Obama broke promise to pass health care law
To allow full disclosure, I have never been a fan of increased involvement of the federal government in health care.
As an anesthesiologist practicing for 20 years, I have seen personally how federal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Medical Act, the addition of Medicare Part D, and now the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) distort and damage the heath care delivery system of the United States.
So, it should be no surprise when a politician breaks a promise, and yet I was surprised on Oct. 30 to receive a letter from Anthem, my current health insurance provider.
Never miss a local story.
The letter states my health insurance plan "is no longer available" since "moving to a health care reform (also called the Affordable Care Act) compliant plan. My old plan was the "Cadillac" of health plans that my employer provided as a great benefit to me, my wife and our 10 children.
Can anyone blame us for thinking that Obamacare is a Trojan horse to bring a single-payer system to America that has been almost every Democrats utopian dream from Harry Truman to Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama?
Obama repeated many times the promise that we could keep our existing plans so he could pass his plan. Now, we have another empty promise and are stuck with a hideously complex law that many don't want, nor need, nor that we can afford.
Thank a veteran
The Constitution of the United States of America, the document which is the supreme law of the land, has granted us freedom of speech and religion and the right to bear arms.
The first three articles of this great document spell out the separation of powers (legislative, consisting of a Senate and House of Representatives; executive, the president; and judicial, the Supreme Court), therefore preventing one power from ruling over the other powers.
Fast forward to 2013.
We need to ask ourselves if we are still abiding by the laws that were set up to make our nation as it was intended, or are we in violation of the checks and balances system? Are the people we elect to represent us listening to us and protecting and upholding our "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?" Is this nation performing as a democracy, or is it moving toward a monarchy or dictatorship?
Like so many other men and women, my late husband took the oath to serve and defend our nation during the Alaskan earthquake and Vietnam. He loved our country and our state, but most of all he loved God, his family and friends.
In honor of our veterans, I urge you to pray for them and thank them for their service. It is they who deserve our eternal respect. Also, pray for those who lead our country and world. Freedom is not free.
Etta Jane McCarty
No to entitlements
We've become a divided country. Not by race or religion or wealth. The division is based on those who produce and those who don't.
People who don't produce have been told they deserve all the things that people who do produce have. In truth, the acquisition of goods, a higher standard of living, is the reward for production (earning). If you don't produce, in some cases have never produced, why should you have the things producers have? If you want them, earn them.
Currently, thrift and prudence in managing money — the backbone of the nation's solvency — is being rewarded by overtaxing and redistribution.
In the past, campaigns for election to public office have been about promising constituents as many entitlements as possible.
Perhaps the coming elections should be about dismantling entitlements — a race to see how much waste, misuse and needless spending can be ended.
Politicians should be proud of how much money they saved, how many useless laws they reversed, how frugal and miserly they were with public money.
Politicians shouldn't be afraid to say no to entitlements for fear of reprisals. If they don't want to stop throwing producers' hard-earned money away, they should be voted out until we get down to the people who finally will.
Plagiarism is defined as "the wrongful appropriation" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work. Plagiarism is considered to be academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics.
Sen. Rand Paul has committed plagiarism on several occasions. He lifted entire passages from Wikipedia in speeches that he gave. He appropriated the key points of an article that he wrote for the Washington Times from an essay that had previously been published in the magazine The Week, and unattributed passages from Forbes Magazine may be found in Paul's book Government Bullies.
Several pages of the same book were taken word for word from published right-wing think tank publications. So it is an empirical fact that Paul has committed plagiarism and yet his reaction is not to apologize and ask for forgiveness, but rather to lash out and accuse the people who called him on his plagiarism of being "haters."
Paul stated that this happened because of the tremendous work load he is experiencing. One has to wonder that this man seriously considers himself presidential timber when he cannot even handle the workload that comes with being the junior senator from Kentucky.
Households are being bombarded daily with mailed propaganda touting the "benefits" of the Bluegrass Pipeline.
High-quality, 10-color contact cards promoting the pipeline to all Kentuckians have been received via mass mailings on three separate occasions even though my condominium complex is miles from the pipeline's meanderings across Franklin County soil.
My favorite radio station and television channel are bombarding listeners and viewers with slick, professionally made pipeline promos.
All this leads me to arrive at the obvious — some corporate big wigs somewhere in some big high-rise are in line to profit the big bucks if the project is approved and the pipeline constructed.
Based on the extent of the above propaganda and the monies proponents are willing to lay on the line to secure pipeline approval, the income to be realized far exceeds the measly advertising dollars being paid today and the tax revenue to government entities and one-time easement payments to property owners expected to be paid.
It is guaranteed it will not be the citizens of Kentucky who will reap the benefits afforded by construction of the Bluegrass Pipeline. Those have someone else's name on them. The citizens of Kentucky stand only to suffer the consequences.
Letters about candidates in the Dec. 10 special election for the 13th Senate District are limited to 150 words and must be received by 5 p.m. Monday. Letters from candidates, their campaign staffs and family members will not be published.