Senate Bill 289 introduced by Duane Ankney a republican from Colestrip. The bill is trying to stop people from making anonoumus donations to campaigns. They want people to have to own their donations. They want them to be able to still make the donations but have to put their name to them.
The bill wants to make it so that people must put their names with their donations. Like they said in the article, "But free speech should also mean believing in it enough to have your name associated with it.
Basically people that are against the bill are saying that people that just want to make a donation should be able to. Sometimes people don't want to be involved in polotics and this would make them become involved. "The bill is designed to regulate political committees. However, it also regulates something called an “incidental committee,” which is basically a committee that was never intended to be political, but became so by making an expense that’s political." THis would make more people have to become involved in politics for just sending off a donation.
People that are for the bill think that it is a good idea. They think that with freedom fo speech comes consequences. With that they should have to own thier donations. They should have to include their occupation, name, and address. "But these same groups seem to forget that free speech has consequences."
I think that if someone wants to make a donation that that is fine. They should not have to let the whole world know. They especially should not have to add their name, adress, and occupation to the bill. It is the persons money and they should be able to spend it as they want. We don't have to add all of that when we donate to a church or wherever we choose to donate so why should be do it now?
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Monday, March 16, 2015
House Bill No. 509 was introduced by C. Schreiner. The bill is wanting to offer four grants worth $75,000 to four different area creating suicide prevention outlets. The bill would hopefully see a decrease in suicide. People who were thinking about suicide would benefit from this. People who either know the effect that suicide can have on a family or people who are wanting to help others. The bill would harm other funding areas. Taking money out of the general fund for it however we would see less problems. An individual considering suicide is really the only person that can enforce it. Often times people don't know when someone is about to commit suicide or the rate would be lower. This bill would be in affect as soon as it was passed. Secondary affects we might see is less teens coming out to get help. These teens don't want to be put in to an institution so if they take everyone and put them in one then less people are going to come out and seek help. Also where these projects are located might be a problem. Making sure that we reach all areas is important.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
#13
On our trip to Helena on Friday we went to a committee meeting after we took a grand tour of the capital building. While sitting in front of the committee meeting looking at HB 249 we were sitting in the balcony. Crowded seating was a very common thing. Sitting in the room that felt to be no less than 95 degrees was full of people mainly for the bill were also accompanied by people against the bill. The people for the bill seemed to be Native Americans and lower income people who would benefit from the bill. There were also other people there that were for the bill like insurance groups and doctors.
While some people on the committee seemed to be intently listening it seemed that other people were not intently listening. It felt as if some people were doing everything they could to not fall asleep. As of right now the democrats are losing and the republicans are winning. We shall see how it ends by the end of it. In the past few days it seems that the bill is now dead. I think that the bill or some version of it will pass. There are to many people for it for it to not pass.
I think she is right. I think that if it comes out of the committee stuff that it will pass. People are taking to large of majors for it to not pass.
I think that in Montana we don't have a ton of jobs for the disabled people. I think that if you are a lower incomed family that it would be hard to keep your family up if you had an unexpected medical bill. Being a family that sends a lot of time at the hospital I know the impact that medical bills can have on a family. I also think that since Montana's people are required to pay a medicaid tax that we should get to see some of this money come back into our state.
I can also see this bill start to get abused. Now that the drug testing for medicaid has passed however, I believe that it will be harder to abuse it. However not impossible. I think that we will have to keep track of people on it.
While some people on the committee seemed to be intently listening it seemed that other people were not intently listening. It felt as if some people were doing everything they could to not fall asleep. As of right now the democrats are losing and the republicans are winning. We shall see how it ends by the end of it. In the past few days it seems that the bill is now dead. I think that the bill or some version of it will pass. There are to many people for it for it to not pass.
I think she is right. I think that if it comes out of the committee stuff that it will pass. People are taking to large of majors for it to not pass.
