On Health insurance costs more in Wisconsin
Posted on November 19 at 10:54 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
The fact health insurance costs more here than other states is surprising to me. The average Wisconsinite does not seem less "healthy" than residents in other parts of this country and quality health care providers seem to be well represented throughout the state. Given those assumptions and a market based system, you would think the cost for health insurance in Wisconsin would be less, not more, than premiums in other states. Unfortunately Insurance Companies, not the market (consumers), dictate not only how much we pay for health care but also how that care is delivered. Until we eliminate the need to profit from providing health care and focus instead on promoting healthier lifestyles and standardizing costs we will continue paying too much.
On Suspended talk show host returns to air
Posted on November 18 at 3:03 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
krsmith01, you either have still not read the article or simply unable to grasp the sequence of events. I'll try to spell it out for you.
Earlier this year, Ms. Lawton made a statement saying she was interested in running for Governor. Later, she changed her mind and said that due to "very personal reasons" she no longer wanted to run for Governor. AFTER she decided not to run, Mr. Bader decided to LIE about what "very personal reasons" led Ms. Lawton to decision NOT run for Governor. Now what part of this story don't you get?
-
"She did herself no service first of all by dropping out and second, being vague about it."
-
You think Ms. Lawton owes you, or ANYONE else an explanation for not running? Do you admit what the talk show host did was unethical and morally wrong or will you continue to justify a total and complete fabrication. Would you like me to speculate on why you find it so hard to see the truth?
On Terror suspects plan for Illinois worries Ryan
Posted on November 18 at 2:37 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Where does Ryan think the convicted terrorists should be incarcerated? Not in my backyard! Perhaps a Supermax prison in another state, but not within 112 miles of Janesville? Evidently Ryan does not have much faith in the governments ability to protect us from terrorist attack. This isn't about jobs, its about punishing those who seek to harm our citizens. Don't all citizens, then, bear the responsibility for making sure these criminals are jailed with the worst of the worst? Isn't that why Supermax prisions were built in the first place?
-
"Ryan isn’t “fear-mongering”, he’s using his head to try and anticipate a threat. Some of you should try using yours as well." Don't be so naive Northman. Ryan will use "fear-mongering" and anything else that will help him get re-elected. Use YOUR head!
On Obama must seek change in Chinese policies that harm U.S. workers, consumers
Posted on November 17 at 2:16 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
"We should be grateful to Billyboy, who gave our jobs to China. Of course, he's rich, why should he care?" Really?? Clinton was solely responsible for NAFTA? All he did was sign a bill "everyone" said would expand our economy. And it worked, for a little while anyway. I think the responsibility lies with our Industrial Complex screaming for open markets which enabled them to exploit cheap labor by shipping jobs elsewhere while goods could be imported without restrictions or tariffs. Just yesterday, the CEO of a large Corporation here in WI blasted govt. leaders for not creating the "proper" environment which allowed him to keep jobs in the US. Of course he failed to mention either his salary or how much in bonuses his company doles out.
NAFTA should have included a stipulation that ANY company moving jobs to other countries MUST pay those employees the SAME WAGES as their US counterparts(or at least up to 90%). That strategy would have raised the standard of living in other countries and opened up new markets for American goods. Instead, our wages and economy are gravitating toward what you would see in third world countries. Unless, of course you are a CEO or eligible for a bonus. When you think about it, many of those earning MILLIONS in wages and bonuses do not even build anything. All they do is gamble with our money. All we do is hope they win, so we can retire with a little nest egg, then run off to Walmart, Target, Costco, Best Buy (heck we'll even drive 20 miles to save a buck) and buy more stuff from China. Don't blame Billyboy, look at yourself first.
On Suspended talk show host returns to air
Posted on November 17 at 1:33 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
"What doesn't sit well is why she would abruptly resign over it!"
krsmith01, why don't you try READING the article before commenting! Ms. Lawton decided NOT TO RUN for Governor. She DID NOT RESIGN.
I agree that holding ANY public office leaves a person open for criticism which usually include less than truthful statements about stances on issues, etc. Comments regarding job performance come with the territory. However, NO ONE has a RIGHT to make either disparaging comments concerning family members or unfounded accusations meant only to assassinate an individuals character. Clearly this conservative talk show host decided uttering a lie was better for his ratings than speaking the truth and because of that has lost all credibility. Basically those defending him seem to say its ok to lie, the truth doesn't matter if politics are involved. I say BS. It does not matter if you are conservative or liberal, to accept and defend a known liar makes you no better than the liar. Its that simple.
