Bruddah IZ
DA
Maybe. I don't know. I didn't follow the whole thing.
Ponderable
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
espoola
SILVER
Lion Eyes will back me up.
The feds were right!,....they made him pay all the fines and destroy his illegal, and despicable pond.
Bruddah IZ
DA
The continuing failure of centrally planned health care
https://www.aei.org/publication/the-continuing-failure-of-centrally-planned-health-care/
Another day, another healthcare co-op failure. In July alone, three co-ops, HealthyCt in Connecticut, Community Care of Oregon, and Land of Lincoln in Illinois announced they are closing up shop. They join 13 other failed co-ops out of the original 23 that were a centerpiece of the Affordable Care Act’s vision for the future of healthcare organization — an unrealistic vision based on wishful thinking and sabotaged by the ACA itself.......
The ACA created Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans (co-ops) — private, state licensed, non-profit health insurance companies — to provide low-cost, consumer friendly coverage to individuals and small businesses. The theory was that since the co-ops didn’t have to show a profit, they could charge lower premiums, provide more services and be more responsive to their members. They would use collective purchasing power to lower administrative and information technology costs and keep members healthy through preventive care and evidence-based medicine.
The new plans would increase competition and lower everyone’s premiums.
Twenty-three plans, funded with $2.4 billion in government loans, opened enrollment in 2013. By the end of 2015, 12 plans had failed, leaving $1.3 billion in delinquent loans, more than 700,000 people in 13 states scrambling for coverage, and hospitals and doctors with hundreds of millions of dollars in losses uncovered by the assets of the failed co-ops.
https://www.aei.org/publication/the-continuing-failure-of-centrally-planned-health-care/
Another day, another healthcare co-op failure. In July alone, three co-ops, HealthyCt in Connecticut, Community Care of Oregon, and Land of Lincoln in Illinois announced they are closing up shop. They join 13 other failed co-ops out of the original 23 that were a centerpiece of the Affordable Care Act’s vision for the future of healthcare organization — an unrealistic vision based on wishful thinking and sabotaged by the ACA itself.......
The ACA created Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans (co-ops) — private, state licensed, non-profit health insurance companies — to provide low-cost, consumer friendly coverage to individuals and small businesses. The theory was that since the co-ops didn’t have to show a profit, they could charge lower premiums, provide more services and be more responsive to their members. They would use collective purchasing power to lower administrative and information technology costs and keep members healthy through preventive care and evidence-based medicine.
The new plans would increase competition and lower everyone’s premiums.
Twenty-three plans, funded with $2.4 billion in government loans, opened enrollment in 2013. By the end of 2015, 12 plans had failed, leaving $1.3 billion in delinquent loans, more than 700,000 people in 13 states scrambling for coverage, and hospitals and doctors with hundreds of millions of dollars in losses uncovered by the assets of the failed co-ops.
The "whole story"?
Just because your paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you
Apparently your judgment is as flawed as the pinheads that run the EPA.
If Johnson was not in compliance, the EPA would still be up his a$$.
What we do know is:
That Johnson can keep his stock pond.
The stock pond followed Wyoming regulations
Stock ponds are exempt from EPA regulations.
The EPA can get involved if the stream that was damned up for the pond opens into a navigable waterway, it never did.
The EPA over stepped it's jurisdiction & was wrong from the beginning.
He pays no fines or fees to the US government
The consent degree states "the United States, its departments or agencies, covenant not to sue or take administrative action against Mr. Johnson under the Clean Water Act” with respect to its original complaint involving the stock pond.
You were wrong a year ago about this and you're wrong today.
When you get to the bottom of this conspiracy and find the "whole truth", do let us know, won't you?
Last edited:
The EPA can get involved if the stream that was damned up for the pond opens into a navigable waterway, it never did.
The EPA over stepped it's jurisdiction & was wrong from the beginning.
The EPA over stepped it's jurisdiction & was wrong from the beginning.
Those statements come from PLF, not EPA. You can depend on them if it fits your purpose.
You have attributed several statements to me that I don't remember making, but I don't have access to the original thread, so I am defenseless here.
If you look at the full terms of the settlement, Johnson gets his fish pond, and the EPA gets a restored and protected wetland (one of their favorite issues).
espoola
SILVER
Lets just admit it, master.
Im here for you, like rat used to be, but the EPA got used to push'n people around and got poked back in the chest on this one.
They sat right down and saved a little face by making this poor rancher plant a couple trees.
He's not a rancher, he's a welder.
I did?
Hey, I was wrong. According to this photo --
http://www.tsln.com/csp/mediapool/s...N_U_CryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg
the man has at least 4 head of what look like young steers.
Not much to graze there, though.
Amazingly you claim their is something going on that is not being reported and at the same time you claim to know what the man does for a living, and that he has no live stock....
The PLF successfully arbitrated the case and the EPA acquiesced and the judge ordered it so. If the EPA had a case they would still be pursuing it. They didn't.
News flash: In Wyoming along with ranching one can have another line of work...
I know a half dozen ranchers, everyone can weld.
It's a handy trade to know when it comes to things like pens, gates, squeeze chutes & stock trailers....
The EPA overstepped it's authority. End of story.
There was no wet land to restore or protect until the man built a stock pond.
The consent degree states "the United States, its departments or agencies, covenant not to sue or take administrative action against Mr. Johnson under the Clean Water Act” with respect to its original complaint involving the stock pond.
Under the original complaint he was to remove the pond & faced astronomical fines.
Pond stays.
No fine.
EPA has no control over the pond.
You were wrong before and you are wrong again.
Someone get him a .45 to take apart.....
Man yelling in Arabic wounds two Belgian police with machete, then shot dead
BRUSSELS, Aug 6 (Reuters) - A machete-wielding man yelling "Allahu Akbar!" (God is greatest) injured two female police officers before being shot outside the main police station in the southern Belgian city of Charleroi on Saturday, police in the city said.
The attacker, who was shot by a third officer, subsequently died of his wounds, but the police officers were out of danger, they added.
Prime Minister Charles Michel took to Twitter to condemn the attack, while Interior Minister Jan Jambon called it cowardly.
Islamist bombers killed 32 people in suicide attacks at Brussels airport and a metro station in March, and many of the jihadists who carried out attacks on Paris last November in which 130 people died were based in Belgium.
Brussels, home to European Union institutions and the headquarters of NATO, and the rest of Belgium are currently on a security alert level of three out of a maximum of four, a "serious" status with a "possible and probable" threat.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...hen-shot-dead/ar-BBvk7hB?li=BBnb4R7&ocid=iehp
He has been reported as a welder in several news articles.
I was wrong about the stock (but just barely) - see the thread.
The entire course of Six Mile Creek has wetlands on both sides of its course. "Wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.” -- 40 CFR 232.2
I will be wrong again, I am sure. I doubt that Izzy will notice.
What's the deal with the .45?
I am sure you would like that to be the end of t he story, but quoting PLF won't make it so.
In another case, Rapanos v United States, in which a Michigan developer dumped fill without a permit on a seasonal wetland not directly connected to any flowing stream, PLF claimed that only waters that were flowing or had a year-round existence were subject to EPA jurisdiction.
Can you see the conflict with their press release here?
espoola
SILVER
I think we have both grown a little from this admission.
I thought you, well, infallible, that is why i worship you and agree with everything you say.
This confession gives me hope that I can someday attain espola status, as I am but a mere basker in your glorious light.
You have shown me, and others like me, (rat) that you are prone to mistakes, miscalculations, misunderstandings, disinformation, etc, etc,...
I cant wait for you to be wrong over and over again.
signed, your fan, espoola.
Did you not read and comprehend the article?
http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/wyo...cle_4e39fb68-173d-11e6-9b7f-c3df0a4d97b9.html
Here's the settlement link that is apart of the article above
http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/johnson-settlement/pdf_c69614e8-173d-11e6-98f7-bf1eb2826769.html
Geezus....Magoo...
The news article reflects what is in the settlement.
The settlement document has none of the quotes from PLF that you are so fond of.
The clean water act exempts stock ponds, the above is something a bit different.....but you knew that.
From wikiwiki:
The Supreme Court said basically the same thing as PLF.
