 |
|
Dear Friend,
As you may know, next Friday, April 4, Christiana Care, The News Journal and AstraZeneca are sponsoring a Gubernatorial debate on health care. The debate will take place at the John H. Ammon Medical Education Center on the Christiana Hospital Campus at 10 am (doors open at 9 am). Admission is free, but seating is limited and registration is required.
I would like to see as many of you there as possible, so please go to www.christianacare.org/debate or call (302) 327-3335 to register to attend.
Sincerely,
 |
|
I would like to see as many of you there as possible…
Sounds like he may be trying to pack the room to offset the advantage of Markell’s superior health care plan.
Either that or he’s got the panel loaded against Jack.
“Mr. Carney, please tell us whether or not you think health care is good.” Five minutes later,
“Mr. Markell, please state the names of all those who perished on the Titanic.”
it’s time to move out of the state if John (old dems plus status quo plus no one goes to jail on my watch plus keep everything the way it is) carney wins this election.
Thank you for letting us know about this. I will sign up and go to stop Carney from filling my seat with somebody who is told when to clap.
Or he’s trying to stack the room because Markell is trying to stack the room.
And the questions will be like this:
“Mr. Markell, are you paying royalties to Mitt Romney for borrowing his entire health plan? Did you vote for Mitt Romney?” and
“Mr. Carney, do you want the same state that runs the prisons and the DPC to make my health care decisions for me?”
The question will not be like this:
“Mr. or Mrs. Republican Party-endorsed candidate: Why did your concern over the state of health care in Delaware convince you to run?
What health care reform platform are you running on?
What made you decide to do more than just snark on blogs about the Democrats who are are running?”
Dave – I was not referring to you as the GOP-endorsed candidate who just snarks b/c you, at least, do put forth your own proposals.
Brian S – you also made another mistake in your comment. You said Mr. or Mrs. Republican Party-endorsed candidate.
You assume much, you do.
You silly pundit, you.
fsp: at least there is one thing we agree on…Markell’s health care plan is the Romney plan, which keeps the for profits in, and is now costing the state of Mass beau coup bucks.
You can bet Carney won’t be addressing the doctors and nurses at Christiana, because they support single payer universal health care. Why it tells me is that there is no question now that Carney is connected at the hip so to speak with the Christiana administration and the big pharma companies, which is probably why Carney hid the 4 independent groups who reviewed SB 177 and all agreed it was the best plan for Delaware.
We still have time to work on Jack! Jack needs to get the full skinny on his plan, and how it will not cover everyone, cost the state more bucks, cause more companies to leave the State. Jack will be Governor now doubt in my mind about that…I do believe when the evidence of his plan is before him, that he might change his mind.
Unfortunately, Selander, our best minds aren’t corporate millionaires or career politicians, nor do they have taxpayer-funded offices providing them regular state paychecks while they traverse the state for a decade carefully calculating every move with only this November in mind.
So, while we have candidates, myself included, who are eager to get in and wipe the floor with these guys, we can’t afford the loss of income.
Do I sound a little bitter? I would hope so.
Dave – yeah, you do sound bitter.
Smitty – You think the GOP will actually endorse Protack or Graham?
“Dave – yeah, you do sound bitter.”
Good. I was going for sort of a “bitter with a twinge of rage,” especially about the taxpayer-funded ambition.
Which, I agree, is different than DuPont funded ambition.
Does the comment “our best minds …. nor do they have taxpayer-funded offices” mean that Copeland, Spence, Cathcart, Hudson, Wagner (T not N), et. al are not your best minds?
That seems harsh of you to say.
With all this criticism of Markell and Carney it looks like Protack is a shoe-in.
Or he’s trying to stack the room because Markell is trying to stack the room.
*
well, seeing how the WNJ reported the education debate as a packed house for Markell with a bunch of youngsters outside with Markell stuff on, you can’t really blame Carney for playin’.
“Markell’s health care plan is the Romney plan…”
which was Hillary’s plan in the 1990s.
It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the GOP rarely comes up w/ original ideas but steals them from Dems and claims them as their own….Like Rep. Hudson ripped off Kowalko’s anti-revolving door legislation.
I suppose that when you are mostly interested in conserving and not progressing, originality is an occupational hazard.
Romney’s plan and Hillary’s plan couldn’t be more different.
And Hudson’s bill was stronger than Kowalko’s bill, regardless of your idiotic and erroneous spin to the contrary.
And I had discussions about that bill before Kowalko was even elected.
Or are you saying that even though dozens of states have cooling-off legislation, John Kowalko came up with the idea on his own?
