Dear Congressman Ellsworth

Posted Tuesday, August 11, 2009, at 12:06 PM
Comments
View 5 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Very well said.

    -- Posted by michael.galloway1 on Tue, Aug 11, 2009, at 12:36 PM
  • Wonderfully put and fabulous blog David!

    -- Posted by karenmeister on Tue, Aug 11, 2009, at 3:23 PM
  • Healthcare reform, call it the real name health care dismantling, nice blog, would be nice if the intended recipient read it moreover, heeded it.

    -- Posted by Edward Kane on Tue, Aug 11, 2009, at 7:27 PM
  • Edward Kane:This health care "reform" has so many sides to it that it is a circle. Some thoughts to throw out there: While I see the need for health care coverage for all, I cannot see that the congressional officials be exempt from it. If they are deciding what is "good enough" for some, it should be "good enough" for them as well..Let them have the same coverage that they are proposing and then they can pay out of their own pocket too if they want more than the basic proposed.

    Another thing: Are not medicare, medicaid, and VA coverage all government health care plans? Why not see how these are working for people and pick at least the one that is doing best and use that model? Then all others who wanted, or could afford additional coverage buy supplemental coverage as many seniors are doing now.

    Maybe I am naive but would this not be the obvious thing to do? Thus reducing all people's premiums who are already getting coverage by just having them buy supplemental? Then they would see increased taxes to cover the basic government policy? Of course this would increase due to coverage of those not covered at all at present. While I see that as yet another burden on taxpayer, I also see it as inhumane for some of the working poor to not be able to afford coverage even if it was their unwise choice early in life not to get the education needed for job that would have coverage.

    Do we all give up some more in order for all to get the minimum? Or do we take the stance that it's dog eat dog and survival of the fittest and early death and poor health to those who had bad luck or made poor choices?

    Like tithing at church; there is a point where we as humans take the selfish route for our own benefit. Whether it is ourselves personally or our family members. We conveniently forget those we cannot see, If we didn't forget we would be poorer as individuals but others in the world who have near to nothing would be better off. Alas though it is not a perfect world and we are going to have to figure out some sort of plan that most voters can live with. The big question here is not whether we need a better health care system, but how much can those who do have one bear to part with their assets in order for those who don't have health care to get it.

    It is not only a budgetary issue for the country and ourselves. It's soul searching one. I wrestle with this on a daily basis. How much are my "wants" more important than others' "needs"? Then on top of that, what will be my future "needs" that over rule today's "needs" of others?

    Am I preparing enough so that I won't be someone else's burden in the future? That goes for me as an individual and my support of government spending with regard to my childrens' tax burden in the future.

    -- Posted by Jenny Moore on Wed, Aug 12, 2009, at 9:23 AM
  • It is not surprising that people are getting disruptive and rude at "Town Hall Meetings". After years of expressing the desire for balanced budgets, less government and lower taxes, then, electing those politicians that promise balanced budgets, less government and lower taxes (time after time after time after time after time) and not getting them, well, after a while the only thing you can do is yell. If things don't change it almost looks like the town hall meetings may become violent.

    It sure is ugly. But, take my word for it, you can try and coax a pig into a truck. Some pigs will walk right up the ramp. Some take a kick or two. Others, well, they need a 2x4. Yet, others, won't go regardless of what you do. They end up getting let out into the lot, then later, the tranquilizer is brought out. Right before the truck leaves, the stubborn pig is dragged, unconscious into the back of the truck.

    Politicians are much like pigs. They have they're own agendas and their own logic. They wallow in the mud of politics in Washington DC. As citizens, the approriate, constitutional amount of force must be used to get the job done. The problem is when we elect a representative they have 2 to 4 years to screw over the populace and wallow in the mud before we can get out the 2x4. Lets all just pray that we don't have to let any of them back out into the lot. But, come 2010, there will be a "dragging" of sorts. They will be dragged from Washington.

    The worst problem is that the politicians have made it so that if even when they are fired, they don't have to endure the laws and problems they, themselves have caused. Its a tradgedy. They screw us over without repercussions. This is not what the founders intended. Not at all.

    -- Posted by TheRider on Thu, Aug 13, 2009, at 10:06 AM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: