Log in ·
fabulous! thank you
Posted 25 February 2018, 8:15 a.m.
KanCare is an abject, total failure, but that was the idea. Mission accomplished, Sam.
Posted 25 February 2018, 7:34 a.m.
As a gun owner and user, I applaud the call for an incremental approach. And we have examples of reasonable regulation of guns whose benefits to society were far outweighed by their contribution to criminal behavior. Last i heard, sawed-off shotguns were illegal. In Heller the SC established gun ownership (including ownership of hand guns) under the 2nd Amendment as a fundamental right, establishing a high bar for imposing limits on that right. but in the same majority opinion Justice Scalia made it clear that exercise of this right was subject to reasonable limitations in light of the obvious risks to society of unfettered exercise of this right. this is, of course, not unique in constitutional interpretation -- as in free speech does not give one the right to shout fire in a crowded theater. Why? Because the only purpose of this exercise would be to maim and kill innocent people. Regulation of AR15s and similar guns designed for military use should be subjected to a vigorous public debate, not lumped in with a blanket response to the NRA's absolutist opposition to any regulation (with possible exception of bumps).
Posted 22 February 2018, 9:03 a.m.
Under the False Claims Act i believe whistleblowers like Shaheen get a significant percentage of any moneys awarded -- something like 20% -- against the defendants, with the remainder going to the feds. if what Shaheen says is true, surprising that the US is not joining the case. It would be interesting to know if a change of heart occurred at DOJ between last November and the recent decision not to join. No one should be surprised by the type of fraud alleged here under the current incentives driving doctor and hospital compensation -- the same incentives that make our health care the most expensive and least efficient in the developed world.
Posted 27 January 2018, 7:03 a.m.
these are public schools. the public has a right to know what was said and in what context. the suspicious lack of transparency by the School Board is destructive of public trust and may well have destroyed the career of a teacher whose primary transgression may have been to make students uncomfortable in the face of discomforting data. Absent transparency we will never know whether this is the case or whether the teacher at this stage of his career actually offered racist opinions that would more than justify his dismissal.
Posted 20 January 2018, 6:55 a.m.
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?
Posted 11 January 2018, 7:52 a.m.
couldn't help but noticing that, despite the theme of local control, four of the six bulleted priorities focused on state funding. Just saying
Posted 26 December 2017, 7:05 a.m.
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.
Posted 30 November 2017, 12:27 p.m.
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?
Posted 23 November 2017, 9:08 a.m.
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.
Posted 12 November 2017, 8:43 a.m.
Full LJWorld.com site
© 2018 LJWorld.com