On Panel recommends dismissing case against justice
Posted on November 13 at 1:45 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I agree that election reform is sorely needed, Professor. We are allowing special interests to buy influence through campaign donations. There should be strict limits on the amount of funds candidates may raise, spend (even if it's from personal finances) and especially limit singular donations. Using public funds is an excellent idea. These reforms should extend to all political and judicial elections, from President on down. Campaign advertising rules should allow the candidate to only present their own views and record of service, not those of their opponent/s. That would effectively eliminate negative advertising. Free speech should not allow an individual to defame another in an attempt to win an elected office.
On Panel recommends dismissing case against justice
Posted on November 13 at 10:13 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
"The race card was played by the so-called "Citizens Action of Wisconsin" a far left-wing-nut group and taken up by the DemocRAT minions in the WJC."
-
Judging from your comments twain, I would consider you a right-wing-nut. Everyone who disagrees with you is a socialist (it would help if you actually KNEW what socialism is). You support a Judge who used deceptive advertising, bordering on outright lies, to unjustly discredit his opponent. That is fact, not opinion. Then you claim that "race" played a role.
The complaint by the group Citizen Action of Wisconsin correctly asserted Gableman made false statements in a 2008 campaign ad directed at Justice Louis Butler. Their claim is not without merit nor has Gableman denied the ad was misleading. Gableman is splitting hairs by saying he shouldn't be held accountable for misleading the public concerning Butler's judicial record based on freedom of speech. The Judicial Code expects judges to have high standards. This is why the Code provides that a candidate for judge cannot knowingly or with reckless disregard misrepresent a fact concerning an opponent. But all that is lost on you because Gableman is a conservative. Why do you believe conservatives should be held to a lower standard than liberals? You think conservatives can't get elected based on their merits so they should be allowed to use deceit in order to make their opponents look bad? You, like the Dishonorable Gableman, give conservatives a bad name. Or are you a nut posing as a conservative? I guess now I'M spitting hairs.
On Panel recommends dismissing case against justice
Posted on November 12 at 6:13 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
"This is all about disaffected partisans playing the race card and nothing else."
There is not one single mention of race in either the article or in any of the posts, until you bring it up. Is this what you do when you lack the credible evidence needed to back up your claims? You resort claiming the charges against Gableman were based on race? Twain, you are really pathetic. I can see how you can identify with Gablemans lack of ethics.
-
Isn't it ironic that Gableman and his attorney now use a loophole to keep him ON the court just as he contended a loophole should be the basis for voting his opponent OFF the court.
James Bopp Jr.,Gableman’s attorney, argued that the complaint filed by the WJC should be dismissed because statements made in the ad are protected. Notice he failed to address the validity of the statements, just that they were protected.
-
Gableman is far from honorable as his past actions have more than proved.
On Panel recommends dismissing case against justice
Posted on November 12 at 4:32 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Leave it to mark_twain to show support for a Supreme Court Justice who sold what little integrity he possessed for a seat on the State Supreme Court. Although it must be noted Gableman had little choice; he never would have been elected based on his grasp of legal acumen or ethics.
Page 1 of 21 | Next
On Stupak Amendment is an insult to women
Posted on November 19 at 2:49 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
According to dub190, “Making Pro-Life Americans pay for abortions is immoral.”
-
The government spends my money supporting actions I believe to be immoral, but that doesn’t seem to stop them. I believe it is immoral for those who support pro-choice to prevent health care reform simply because they oppose a procedure that is LEGAL. That means (when used as an adjective) “authorized by or based on law” or (used a noun) “One that is in accord with certain rules or laws.” Our health care system is NOT based on what ANY religion thinks is moral, but what is treatable and allowable by law. What’s next, doctors withholding health care procedures or treatment THEY believe to be immoral? Instead of working to insure health care reform includes education and programs designed to prevent unwanted pregnancies, pro-choice supporters believe it’s better to prevent Americans from getting affordable health care. They consider that a moral point of view?
-
“The only type of woman this amendment is an insult to is the type who thinks it's morally permissable to murder someone else if it suits her purposes.”
What gives you the right to judge all women BayMom? Since you have such a strong opposition to abortion, what are you doing to help other women prevent unwanted pregnancies, besides condemnation?