Letter from Dillon: HELP!

I've been calling on Schweitzer to quite lying for years now (0.00 / 0)

Dennis McDonald supports "clean coal" - I'll bet dollars to donuts he supports this too.

All of Schweitzer's quest for coal - and McDonald's support of the same - build to stuff like this.  Investment for out of state and out of country (China - talk about a rapacious corporate industrialized nation) interests.  

It all began with the quest for coal.  The pollution of Coalstrip and the steady approval of more and more mining.  Where was the cry then?

It's worthy, also, to mention McDonald's two-steppin' flip-floppin' on coal.  How anyone would believe him to be anything better than Rehberg is mystifying.  At least Rehberg's up front about pandering to oil and coal and gas.

I'll say this much - I mighta voted for Baucus the last time around, but I knew exactly what I was getting.  He's upfront about what he is (though I won't be voting for him again - though I don't think, either, that I will get the opportunity to deny him my vote).  Schweitzer?  Never voted for him...just as I won't with McDonald.

Doesn't mean I'm voting for Rehberg (or that I voted for Brown), but to continually try to put people in office that so very obviously pander to their own special interests (themselves) is not on my list of priorities anymore.

In today's news, China has officially surpassed the U.S. in clean wind energy.  The U.S. has more potential - and Montana has plenty of abandoned mill sites, adjacent to rail roads, an prime for development of manufacturing of those giant windmills.

So why are we a colonial outpost for California and Idaho and China?

More and more I think about it lately, Schweitzer doesn't have his sights set on higher office - he's heading the way of old Conrad Burns, and going the lobbyist route.  There's more money in it, perfect for someone just like himself.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 21:05:50 PM UTC

What is this country suppose to do for Energy?? (0.00 / 0)

Lets see- we're told we should oppose oil drilling in a major part of the country-and offshore- oppose coal- oppose gas drilling- and now noone wants the transmission lines for wind powered or clean coal powered electricity in their back yard...What do some of you propose should power the computers you write these blogs on in the future?

I live in a county (Valley) with a gas pipeline going thru it- which the land has been so reclaimed that if you didn't know where the pipeline was you wouldn't find it..Which is also one of the biggest taxpayers to the county..

Now we have a proposed Canadian owned Pipeline coming thru ( which some out of area radical enviros are already fighting for no good reason- apparently just hate oil)... A project which will again be a boon for local business's, workers, and taxpayers- as their share of property taxes could take a large load off others...

But is the Dem party going to become "the Party of No" on all energy and development projects...
The Dem Party and Interior Dept already got 95% of the locals stirred up and wanting to string up anyone with a (D) behind there name over the leaked memos proclaiming to support making all or a portion of 3 counties up here into a buffalo commons national monument.. Now I hope they don't take on energy progress in the state too...

---

by: Oldtimer @ Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 23:09:14 PM UTC

Well, Oldtimer . . . (0.00 / 0)

No one is saying that energy of some kind isn't needed.  And I don't know anyone who thinks we can immediately go cold-turkey on coal, even the dirtiest kind.  Ditto for oil and natural gas.

But these energy sources eventually need to be phased out and replaced with wind, solar, geothermal, and other kinds.

But the arguments you're making, as far as I can follow them, have nothing to do with MSTI. MSTI is a heartless scheme to ruin some of the most beautiful parts of Montana so a large corporation can make tons of money by sending energy generated mostly by coal to Las Vegas so they can keep their lights on all night.

By the way, none of the energy connected with the MSTI project will be available to Montanans.  

If the project is approved, it's true that some counties will derive tax revenues from NWE to site their power lines.  But NWE has admitted that their tax bill will be passed on to consumers in all the counties they serve in the form of higher power bills.  So Missoulans, for example, will indirectly pay for the taxes paid by NWE to Beaverhead, Madison, and Jefferson Counties.

(This doesn't mean that people in Beaverhead County are going to allow our commissioners to be bought off with the promise of higher tax revenues.)  