And I am a conservative and NO ONE has more forward-thinking ideas on more of a regular basis than I do.
Selander — I should say our best minds who haven’t ruled out running for Governor.
Dave –
Who are the two biggies that Strine says are still considering running?
Smitty – You think the GOP will actually endorse Protack or Graham?
Why do people even bother to ask questions if they are rhetorical? Sheesh! 😉
…I should say our best minds who haven’t ruled out running for Governor.
Cool! I haven’t ruled it out, either!
J –
I have no qualms spilling the beans. I’d rather be a shaker than a go-along-to-get-along.
The two “double-secret-probation” choices have down to Max E. and me.
I’m kind of ticked, though. I have received word that I am not the preferred of the two.
Dana: Hilary’s original plan was a real universal plan. Romney’s plan is neither universal or cost savings. Hilary’s current plan mandates everyone pay in whether you have the money or not! And even she keeps the for profit’s in.
HR676 was the plan all the democrats should have gone with, but they like Carney need the for profit campaign contributions!
Denn’s pooling plan is pure joke? Tell me what state anywhere has “pooling”! More confusion, diversion, and incremental attempts to keep the sicko system in place.
John Edwards plan at least would have given us a truely universal plan, and for those fools who actually think their for profit plans are great, would have had the ability to keep them. For the rest of us, we would have gone single payer, when those who kept their for profits, actually saw the value of a single payer system, they would eventually sign on too! Thats how it worked in Canada!
“Romney’s plan and Hillary’s plan couldn’t be more different.”
Yea, both have mandatory universal coverage for all, many are legally required to buy their own–yea, there’s a big difference there. In any case, I wouldn’t boast too loudly about either plan since Romney’s is already recognized as a failure.
“And Hudson’s bill was stronger than Kowalko’s bill, regardless of your idiotic and erroneous spin to the contrary.”
1 year = 1 year whether or not a Dem or Repub proposes it. Only, in this case, a Dem proposed it first. As for the rest of Hudson’s bill, she mostly WEAKENED already existing law under the pretense of submitting a bill that differed from Kowalko’s.
“Or are you saying that even though dozens of states have cooling-off legislation, John Kowalko came up with the idea on his own?”
You know what I’m saying: Kowalko’s bill was submitted months before Hudson’s rip-off bill. There’s no denying that fact.
To FSP: for a smart guy you miss the boat on this one…again….single payer is a NON government program…
“s for the rest of Hudson’s bill, she mostly WEAKENED already existing law under the pretense of submitting a bill that differed from Kowalko’s.”
No, she didn’t. The law you cited prevented an administration official from lobbying an agency for two years if “the person gave an opinion, conducted an investigation or otherwise was directly and materially responsible for such matter in the course of official duties as a state employee, officer or official. as a member of the bureaucracy.”
Hudson’s bill bans administration officials from lobbying anyone for any purpose for one year.
So the old law still stands, and is bolstered by the 12-month prohibition on lobbying of any kind. Sounds like a big improvement over Kowalko’s bill to me.
“You know what I’m saying: Kowalko’s bill was submitted months before Hudson’s rip-off bill. There’s no denying that fact.”
So after accusing Hudson of stealing Kowalko’s idea, you’re freely admitting that it wasn’t really Kowalko’s idea at all.
And in the end, all you care about is the party of the person that got the bill through, not the fact that a good government bill got through. So don’t go around accusing anyone else of being partisan again.
““the person gave an opinion, conducted an investigation or otherwise was directly and materially responsible for such matter in the course of official duties as a state employee, officer or official. as a member of the bureaucracy.”
which when you look at the persons defined in the statute takes in just about everyone.
Still, even by your own limited & tendentious reading of the statute, now thanks to Hudson only original idea these people who were once kept from lobbying for 2 years are now only precluded from lobbying from lobbying only for 1 year:
“erson gave an opinion, conducted an investigation or otherwise was directly and materially responsible for such matter in the course of official duties as a state employee, officer or official. as a member of the bureaucracy”
THAT’S CALLED WEAKENING THE LAW.
“So after accusing Hudson of stealing Kowalko’s idea, you’re freely admitting that it wasn’t really Kowalko’s idea at all.”
Really, Dave, if you are going to make a habit of sophistry, you should offer up better BS than that. Kowalko’s idea to limit members of the GA from lobbying was introduced first as as a bill. Hudson ripped off his initiative. You can’t put enough ribbons on that theft to make it anything else but a theft.
Speaking of truthfulness, don’t you feel ashamed about your tall tale that Matt Denn’s insurance pooling bill would cost $100 million?
