Comments 1-5 of 7

  • Thomas L. McKnight, MD, MPH

    07/21/2013 11:33 PM

    Gov,

    There is another sinister side to Obamacare for physicians. I retired as a Colonel and now am trying to open a family and preventive medicine clinic in Fl. All insurance carriers offer below Medicare payment (BCBS 90%, United Healthcare 75% Cigna 69%). As a result I may or may not make it as a time when insurers are increasing rates for patients. Please let others know what is happening. PS: Welcome to the Destin area!

    Dr. McKnight - Niceville, Fla

  • SYLVESTER IGNOWSKI

    07/11/2013 08:41 PM

    JAMES C. WALKER....." WAR ON WOMEN " ?? isn't it more of a WAR ON BABIES ?? as for the " low- income " people voting DEMOCRATIC...it's what they do anyway ...you no handouts etc. etc. so what you saying is ...buy the votes ...by going against one's principles ? if these low-income women want to stop having babies ....ABSTAIN ! or at least make sure your partner is protected or get some of the free birth control handed out ! are you for real ? or just a kid trying to make people mad ???

  • Stan Horton

    07/10/2013 10:07 PM

    I listen to you everyday as I'm going home from work. You mention you are in favor of the 'fair tax' instead of the IRS. I agree %100. But, being married to a CPA, she informed me that would not benefit the lower income families. They are already struggling to make it as it is. So, that being said, what do you think?

  • James C. Walker

    07/10/2013 06:56 PM

    Hi Governor,

    I am one of the people you could have a rational and respectful discussion with about abortion - even though our views differ sharply.

    The reason people like me object to laws requiring abortion clinics to have hospital rights is that the law is NOT about protecting womens' health. It is 99+% about making abortion too expensive and too difficult to find locally for low income women - thus essentially forcing them to bear children they do not want and cannot care for.

    A middle or upper income woman can travel and can pay pretty much whatever it takes to obtain an abortion. This is NOT true for many low income women, particularly minorities who are at or near the poverty level.

    The real purpose, as was clearly stated in Mississippi, is to severely restrict or in a practical sense virtually ban abortion for most women. At least Mississippi had the courage to tell the truth about why they wanted such a law.

    The law is being "sold" on a deliberately false premise.

    The rate of complications in normal early term abortions is very very low and no hospital will refuse to take the rare emergency case from an abortion clinic. The clinic doctor may not be allowed to treat the woman, but a staff doctor will.

    Pro-life conservatives should also note that the war on women including restricting abortion will kill any chance to elect a conservative President within about 1 to 2 generations.

    Most women who are denied abortions with various restrictions come from families and areas that vote heavily Democratic. As those children reach voting age, they will NOT be voting for conservatives.

    Switching another two or three states from Swing states where the vote can be 52/48 either way to solidly Democratic states that will get a reliable 55+% Democratic vote will end the chances for a conservative President forever (baring the Democratic party running an idiot).

    Similar issues will prevent the chances to elect conservative Senators in some swing states, at some point ending any chance to ever hold the Senate again.

    Note that I an 69 years old and vote GOP 95+% of the time. But it is becoming a lost cause - in part due to the ongoing war on women.

    I don't really have a party any more. I am fiscally conservative but in the middle to liberal on most social issues. Within 1 to 2 generations, it won't be worth my gas money to drive to the polls because most candidates I would vote for will have zero chances to win.

  • ED LONERGAN

    07/09/2013 01:44 PM

    If the court can hold up book earnings for criminals, why can't they hold up the fort hood shooter's pay for future law suits by his victims.