And your criticism of Democrats, in this instance, is misplaced. This isn't just a Democratic issue.  In a meeting last week in Dillon, 200 people showed up to rail at a NWE energy representative.  About half of them were Republicans -- ranchers and other property owners who don't want their land values lowered by this project.

Please go to www.keepitrural.net. This anti-MSTI site is sponsored by a bi-partisan group in our county.  At the Keep It Rural site, you'll find out why MSTI is so despised in Beaverhead County.

The problem is not, as your subject heading suggests, that we're short on energy.  According to the governor, we have too much energy in our state.  That's why he backs this scheme to send the surplus to Wayne Newton.  Why not keep the energy we have in-state and, since there's too much of it, lower our rates?

---

by: Turner @ Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 00:41:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is no such thing as clean coal (0.00 / 0)

Using that term is a lie. Not only is it a lie, the industry spends a minuscule amount in search of it.

Coal is toxic. It's byproduct is toxic. It pollutes water tables - both the mining and the burning of it...just ask the community of Coalstrip.

Both parties, it seems to me, are beholden to the old energy interests. Here at the state level, we can't even get a commitment out of the energy policy committees in the legislature to commit to clean energy.

Clean energy - wind energy - is one of the newer technologies that exist, and where is that industry centered? In Europe and in China.  The U.S. gave away its steel industry..it's giving away it's timber industry to Canada..and now even the infrastructure for wind will be shipped here from Holland and China and N. Korea.

Buy American?  It doesn't exist anymore - and not only that, our electeds are all to happy to facilitate it.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:30:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wind Energy: If MSTI is built, wind can be sent anywhere its needed--even to cities right here in Montana! (0.00 / 0)

Some of the posters to this story don't like Dennis McDonald, Brian Schweitzer, because the posters are still hooked on oil, gas and coal for our energy needs.  China is getting far ahead of us in developing wind turbine technology, and if the U.S. doesn't jump on the bandwagon soon, China will get even richer off U.S. citizens who don't want a MSTI (nimby).

If Montana develops the wind power that it has the potential to do, it will need North Western Energy and its power lines to transport this energy--even to cities and farms in Montana.  MSTI can be green, but only if it is given the chance.  Right now MSTI will only be able to transport energy made from oil, gas and coal, and this is not sustainable in the long run. I expect that years down the road to be sure, power will be transported underground instead of above ground--but the costs have to come down for that to happen.

I don't agree that MSTI's costs will be born my Montana rate payers when the power is being sold to out-of-staters.  If North Western Energy makes profits from these out-of-state sales, then doesn't it stand to reason that the Montana rate payers should reap some of the monetary benefits?  Seems to me that the Montana Public Service Commission could see to it that Montanans are not stuck for any of the costs involved with transporting power through the MSTI lines to out-of-state purchasers.

---

by: Gypsy @ Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:37:11 AM UTC

I spoke with a commissioner at the Public Service Commission (0.00 / 0)

about these MSTI lines and whether they were or had the ability to regulate them. I'd say it was about a month and a half ago.

They don't.  The basic of what he told me was that they don't have the ability to do so because they go outside of the state.

So will the Montana ratepayers pick up a disproportionate share?  You betcha.  It's the FERC that we'd have to rely on - good luck with that.

The basis of these lines is to move COAL energy.  Filthy dirty coal.  So Montana can mine it, burn it and send it on to other states.

Now that's "clean energy" for America if I ever saw it.

Again - Montana is nothing but a colonial outpost for the rest of America to rape and pillage and leave their garbage strewn across our landscape so that they can turn on their air conditioners and power what fast food chains.

Those that don't learn from their history are doomed to repeat it.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:36:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I also urge you and everyone else (0.00 / 0)

 to call the Montana Public Service Commission and ask yourself.

Their number is (406) 444-6199 V/TDD

---

by: jhwygirl @ Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:39:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The PSC (0.00 / 0)

only concern themselves with rate issues.  They'll be involved in hiking power rates to recover taxes assessed on NWE for their towers.  They routinely cave to the power company.

They don't get involved in siting issues.

PSC member John Vincent has come out against MSTI.  But only as a private citizen.

