Welcome, %1$s. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 09:33:45 AM

 
Posts that, in my personal judgement, create too much conflict in the community, may be deleted - If members repost the same topic, they may be banned from future posts - Even though I have disabled the Registration, send me an email at:  vtgrandpa@yahoo.com if you want to register and I will do that for you
Posts: 46150 Topics: 17658 Members: 517
Newest Member: Christy25
*

Show Posts

* Messages | Topics | Attachments

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - cedarman

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 25
31
I heard about two new bills being considered in the VT state legislature:

One, was to require foods containing ingredients using "genetically modified" ingredients to have a label on the package.  The labeling would be the responsibility of the manufacturer.  The sponsor of this bill fully expects the bill will be challenged in court.

I have no problem with out legislature passing controversial bills that "might" be challenged in court, as long as the bill is not in violation of the US Constitution.   By mandating the manufacturer/grower of the food is responsible for the labeling (even if the manufacturer is out of state) appears to put this bill in direct conflict with the US Constitution Interstate Commerce clause.  The federal government is given the authority to regulate interstate commerce under the Constitution, that is clear.  By passing a bill/law in VT that appears to be against the US Constitution, and knowing it WILL be challenged in court, the legislators who support this bill are wasting OUR resources now in debating the bill, and IF it passes, more of OUR resources will be wasted, both in terms of $$ to defend the law, and in court room time that could be used to settle other matters.  I am not a legal expert, and I have no vested interest in the outcome of this bill (I do not work in an industry that would be impacted), but it just sounds like a waste of time and resources.  Maybe our state legislators should be pushing our US Congressional Representatives to address this issue at the Federal level where it is supposed to be handled.

The second bill was mandatory recycling, including recycling of food waste.  Hopefully the sanitation businesses have a plan in place for this, or the state has a plan in place for HOW people in dense population areas can compost food waste.  I am also interested in Why the state didn't implement a container redemption policy similar to NY's where water bottles and other containers would be subject to a deposit to encourage more recylcing?

32
Political Issues/Comments / Re: hearing on Death with Dignity, S.103
« on: March 15, 2012, 10:12:52 AM »
I hope the bill does not phrase it as "doctor prescribed suicide".  When phrased that way, it sounds like something a doctor recommends to his/her patient, like a Rx for pain medication.

33
Political Issues/Comments / Re: health care debate
« on: March 07, 2012, 01:00:06 PM »
I feel like I hear a lot of debate about how to pay for healthcare being called "healthcare reform".  It is NOT.  That is healthcare INSURANCE/PAYMENT reform.  Healthcare reform I think needs to focus more on how to reduce the overall COST of healthcare without significantly reducing the quality.

I have heard of one insurance company paying dr's a premium for every patient signed up for care under that dr/office, even if the dr never sees the patient during the year.  The Dr's are not paid per procedure.  It significantly reduces paperwork for the Dr. office and the Dr. can focus on what (s)he need to treat the patient and not adding on a bunch of extras.

Here is a simple example:  I went to a clinic for strep throat (I knew exactly what it was from repeat experiences). It's in my files with that clinic.  I go through redundant questioning (check in clerk, check in nurse, and the Dr.).  The check in nurse looks at my throat and states it certainly looks like strep, then does a rapid strep test (either out of routine practice, or a need to cover their assets against future liability).  The Dr. comes in (ask the same questions already answered previously), takes on quick look at my throat and states "i would definitely diagnose strep, even without the result (of the rapid strep test)".

I wonder,
IF the clinic was paid by the patient instead of by the procedure, would the $40 rapid strep test have been used when all symptoms indicated strep?
Could electronic software that automatically pulls up relevant patient history when symptoms are presented aid in the diagnosis instead of needing the Rapid strep test?
Could a slightly lower paid Physician Assistant have done the diagnosis and written the Rx for antibiotic?

Then there is the FDA – Did you know they have authority over everything from diagnostic equipment (MRI’s and x-ray machines) and pharmaceutical compounds, to tongue depressors and bed pans?   Maybe if they spent less tax payer money on bed pans and wooden sticks, they could decrease the time (COST) of getting beneficial drug compounds and medical devices to market, thereby, lowering healthcare cost through more efficient use of our tax dollars.

I’ll end my rant for now, but it just seems we need more focus on reducing the cost of the service/product, and not just how to make everyone pay for it.

34
Not the most efficient use of emergency resources, but a use all the same.  The fire department responds to true emergencies, and situations that some people percieve as emergencies.  This time, it turned out to not be an emergency, but it could have just as easily been a medical emergency someone called in. 

35
General Discussion / Re: Banning the use of Galvanized sap Buckets?
« on: February 03, 2012, 02:34:38 PM »
I think when this was being proposed a year or two ago, it changed from can't use galvanized buckets to can't buy, but I could be wrong on that.  I thought the use of tin cans for sale/distribution was no longer allowed under VT law (has to be glass or HDPE plastic).
I don't have a dog in this fight one way or the other (except maybe as a consumer of the end product), but from what I've heard and read about this previously, there have not been any detectable levels of lead in maple syrup, and the move away from old galvanized buckets was based primarily on a "concern" that it might be present.   IF there is any data out there that shows lead in syrup, I would like to see it.  Laws need to be logical based on FACTS (real data), not emotional ("concern") driven.

