Printed letters, September 22, 2013

USA Today and The Wall Street Journal confirm polling results of 53 percent disapproval of Obamacare, emphasizing The Daily Sentinel’s recent op-ed on the confusing aspects of the law.

Some may think I am one of the “partisan detractors” of this new grand plan for health reform, while conveniently ignoring that it was originally conceived and passed along “partisan” lines in Congress.

It was later deemed constitutional via a legal contortion that changed “mandate” to “tax.” Now it is promoted by a flurry of navigators and a government-sponsored ad campaign (funded by taxpayers). Also:

✓ IRS enforces the tax credits and relies on individual honesty for reported income levels.

✓ Navigators will have personal IDs, which could lead to identity theft.

✓ The Independent Payment Advisory Board, which hopes to reduce cost by authorizing only so-called “evidenced-based” care, will ultimately will lead to rationing of care. (IPAB is derided even by partisan Howard Dean.)

✓ Obamacare will diminish patient care and threaten the traditional doctor-patient relationship.

✓ The Office of Management and Budget predicts premium costs will rise (134 percent in Colorado), as will total government expenditures.

These arguments are not hollow. The president’s promises are hollow: 

“If you like your insurance, you can keep it.” 

“You can keep your doctor.”

“This will save families $2,500 a year.”

For now, Obamacare is the law of the land. I hope our legislators have the wisdom to repeal, or at the very least, defund it. If they do not, partisan supporters of Obamacare need to bear the full responsibility for the detrimental effects. If Sentinel columnists are going to tout this legislation as the solution, then the paper must acknowledge that it is a failure when it inevitably fails.

Those of us who oppose Obamacare, including Dr. Ben Carson, famed neurosurgeon, are not hyperventilating when we advocate for repeal and for legislating a patient-centered and truly affordable plan.


Grand Junction

Navy Yard shooting show lapse in nation’s security

Bill Grant is so out of touch as to be ludicrous. Getting rid of those two arrogant, power-hungry state senators was not only about gun control, but about freedom. Grant spews his unsubstantiated opinions as if they are facts, such as: “the American people want more gun control.” The recent election sort of disproves that.

Grant should focus on the real problem in all the recent horrible mass shootings, which is mental illness. With the record being reported by the press, how was the Navy shooter able to obtain firearms? We already have laws covering these sorts of things. Someone or some agency is not doing the job of enforcing existing laws.

That’s the trouble with liberals — they want more government control and more loss of Constitutional freedom, without enforcement of existing law. They use every excuse to burden law-abiding citizens with more onerous regulation without addressing the real problem, which is mental illness.

The Navy shooter should have never been allowed to walk freely among law-abiding citizens, let alone been approved to buy weapons and obtain a security clearance. Who’s asleep here?

Grand Junction

Constitution citings overused 
in letters about the recalls

How many times can I use the word “Constitution” in this letter? Or maybe “common sense” or “regulation.” I will use the word “pathetic” just once to describe the latest recall election. So, you have to conduct more background checks, and you can’t buy a hundred-round drum for your AK.

I know plenty of conservatives (at least one is a genuine hunter) who have no problem with either of these. Even street rods have restrictions, but it does not mean one cannot legally own and drive a car (unless, of course, one has been convicted of one of a number of offenses).

I wonder how many of the folks mentioning the Constitution participated in protests against the Iraq war, torture (and its admitted presidential authorization), indefinite detention or the USA Patriot Act.

From a document that calls for a “well regulated militia,” one cannot assume an unregulated citizen.


Grand Junction



Background checks should 
inquire about intent to murder

In the aftermath of the Navy Yard shootings, columnist Bill Grant proposes that Colorado legislators “reconsider common-sense legislation to keep guns out of the hands of individuals bent on murder.”

Unsurprisingly, Grant offers no common-sense specifics. Perhaps one of his common-sense secret ideas was to make murder a common-sense felony. Oops, that’s already taken.

Well, how about adding common-sense questions to the existing common-sense background check form:

“(1) Do you intend to use any of these gun(s) for the purpose of murder, now or in the future?

“(2) If your answer above is “No,” do you promise to contact law enforcement immediately if your intent changes, or if your behavior becomes erratic or uncontrollable due to mysterious voices, unexplained force fields, space aliens, demons, drugs (legal or illegal) or other causes?”


Grand Junction


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

If Dr. Tice (“Repeal Obamacare, pass affordable plan”) is not just another “partisan detractor” of the Affordable Care Act (“AFA”), his “hollow” objections are just as misinformed as the 53% of Americans who “disapprove of Obamacare”.

Indeed, similar polling shows that most Americans approve of the AFA’s individual elements – no discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, no annual or lifetime coverage limits, no arbitrary coverage cancellations, extended coverage for children on parents’ policies, preventative care coverage, competitive marketplaces for insurance, etc. – not even realizing that these are all components of “ObamaCare”.

Thus, given the incessant false propaganda campaign waged by its detractors, it’s more astounding that 47%—encompassing more educated and better informed respondents – actually support ObamaCare.

Tice is apparently completely unaware that the AFA was “originally conceived” by the “conservative” Heritage Foundation in 1992 and was later successfully implemented in Massachusetts under Republican governor Mitt Romney. 

Tice is thus “conveniently ignoring” the fact that only when President Obama embraced the Republican alternative to the “single payer” approach preferred by most liberals did partisan Republicans tactically “jump ship” – thereby cynically preserving the true but tainted contention that “ObamaCare” was “passed along ‘partisan’ lines in Congress”.