---

by: Turner @ Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 13:45:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I didn't contact the PSC to inquire about siting (0.00 / 0)

I contacted them to ensure that MT citizens wouldn't be picking up the tab for out-of-state power purchasers.

Because the lines go out of state, the PSC has no regulatory authority to review how the costs for transmission will be assessed of Montana consumers.

I was told by the PSC member that I spoke to that any concerns that I have regarding the cost to Montana ratepayers had to be directed towards FERC.

There are other state agencies involved in this permitting too - not just DEQ.  FWP would be involved in 124 permits and any FWP land holding crossings and the DNRC would be involved in any crossings on state trust lands.

Which leaves some of this decision to the State Land Board - so it's more than just Schweitzer that can be pressured.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:08:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks, jhwygirl (0.00 / 0)

That's useful information.  I was a little vague about who actually does the permitting.

Most members of the Land Board are approachable, I think. I think Juneau and Bullock are fairly independent of you-know-who.

---

by: Turner @ Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 13:52:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Juneau for sure (0.00 / 0)

and Bullock I've yet to write off.  I spoke with him about his Otter Creek "NO" - to thank him - and he said it wasn't because of the inability to protect the environment, it was the fiduciary responsibility to the trust.

Made it sound, to me, that if we'da gotten more money, he'd of been OK with it.  And that bothered me.

But yeah - I do think that Bullock is pretty independent, as opposed to Lindeen and McCulloch, good little soldiers that they are.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 23:52:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, all of the state elected officials are independent (0.00 / 0)

Those who work for the governor, such as the DNRC, report to him, but not the other elected officials.

---

by: Montana Cowgirl @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:44:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What I was implying (0.00 / 0)

and what Turner was, too, I'm pretty sure, was that McCulloch and Lindeen march the Schweitzer line.  Bullock and Juneau are independent thinkers with a mind of their own.

I would suggest that no one - NO ONE - works for the Governor, save for, perhaps, his own personal staff.  Anyone else - like the DNRC as you cite - works for the citizens of the State of Montana.

But hey - that's just me.  Brian might have other ideas.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 00:54:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

WRONG (0.00 / 0)

every state employee in the executive branch works for the governor, just as they work for their agency director. the line of command goes directly down from the governor. he is the CEO. just as everyone in the justice dept works for the AG, in the SOS office works for the SOS, etc.  

---

by: Montana Cowgirl @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 04:06:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So Brian is Emperor? (0.00 / 0)

Or Dictator?  Or King?

He has absolute control over all state funds?  Not the legislators, who appropriate the money?  The representatives elected by THE PEOPLE?

You're saying that the employees of the state DON'T answer to the people of the state?  

Is that what you are saying?

Hell, by your thinking, we don't even need to have a legislative session.  Or laws.  Or rules.  Or a state constitution.

Wow.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 20:04:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Max Baucus and Northwestern Energy are Misleading Montanans (0.00 / 0)

Both Senator Max Baucus and Northwestern Energy (NYSE: NWE) CEO Bob Rowe are purposefully misleading Montanans on the state's commitment to green energy.

In recent media interviews about a memorandum of agreement between Western Area Power Administration and NWE to explore wind energy transmission projects, Baucus and Rowe say MSTI is necessary to transport clean energy and create jobs. However, NWE has already admitted that MSTI will not be eligible for the clean energy tax break, and instead calculated property tax payments to the five counties along the line at the rate of 12% set by state law for coal transmission. MSTI would connect at Townsend with Colstrip. It will be carrying substantial amounts of coal-fired power. On jobs, a recently release draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) said MSTI permanent job creation "would be minimal," and of the 205 jobs created most would be temporary and filled by out-of-state contractors.

Because wind is intermittent, variable and sometimes doesn't blow at all, it is calculated that on average over time the MSTI line would be supplying approximately 65 percent of the total carrying capacity of the line to brown energy. Colstrip ranks 12th in the nation in the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. The MSTI line will do absolutely NOTHING to reduce CO2 output at Colstrip.