“Speaking of truthfulness, don’t you feel ashamed about your tall tale that Matt Denn’s insurance pooling bill would cost $100 million?”
Because Matt Denn says it isn’t? Or because the same people that said collective bargaining would cost $35 million when it’s probably going to cost $200 million said it isn’t? Please.
“which when you look at the persons defined in the statute takes in just about everyone.”
Yes, the persons defined in the statute covers everybody, but the conditions in the statute refer to lobbying for a company on a specific matter IF YOU participated in that matter as a member of the government, and only if.
Plus, that law has not been overwritten by the new bill. Those conditions still apply for two years for two years. But ON TOP OF THAT, no member of the administration can lobby anyone FOR ANY REASON for a year. Again, that is stronger than Kowalko’s bill.
I know you’re only pretending to be stupid because I busted your argument wide open.
And your pithy crap about Kowalko and Hudson only stands if Kowalko came up with the idea himself and was never told about any of the other cooling-off legislation around the country.
I forgot how much fun it was embarrassing you like this.
And your whole fictitious blathering about Hudson weakening the law leaves out the part where Kowalko introduced an amendment that, in synopsis, stated:
“This amendment removes language prohibiting former heads of State agencies, Cabinet officials and the Governor’s Executive Staff from lobbying for 1 year following the end of their employment. Restricting the ability of these people to work in lobbying and policy positions after they leave State government could unduly limit the ability of these former employees to work in the areas of their expertise or discourage the best and brightest from serving in State government positions.”
So he had no intention on strengthening the law to include the administration.
Game, set, match.
Dave and Dana
I’m sorry, but what year are we in now? Glad to see some folks finally paying attention to revolving door legislation.
http://feroceforsenate.com/media/press_releases/legis_reform_pkg.cfm
I love all these folks in the legislature who run around claiming to be first with good government bills, when they’re really on the verge of being last all the time. http://www.ncsl.org/programs/ethics/e_revolving.htm
In Delaware, this applies to both parties. The go along to get along attitude of many of the incumbents has created a stand still when it comes to recognizing the structural changes needed to move forward.
Yeah, Dana. By your standards, Kowalko should be ashamed of himself for stealing Feroce’s idea. Right?
I think if a system in which both parties were given credit for legislation was in place, we’d pass things quicker i.e Goldwater-Nichols Act, Named after Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona) and Representative William Flynt “Bill” Nichols (D-Alabama)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater-Nichols_Act
Thus you would have the Hudson-Kowalko Act for example with regards to Revolving Door Legislation, etc.
This stuff is not hard.
“Yes, the persons defined in the statute covers everybody….”
So, you had to go through all that horse hockey to FINALLY ADMIT the statute covers everyone.
That must hurt to admit I was right. 😉 LOL!!!!!
“So he had no intention on strengthening the law to include the administration.”
You know perfectly well why he introduced that legislation. Since the Repubs were intent on weakening the existing statute that YOU ADMIT covers everyone under the pretense that the 2-year prohibition would not be effected, Kowalko introduced an amendment to clarify precisely what the Rerpubs were doing in any case.
“Because Matt Denn says it isn’t? Or because the same people that said collective bargaining would cost $35 million when it’s probably going to cost $200 million said it isn’t? Please.”
Because the study done on Denn’s legislation says so (as mentioned in my audio interview w/ him).
BUT NOTE Dave gives NO JUSTIFICATION for his bogus claim that Denn’s bill would cost $100 million. He just asserts it and egotistically expects everyone to take his word for it.
Well, like the DE GOP’s word for supporting and signing the petition to bring SB4 to a vote, Dave’s word is worthless.
“Yeah, Dana. By your standards, Kowalko should be ashamed of himself for stealing Feroce’s idea. Right?”
Wrong. The difference is that Kowalko was elected to the legislature and Feroce was not. The comparsion was made between legislators who offered bills. I know it chaps your ass that Kowalko’s was first and Hudson had to wait for until your ex-Majority Leader made his quick getaway.
The things you GOPers do to cover your own even when you PRETEND you oppose those corrupt actions.
LOL.
You truly live in your own world.
Ignore all the facts and sing tra-la-la as you whistle past the fact that the existing law is situational and the bill that passed covers everyone.
People can read, Dana. The people who read this blog are adept at reading comprehension. They can see that the statute is unaffected by the new law, and that the law would be stronger with this bill than without it.
You pretending differently only reveals you to be, well, the same deceitful you you’ve always been.
My mistake is that sometimes I forget that you’ve lost all respect and that you’re not worth engaging in conversation.