I think that in Montana we don't have a ton of jobs for the disabled people. I think that if you are a lower incomed family that it would be hard to keep your family up if you had an unexpected medical bill. Being a family that sends a lot of time at the hospital I know the impact that medical bills can have on a family. I also think that since Montana's people are required to pay a medicaid tax that we should get to see some of this money come back into our state.
I can also see this bill start to get abused. Now that the drug testing for medicaid has passed however, I believe that it will be harder to abuse it. However not impossible. I think that we will have to keep track of people on it.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
#12
Thank you for making it so that we could come here. It was very nice of you to work hard and getting it so that we could come.
I think that the legislation has been working hard on getting this in and out of the committee process. According to house bill 111 you are working at keep Montana road ways safe.
I don't feel however that congress is focusing on the most important things. It is important to keep our eye on the prize. What we wear is not really going to affect how congress runs. However, not having fixed roads is going to affect us.
Keep up the good work.
Rylee
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
#11
Basically our government is looking at the economic sides of expanding this bill or not expanding it. Once again they are arguing over what is going to be better and what is not going to be better.
While we have a lot of nurses around us I am not so sure that there are a lot of doctors around. I know that there are a few up in Red Lodge that get more money if that was the way they chose to go with it. My mom is a nurse and honestly I have no idea how this would affect her. I'm sure there are people that it would benefit and others that it would hinder. Just like most things in life there is always going to be someone who benefits and someone who doesn't.
"The money isn't fee- it's taxpayer money after, all, mostly from the federal government- and that the real economic impact may be more complicated."
They are right. The money has to come from somewhere. Most of the people in our government are higher end people. They are not your common people in the middle class. Therefore they won't be the people taking the big cut financially. If we keep taking money from our middle class our poverty is just going to keep going up. Also we need to look at cutting other things down before we keep adding to it. We are in huge debt I'm not sure where they think this money is coming from.
"If we reduce the amount of unpaid care we deliver, it gives us the opportunity to restrain cost-shifting (to patient who can pay), it gives us the opportunity to take the pressure off price and gives us the opportunity to improve clinical outcomes, which saves money, too"
I do agree with this. By helping people who can't afford their healthcare would help to lower healthcare costs. Although the money they are using is still the person that is getting lower healthcare costs. Basically let us take more money from you for taxes and less when you go to the dr.
While we have a lot of nurses around us I am not so sure that there are a lot of doctors around. I know that there are a few up in Red Lodge that get more money if that was the way they chose to go with it. My mom is a nurse and honestly I have no idea how this would affect her. I'm sure there are people that it would benefit and others that it would hinder. Just like most things in life there is always going to be someone who benefits and someone who doesn't.
"The money isn't fee- it's taxpayer money after, all, mostly from the federal government- and that the real economic impact may be more complicated."
They are right. The money has to come from somewhere. Most of the people in our government are higher end people. They are not your common people in the middle class. Therefore they won't be the people taking the big cut financially. If we keep taking money from our middle class our poverty is just going to keep going up. Also we need to look at cutting other things down before we keep adding to it. We are in huge debt I'm not sure where they think this money is coming from.
"If we reduce the amount of unpaid care we deliver, it gives us the opportunity to restrain cost-shifting (to patient who can pay), it gives us the opportunity to take the pressure off price and gives us the opportunity to improve clinical outcomes, which saves money, too"
I do agree with this. By helping people who can't afford their healthcare would help to lower healthcare costs. Although the money they are using is still the person that is getting lower healthcare costs. Basically let us take more money from you for taxes and less when you go to the dr.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
#10
Our famous politicians are back at their jobs this week. This week the hot topic seems to be healthcare. While one side of the argument seems to be for spreading welfare to more people others are hesitant about it. They feel maybe a small spread would be good but they don't feel that the huge spread is good.