If the total amount of wind energy "proposed" for Montana were all developed it would still be 12 million tons short of negating Colstrip's annual CO2 output of 17 million tons! So Montana is, and will continue to be, a leading CO2 polluter for decades to come, especially with the sale, transport and burning of Otter Creek Coal and the 571 million tons of CO2 a year it will produce.

Senator Baucus, CEO Rowe, our entire congressional delegation and our governor all talk wind, but they all walk coal. The only people who win IF MSTI moves forward are NWE shareholders and the elected officials representing and benefiting from large corporate interests.

Why are a growing number of Montanans concerned MSTI?

1. It represents bad energy policy because it relies heavily on non-renewable and CO2-emitting energy sources.

2. MSTI threatens public, historic and private lands for energy not intended for Montanans.

3. MSTI infrastructure will be paid by ALL Montanans in HIGHER RATES for the benefit of Northwestern Energy shareholders, not citizens. We've been down this path before with NWE.

4. Montanans don't take kindly to manipulation by those we elected into office to represent the people, not big corporate interests.

5. NWE has NO contracts with the markets it claims to serve and NO access to those markets! Why is the Governor promoting a transmission project to nowhere and nobody and on the backs of energy ratepayers?

 

---

by: urserious @ Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 14:49:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

NWE will pass on their taxes to consumers (0.00 / 0)

You may not "agree" that this will happen, but NWE admitted in public forums that they will recover all their tax bills from consumers.  They call it standard business practice.

So we have abundant energy, of several kinds.  Why are we exporting this energy when we can transmit it over existing power lines within the state while not degrading our environment?

Gypsy, please go to keepitrural.net and read all the virtually unanswerable arguments against MSTI.  Whether or not we should support this project is not a close thing. It's the the corporation versus the people plain and simple.

---

by: Turner @ Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 14:58:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is such a simple issue (0.00 / 0)

The MSTI line will "someday" carry upwards of 15 percent wind energy, the rest (85 percent) is traditional energy from sources like coal. Repeat this seven times and devote it to memory. We are not talking about green energy here. This is simply green washing. It's insulting.

There is an excellent website: keepitrural.net. Learn more about this issue. Support Montanans, not corporate greed - especially a company that within this decade filed bankruptcy and drove our energy rates sky high.

If NWE gets approval to move forward, that's really all they need. Then they position the company for a buy out by a big multi-national energy company. The asset is the DEQ nod.

Visitmontana.gov showcases the Montana brand. Imagine behemoth transmission lines superimposed onto those lovely pictures. Imagine the individuals, communities, business and local economies impacted on MSTI's path. What's more - ALL Montanans will pay higher rates as a result of the proposed project - to the benefit of NWE shareholders, not Montanans.

P.S. On a human note: Let's not forget about the abuse of eminent domain.  Imagine if a NWE representative knocked on your door and said, "like it or not, we are running a high-voltage transmission line on 140-foot towers through your property...because you need to do your part to facilitate 'green' energy."  How would you feel?

---

by: urserious @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 06:47:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Personal Opinion (0.00 / 0)

Well personally- I'd rather see a little raping and pillaging- along with profiteering (both for/by the taxpayers of the state- and state government)- rather then the current practices of sending all our energy dollars to fund foreign governments and oil cartels- that promote to be your friend today, but are your enemy tommorrow..

I think we are lucky in this state that we have the energy money coming in to balance our budgets...But the Bakken field of oil and gas will not supply all or last forever....

I happen to agree with Governor Schweitzer that the main reason we don't have many more wind turbine fields operating or being built in Montana is because #1 we don't have the transmission capability to send it out of state where needed and #2 we still have no Long Term Energy Policy for the Energy Companies to go by and make their decisions on long term (10-15-20-50 year ) projects.....

I'm an Independent- and see it that the reason Gov Schweitzer and many Dems have still received high ratings is that they have not bought into the "Greeny-Weeny" radical left ideals that we should all live in a log cabin- milk a cow- and chop firewood (Hell- in this country we don't even have any trees- coal fired the homesteaders cabins)..
But if they keep opposing all energy development- those numbers for the Dems will drop thru the floor.....

