Printed Letters: Sept. 11, 2016

Amendment 69 exemplifies progress
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. health care 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.

Sentinel fell short in reporting on drainage district action
The Sept. 4 story on the Grand Valley Drainage District decision to turn over taxpayers to a collection agency oversimplified the issue of “fee” vs. “tax.”  Further, the story omitted a discussion of how the decision was reached. 

The story stated “Two Colorado Supreme Court cases currently stand for the proposition that a charge for storm-drainage services ‘is in the nature of a fee.’ ” This statement, though taken from Judge Bottger’s decision, misleads Sentinel readers.

Bottger cited two Supreme Court cases to justify his ruling denying the preliminary injunction, but he prefaced his citation to the cases by noting they “did not address the precise issues raised by the plaintiffs” and “they predated TABOR.” The Sentinel chose not to include these important distinctions in the story, which could easily have led readers to conclude that the county and the chamber are wasting time and taxpayer money by contesting the district’s heavy-handed behavior.

Further, had the reporter fully done his job, he would have determined how GVDD made the decision to turn taxpayers over to the collection agency.  Was this recent decision made by the elected board? If not, why not? If so, was it made in an open meeting that had been properly noticed? Was the decision of the board unanimous? Are minutes of the meeting available for public perusal? In my opinion, all of these questions should have been addressed in the story.

Last May, Cody Davis was elected to the board of GVDD. During the campaign, he stated that he believed this charge is a tax, not a fee. He was correct in reaching this conclusion — if it walks and talks like a duck, it’s a duck (even if some judge says it’s a chicken). Hopefully he has not changed his view. If he will stick to his guns, the solution to this problem is to elect a like-minded person next May (before the court case is heard).

Grand Junction

Politicians should lead by 
consent, 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 because of 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 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?



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

On the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it’s timely to consider the many lessons that should have been learned by now.

First, after a partisan majority of the Supreme Court “elected” a dubiously competent and inexperienced George Bush as president, he squandered the budget surplus on gratuitous tax cuts for the already wealthiest and was woefully unprepared for 9/11.  Donald Trump seeks to bombastically befuddle fearful Americans into repeating those same mistakes.

Second, despite warnings from many quarters, Bush/Cheney deceptively manipulated the purported “intelligence” to justify invading Iraq – perhaps the single worst foreign policy decision in American history.  Last week, Donald Trump embarrassed the entire nation with his woefully inadequate grasps of both foreign policy and military affairs.

Third, rather than embrace the multi-ethnic political reconciliation process started by Jay Garner, Bush/Cheney disbanded the Iraqi military and removed former Baathists from the Iraqi civil service, thereby depriving 250,000 armed Sunnis of gainful unemployment and “fathering” the Sunni-Shiite civil war from which ISIS emerged.  Now, Donald Trump’s bilious bravado invites a shooting war with Iran.

Fourth, over 14 years of 9/11 anniversaries, only two merit mention.  In 2006, Al Qaeda issued a video calling for increased attacks on the U.S., but there were none.  In 2012, bigoted evangelicals released an anti-Muslim video that sparked anti-American riots across the Middle East.  The same Republicans who cut her diplomatic security budget then castigated Hillary Clinton for not foreseeing the “anniversary attack” in Benghazi, and for initially presuming that the video triggered it (as the ringleader later claimed it did).  Now, Donald Trump fosters anti-Muslim bigotry that undercuts U.S. credibility with our Muslim allies, fuels ISIS recruiting, and endangers loyal Muslim-Americans.

Fifth, having turned a “deplorable basket” of Americans against their fellow-citizens of different ethnic and/or religious heritage with a campaign appealing to racists, sexists, nativists, and xenophobes, Trump has turned his divisive rhetoric on the U.S. military – questioning the competence of our brave soldiers and the generals who command them.

Americans—and the Daily Sentinel’s editors—should mark this the 15th anniversary of 9/11 by resoundingly rejecting Trumpism.

Illary Clinton faints after leaving 9/11 ceremony early.

Guess what, Mrs. Kneisel? Getting overheated doesn’t disqualify you from running for president!

Americans should mark this 4th anniversary of the death of Ambassador Stevens and the 3 heroes who died in Benghazi while saving the lives of the embassy personnel, with a resounding rejection of Illary Clinton.

After seven, going on eight, investigations, you’d think the GOP witch-hunters would be able to come up with something to pin on her, rather than just repeating the same old mantra.

But alas, it is not to be.

Ms. Kneisel

Again, after someone offers an opinion, in your attempted rebuttal you ignore what others write (and document for you)and offer nothing in turn to justify why you disagree or even give any reason for your own position, in this case “against Ms. Clinton”.  Therefore, we can only conclude that your positions are based purely upon emotions of “I like” or “I don’t like”.  There is then also the obvious fact that you (just like many others) feel compelled to say something and express yourself on everything, and do so with very little, if any thought. That, Ms. Kneisel, is little else than “talking” only for the sake of “talking”.

Here’s a Washington Compost article Mr. Hugenberg will not be posting:

So do you agree with the article that previous concerns about her health were nothing but the work of conspiracy theorists? Specifically, yourself?

No one is saying that pneumonia is not a serious issue, but that isn’t what you claimed she had, is it?

Oh dear even NBC realizes something is amiss:

Page 1 of 1

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