gone downhill the past eight years.” the U.S. economy has not: the stock market has doubled and the price of gas has nearly halved, increasing “middle class workers” disposable incomes (as evidenced by record car sales from a U.S. industry Kearsley would have allowed to go bankrupt).

On Wednesday, for the first time in 75 years, the Dallas Morning News endorsed a Democrat – Hillary Clinton – “as the only serious candidate on the presidential ballot.”

On Thursday, Trump took to Russian state-owned TV to attack U.S. foreign policy and the free American press.

Clearly, the Daily Sentinel should abandon its cowardly “no endorsement” stance.

Grand Junction

Ask two politicians what it means to be ‘American’ and you’ll get three different answers

If we don’t elect Colin Kaepernick president, I’m moving to Olathe. Twerking specialist Miley Cyrus has already reserved her U-Haul trailer in case Trump wins. Hey, must make room for Syrian immigrants, right? And since preventing countless, worldwide, tyrannical, bloody, nightmares is no big deal, isn’t it good to see America finally doing its part?

The issue of immigration is not about documents and vetting terrorists…it’s about getting more traffic on Patterson! It’s about doubling the drive time to Denver and intensifying time with passengers! It’s about I-70 gridlock at 10,000 feet and testing bladder fortitude!

Suggestion: End all immigration. Secure all borders. Deport all convicted violent criminals. Then, care for and educate every potential American who is already here! They desperately need to know who created this exceptional nation and why. It really is about borders, language and culture. But we can’t be rewarding lawbreakers, right?

No, seriously, even in this era of unparalleled corruption, is it not adorable that some people still hold tenaciously to this quaint notion of obedience to law? Barney “one bullet” Fife, eat your heart out!

Unfortunately, the objection stands. So, how soon will those who refuse to enforce immigration law lose pensions and be prosecuted? Why punish people who escaped some crappy country and brought us nothing but good intentions? Truth is, we don’t need more immigrants. We need more Americans! Problem is, and it is staggering, who on Earth is going to properly educate our undocumented neighbors? As it is with professors and preachers, ask two politicians what it truly means to be an “American” and you’ll get three different answers.

Now if we find ourselves abandoned by Miley Cyrus, let’s set her anthology ablaze and settle for ambience filled with actual talent. I’m going with Van Halen II.

Grand Junction

Is cash sent to Iran being used to build statue of Obama?

Is it true or just a rumor that part of the $170 billion cash sent to Iran is going to be used to erect a statue of President Obama and build his presidential library - in Tehran? Just wondering.

Grand Junction


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

I have to agree with Mr. Salaz, though not for the same reasons.

If Trump were elected, most countries in the world would be restrained from actions for a few months at least - its hard to do much when you are laughing that hard.

After the reality sunk in that yes, the U.S. did just elect a cartoon character into our highest office, they would continue to be restrained by the fear of what he might do if provoked. Obviously reason and logic are not high on his list of motivations, and he has asked why we don’t use nuclear weapons more often. One ill-timed comment about his hair and poof! goes a city. Or maybe he would just have some “2nd Amendment people do something” about the offending party.

So yes, I agree that foreign nations would be more restrained by a President Trump. But restrained in the same way pedestrians are towards a street preacher shouting nonsense. Don’t say anything that might set him off. You never know when one of his “2nd Amendment people” might be around.

Does any one wonder why Virgina Ryan from Worchester Mass., a liberal stronghold is entering into Colorado’s attemp to nationalize our Health Insurance.  Obama Care is a disaster and what some people from Colorado want to do with the ballot initative is even worse.

Why is it worse? Specifically, not just “Ahhh!! Liberalism!!!”

If you don’t think Insurance Companies dropping out of Obama care because of cost and the rising cost of insurance isn’t bad you need to re-adjust your thinking.

I didn’t say it wasn’t. You said that Amendment 69 was worse than Obamacare, and I asked why.

To answer your question, Mr. Blosser:  I think the Liberal-Progressives have decided to use Colorado as a testing ground for their bad ideas.  There are a lot of people from out of state who are supporting ColoradoCare apparently.  What do they care what happens to us?  It won’t hurt them a bit.