I wish some of you that disagree- would give me some answers on how you plan to solve the ever increasing energy needs of this country....

---

by: Oldtimer @ Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:19:43 AM UTC

Problem with this: (0.00 / 0)

" rather then the current practices of sending all our energy dollars to fund foreign governments and oil cartels"

 
is that without a national energy policy that is directly lowering our dependence on foreign oil, and being at the mercy of the "petro-dictators", we'll keep creating new sources of energy--like wind and coal development in Montana--but we won't curtail our oil usage. So we'll compound one problem on top of the other.

Solutions? Easy. We've got to decrease our energy use, and move to cleaner sources of energy. How do we do that? Once again its easy. The government needs to use its powers of taxation and R&D moneys to pick the right winners and losers. SO we need to quit subsidizing big oil and big coal--need to increase taxes and royalties. We need to take the savings from those moves and begin subsidizing new energy domestically, and subsidize retrofits for efficiency, and subsidize new construction and manufacturing.

Problem with all that is that the petro-dictators and corporo-fascists already have their meathooks sunk into our treasury (and are addicted to their huge profits), and extricating them ain't going to be easy. They own our Congress, and already dictate policy.

As we watch policy changes evolve over the next few years to a decade, we'll see just who really controls this country already. If we get sanity, and the government dries up the big oil and big coal tit and starts subsidizing and prioritizing alternatives, then maybe we can make it. If not, we have a huge oil war looming that will be the end of this country. There's no way we can nationalize the middle east oil (and now strategic minerlas in Afghanistan) and keep the jihadists from terrorizing us to armageddon.

---

by: JC @ Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 15:45:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Citizens Speak Out Against MSTI (0.00 / 0)

A healthy mix of dryland democrats, republicans, ranchers, NWE ratepayers and everyone in between attended the Whitehall public meeting re: MSTI last night.

The gym was packed and parking spots were non-existent by 6 pm. The DEQ and BLM representatives last night admitted this is the most controversial issue they've ever encountered.

Why?

The Governor calls 500kv transmission lines innovative. They are like rotary phones - old school. Energy policy in this nation has come a long way. There's a great article in the July National Geographic about this: http://ngm.nationalgeographic....  

NWE DOES NOT have ANY formal contracts to deliver this energy to CA, NV, AZ. NWE is NOT formally connected to out-of-state transmission lines to transport energy out of state. Why is this proposal even getting serious consideration?

Citizens spoke out that NWE simply wants the EIS approval, which is legally binding for 10 years. This will make NWE a very attractive buyout candidate for Trans Canada? In turn, this will make NWE shareholders happy, but at the cost of private, public, historic and environmentally sensitive land...at the cost of jobs. BTW, if the governor states MSTI is needed for job creation, the draft EIS states job creation in Montana "is minimal!" What about the jobs lost as a result of the line -- agriculture, tourism, recreation, real estate...and all those support those sectors?

MSTI is not about smart energy policy, NWE has no out-of-state "customers," NWE cannot formally access AZ, CA, NV. NWE is banking on EIS approval, to turn a healthy profit, which benefits shareholders, not Montanans.

---

by: urserious @ Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 16:13:31 PM UTC

Today's Ruling Against DEQ Is A Victory to MSTI Opponents (0.00 / 0)

What follows is text from a press release regarding today's ruling against the DEQ re: MSTI

Today's Jefferson County Ruling Called Major Victory By MSTI Opponents

Today a five-county alliance of citizens opposing Northwestern Energy's (NYSE: NWE) proposed 500 kV Mountain State Transmission Intertie (MSTI) called Judge Tucker's ruling against the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) a victory for local government and the citizens and landowners they represent.

The alliance, which includes citizens from Beaverhead, Broadwater, Butte-Silver Bow, Jefferson and Madison counties, was legally incorporated in August and is called Concerned Citizens Montana (CCM).

