Vote Public Lands

[VikingsGuy]

rampant spending without any power to negotiate drug prices within the healthcare system.

. . .

Allowing the gov't to negotiate drug prices would significantly reduce spending, and would help eliminate the opiod epidemic. Even single payer would bring down the cost of healthcare by increasing the pool of insured to help reduce risk significantly. Both of those are free market solutions to healthcare costs, but pharma and insurance industries won't let that happen.

Whomever said that it's all interconnected is absolutely right. Public lands management suffers because pharma controls the VA, Medicare/Medicaid. Control the for-profit, gov't sanctioned drug pushers and a lot of other things get better.

Ben, you lost me here - you are usually a voice of reason, but this is so off the mark I suggest you stick to hunting, public lands and conservation topics. It would take pages to point out how flawed this line of thinking is, and this is not the forum for that and I do not have the time, but by way a small example. Pharma companies profit rates over the last five years are less than the computer companies, software companies, transportation companies and beverage companies. Even if every pharmaceutical in the US was sold at actual production cost, you would only save $55 billion of spending for all public and private sales against a govt deficit of $1,000 billion. Pharma companies have become the left's version of "the govt. is coming to take your guns". I have lived under single payer health systems and half my team lives in single payer systems - they universally agree the US has it great in comparison. The reason our costs are so high is that we a a society refuse to place any limits on health spending for the last 12 months of life or extreme preemies. Other countries save a lot of money by portioning out health care and by denying "hail mary" costs that Americans seem to think are their birthright.

 

[shoots-straight]

Comments like these are divisive to the hunting community. If some of us choose a concern over public lands, you should honor that. By insinuating that those who will vote on abortion concerns over public lands have no common sense, you have drawn lines that are unnecessary. Instead focus on what can be done to unite us.

You can get off your soap box now. If you choose to vote that direction then there's no uniting us your probably supporting those that are against us. Sorry it is what it is. As was stated earlier, with Roe vs Wade on the books there's very little your going to gain but much to lose by giving away our public lands.

 

[onpoint]

I can frankly think of nothing more "divisive" to the hunting community than a (public land) hunter casting a vote for a politician who does not unequivocally talk the talk as well as walk the walk regarding opposition to any Public Lands bullshit.

 

[elkduds]

Appreciate the efforts here to circle back to the original issue: voting for or against public lands.

Most here recognize there are layers of interconnected cogs in gov't budgeting. RE reasons why our health care system spends far more than other 1st-world countries, w worse health outcomes, this belongs in the discussion. 75% of our health care budget goes to chronic illnesses; kidney disease, cancer, RA, MS, and more commonly diabetes, heart disease, hypertension.
https://health.usnews.com/health-ne...ss-accounts-for-75-percent-of-health-spending
Health care systems w universal coverage use it to prevent or diagnose/treat these early on. Their cost savings from this are huge compared to our system, in which uninsured people lack access to preventive care. If they develop a chronic illness and remain uninsured, many use Emergency Room care when most ill, $$$$$ that hospitals pay for through charging insured patients more for their care.

Many diagnosed w severe chronic illnesses are disabled by them. Loss of working/earning, Medicare, Medicaid, more socialized medicine, higher entitlement spending and taxes. The point is, a system that provides everyone w preventative and early treatment of chronic illnesses greatly reduces health care spending and improves outcomes- healthier people earning and paying taxes, rather than consuming tax-funded health care and disability income.

 

[Sytes]

The best way to promote support for public lands...

 

[onpoint]

The best way to promote support for public lands...

Kinda' resembles a young Trump.
Good point Sytes, this tactic seems to have worked for him

 

[Sytes]

Kinda' resembles a young Trump.
Good point Sytes, this tactic seems to have worked for him

No worries, Onpoint. Good first step to acknowledge the similarities.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Kinda' resembles a young Trump.

His hair never looked that good.

 

[ptlaro]

Neither party is perfect, but living in a State where the Dems run everything, I know not to vote for them. They will eventually take you rights away from you. Take a national perspective on who you vote for. Do you want 2nd amend rights taken away, open borders, Sanctuary cities, higher taxes, weak military. They admit they are going Socialist as a party.

I support public lands, but don't vote based on one issue. Look at what just happened with the Grizzly bear tags that Idaho and Wyoming were planning. Left environmentalist sued an won. They will protect public land but eventually they will want all hunting stopped and they will win if they are in power.