36
the fact that you wouldn't consider driving in a situation that you don't feel you could handle is a good indicator that you drive responsibly.    It is the people who have deminished capacity to the point that they don't even realize they can't drive in heavy traffic anymore.  However, even then, I personally would still struggle with justifying taking away that persons right to move freely about our country. 

37
I don't mean to sound insensitive to Henry or any other chronologically experienced citizens.

In our present system, any state government could say it is up to the citizen to prove he/she is worthy (capable) of being allowed the "privilege" to drive.  The "proof" would be passing skills tests - just as young drivers do to earn their privilege.   They could make tests that would be difficult for many seniors to pass, or make them annual requirements (at the citizens expense of course). Or maybe the requirement would include an annual DR.'s physical (again, at the citizen's expense)

Personally, I believe we have a Right to travel which means the onus would be on governments to PROVE someone no longer had the ability to drive before they could restrict that person from doing so. 

It is a sensative subject for sure.  Anyone could raise a safety flag and declair this issue extremely important for the safety of everyone on or near the road. 

38
If states base their claim that driving is a "Privilege" and they must control who is allowed that privilege for the safety of all citizens, then the logical conclusion (based on that premise) is that when a citizen can no longer meet the minimum "safety" standards, they can no longer be allowed to drive.

I don't believe hearing has anything to do with driving.  MOST new cars today are virtually sound proof to the outside world.

I also don't believe loss of vision in one eye disqualifies someone (I know a guy with only one eye who successfully competes in dirt track racing - track champion in his division two years ago).

While I may occassionlly be annoyed driving behind someone doing 35 in a 50 mph zone, I do recognize that a speed LIMIT is not a speed minimum, and any driver can travel at a slower speed. It's good that older drivers recognize they have slower reflexes and should travel slower to do so safely.

The biggest concern (in my opinion) would be the drivers with cognitive functions that have deteriorated to the point where they are no longer able to make safe, timely decision while driving.  Like "Do I have time to pull out into traffic (or turn in front of someone)"


39
Political Issues/Comments / Re: Working Lands
« on: January 16, 2012, 03:52:51 PM »
To throw in my 2 cents - government "investment" in alternative energy is one of the only ways new technologies get developed in a field that otherwise would not be cost effective enough to support development on it's own.

Government should NOT be in the business of propping up established businesses on a continual basis.  Some businesses just need to fail to make room for someone else who can do the job better to grow.  Isn't that one of the basic principles of a "free market" economy?

Yes, government (both state and federal) have a limited role in promoting development, but their ultimate role should be to REDUCE regulations that unnecessarily restrict the growth of small (under 1000 employees to toss out a random number) businesses without providing a MAJOR protective benefit to potential customers and society in general.

I don't want the goverment telling what I can feed my kids in my own home.  They SHOULD be making sure companies accurately represent their products and what is in them so I can make a truly informed decision about whether or not a product is good for my family.   Label all foods with exactly what they are treated with chemically during cultivating, harvest, transport and storage, not just sticking a vague label on them that mean very little.


40
"verbally combative".  I wonder where using "abrasive language" and "profanity" falls in the freedom of speech category, especially if he was in his car at the time he was saying whatever he said.  There was no mention of him verbally insulting the officers specifically, or threatening them, both of which would probably have been mentioned in the police report if they occurred since the prosecuter could then pile on more charges.  However, stating a distain for cops and commenting on how cops do their jobs is NOT abuse, and in my opinion is not even grounds for arrest.

I'm not defending the guy. I don't know him.  He sounds like the type who is not a nice person to begin with, or was have a REALLY bad day before the cops got involved and made it worse.  I don't mean to sound like I'm bashing the cops either. 

When I hear stories like this, where the details provided by the officer(s) involved are vague, it makes me wonder about the actual details that happened.  Was "disorderly conduct" applied because the cops didn't like what the guy was saying and he was verbally drawing attention to them.  It's just my personal opinion that "disorderly conduct" is probably one of the most abused charges used by police because it isn't well defined what constitues "disorderly conduct".

41
Announcements / Quality Angus Beef for Sale
« on: November 04, 2011, 07:25:45 AM »
I have a Red Angus steer for sale. Approx. 17 mo. old.  Pasture raised here in Fairfax.  Has not been treated with drugs, hormones, or antibiotics. $1000 for entire animal, or $2.50/lb hanging weight if interested in 1/2.  I expect this beefer will be well over 400 lbs hanging.   

Message me here, or call 518-420-7413.

42
General Discussion / Re: Seeking contact information for Marcel
« on: October 14, 2011, 01:32:54 PM »
Yes, the 2327 number is "not in service", so I'm wondering if anyone here on the forum might know an alternate number, email, or Postal mailing address to contact him.

43
General Discussion / Seeking contact information for Marcel
« on: October 14, 2011, 12:11:26 PM »
I am looking for a mailing address or a phone number where I can reach Marcel Charbonneau.  If anyone knows some contact information for him, please send me a message.   I'm trying to reach him about his house on 104.  The phone number which is commonly found online when searching his name doesn't work.

A neighbor

44
Current News & Events / Re: trust fund babies get their way again
« on: September 23, 2011, 01:42:51 PM »
"why do less than 25% of voters take advantage of the opportunity?"

APATHY

45
Current News & Events / Re: Migrant Farmers Traffic Stop in Vermont
« on: September 15, 2011, 10:15:38 AM »
In my experience, police routinely ask everyone who looks over 16 for identification.   That sounds like pretty standard practice/procedure.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 25
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!