Funny how no one can actually explain why its such a bad idea. Almost like none of you really know why its a bad idea, you’re just parroting what you’ve been told.

I haven’t seen you explain why it’s a good idea.  You just parrot what you’ve been told, Mr. Iles.

We’ve talked about this before, Mrs. Kniesel. My answer hasn’t changed since then. But why can’t you guys tell me why its such a bad idea, since you are all so convinced it is? You and Mr. Blosser seem to be running and dancing every which way to avoid giving any specific answers. If you aren’t trying to make it seem like you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re doing a very good job of it anyway.

I’m aware we have discussed this before (I am not Hillary).  There is no upper limit on the taxes that can be charged to pay for a program that will cover everyone who happens to be in the state.  People will abuse the system just like they did MediCal years ago when it covered everything with no copays.  There is no guarantee healthcare will be available if you need it.  The only thing guaranteed is you will pay for it for everybody if you make any money.  They claim they will pay Doctors more than MCaid does now, but there is not guarantee of that as all rates, taxes, and care (or lack thereof) will be determined by a board.  Members of the board are to be elected after the first are appointed, but they cannot be recalled no matter what they do.

I could go on, but I won’t bother.

No, they aren’t subject to recall, but they serve limited terms, are subject to not being re-elected, and can be removed by the other board members.

I agree that there are questions, but eliminating the insurance companies seems like a huge bonus. You know, the ones responsible for the high cost of health care? Health care should not be a for-profit business.

But thanks for at least trying to come up with some reasons. They aren’t terribly good ones, being primarily assumptions and suppositions, but you tried.

OK, Mr. Know-it-all,  What are the reasons we need this besides your claims about insurance companies?  Do you really think a bunch of people who don’t know what they are doing are going to be able to set up a system as complex as a healthcare system for the entire state?  Who is going to design their website—-Anybody know??  Hopefully not the same idiots who designed the Obamacare disaster website.

Isn’t cutting out billions in overhead a good idea on its own? Your goalposts are on roller skates.

I’m not going to convince you, Mrs. Kneisel. I’m not even going to try. You’ve got nothing but assumptions to say why its a bad idea, which is exactly what I thought in the first place. Perhaps Mr. Blosser has some actual evidence to support his claim.

You’ve got nothing but assumptions to support your claims, Mr. Iles, but of course since it’s your ideas they are right absolutely.  I got it.  Sorry I wasted my time on you.

No, I did the math last time, remember Mrs. Kneisel? You said you remembered our last discussion. I have facts. You have assumptions.

Have a pleasant evening.

Hypothetical math deals with imaginary numbers—-your specialty it seems, Mr. Iles.

Sorry, Mrs. Kneisel. I used numbers from my paycheck. They weren’t hypothetical in the slightest. Nice try, though.

It was based on assumptions of what the numbers will be.  I know you think you know all the answers, but nobody does…not even you!
Steve House had a conversation with Dr. Aguilar about her baby, ColoradoCare.  She knew little about the numbers and when he asked her what would happen if they don’t have enough money to get the program off the ground, and she answered, “We won’t start it”. 
This means she thinks it would be OK after she’s chased all the insurance companies out of the state to just not do “her” plan and leave us high and dry apparently.

As I said, Mrs. Kneisel. I’m not going to convince you. You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t use reason to get into in the first place. You are going to be against this, and any other liberal idea, for partisan reasons, not facts and evidence. I know that. The only bullets in your gun are assumptions, accusations, and IKYABWAI, which you have amply demonstrated tonight. If you have any actual facts, you would have presented them.

Have a nice evening, Mrs. Kneisel.

Mr. Iles, you have not presented any facts, but somehow your position is correct while my objection is just partisan?  I certainly know there is no reasoning with you…..see, this is a 2-sided coin.  People on one side have an opinion that differs from those on the other.  That does not necessarily make one side right or righteous——they are just different.  I have a right to my opinion just as you have a right to yours, but somehow it seems to upset you terribly that I dare disagree with you.

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
Advertiser Tearsheet

© 2016 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy