sunnyFair, 19.0°


Comment history

prowland (Anonymous) says...

no problem with work requirement for able-bodied adults who don't meet the safeguard exceptions, but it is mostly symbolic chest pounding. Two questions. First, does anyone think these able-bodied folks are going to find jobs with health insurance or a wage that enables them to buy health insurance rather than rely on Medicare? Second, and most important, when are we going to recognize that -- per the 60% of recipients who are already employed -- the Medicare Program is essentially a huge subsidy for low-wage employers like McDonalds et al -- a subsidy paid for by the rest of us?

prowland (Anonymous) says...

couldn't help but noticing that, despite the theme of local control, four of the six bulleted priorities focused on state funding. Just saying

prowland (Anonymous) says...

this is the kind of climate that is created by administrations, like Brownback administration, who think and act as if government is the enemy. agency after agency seems hell bent on hiding from the public the reduced services inherent in failed tax/revenue policies and unrealistic expectations of trickle-down growth that never happens.

prowland (Anonymous) says...

If I recall, this exchange of comments was triggered (pun intended) by the mass shootings in Las Vegas, which were made possible by bump stocks on multiple semi-automatic weapons. Regulating access to bump stocks and making them illegal would be a sensible, pragmatic response that would have reduced -- not eliminated -- the carnage. Such a regulation would be, like the existing prohibition against sawed-off shotguns, perfectly consistent with Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller. As anyone who has taken the time to read Heller knows, Scalia was careful to point out at length that gun ownership, like all bill-of-rights protections, is subject to common-sense regulation by democratically elected officials. In fact, he specifically offered support for the "longstanding prohibition against the carrying of dangerous or unusual weapons." Bump stocks would qualify as both, yet they are mentioned once in the 90ish comments above. Why?

On Letter to the editor: Guns among us

Posted 23 November 2017, 9:08 a.m. Suggest removal

prowland (Anonymous) says...

These comments don't make sense. Does anyone think the Las Vegas or Texas shooters lacked knowledge about gun safety? Really? A PSA and all is well? Failed solutions? Exactly when did limiting access of mentally deranged people to ammunition designed only to maim and kill fellow human beings "fail." As a gun owner myself, I agree with deceased Justice Scalia who, in an opinion (Heller) defending the second amendment as an individual right, pointed out that an individual's right to own firearms did not mean that this right was not subject to reasonable restrictions -- just as free speech doesn't give us the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Would such restrictions prevent all gun violence? Of course not. Would they have prevented or at least minimized the violence in Texas and Las Vegas? Duh. Scalia must be turning over in his grave.

On Letter to the editor: Too soon to talk?

Posted 12 November 2017, 8:43 a.m. Suggest removal

prowland (Anonymous) says...

I believe it is counterproductive to debate the cost of Obamacare, which is more a bandaid than a solution to the sad state of our health-care system. The primary problem is the cost of health care, which was increasing exponentially before Obamacare. A related problem is the ridiculous cut-off for medicaid -- 16,200 for a family of four in KS -- which means that someone working for WalMart or McDonalds probably doesnt have health insurance through work, doesnt qualify for medicaid and cant afford health insurance for his/her family. Their only choice is emergency-room visits, for which ultimately you and I (rather than WalMart or McDonalds) pay the bill.

On Fuzzy Math: Obama or Moderate

Posted 25 July 2012, 10:37 a.m. Suggest removal

prowland (Anonymous) says...

as the founder of a small business (35 employees) that offers its employees health insurance and a 401K i am surprised that so few comments have addressed a key underlying motive for health care reform -- viz, our insurance rates increased dramatically every year, with no increase in benefits, every year of the Bush Administration's do-nothing health-care policy. I am less surprised by the reliance of commentors critical of Day's piece on fear-based platitudes -- e.g., socialized medicing - rather than addressing the substance of the very informative piece

On Obamacare is good for small business

Posted 21 July 2012, 12:22 p.m. Suggest removal

Full site