See HOLDING below.
Wetlands that have neither a hydrological nor ecological connection to other navigable waters do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 21, 2006
Decided June 19, 2006
Full case name John A. Rapanos, et ux., et al., Petitioners v. United States; June Carabell, et al., Petitioners v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al.
Docket nos. 04-1034
Holding
Wetlands that have neither a hydrological nor ecological connection to other navigable waters do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act
Court membership
Chief Justice
John G. Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
Plurality Scalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito
Concurrence Roberts
Concurrence Kennedy
Dissent Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent Breyer
Laws applied
Clean Water Act
Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act. It was the first major environmental case heard by the newly appointed Chief Justice, John Roberts and Associate Justice, Samuel Alito. The Supreme Court heard the case on February 21, 2006 and issued a decision on June 19, 2006. While five justices agreed to void rulings against the plaintiffs, who wanted to fill their wetlands to build a shopping mall and condos, the court was split over further details, with the four more conservative justices arguing in favor of a more restrictive reading of the term "navigable waters" than the four more liberal justices.
Justice Scalia's plurality opinion[edit]
Justice Antonin Scalia authored a plurality opinion, in which he was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito. Justice Scalia began his analysis by arguing that the Corps “exercises the discretion of an enlightened despot” and quoted factors it used when choosing to exercise jurisdiction, such as “aesthetics” and “in general, the needs and welfare of the people”.[6] He then criticized the cost associated with exercising jurisdiction, noting that the average applicant spends 788 days and $271,596 on an application and that “for backfilling his own wet fields”, Rapanos faced 63 months in prison.[7] Justice Scalia argued the “immense expansion of federal regulation” over “swampy lands” would give the Corps jurisdiction over “half of Alaska and an area the size of California in the lower 48 States.”[8]
Justice Scalia then detailed the Clean Water Act’s history, from the litigation forcing the Corps to broaden its jurisdiction beyond traditional navigable waters, to its adoption of the Migratory Bird Rule after Riverside Bayview, to SWANCC's rejection of that rule and calls for new regulations. Justice Scalia then noted that the Corps has still not amended its published regulations and he emphasized a Government Accountability Office investigation finding disparate standards across different Corps district offices.[9] Justice Scalia ultimately concluded that Waters of the United States should only include relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water because, according to Justice Scalia, that was the definition of “the waters” in Webster’s Dictionary.[10] Justice Scalia also rejected Justice Anthony Kennedy's assertion that the same dictionary definition lists floods as an alternative usage because, according to Justice Scalia, it was “strange to suppose that Congress had waxed Shakespearean”. Therefore, Justice Scalia suggested the Corps regulations of intermittent streams were “useful oxymora”.
The plurality opinion stated that the Clean Water Act confers federal jurisdiction over non-navigable waters only if the waters exhibit a relatively permanent flow, such as a river, lake, or stream. In addition, a wetland only falls within the Corps' jurisdiction when there is a continuous surface water connection between it and a relatively permanent waterbody, such that it is difficult to determine where the waterbody ends and the wetland begins. In addition to his textualist arguments, Justice Scalia also argued that his conclusions conformed with basic principles of federalism. Quoting the CWA’s policy to “protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the States”, Justice Scalia argued the Corps’ inferred jurisdiction failed the clear statement rule. Furthermore, because the Corps’ interpretation “stretches the outer limits of Congress’s commerce power” Justice Scalia justified his selective interpretation under constitutional avoidance.[6] Justice Scalia spent the rest of his opinion attacking the other Justices' arguments. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the plurality opinion upset three decades of administrative and congressional practice, but Justice Scalia rejected this argument as “a curious appeal to entrenched Executive error”. Justice Scalia also characterized Justice Kennedy's significant nexus test as a “gimmick” Justice Kennedy employs to “devises his new statute all on his own” and his reasoning, Scalia taunts, is “turtles all the way down.”[8]
Chief Justice Roberts' concurring opinion[edit]
Chief Justice Roberts wrote separately to note that it was “unfortunate” the Court failed to reach a majority. Additionally, he criticized the Corps for refusing to publish guidance on the scope of its power even after being warned to do so in SWANCC.