While I think that money is one of those things that whenever i is brought up it is very awkward I try not to involve myself with any of these things. I couldn't tell you who is or is not on welfare in Roberts Montana. Nor do I really care for that matter. That is their business. I can imagine that it would affect some of the people around here however. What ever way it going it will affect people all around.
"I never called back to get the referral (to a gastrointestinal) specialist, because we cannot for it."
While it is sad that people are not getting the medical attention that they may need or want are they doing everything that the general doctor told them to do? Have they tried changing their diet? Things like this can help your problem. I guess I have a hard time feeling bad for people until I know for a fact that they have done everything that they can do for themselves. There are also jobs that you can do from home. Have they looked into these/
"Somebody my age could actually be able to go out, find a job, get a career and their life going."
Maybe they need to look into other options for themselves. Often times there are jobs available but people don't want to work them or feel that they are too good for them. This does not make me feel bad for you. If you are broke then you should be looking to get any job that you possibly can not thinking you are too good to work a job.
"I think the purpose of Medicaid is to help people when they need help. It's not a permanent fix. W';; work again. People go through some times when they need some help. It's not welfare; it;s not charity."
While people often times feel that if they get on it they will be able to find a job and work again. This idea is a great way to think. However, once someone is handed something for no work, such as free money it is hard for them to want to work again. I do believe that some people get on it to get a little assistance and then find a job and are able to get off it. What about the people that once they get on it don't get off? What about the ones that use it as a main source of income and have no intention of ever getting a job as long as they can stay on assistance and get money for not working? This is where the issue comes in. I don't have a problem helping people out that need help. However, if I am going to be getting out of bed and going to work to give you my money then you better be doing everything that you can to get a job also. To me it's all about paying it forward. Someone helped you out while you were down. Now it is your turn to get a job and help others out while they are down. Not stay down and milk the system for all it is worth.
I don't hate anything more than when people try and push their beliefs on me so I am not going to do this to people. I have a feeling that by the people are old enough to go and vote they know what they stand for and what right and wrong is. Therefore keep those things in in mind as do as you please. Also I know that I am not always right. Therefore maybe there is something to it that I am not seeing.
While I think that money is one of those things that whenever i is brought up it is very awkward I try not to involve myself with any of these things. I couldn't tell you who is or is not on welfare in Roberts Montana. Nor do I really care for that matter. That is their business. I can imagine that it would affect some of the people around here however. What ever way it going it will affect people all around.
"I never called back to get the referral (to a gastrointestinal) specialist, because we cannot for it."
While it is sad that people are not getting the medical attention that they may need or want are they doing everything that the general doctor told them to do? Have they tried changing their diet? Things like this can help your problem. I guess I have a hard time feeling bad for people until I know for a fact that they have done everything that they can do for themselves. There are also jobs that you can do from home. Have they looked into these/
"Somebody my age could actually be able to go out, find a job, get a career and their life going."
Maybe they need to look into other options for themselves. Often times there are jobs available but people don't want to work them or feel that they are too good for them. This does not make me feel bad for you. If you are broke then you should be looking to get any job that you possibly can not thinking you are too good to work a job.
"I think the purpose of Medicaid is to help people when they need help. It's not a permanent fix. W';; work again. People go through some times when they need some help. It's not welfare; it;s not charity."
While people often times feel that if they get on it they will be able to find a job and work again. This idea is a great way to think. However, once someone is handed something for no work, such as free money it is hard for them to want to work again. I do believe that some people get on it to get a little assistance and then find a job and are able to get off it. What about the people that once they get on it don't get off? What about the ones that use it as a main source of income and have no intention of ever getting a job as long as they can stay on assistance and get money for not working? This is where the issue comes in. I don't have a problem helping people out that need help. However, if I am going to be getting out of bed and going to work to give you my money then you better be doing everything that you can to get a job also. To me it's all about paying it forward. Someone helped you out while you were down. Now it is your turn to get a job and help others out while they are down. Not stay down and milk the system for all it is worth.