Just as with “RomneyCare”, the coverage “mandate” is enforced via a “penalty” imposed in the tax code.  Thus, it was no “legal contortion” to conclude that a “penalty” is a “tax” permitted by Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution.  The more bizarre “contortion” was the holding that health insurance was not subject to the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Tice even begrudges the facts that taxpayer dollars are being used to educate Americans on ObamaCare’s available benefits and to assist them in finding suitable insurance plans, and that it replaces insurance company “death panels” (which did “ration” care) with “evidence-based” care (which does not).

Time will prove Tice wrong.

Kudo’s to the Daily Sentinel for its continuing efforts to provide “fair and balanced” chronicling of the ongoing debate over the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) by printing competing editorials, articles, columns, and letters relating to “ObamaCare”.

Three items in Sunday’s edition merit particular attention:  the timely editorial, “House Republicans’ budget to nowhere”; Gail Collins’ column, “Contradictory arguments drive the GOP’s fight against Obamacare”, and Dr. Larry Tice’s letter, “Repeal Obamacare, pass affordable plan”.

The Sentinel’s editors correctly chastise Republicans (impliedly including our own 3rd C.D. Congressman Scott Tipton) for irresponsibly wasting three years of purely symbolic votes and admittedly false promises—and threatening to “shut down the government” and/or wreck the world economy – instead of working to improve what was originally their own idea.

Given the mountains of false propaganda dispensed by ObamaCare’s partisan detractors – cynically intended to obfuscate its “good aspects” (acknowledged by the Sentinel)—it is entirely understandable that “millions of Americans” (including Dr. Tice) “worry about what it will do to businesses, individuals and the U.S. economy”, not to mention our oxymoronic health care “system”.

However, contrary to the Sentinel’s conclusion, the way to alleviate those concerns “is by electing more people to Congress and the White House who will [improve] the law” (not mindlessly “attack” it) and fewer people (like Scott Tipton) who knowingly lie about it and deliberately mislead their constituencies as to viable “replacement” alternatives.

Moreover, as Collins suggests, Republican extremists are not crusading against the ACA because they honestly believe it will fail (the “train wreck” they are actively seeking to cause), but because they fear it will succeed and – like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid – rather than “wreaking havoc on American families” and “ruining their lives”, will be appreciated so much that American voters will reject its Republican saboteurs.

God bless Larry Tice for having the courage to address the obvious when “politics” are so nasty. It comes as no surprise that he has thus far not bothered to address the ignorance displayed by Bill Hugenberg.
You will never see the Left (Hugenberg et al) address the actual natural mechanics of their Utopian delusions.
For example, the ONE AND ONLY defense existing in Nature that an individual has against the price of something being too high is to not buy it. Thus most people who can’t afford filet mignon and lobster eat chicken and hamburger, or even rice and beans if necessary.
According to the natural laws of economics, the only REAL thing you accomplish by creating a captive market is to guarantee that the price will increase. (Follow the money to see who benefits.) The only possible alternative to that invariable natural phenomenon occurring is if some person or group can use the fear-and-violence-based power of government coercion to control all wages, profits, costs and prices under a pretense of creating prosperity for all. Of course, that is a self-evident impossibility in the eyes of all but fools.
The word “affordable”, like the word “value”, is 100% in the eye of the beholder. How do I know? Easy. You might be willing to pay $10/lb to eat beef liver, but you couldn’t pay me $100/lb to eat it. So — what then is the “value” of liver? The “value” of something is whatever somebody is willing to pay you for it. “Value” is purely an individual subjective notion. Marx’s “Das Kapital” failed because it operated on the false premise that “value” was objectively measurable and regulatable by government. It isn’t.
Government frequently gives its manipulations the exact opposite name of it’s true intent. “Affordable” health care means unaffordable health care. If Obamacare makes the price of health care go down — it won’t — all that means is that doctors will work for less.
To listen to Hugenberg’s blather, you’d think he was going to get a cut of the Obamacare loot. Instead, just follow the money. Let’s see who benefits with all the corrupt and manipulative “exemptions” and “waivers” that were needed to pass this unread midnight Trojan Horse (and which Obamacare supporters act as if they were all above board and honorable).
To paraphrase Hugenberg’s last sentence, “Time and Nature will prove Dr. Tice to be correct.” All but leftist propagandists understand that.

I do not come to the defense of the GOP. I view the corruption in Washington, DC to be obviously bipartisan. I view the “left” versus “right” dog-and-pony show to be a political shell game designed to keep us hoi polloi from understanding what’s really going on in the smoke-filled back rooms of legislatures.
Lest it be said that libertarian-leaning folks such as I offer no solutions, I would offer two: 1) immediately abolish the FDA, and 2) enact a Freedom of Self-Medication amendment to the federal constitution which would allow every person of legal age to have the same access to all the same tools and medicines licensed doctors have strictly for the purposes of “doctoring” ONLY themselves (not third parties).
It has been estimated by those knowledgeable in the subject that abolishing the FDA would decrease health care prices by 80% virtually over night.
95% of what doctors do in their offices, any interested individuals could do for themselves. Not to worry, leftists, nobody but fools would attempt open-heart surgery on themselves, so there would still be lots of work and consulting left for allopathic medical professionals to handle.
The health care industry has unconscionably led inflation for decades. They have continuously raised prices simply because they can. The reason they can is because they have a government-granted monopoly on pain control. It’s long past time to end that monopoly for the narrow purpose of the individual being able to medicate him or herself — again, NOT third parties — thereby making health care truly “affordable”.
Lastly, one thing doctors love to bring up in attempting to justify their captive-market government-granted-monopoly high prices is the “unafforable” prices of malpractice insurance. I hereby guarantee that if doctors would agree to not sic their lobbyists on my proposed Freedom of Self-Medication Amendment, I will happily sign an affidavit promising not to sue them for malpractice. Fair enough?
Of course, expect the lawyers to dislike my idea.

never filled out a form 44 have we Bud?

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
eTear Sheets/ePayments

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