Social Networks We Use


CT Tech Junkie Feed

Connecticut Consumers to Begin Receiving E-Book Settlement Refunds
Mar 25, 2014 4:09 pm
Connecticut residents will start receiving refund checks or credits this week for e-books purchased between April 1,...more »
Like New Jersey, Direct Retail Sales of Tesla Automobiles Not Allowed in Connecticut
Mar 19, 2014 12:24 pm
The Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection is co-sponsoring a contest for the auto dealership...more »

Our Partners


McKinney Says Obama’s Promise May Not Apply In Connecticut

by Christine Stuart | Nov 15, 2013 6:02pm
(29) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Business, Congress, Election 2014, Health Care, Legal

CTNJ file photo

Sen. John McKinney

If Sen. John McKinney is right, then President Barack Obama’s pronouncement Thursday that people can keep their canceled health insurance plans doesn’t apply in Connecticut.

McKinney pointed Friday to a law passed in 2011 that says the state must comply with the Affordable Care Act and all of its regulations. A plain language reading of the law does not give the insurance commissioner discretion to make any changes to that requirement, which means those plans would still remain illegal in Connecticut, McKinney said.

When he made the announcement Thursday, Obama left the decision to extend canceled plans up to the insurance companies and state regulators.

McKinney, who also is running for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, said he doesn’t believe Insurance Commissioner Thomas Leonardi has any discretion to allow these policies to be offered in Connecticut based on the laws the state has adopted.

“It is quite clear that Connecticut law makes these plans illegal regardless of the president’s administrative fiat,” McKinney wrote in a letter Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.

That’s why he called upon Malloy and legislative leaders to call a special session of the General Assembly to fix it. He said it’s “imperative” that the state repeal that provision and allow “tens-of-thousands of Connecticut residents” to keep their plans.

Malloy’s spokesman Andrew Doba said the administration is still reviewing the changes.

“In the wake of the decision yesterday in Washington, the governor has asked the lieutenant governor and his insurance commissioner to gather the facts and determine what action, if any, needs to be taken by the state to ensure we are achieving this goal,” Doba said. “Until all the facts are in, there is no reason to call a special session.”

The Insurance Department said Thursday that it did not know how many people in the state were impacted by these cancellation notices.

However, state officials, including Malloy, don’t believe it’s a large number.

“I don’t think it’s going to have a big impact on Connecticut,” Malloy said earlier Friday. “The insurance policies that could be sold in Connecticut were held to a substantially higher standard than the national standard. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be some folks [impacted]— for instance people who secured insurance in another state and moved to Connecticut while that policy was in existence.”

In the privately-secured insurance market there’s a 46-percent turnover per year and in any given year up to 30 percent of policies are cancelled, Malloy told reporters.

He said that’s likely not a statistic they’ve heard before, but because of everything happening with the Affordable Care Act people for the first time are paying closer attention to their insurance policies. He said those types of cancellations happen in the normal course of business.

“Having said that, I think the president wants to resolve the issue,” Malloy said. “There’s no doubt in my mind that the vast, vast majority of people who go on our website are ultimately going to decide that the packages available to them, particularly those who are eligible for a subsidy, are going to be pretty happy.”

Malloy was referring to the state’s health insurance exchange, Access Health CT, which has performed much better than the site being used by 36 states.

House Speaker Brendan Sharkey said McKinney was just playing electoral politics.

“We are the only state that has more private insurance sign-ups than Medicaid sign-ups, and we already had among the highest standards of coverage in the country,” Sharkey said. “Our health care system is too important, for too many people, to be used as one of Senator McKinney’s campaign props.”

Hugh McQuaid contributed to this report.