I don't hate anything more than when people try and push their beliefs on me so I am not going to do this to people. I have a feeling that by the people are old enough to go and vote they know what they stand for and what right and wrong is. Therefore keep those things in in mind as do as you please. Also I know that I am not always right. Therefore maybe there is something to it that I am not seeing.
Monday, March 2, 2015
#9
All across America people are either taking advantage of our right or trying to take our rights away. In America we are promised a few things. Things like to be protected. However, no where does it say that we are promised healthcare. In our government class we have spent the last trying to decide if healthcare is a right or privilege.
No the Declaration in Independence does not guarantee that we will receive healthcare. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." No where in there does it say to me that we are guaranteed healthcare. The DOI just says that you are promised to be happy.
"We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
This is still not saying that they will provide you with healthcare. While what your welfare is can be taken in many different ways. To me healthcare is not taken as part of this.
"We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life..." To me still not promising healthcare. To me healthcare is not one of life's basic necessities. However, on the other side of the argument some people may think of it in that way and make. Healthcare is not one of life's necessities because we can technically go without it.
Napolitano and Cannon both argue that healthcare if not require. They agree with me in the fact that is not in the constitution. They also believe in the fact that it is not a promise of life. No where in life is it promised that you will receive healthcare.
Sanghoee, Bigby, and Pham were on the opposite side of the argument. They feel that healthcare is a privilege. If it is not mentioned in the constitution when Obama was elected he make it a right. With the Obama Care stuff going on right now that made it a right. Everyone is required to have health insurance. If an individual does not have health insurance then they are fined. These particular people feel that with lower healthcare costs we will see an increase in people going to the doctor. People will be more willing to go if they can afford it rather than waiting too long to go in.
We have spend time looking at both sides of the argument. I feel that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. While Obama is trying to make healthcare more affordable he is still not making it a right. He is making it more of a right then it was before but I still do not feel that it a right. A right is something that just comes to you. As Americans we have the right to work, we have the right to practice our own religion, we have the right to be who we want to be. We do not have the right to healthcare. No where in America are we promised to healthcare. Yes it is provided, but no one is going to make you go and you are not going to get in trouble for not going. Not a single document that founded our country or our state for that matter promises you that you will have healthcare.
No the Declaration in Independence does not guarantee that we will receive healthcare. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." No where in there does it say to me that we are guaranteed healthcare. The DOI just says that you are promised to be happy.
"We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
This is still not saying that they will provide you with healthcare. While what your welfare is can be taken in many different ways. To me healthcare is not taken as part of this.
"We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life..." To me still not promising healthcare. To me healthcare is not one of life's basic necessities. However, on the other side of the argument some people may think of it in that way and make. Healthcare is not one of life's necessities because we can technically go without it.
Napolitano and Cannon both argue that healthcare if not require. They agree with me in the fact that is not in the constitution. They also believe in the fact that it is not a promise of life. No where in life is it promised that you will receive healthcare.
Sanghoee, Bigby, and Pham were on the opposite side of the argument. They feel that healthcare is a privilege. If it is not mentioned in the constitution when Obama was elected he make it a right. With the Obama Care stuff going on right now that made it a right. Everyone is required to have health insurance. If an individual does not have health insurance then they are fined. These particular people feel that with lower healthcare costs we will see an increase in people going to the doctor. People will be more willing to go if they can afford it rather than waiting too long to go in.
We have spend time looking at both sides of the argument. I feel that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. While Obama is trying to make healthcare more affordable he is still not making it a right. He is making it more of a right then it was before but I still do not feel that it a right. A right is something that just comes to you. As Americans we have the right to work, we have the right to practice our own religion, we have the right to be who we want to be. We do not have the right to healthcare. No where in America are we promised to healthcare. Yes it is provided, but no one is going to make you go and you are not going to get in trouble for not going. Not a single document that founded our country or our state for that matter promises you that you will have healthcare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)