It's a testament of how far this country has fallen that it can't fix the health care problem. Everyone agrees that the current health care system is filled with bloated costs. Obama's first premise was that if we cut administrative costs and computerized medical records, that would pay for treating the destitute. But high costs are being entrenched by the congressional "solution." To afford them, a new mandate requires most currently uncovered persons to purchase health insurance. Make no mistake. The mandate to purchase health insurance isn't to pay for health care, but to pay for the huge inefficiencies in the current system that lobbyists are rewarding our representatives to keep in tact.
Wow! This is exactly what's wrong with government and why it keeps spending more and more. Every local newspaper condemns accountability and cost controls when it hurts the locality, but it turns around and condemns waste and abuse when it comes from other localities. No wonder government grows uncontrollably. Get some principles and integrity. If you want accountability, then the rules have to be enforced. The problem here isn't that the rule is being enforced; it's that it has never been enforced. Gov. Paterson deserves the Gazette's praise, not its ridicule, but I suppose taking a position against the short-run interests of the community would result in lost revenues for the paper, even if the position is in the best long-run interests of every locality.
I wrote a commentary on November 1, 2009 at 1:13 p.m., which I subsequently suggested for removal on November 3, 2009 at 12:08 a.m. I'd appreciate your consideration in removing the commentary and wish to simply state that I entirely agree with the Gazette's editorial.
Our greatest threat isn't our current debt. It's the out-of-control spending by politicians and the unintended consequences it has for the domestic economy and international affairs. The root cause seems to be an extreme deficit of self-discipline and thrift. It's the bane of all prosperous civilizations.
Just add a $25 one-time registration renewal fee. Stop wasting natural resources to give politicians cover--a way of saying they didn't raise taxes, just charged a fee for a service.
I like seeing the good stories about Scotia, but people need to consider how easily replaceable the post office is. We might get something much better than a post office by having it close. Someone could combine a Mailboxes with a coffee shop or tea emporium or something else that actually would enhance the village far more than the post office does. Think, people! Saying goodbye to the post office is an opportunity.
That's nice, but I must have missed this story, assuming it was published:
Insure Dependents through Age 29: This law, outlined by the Governor in his State of the State address, requires insurers to allow unmarried children through age 29 – regardless of financial dependence – to be covered under a parent’s group health insurance policy. Young adults ages 19 to 29 represent 31 percent of uninsured New Yorkers. They often become ineligible for coverage under their parents’ policies at age 19 or upon high school or college graduation, find themselves in entry-level jobs that do not provide employer-based health insurance, and cannot afford to pay premiums for individual insurance policies – which are much more expensive than group policies. Under the new law, premiums will be paid for by families, not employers, and would cost less because coverage is under group policies rather than individual policies. The law also requires insurers to offer employers an option to purchase coverage that includes young adults as dependents in family policies through age 29.
Do you know what it's like to be taken away from your parents, Joan? The middle and upper class would never support these laws if they applied to them. They make mistakes--sometimes dangerous ones--but children's services doesn't take their children. This is a law that abuses the underclass and kidnaps their children. Why can't the first step in cases like this be placing a nanny inside the home to help the mother/father rather than taking the children out of their homes and away from their parents? Children's services often does way more harm in proportion to the harm it prevents. It cannot be otherwise because if you're going to make sure you never leave children in danger the only way you can do that is by over-estimating real danger, thereby removing children who aren't in danger. Since children's services knows it does that, and has to do that, it should, at the very least, take minimally obtrusive actions by inserting nannies first rather than removing children unless there is exceptionally strong evidence of present danger. You might wish to blame the law and not the agency, but the agency has influence over what the law is and to that extent, it's responsible for the excessive and harmful policies that hurt children and families.
Posted on November 19 at 11:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's a testament of how far this country has fallen that it can't fix the health care problem. Everyone agrees that the current health care system is filled with bloated costs. Obama's first premise was that if we cut administrative costs and computerized medical records, that would pay for treating the destitute. But high costs are being entrenched by the congressional "solution." To afford them, a new mandate requires most currently uncovered persons to purchase health insurance. Make no mistake. The mandate to purchase health insurance isn't to pay for health care, but to pay for the huge inefficiencies in the current system that lobbyists are rewarding our representatives to keep in tact.
On Letters to the Editor for Nov. 19