Tags: , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(29) Comments

posted by: LongJohn47 | November 15, 2013  7:12pm

I’ve been wondering how Obama could make this change without going back to Congress, as I believe the provision for grandfathering certain types of insurance was embedded in the Affordable Care Act, not HHS regulations.

posted by: CTNewsJunkieReader | November 15, 2013  7:32pm

Well, Mr. Sharkey, CT’s standards are apparently not high enough because my policy is one that was cancelled specifically because it did not meet ACA standards.  The replacement my carrier “chose” for me would cost an additional $6,000 per year.  I also do not qualify for any subsidies through the state’s exchange and any policies available to me are also prohibitively expensive.  And please, Mr. Malloy, don’t say that you “don’t think” many in CT will be impacted when actually, you don’t know.  What you mean is that you “hope” - and hope is not based upon data.

posted by: dano860 | November 16, 2013  9:34am

Malloy is one of the biggest Democrat water boy’s for the Owebama gang. He should take the statement made by his leader for it verbatim meaning. “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan”.
Mr. Doba I think the facts are in, have a special session and repeal the mandate.

posted by: LongJohn47 | November 16, 2013  11:30am

Reader - please tell us which policies on the Exchange are “prohibitively expensive” and how they compare to your current coverage.

posted by: Art Vandelay | November 17, 2013  7:53am

To LongJohn47,
I cannot comprehend how quick you are to concede the freedoms and liberties you have to an all encompassing federal government.  Private insurance companies give you the right to choose what medical coverage and services you desire to purchase, and how much you want to spend.  Obamacare is dictating what and what will not be covered.  It’s forcing you to purchase things you may not want or need. What I fear most about socialized medicine are the miracle drugs and advanced procedures that were never developed in countries with socialized medicine.  Open heart surgery, Lipitor, and other advanced technology were NEVER invented in countries that incorporated socialized medicine.  Can you tell me what advanced procedures came out of Cuba, or for that matter England?  None, most if not all were developed in this country where the profit motive was there.  Our medical delivery system would have been much better off if only the people who had hardships were given better access, not the entire population where one system fits all.
The other thing you probably refuse to realize is that the ultimate goal of the Democrats & Obama is to take over the entire medical economy.  Read your history books sir.  Socialism never worked and it never will.  Don’t think for one second the Democrats & Obama can conceive of a better Socialist country than what was tried before.  They can’t.  Finally you can’t be naive enough not to realize Socialism is NOT the goal of the Democrats, Unions & lefties like you.  Well it is sir.  Read your history books like I do.  Stop watching MSNBC and listening to the likes of Ed Schultz & Rachel Maddow.

posted by: lkulmann | November 17, 2013  8:46am

Sounds like mismanagement pure and simple. This State does not follow federal guidelines and they haven’t updated regs and policies for decades. How can anyone one make a credible informed decision. I’m tired of ‘pullaruleoutofyourass’ leadership. The Federal Medicaid Medicare (CMS) needs to take over CT Safety net programs. CT regulators/politicians/beaurocrats obviously do NOT have the residents best interests in mind. The insurance is substandard and quality of life health and medical issues don’t even exist anywhere in the policy. Its a wash. Give it up. CT is closed for renovations to serve its customers better. We’ll be open for business in Spring with fresh new menu choices lovingly prepared with the highest of QUALITY ingredients and AFFORDABLE prices…

posted by: LongJohn47 | November 17, 2013  11:24am

Art—all those medical advances you mention were funded by basic research funneled through the NIH and other federal grants to our major universities. 

There is no pure market economy anywhere in the civilized world—everywhere is a mixture of public and private effort. 

By the way, the first heart transplant took place in South Africa, and Cuba is rightly admired in South America for providing good, basic healthcare for everyone. 

Not the expensive, fancy healthcare we have here—they can’t afford it—but they do work hard to treat people equally.  For them healthcare is a right, not a privilege to be bought on the open market.

I am glad to see you support giving healthcare support to those who can’t afford it.  That’s called Medicaid, and it’s exactly what at least 21 states under Republican leadership are denying to many of their citizens (400,000 alone in Tennessee, according to today’s paper).

And you’re right, Obamacare is setting new standards in terms of what must be offered in personal health insurance plans. 

No longer will insurers be allowed to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, for example, or kick people off coverage because they got sick. 

No longer will companies be able to offer policies that really cover nothing major, or use price gouging deductibles to give only the flimsiest coverage imaginable.

So, yes I’m proud to be a liberal and support an Administration that is trying to bring this country into the 21st century rather than return it to some imaginary 18th.

And while you’re reading your history books, I suggest you take a look at Denmark, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, post-war Germany, the U.K. —there are lots of countries where the government plays a major role in the everyday lives of its citizens.  And they all have better healthcare outcomes than we do.

posted by: LongJohn47 | November 17, 2013  11:28am

ikulmann—what is your data for this posting?  Do you have any direct experience with the Medicaid system in CT?  I know two young people who have found themselves needing to be covered this way, and their experience has been excellent.

posted by: Art Vandelay | November 17, 2013  1:16pm

To Longjohn47,
You’re correct.  The first heart transplant took place in South Africa in 1967 under the director of Dr. Christian Barnard.  Dr. Barnard did his Cardiovascular Surgery training at the University of Minnesota under the direction of Dr. Walter Lillehei who was trained at John Hopkins.  The recipient of the first heart transplant was one Louis Washkansky who passed on 18 days later.
So much for your theory that open heart surgery had its roots in socialized medicine.

May I ask what is wrong with “fancy expensive medicine”?  If it weren’t for “fancy expensive medicine, I wouldn’t be alive today.
I think every conservative like myself agree that everybody should have access to affordable health care.  Nobody should loose their house or go bankrupt because they get sick.  Let the free market make those decisions, NOT GOVERNMENT!!!

The standards that Obamacare are setting is one size fits all, and that is not the case.  Young people should not be forced into economic slavery by the government.  Yes people in England and other socialized countries like their healthcare, but they don’t like paying 90% of what they work hard for to the government.  Big government is not the answer, and never has been.  The standards set by Obamacare are standards I want NO part of.  It’s not the private insurers who are going to be denying access to healthcare in the future.  It’s going to be BIG GOVERNMENT.  Don’t think for one second that it won’t.  It WILL ration doctors.  It WILL decide who becomes a doctor and who does not.  It WILL decide who gets an operation and who does not.  It WILL decide how long you have to wait for a doctors visit or worse yet a critical procedure.  Look how complicated it is to fill out a 1040 if you own your own business.  Socialized medicine will be no different.  Finally as far as the countries you mention with “Stellar” healthcare systems, they are all on the brink of bankruptcy.  It’s SO easy to be a liberal.  All you have to do is put 100% of your faith and freedoms into a large centralized government.  I guess you never had a heart to heart conversation from anybody who lived under the Soviets or Castro.

posted by: lkulmann | November 17, 2013  2:11pm

Everything I post is based on fact and/or experience. If it weren’t I’d have been sued for slander 100’s of times already. I have the data to prove all of it, sadly. CT can be a great place to live and it will be again I hope. There still are more good people than evil ones. In CT there is a heaven and there is a hell. Once you experience the public assistance system and the legal system you know you’ve been to hell.

posted by: Commuter | November 17, 2013  2:23pm

The health insurance market and the health care market have massively failed in this country. This is beyond debate.

As LongJohn47 points out, the constraints in Obamacare address market failures. The policies that are non-conforming are vehicles for profiteering that neither address the risks nor provide the access that are essential for the market to function properly.

Only the most extreme (and either misinformed or utterly ideological) individuals argue that government has no role to play in the creation and regulation of markets. Even the insurance industry opponents don’t take this position.

Obviously, there is an issue with the cancellation of policies in states that do not have a functioning marketplace, thanks in large measure to the abysmal performance of the federal website. Happily, we don’t have that problem.

Connecticut got it right, and is an unqualified success.

posted by: LongJohn47 | November 18, 2013  1:12am

Art - you say that nobody should “loose (sic) their house or go bankrupt because they get sick.”  Have you been paying attention?  That’s exactly what happens now, thanks to the “free market”.

Obamacare is designed to protect people and prevent this from happening by life-time caps and ceilings for out-of-pocket costs.

And you completely missed my point about Cuba.  Of course they would love to have the latest, most expensive healthcare system (who wouldn’t), but they’re a poor country. 

Unlike the U.S., where an estimated forty million people go without regular care, Cuba has decided that everyone should share what’s available equally.  They don’t have the latest cancer treatments, but they do have universal basic coverage.

Doctors are rationed now.  It’s called the free market.  Insurance companies deny medical procedures to their clients every day.  They all have “case managers” who tell doctors what they can and can’t do (or, more accurately, what the insurance company will and won’t pay for).

You say socialized medicine is complicated.  I say look at Medicare.  You pay taxes while you work, when you retire you get an insurance card, you go to the doctor and it’s basically taken care of.  Pretty simple. 

Medicare is socialized medicine, and it’s much more cost effective than the private market because we don’t have to pay for marketing and shareholder profits.

Finally, the countries I mentioned are in good shape financially.  Their citizens pay high taxes by their own choice, and they get much better service from their governments than we do. 

But don’t take my word for it.  Check out their government deficits as a percentage of GDP here:

You clearly don’t like big government.  I don’t like big corporations, and I want government to keep them in check.  And in a democracy, whoever can convince the most people will win.

Good luck.

posted by: dano860 | November 18, 2013  9:20am

Connecticut and some of the States that took the Federal money have established their own portal but the policies must still be entered into the failed web site in order for them to be complete. That puts all of your information into a less than secure site that is one of the biggest targets for hackers.
government regulations have been in every business out there for years and it hasn’t made any difference in profit making. I look at what little I can understand of the Affordable Insurance Act (AIA) and there is no regulation that says the insurance companies profits are limited to X%. Therefore they will just bump up the cost to insure their profit margin. The problem is trying to guess at the costs of covering the free loaders and the formerly un-insurable. THEN they have to add the expenses onto the policies of the working middle class so they can cover the shortfall.
The insurance companies were behind this plan from the beginning because it was guaranteed profit. AARP was one of the biggest supporters, they are an off shoot of Colonial Penn Insurance and a few of their other break off companies. government regulation forced Colonial Penn to start AARP because they were becoming a ‘conglomerate’.

posted by: LongJohn47 | November 18, 2013  10:41am

danno—I think you’re wrong about “entered into the failed web site in order for them to be complete”.

Our exchange uses some of the same inputs as the federal exchange, checking identity info from the federal hub, but it’s a separate signup system that’s completely self-contained.  The hub has been working smoothly for the most part (it’s down occasionally for fixes like any web site) and our signup process is working well.

posted by: Art Vandelay | November 18, 2013  10:59pm

To LongJohn47,
You’re not seeing the entire picture.  Obamacare is designed to transfer the entire healthcare system from the private sector into the public.  What we’re experiencing now is just a sample of what is to come, a Single Payer System totally controlled by Big Government.  Progressives like yourself have been chomping at the bit for 100 years for a total takeover, and you will stop at nothing.  You complain about big business controlling healthcare.  Do you honestly think Big Government is going to do any better?  I doubt it.

Ask yourself this.  Why IS Cuba a POOR country?  Might it have anything to do with the Socialist Castro regime?  If Cuba had a Capitalist Free Market System minus a Dictatorship, I’m sure the country would be prosperous with an excellent health care system instead of the third rate they have today. 

Cuba has not decided to share whats currently available with everyone, CASTRO has.  There is no Democracy in Cuba.  Last I checked it’s a Communist Dictatorship.  Their ally Russia has even stopped foreign aid.

An easier fix to our healthcare problem (if you could call it that) was to address the 40 million uninsured at a greatly reduced cost.  Instead the Socialist Progressive Democrats decided it was their one opportunity to completely take over healthcare.  We’re now paying the price with a much bigger price tag to follow.

Government is not keeping private healthcare in check.  Under Obamacare they have completely taken it over.

posted by: dano860 | November 18, 2013  11:41pm

Cuba is a great place to visit. The rest of the world has access to them and they to them. the Canadians love going there and Americans can and do go there via Canada.
Things have been changing there for quite some time. Here is a link to the magazine I like to read and an article about the economy that is changing for the better.

posted by: LongJohn47 | November 19, 2013  12:08am

Art—let’s not get sidetracked with Cuba and the argument over 50+ years of U.S. embargo and active economic subversion.

You ask whether Big Government can do better with healthcare.  Of course they can.  Just look at the data from other countries where single payer is in place.

Consider, for example, infant mortality.  Last year we averaged 6.1 deaths per 1000 live births.  Denmark 3.6 Finland 2.4 Sweden 2.1 U.K. 4.3 All with single payer.  All with healthier babies (which is really a measure of healthier pregnancies). 

Or how about life expectancy?  U.S. 78.7 years.  Finland 80.6 Denmark 79.9 Sweden 81.9 U.K 81.1 They live longer than we do. 

By the way, it’s much cheaper.  The U.S. spent $8,507 per person last year.  Finland $3,374 Denmark $4,448 Sweden $3,925 U.K. $3,405

So of course I would welcome a complete government takeover of health care.  The big question is why economic conservatives like you are fighting it.

here’s the data

infant mortality

life expectancy 

health expenditures per person

posted by: Joebigjoe | November 19, 2013  8:39am

Long John, what are the numbers for infant mortality when you take out the poor and uneducated in this country? Those other countries dont have anything like our projects and inner cities. Actually I take that back as some now have Muslim projects that are giving their countries a very hard time.

As for life expectancy, these people walk alot more than the average American and they eat less processed foods. Has nothing to do with their health care system.

Finally, my wife is Canadien and obviously has tons of family in Canada. Please don’t tout single payer. I know what goes on there.

I’ve been to India and seen what is supposed to be an excellent Indian hospital. Let’s just say you can’t even imagine…

Finally, the economics of single payer will not work in a country our size. The countries you mention are like some of our states whether it be size or population.

posted by: dano860 | November 19, 2013  9:38am

LJ47, I get the feeling that we are extricable and connected to the Federal AIA website.
In order for this to work at the federal level, for all, the information will have to be located at one location or site.
As JBJ said, in the end the plan is to get to single payer or federally operated insurance.
The AIA presently guarantees the insurance companies profits. In the single payer plan they will have to figure out how to keep them happy and prevent thousands of layoffs at the same time.
Remember, like taxes, companies don’t pay them, they pass them on to the customer. The same for profits they will just increase the costs to the customer in order to guarantee them.

posted by: LongJohn47 | November 19, 2013  10:20am

Joe - thanks for making my point even stronger.  You’re right, poor people in our cities (and rural whites as well) are left out of our healthcare “system” and suffer greatly as a result. 

Obamacare will fix this when fully implemented, either through the exchanges or expanded Medicaid (when, of course, the Rs finally come to their senses).

As to Europeans walking more and eating better, possibly, but that’s part of a healthier lifestyle that includes regular medical care.  It all fits together.

Your wife is Canadian, mine comes from a European country with single payer healthcare, and our two children were born under that system.  I’ve seen it up close and personal, and it works superbly. 

How about daily visits from a public nurse for the first two weeks of each newborn’s life? Do you think that might bring down infant mortality rates?

As to the positive effect of socialized medicine on longevity, we just have to look at the impact of Medicare here at home.  In 1960, before Medicare, the average 65 year old lived another 14.3 years, virtually the same as in 1850.  In 2010 that had improved to 19.1, and astonishing 34% increase.

The data is clear and irrefutable.  It’s only ideology that stands in the way, and sooner or later we’ll win this fight.

here’s the data: 

By the way, don’t get confused by the first “at birth” table, as that includes infant and child mortality, suicides, industrial accidents, and casualties of war.  The key is looking at those who live to be 65 and how much longer they’re around from that point.

posted by: LongJohn47 | November 19, 2013  12:57pm

dano - as I said in an earlier posting, the Access Health CT web site is in no way dependent upon to enroll people here.

The computer systems making this possible are extremely complex.  In the background is the federal “hub” which provides inputs to every customer-facing system, including ours, other states which do their own, and  The “hub” is working well with minimal downtime.

At the front end are separate, independent enrollment systems, some run by states like Access Health CT, plus at the federal level for everyone else. 

Ours is working well with no major glitches.  Some other states have been successful, like Kentucky, some have had problems. is obviously a mess but will get fixed eventually.

Whatever your philosophical opposition to Obamacare, you should understand that the rollout here has been smooth so far and that people are enrolling, often in the more expensive silver and gold plans rather than the bare-bones bronze.

I attended a healthcare event on Saturday and talked to people going through the process.  Some found it confusing, but that’s to be expected.  No one had a problem actually signing up when they’d decided what they wanted.

posted by: Joebigjoe | November 19, 2013  4:19pm

No Long John I really didnt make your point any stronger. We just differ.

Do I think people should have basic healthcare? Yes that would be a good thing. However, we all make choices in life. Do you want great healthcare then play by lifes rules and contribute to society. You want basic healthcare, then don’t pay attention in school and do all those things that people that start off poor but pull themselves up do.

Years ago I sold health insurance and it would sicken me to be in somones house that had a boat in the driveway, the newest electronics, jet ski’s and stuff I couldnt afford, and then they had the gall to tell me they couldnt afford the insurance to protect their family. They could but it was all about choices.

Pre-existing conditions, again I think they should be covered, but is it a condition you just got through bad luck or is it a condition you got from sitting around smoking, and eating garbage?

My wife and her family think the Canadien system stinks. Is your wife’s country one that spends money on daily nursing or do they spend money to be able to come to the aid of the United States to protect our shores if threatened. Again we have a different system.

There is no right to great healthcare. You earn that by working hard and getting ahead for you and your kids. It’s not a basic human right. Why should I bust my tail to work 60 hours a week to get the same doctors as someone that sits on their duff all day and drinks all night? 

Obamacare will not work as it will collapse financially because young people would rather pay the penalty than sign up for insurance coverage that’s overkill. He doesnt want it to work as this is to try to get to single payer.

Medicare is not what has changed lifespans but advances in technology from firms like US Surgical in their heyday because they wanted to make a buck. Take away that profit motive and see what happens long term. We can all day early together

posted by: dano860 | November 19, 2013  5:03pm

LJ47, I’ll have to believe you. The terms front end and back end have a different meaning to me than you. I’m a cycle and car guy.
The problem I have w/ Owebamacare is that my self employed son can no longer afford his insurance through the Ct system.
Me, I’m a medicare eligible person. I’m not thrilled with that either. Thankfully my wife has our medical policy with her employer but that will be changing since it isn’t the best out there.
With any luck this mess will settle out but I still have concerns about the security of ANY web site, let alone one with ANY glitches. That’s just me I guess.

posted by: Art Vandelay | November 19, 2013  5:46pm

To JoeBigJoe,
I couldn’t say it any better.
I agree w/you 100%

posted by: LongJohn47 | November 19, 2013  9:18pm

Joe (and Art) you seem to think that everyone who’s poor or lacking good healthcare is a lazy bum.  Go to one of the centers where people are signing up and talk with them, listen to their stories, you might get a different point of view.

We have more than enough money in this country for everyone to have good healthcare, but we choose to give billions to oil company subsidies and farmers who don’t grow food and unnecessary wars.

But you never responded to the basic economic data—we pay twice as much as any other country for less effective healthcare. 

Forget about whether healthcare is a “right”.  If you’re an economic conservative who believes we should get the best government we can from the dollars we spend, doesn’t it make sense to look at the facts and make some changes?

posted by: Art Vandelay | November 19, 2013  11:07pm

To LJ47,
We’re at a point now where I’m not going to change your views or you mine.  I am vehemently opposed to a large federal government as the Founding Fathers warned future generations about.  I vehemently oppose the socialist agenda promoted by Rosa DeLauro, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama and yourself.  I have absolutely ZERO faith that our federal government can provide health care better than the private sector.  I could go on and on, but I’m going to have to agree to disagree with you.

posted by: JusticeCT | November 20, 2013  9:32am

“Don’t confuse me with the facts!”  Ideology is a wonderful thing for those who prefer blindness.  WAKE UP: about a third of the 7,000 people who have enrolled in private insurance plans on the CT exchange so far are paying FULL PRICE.  It’s a free country and people can claim til their dying day that the market will solve our health insurance problems.  But the facts are that our PUBLIC marketplace that excludes junk insurance and allows individuals and small businesses to buy in bulk is getting better prices.  That’s why this “coverage denial” issue is much ado about nothing:  people paying high prices for lousy plans will now get better plans at lower prices and have money to spare.

posted by: LongJohn47 | November 24, 2013  12:35am

Art, the federal government directly “provides” healthcare to military personnel and veterans.  I challenge you to find a better healthcare system than the one our servicemen and women have.

Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and health benefits given to federal workers are paid for by the government but delivered through the private sector.  The federal government sets the standards and fees, leaving doctors and hospitals to choose whether to participate.

The hysteria about a “government takeover” of healthcare is ridiculous.  State governments have always heavily regulated insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals, and we all live better because of it.  Under the ACA the federal government has established some national standards which will benefit the country.

Finally, the Founding Fathers weren’t perfect, and they lived 200 years ago in a vastly different world.  We have every right to change the system to meet our current needs, and the federal government has been steadily evolving for over 150 years.

The Civil War ended the states’ ability to allow people to be treated as property.  The 14th amendment requires equal treatment.  The 16th gave the federal government direct taxing powers, the 17th took election of Senators away from state legislatures and gave that power directly to the people.  WWI, WWII, and the Cold War showed the need for a nationally organized war effort unlike any of the 18th or 19th centuries, and the rise of international corporations has necessitated a countervailing growth of government to protect people from economic predation.

We’re not going back to mens fashion dominated by tri-cornered hats, short pants with hose, and shoes with large buckles, and we’re not going back to a government system based an an agrarian economy populated by a few rich white farmers and a vast system of indentured servants and slaves, where women had no vote and few economic rights.

We live in the 21st century.

posted by: Doug Hardy | November 25, 2013  10:44am


This comment thread has been shut down. We appear to have mistakenly approved some comments that were racial in nature.

Racist comments are not welcome here. Comments that hint at racism are not welcome here. People who attempt to post racist comments will be banned.

Comments that are unrelated to the topic of the story also are not welcome.

Comments that simply try to hijack the site for the purposes of an ideological rant, or simply are repetitive in nature from one story to the next based on a ideological agenda, and which don’t add anything to the thread, often get deleted as well.

Moderating all of these comments and answering a lot of email about why comments haven’t been posted takes time away from the tasks that make this site valuable - and that’s reporting the news.

For everyone’s information, comments on this site are never automatically posted and they take time to deal with. If your comment hasn’t posted, either we haven’t gotten to it yet or we decided not to post it. No emails are necessary in that case. It’s best just to move on. We occasionally will be wrong in our decision to post or not post a comment. If we have allowed a comment that includes name-calling or is otherwise defamatory, of anyone, please let us know. We’re not here to provide you with a platform to spit vitriolic hatred at anyone, regardless of ideology.

If we could find a simple plugin for this site that would allow us to charge people for the option to submit a comment to be considered for posting, we would set it up in a second. But we haven’t found one yet and, as such, our resources are continually drained by the process of moderating off-topic comments like the ones we just deleted.

Here is our Reader Comment Policy.