Posted 13 days ago in 
Loading ...
On Nov. 5, I purchased four reams (2,000 pages) of paper and delivered them to Congressman Salazar’s office, along with a letter which stated that I would much rather have him sign his name to 2,000 pages of blank paper than to the bill which Rep. Pelosi has presented to the Congress.
The reasons:
· These 2000 (blank) pages pose no threat to my freedom, nor that of my children or grandchildren. I cannot say the same for Rep. Pelosi’s bill.
· I can afford these 2000 (blank) pages. Neither I, my children, nor my grandchildren can afford the pages in the health care bill.
· These 2000 (blank) pages describe the Constitutional basis given to Congress for the control of 1/6 of our nation’s economy.
· These 2000 (blank) pages describe the changes needed to make the delivery of health care in Mesa County the best in our nation, according to Congressman Salazar’s own words. I asked that he please not sign any bill that costs more, produces more federal intrusion, creates more debt and deficit, and gives the people of Mesa County a lower standard of healthcare than what we currently enjoy.
MERLE MILLER
Grand Junction
22 Responses to “Blank paper better than Pelosi’s health care reform”
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 5:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Stop wasting paper. My guess is that you qualify for medicare. We can not afford your solution; do nothing, nor is it moral for a democratic society to kill 6,000 individuals a day because they do not have access to medical care. Something tells me you are a “pro-life” individual.
Explain why it is ok to deny healthcare to middle class individuals. We take care of our poor, why not the middle class? Why are we loosing our homes when there is a deficit neutral solution and a complete economic disaster without reform?
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 11:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
We desperately need comprehensive health care reform. Please stop obstructing it. We are middle class and own our own business. Even paying sky-high premiums, still cannot afford to pay for routine health care. The only sensible way to go is single payer, universal health care. Cut out the profit mongering insurance companies, save money and cover everyone.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 2:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
#2, are you that naive to think the single payer is the way to go. like cows, we are being led to the slaughter not realizing we will no longer be in control. how about this, everyone gets a card saying their for or against. all those against you can keep everything you have. anyone for health care ou can have your money confiscated by like minded gov’t agency. we’ll see whose works in a year.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 7:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
the problem with health care is that too few people are dying or going bankrupt with the present system. the system may change when a third or more of all americans are directly affected . there is simply too much wealth at stake for the medical industry to allow change. let’s face it, the government acts in the best interest of special interest not in the best interest of the american people.
#3, you seem to be afraid change will result in communism. unlikely, although it is a move towards democratic socialism. are not social security, the veterans administration, and medicare social programs? should they be eliminated because they may lead to communism? what happens as more of us are crowded on to this continent? on to this planet? do we become more social or do we continue to fight wars over resources and ideologies?
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 9:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
An open letter to;
Congressman Salazar,
Your statement as reported in this mornings’ paper here was not credible John. I think that it was a statement issued and authored by the Speaker of the House. There are obvious flaws in the allegations of this bill’ contents. Contents of which are unknown and at this time unknowable. John consider the source of a lot of your information. The insane speaker of the house will say anything and do most anything, including throwing you and the Blue Dogs under the bus, in order to pass this bill.
John I give you the benefit of the doubt and I’ll give you credit for good intentions, but, you and I both know Pelosi is not to be trusted. John she’s CRAZY! Watch out John or you’ll get run over!
DON’T VOTE FOR THIS! With over ten percent unemployment in our country we can’t afford it. Instead, see what you can do to reduce Government spending.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 9:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think Rep. Salazar is very brave and clearly has thoughtfully weighed his decision on the many folks who have told him their story and have experienced the systems that are already in place, both social systems (VA and medicare) and the for-profit systems. His decision defends choice. Much like what post #3 proposes, we can keep our private insurance if we like it, or we can opt for another if we think we can get better coverage for less on another plan. I am sure the corporate powers are already busy trying to figure out how they can exploit a public option, and this is why it has become clear we need the government to protect our interests.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 10:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
golfdoc,
Is having your money confiscated by an insurance company any better?
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 10:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes, with the insurance company I have the option, with the government I will not.
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 10:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The letter writer does what many people do in this discussion. He uses personal and parochial experience and interests to judge what is really an attempt to address a national problem. Perhaps if the gentleman would change his perspective to think and consider things at that level, instead of only “What’s in it for me”, he might be able to recognize that reality.
He also makes the claim that the system in Grand Junction is “the best in the world.” The gentleman no doubt believes that, but he does not know. Rather, it would seem to be based upon nothing more than the fact that he is satisfied with what his personal experience. That is an over-generalization on his part.
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 10:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
k.anstaett: “Yes, with the insurance company I have the option, with the government I will not.”
Which option would that be?
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 12:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
davinci: “Why are we loosing our homes when there is a deficit neutral solution and a complete economic disaster without reform?”
Deficit neutral?
The only reason this president and his liberal cohorts can get away with this lie is because they have the media in their pocket.
This bill is financed, mainly, by taking $500 billion out of Medicare. How in hell do you take $500 billion out of a program that is already bankrupt? Why not take $2 trillion out, or $3 trillion out? Each of those figures is equally valid.
For those who accept the nonsense that they are gong to SAVE $500 billion in Medicare, why take those savings out of there instead of trying to reduce the shortfall the Medicare program has already?
These clowns are taking $500 billion dollars out of a bankrupt program to finance a brand new one and they have the gall to say the new one is deficit neutral.
Can anyone imagine how the liberal media would have reacted if Republicans took half a trillion out of Medicare?
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 6:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
davinci says, “We take care of our poor, why not the middle class?”
Who’s “WE”? Why does the middle class need to be taken care of? Take government money and live by their rules. Is that what America has become?
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 6:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
davinci: “I am sure the corporate powers are already busy trying to figure out how they can exploit a public option, and this is why it has become clear we need the government to protect our interests.”
Undoubtedly they already have their plans in place. One of those that require careful scrutiny is what they want in those bills that would allow them to “skim off” the young and healthy while leaving the older and sick behind. Not only would that allow them to make more money but it would also provide them with an opportunity later on to say “See. We told you it wouldn’t work” and provide them with an excuse to dismantle the entire program.
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 6:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Can anyone imagine how the liberal media would have reacted if Republicans took half a trillion out of Medicare?”
Umm…Pretty much the same way they reacted when two trillion was taken out of the Treasury for a phony war?
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 7:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
duke: “Umm…Pretty much the same way they reacted when two trillion was taken out of the Treasury for a phony war?”
Exactly right duke. Glad we agree.
Phony or not, Bush did not get a pass. With Obama in power, no questions asked. And that is why he is getting away with his lies.
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 11:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Lobbiest are making out like bandits as are the tort lawyers. This bill makes little sense and will be very difficult in enact. I will enjoy seeing if it passes judicial scrutiny (if it gets that far). I am also looking forward to seeing what happens to the AMA after they threw their member under the bus. Sounds like there is already a backlash. I wonder what the AMA got in exchange for the support.
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 10:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“With Obama in power, no questions asked.”
Sorry, bullish. I just don’t think that is true. It’s just that this administration usually comes up with better answers than did the previous one.
Posted November 10th, 2009 at 8:37 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Duke, I think even you, on the liberal side of things, would agree, that the media is a lot more accomodating, and a lot less confrontating (is that a word?), with Obama than they would be with a president who does not share the media’s liberal leanings (whether Bush or any other Republican).
Posted November 10th, 2009 at 9:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish,
The media is less confrontational with Obama because there is so much less to confront. You guys…conservatives think he’s lying because he is saying things you don’t like. But his white house is far more open and honest than the last one.
Posted November 10th, 2009 at 10:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
duke: “The media is less confrontational with Obama because there is so much less to confront. You guys…conservatives think he’s lying because he is saying things you don’t like. But his white house is far more open and honest than the last one.”
I don’t really know why conservatives think he lies but I sure do. I think that to say that this health care bill is deficit neutral is 100% a lie.
He is no different than most poiliticians. The difference is that the liberal media does not call him on it.
Posted November 10th, 2009 at 12:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Duke - Let’s see as I recall the POTUS stated that the legislation wouldn’t cover undocumented workers and then we found out that was not exactly correct. Then we were told that it wouldn’t cover abortions but it did until a last minute change to the bill (after his statement) actually removed abortions. He may not be lying he may just be mistaken or inaccurate or just wrong but I would expect him to know what he is talking about when he makes a statement. Now if the legislation is “budget neutral” and that statement is also incorrect, inaccurate or wrong it would likely see the same media attention that the other inaccuracies have received. Where am I am wrong on this?
Posted November 14th, 2009 at 4:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
duke,
“The media is less confrontational with Obama because there is so much less to confront. You guys…conservatives think he’s lying because he is saying things you don’t like. But his white house is far more open and honest than the last one.”
Obama does lie. So which do you prefer? An administration who lies and hides it or an administration that openly lies? I will don’t want either one thank you very much. You are right, he is saying things I don’t like because he lies. I am not a republican, liberal, conservative or a democrat by the way.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.