That is why they are called progressives. They continue taking away a little at a time.

 

[ptlaro]

See next post. Did not quote my reply properly

 

[ptlaro]

Appreciate the efforts here to circle back to the original issue: voting for or against public lands.

Most here recognize there are layers of interconnected cogs in gov't budgeting. RE reasons why our health care system spends far more than other 1st-world countries, w worse health outcomes, this belongs in the discussion. 75% of our health care budget goes to chronic illnesses; kidney disease, cancer, RA, MS, and more commonly diabetes, heart disease, hypertension.
https://health.usnews.com/health-ne...ss-accounts-for-75-percent-of-health-spending
Health care systems w universal coverage use it to prevent or diagnose/treat these early on. Their cost savings from this are huge compared to our system, in which uninsured people lack access to preventive care. If they develop a chronic illness and remain uninsured, many use Emergency Room care when most ill, $$$$$ that hospitals pay for through charging insured patients more for their care.

Many diagnosed w severe chronic illnesses are disabled by them. Loss of working/earning, Medicare, Medicaid, more socialized medicine, higher entitlement spending and taxes. The point is, a system that provides everyone w preventative and early treatment of chronic illnesses greatly reduces health care spending and improves outcomes- healthier people earning and paying taxes, rather than consuming tax-funded health care and disability income.

Most those diseases are hereditary and just because people have healthcare does not mean they will live a healthy lifestyle. A healthy lifestyle is dependent upon each individual and heredity.

I know many people that have diabetes, RA,MS, cancer and they had healthcare but it was not prevented. How does having healthcare prevent these diseases.

Unless you see universal healthcare and the government telling you how and what to eat, what your weight should be etc.... I think that is called communism.

The fact is if people have their healthcare paid for them, what is the incentive to live healthy? None.

 

[3855WIN]

Are the pro public voters ready to sign over their Western Montana land to the government? Montana is low on public land for a Western State. This would create a vast area of great hunting and make a bridge for Griz to interbreed.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Do you want 2nd amend rights taken away, open borders, Sanctuary cities, higher taxes, weak military. They admit they are going Socialist as a party.

ptlaro, I do understand and relate to your concerns, but this question/statement is laden with the right wing fear-mongering buzz phrases which don't really have substance unless you explain, as an example, what does "open borders" really mean as a platform agenda of either party? Do you honestly think Democrats in Congress really want to weaken border security? Think about the term "socialism" and how it has morphed into an emotional fear as a result of the Cold War and the opposition to "communism", often misunderstood to be synonymous with socialism. Many highly successful programs of most free democratic countries are in fact "socialistic". Social Security and Medicare are prime examples of socialistic programs which have been successful and are held dear by most of your countrymen and women. Would you vilify those programs and desire to end them merely because your fear is "socialism"?
For me, it is helpful to listen to the Republicans and the Democrats (and Independents) whose ideas are sensible and reasonable, such as an approach to health care which fixes the current problems and incorporates capitalistic, as well as socialistic, dynamics to improve the system on behalf of all Americans. Reiterating and exacerbating the divisiveness by merely spewing the buzz words and phases of either party is not helpful.

 

[MTGomer]

Social security is successful.............. lol.

 

[BrentD]

I have to admit that I've really always taken public lands for granted and started my hunting on them in the Arrowhead Country of NE Minnesota. They have always been there, and I have always assumed (until recently) that they always would be there. For those that are not in a western state, and especially not in a Central Plains state like Iowa, where there is next to nothing for federal public lands, this issue is probably not even on their radars. Public lands might be even more important to me than they are to the average Wyote, or Montanan, or Coloradan. Until a few years ago, I've always thought they would safely be there for me. Now, MY senators and congress critters would not think twice about dumping public lands if the stars align, as they seem to be doing. Those 5 people are each far more dangerous to public hunting than the congress critters in the western states. They have literally nothing to lose, because their voters don't see this topic as important or relevant, esp. beyond a very few ballyhooed national parks.

I'm not sure what we can do about that, but raising awareness outside of the hunting world and outside of the states that are most likely to be involved, could be critical.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Social security is successful.............. lol.

