To The Daily Sun,
The Day Away program in Bristol would like to send a warm thank you to all who have helped to make our first year so successful.
A special than you to The Bishops Charitable Assistance Fund of Manchester, Meredith Village Savings Bank, Bristol Board of Selectman, Service Link of Lebanon, Garlyn Manganiello of Basic Ingredients in Bristol for proceeds from the Run Your Buns Off Charitable Road Race, New Hampshire Charitable Foundation of Concord, NHEC Foundation of Plymouth and all other friends and volunteers of the program.
Thank you to all the generous organizations and individual donors who have made our first year a success.
Fran Olson and staff/volunteers
Last Updated on Friday, 09 January 2015 10:22
To The Daily Sun,
I was taken to the woodshed a couple of times for a letter to the editor that I presented for publication last week. Let me just say they weren't the first nor will they be the last.
Rep. Luther in his response misconstrued a couple of my statements. I didn't write that Mr. Logue or any other administrator didn't "have" to mingle with the residents. What I said was they usually didn't, and that is not just Mr. Logue, but his predecessor as well. Whether they should or shouldn't I'll leave for someone else to decide.
He also felt that I was taking it upon myself to speak for the majority of all the taxpayers in Belknap County. Let me say that I believe the voters/taxpayers of Belknap County did a fine job of speaking for themselves in the last election and that is all I usually state.
Rep. Luther spoke to Commissioner Nedeau's past service to his community, county and state, which I have no reason to doubt and which he should be commended for. The problem I have is with his last few years as commissioner. He, along with the other commissioners, decided at some point that they could flaunt a state law regarding money transfers. I'm sure this law was enacted so that there would be oversight of the commissioners and so that money couldn't be moved at will. I seem to remember someone at some point in time stating "if you don't like a law, work at changing it, don't disobey it." I'm sure if the commission had paid heed to that statement they wouldn't have ended up at war with the convention.
The other issue is the money used to upgrade their offices. This money could have been put to good use in the nursing home or in the jail but instead was used for their comfort. When the question of where that money was spent was put to Deb Shackett, county administrator, by The Laconia Citizen, her answer was "it was used to upgrade a 'wing' of the complex." I consider that lying by omission.
Now as far as Mr. Nedeau's resigning is concerned, I don't think that when you take your oath of office that there is sentence in that oath that reads, "I will faithfully serve as long as the people I am serving with promise to agree with me at all times and will not raise their voices to me." I also doubt that statement was part of any speech when he was running for office. I believe when you choose to run for office you owe the people who voted for you the expectation you will finish your term unless hampered by health issues.
Let me finish by saying I don't expect everybody to agree with me (what a shock that would be), but I would hope they would not agree with me because they didn't correctly consume what I wrote.
Last Updated on Friday, 09 January 2015 10:19
To The Daily Sun,
As chairman of Meredith's 3-25 Advisory Committee, I had said at a Meredith Selectboard meeting with respect to the proposed roundabout system, that if approved by the board, engineering was planned for 2015, with construction to be completed in 2017 and 2018. Apparently this has been widely taken to mean the town could face two full years of construction disruption.
I have been advised that DOT would advertise for bids in February 2017, but in order to avoid summer disruption, actual work might not begin until the fall of that year. Depending on how much then could be accomplished, completion might be in 2018. Thus, while construction might take place in both years, there definitely would not be two full years on construction.
Last Updated on Friday, 09 January 2015 10:15
Friends of Obamacare, horrified that the Supreme Court has taken a case that could blow up the federal health insurance exchanges, should recalibrate their dread. While the health reforms were safely humming along, there was little political price for demanding their demise. Thanks to the Supreme Court, now there is.
Years of carpet-bombing assaults on Obamacare have left many Americans thinking that they don't like the Affordable Care Act. But close down the federal exchanges covering 6 million people (so far) in 36 states and they may think otherwise. With a vengeance.
Here are the stakes in King v. Burwell: Should the justices strike down subsidies for coverage in the federal exchanges, only the very sick would hang in. That would be the end of the federal exchanges.
Donald Taylor, a health policy expert at Duke University, likens the Obamacare attackers to a dog chasing a car. "What's the dog going to do if it catches the car?" he said to me.
Subsidies would be untouched in the 12 or 14 state-run exchanges (depends on how you define them), the majority of which are in blue states. Red-state politicians — oddly the biggest foes of a law that in effect transfers tax dollars from high-income liberal states to poor conservatives ones — would have a mess on their hands.
"Some Southern states will be back up to 20 percent uninsured," Taylor said, "and that doesn't sound politically stable."
The solution for Republicans would be a plan B. But they don't have a serious plan B.
Republicans do have a proposal of sorts, composed early last year by three senators — Richard Burr of North Carolina, Orrin Hatch of Utah and now-retired Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. But it was written mainly as a political document with which to hit Obamacare over the head during the 2016 campaign — not as a ready-to-plug-in substitute.
Let's look at the Republican plan that we aren't supposed to examine too closely.
For starters, it would empower private insurers to play a bigger role in the relationship between you and your doctor — encouraging them to shrink the network of doctors and hospitals you may visit. So much for "choice."
It also would cut government subsidies for many working stiffs who earn too much to claim poverty but too little to afford decent private coverage. And it would enable insurers to charge older people far more for their insurance. Obamacare lets them charge three times as much. The Republican plan would let them charge five times as much.
Gone would be the minimal coverage standards. That means the insurers could more easily deny payment for services that Obamacare considers basic. For all these gifts to private insurers, the industry actually prefers Obamacare because its subsidies create many more customers for their products.
The Republican replacement plan (as written so far) contains lots of other controversial elements pretty much ignored because few have taken it seriously. For example, it would tax employer-sponsored health benefits. (Obamacare's "Cadillac tax" on luxurious coverage does some of that, for which it continues to take a beating.)
A group of conservative economists, led by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has scored the Burr-Hatch-Coburn plan and claims that it would cut deficits by $1 trillion. These are reputable economists, Taylor says, but the text they were working with was "incredibly vague" on where the cap on the taxes would be put.
"The score is a number, and the text on which they did the score was ambiguous," he said. "It shows just how hard this is."
So now Obamacare won't be the only pinata in town.
The Supreme Court will take up King v. Burwell in March. We do live in interesting times.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00
To The Daily Sun,
I see Gene Danforth is at it again with his God-and-government agenda and his right-wing arguments. Mr. Danforth wants you to believe that since the 11th article may not be in all the Arabic versions of the treaty (of Tripoli) it's not in the one the U.S. Senate ratified. This is false. It clearly was in the version voted on. The treaty as voted upon in D.C. contains the phrase "as the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." That is indisputable because the treaty is in the public record.
The treaty and its signators can be viewed in the U.S. Book of Treaties at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp An image of the treaty and signators can be viewed at http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#/image/File:Treaty_of_Tripoli_as_communicated_to_Congress_1797.png.
Whatever you may not like about this treaty, the one voted on by the U.S. Senate said the government of this country is not in any sense based on the Christian religion. This is verified by a godless and secular constitution based on Enlightenment ideals.
Last Updated on Thursday, 08 January 2015 10:34