Rob Thomas, CCM executive board member from Beaverhead County, said the ruling today is significant. "I have great admiration and gratitude for the Jefferson County Commissioners who fought on behalf of their constituents to make sure our state government doesn't ignore the law and run roughshod over local government," said Thomas.

CCM members contend the DEQ has denied citizens along the proposed MSTI path the opportunity through their commissioners to be represented on this major proposal.

As proposed in the draft copy of the EIS, MSTI will extend from a new substation near Townsend, Mont. and then through several miles of private land north of Whitehall and down the Jefferson Valley crossing the Big Hole River at the Notch. It continues south past Dillon and into the Beaverhead River canyon, through the Red Rocks River valley and into Idaho via Monida Pass to the Midpoint Substation in south central Idaho near Jerome.

Deb Hanneman, Jefferson County resident added "The impact of MSTI on the property rights of citizens, especially those of our farming and ranching community, were ignored by the DEQ when this agency ignored county government, and this is especially important because eminent domain (confiscation of private land) can be imposed on land owners for power lines under state law. Jefferson County residents feel a great sense of relief today."

Concerned Citizens Montana (www.concernedcitizensmontana.net), a non-partisan umbrella organization for Montana citizen groups opposing MSTI, was legally incorporated in August 2010. CCM serves as a clearinghouse for public information and serves to unite citizen efforts and resources to ensure NWE and elected officials are representing the best interests of Montanans.

CCM believes MSTI represents bad energy policy because it relies heavily on non-renewable and CO2-emitting energy sources, and threatens public, historic and private lands for energy not intended for Montanans. CCM believes the cost for the MSTI infrastructure will be paid by Montanans in higher rates for the benefit of Northwestern Energy shareholders, not citizens. Founding CCM members include groups from Beaverhead, Broadwater, Butte-Silver Bow, Jefferson and Madison counties.

---

by: urserious @ Thu Sep 09, 2010 at 05:24:51 AM UTC

Baucas Caught in a Lie... (0.00 / 0)

Unfortunately Baucus and NWE's CEO have been caught in a lie. Let's get real about MSTI. The stakes are getting higher and Baucus is listening to the big money behind the project, not Montanans. Here are some inconvenient truths about MSTI: They're talking "green" again. Recently in a news story in the Dillon Tribune a Northwestern Energy spokesman estimated the amount of property taxes generated for Montana's county and state government by MSTI at a 12 percent rate - the rate applicable for lines carrying coal and hydro-generated power. This admission by Northwestern Energy discredits public statements that MSTI will be transport 'clean and green' renewable energy. The same spokesman at the Whitehall public meeting said MSTI is not green. In fact, estimates are that the line will never carry more than 15 percent green energy even with contracts. For example, MSTI in the foreseeable future will be carrying about 65% coal generated electricity from Colstrip. Colstrip is the and the 12th highest emitter of CO2. Green? MSTI will have NO impact on reducing Colstrip generation. MSTI would, then, "firm" wind (no matter where it originates from) with coal. If ALL of potential in-state or out-of-state wind development occurs it would still fall 12 million tons a year short of negating just Colstrip's CO2 output of around 17 million tons a year. Coal power transmitted on MSTI could even exceed 65% if the BPA increases the amount it charges NWE to transmit it over their system. And sending wind power to Arizona and Nevada doesn't seem to have precluded the planned development of new coal-fired generation in those states. This is an irresponsible, big-money-backed proposal that harms Montanans. We will pay California rates for our energy, and NWE shareholders will get rich. The bigger picture is NWE's need for the EIS approval, which becomes an asset to sell or merge the company with, say, TransCanada. Is that what we want. Then we will really lose control of our ability to control energy costs within this state. Montanans don't like to be manipulated. Greenwashing is manipulation!

---

by: urserious @ Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 16:38:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

max baucus only listens to big money (0.00 / 0)

people are irrelevant to him and his staff.
we only have to see the jacked up rates by health insurance maggots to see that his so-called health care reform bill was just a monopoly and a bonus bonanza for the big health insurers. they are enjoying record profits and are raising their rates even higher until most of us will not be able to afford it.  

---

by: problembear @ Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 18:57:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]