Question, cynicism, or joke? If an expressed doubt of "success", be aware that my 99-year old Mom, her coffee group, and millions of other retired and just-getting-by senior citizens (and many millions of others now passed) would "take you to the woodshed" for that comment.

 

[onpoint]

StraightArrow,, your longevity and - most likely - your life experience(s) show in your posts. Thanks.
Interesting the perspectives those of us who experienced a large chunk of life before the W.W.W. vs. those who have digested the internet's contents their entire lives, and others...…………..
We are a divided bunch - even as "public land hunters" - face it.
I, for one, have no ideas.
Apparently folks such as 406Life doesn't either.

Glad I'm 56 years old, but still young enough to enjoy what's left before those with much more time left squander it away. You'd think someday a next generation would actually learn from the mistakes of the previous, or appreciate the work it took to get what they currently have now.....

Sad.

 

[hank4elk]

ptlaro, I do understand and relate to your concerns, but this question/statement is laden with the right wing fear-mongering buzz phrases which don't really have substance unless you explain, as an example, what does "open borders" really mean as a platform agenda of either party? Do you honestly think Democrats in Congress really want to weaken border security? Think about the term "socialism" and how it has morphed into an emotional fear as a result of the Cold War and the opposition to "communism", often misunderstood to be synonymous with socialism. Many highly successful programs of most free democratic countries are in fact "socialistic". Social Security and Medicare are prime examples of socialistic programs which have been successful and are held dear by most of your countrymen and women. Would you vilify those programs and desire to end them merely because your fear is "socialism"?
For me, it is helpful to listen to the Republicans and the Democrats (and Independents) whose ideas are sensible and reasonable, such as an approach to health care which fixes the current problems and incorporates capitalistic, as well as socialistic, dynamics to improve the system on behalf of all Americans. Reiterating and exacerbating the divisiveness by merely spewing the buzz words and phases of either party is not helpful.

Pretty much spot on.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, you lost me here - you are usually a voice of reason, but this is so off the mark I suggest you stick to hunting, public lands and conservation topics. It would take pages to point out how flawed this line of thinking is, and this is not the forum for that and I do not have the time, but by way a small example. Pharma companies profit rates over the last five years are less than the computer companies, software companies, transportation companies and beverage companies. Even if every pharmaceutical in the US was sold at actual production cost, you would only save $55 billion of spending for all public and private sales against a govt deficit of $1,000 billion. Pharma companies have become the left's version of "the govt. is coming to take your guns". I have lived under single payer health systems and half my team lives in single payer systems - they universally agree the US has it great in comparison. The reason our costs are so high is that we a a society refuse to place any limits on health spending for the last 12 months of life or extreme preemies. Other countries save a lot of money by portioning out health care and by denying "hail mary" costs that Americans seem to think are their birthright.

The rest of the industrialized world would disagree with you. So would my wife who lived under single payer in England and loved it as it finally allowed her to get her heart checked thoroughly due to some family medical history that was indicative of early onset heart failure.

If you're poo-pooing a $50 billion savings, that's the DOI's budget times two. We could use those savings to increase funding for habitat management, fighting noxious weeds, increased trail work & improved forest health with those savings, providing more jobs & better public lands infrastructure for the public land economy. You can't cut one program to get to surplus. You can put together an actual budget that spends appropriately in areas that need it, while cutting fat & reforming sacred cows like defense & health while ensuring revenue is stable by not letting billionaires write off new jets, overtaxing the middle-class or eliminating estate taxes which were purposely set up to avoid another gilded age, or American royalty.

 

[MTGomer]

Question, cynicism, or joke? If an expressed doubt of "success", be aware that my 99-year old Mom, her coffee group, and millions of other retired and just-getting-by senior citizens (and many millions of others now passed) would "take you to the woodshed" for that comment.

Maybe they were better at math when they were younger.

What is successful about a bankrupt pyramid scheme that takes almost 13% of your income (including your employer’s contribution)your entire working life and then provides you with a negative ROI of a couple measly thousand dollars a month.

The same amount invested in any index fund would have yielded thousands of dollars more monthly.

I don’t think it’s existence is a bad thing but it should be optional.
If I was allowed out, I’d be out. I don’t even want paid interest, just out. Even buying bonds at today’s artificially suppressed interest rate would be a MUCH better investment and just as if not more safe.