E-mail letters, April 2, 2010

Local support helped
with move of MDS clients
We live in the most amazingly supportive community. Over the past few months, people voiced their concern and support of the residents and staff at the Grand Junction Regional Center nursing facility.

The residents of the facility have been forced to moved due to state budget cuts. Many of the people affected by the closure of this long-term care center have severely disabling intellectual and medical conditions, requiring specialized treatment. Many had lived at the facility for more than 45 years.

People wrote letters and made phone calls to Gov. Bill Ritter. People signed petitions, requesting the state revisit the decision. People joined us in carrying signs and attending community meetings to try to find a solution to this problem. Gary Harmon and The Daily Sentinel, local radio, TV and other print media kept the story fresh and alive as we struggled to find a solution.

We were unable to stop the closure. However we did make a difference!

Mesa Developmental Services with the support of the Mesa County community, has
built three new group homes. Our son, Tyler, moved into one of these homes this week. Twenty-two other residents will be moved to the homes over the next few weeks.

On behalf of the residents of the nursing facility, the parents, guardians and staff — thank you. It means so much to know that our community cares!
Connie Robbins-Brady
Dennis Brady
Grand Junction

Health care legislation
not so ‘warm and fuzzy’
As a retired, federal bureaucrat I am reminded of the lecture on “warm fuzzies.” A warm fuzzy is something that makes you feel good but doesn’t have any real substance.

I personally believe the health care legislation that was recently passed is a “warm fuzzy” that makes many people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid feel good, but is an overly complicated, expensive program that is doomed to failure.

We were told that, working with natural resources, there will always be numerous things that should be done, but we do not have enough money to pay for all of them. We never had enough money or personnel to accomplish everything we wanted to, so we had to make tough choices. When we received our annual budgets, our share of the appropriation for that year was on the bottom line of the form as a total. We then worked backward, filling in salaries, utilities, fish food, maintenance, etc.

There was seldom any extra operational funds. We became more efficient and innovative and consistently produced fish for the public at a cost-effective price. As much as I disliked the people who made the funding decisions, it was a necessary evil. Their decisions were made on whether a project was mandated or authorized. If mandated it had to be done. If authorized it could be done if funds were available.

I believe the health care program should have fallen into the authorized category as it can’t possibly be paid for in the foreseeable future. That just doesn’t give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
Neal A. Ward

Letter writer off base
with claims about slavery

Letter writer Richard Watts, in his March 31 letter to the editor, makes the oft-heard claim that health care reform violates his liberty. He then makes the following statement: “It is wrong to force anyone to serve others. That’s why we ended slavery.”

This point needs some clarification. The end of slavery largely came about as a result of a progressive political movement called abolitionism. The vast majority of Southerners, whose agrarian economic system was anchored in slavery, had no love for this movement. But it came to be favored by a majority of the voters, and as a result, progressive Republicans were elected and, in due course, slavery was abolished (not without a fight!).

A century later, landmark civil rights legislation became law (the result of another progressive political movement), guaranteeing equal rights for minorities.  Again, there was considerable resistance. The majority of Southerners did not want it to happen. In the aftermath the majority of Southern elected officials changed from Democrat to Republican.

When Mr. Watts says that “we” abolished slavery, what really happened is that
government, reflecting the collective will of the people, abolished slavery, by enacting law.  That’s how representative government works.

President Obama and the Democrats ran on a platform that prominently featured health care reform, and they won. Then they passed health care reform legislation. Granted, it was very close, and they used some sneaky tricks to do it, but there’s nothing new
about that. Both sides have been doing it since the country’s founding.  As F.P. Dunne said, “Politics ain’t beanbag.”

The point is that whether this law violates people’s “liberty” is a matter of opinion. For many who elected the Democrats, it does not.  Mr. Watts and his conservative associates have every right and opportunity to promote the election of officials who more closely share their opinion. If and when they do, they will have properly excercised their liberty.
Bob Whitehorne
Grand Junction

Salazar ignored constituents
on health care reform bill

I was totally floored and offended while reading John Salazar’s campaign promoter, columnist Bill Grant, mindlessly spew his unbelievable nonsense about why Colorado should support our so-called representative.

For awhile, I thought I must have missed a day and it was actually April 1. Obviously, Grant is residing in an upside down bizarro world where everything he writes actually means the opposite.

Salazar blatantly ignored his constituents for the past year. He refused to hold town hall meetings or attend public forums unless he could hide behind the president. He refused to respond to e-mails except with automatic replies assuring us he was listening. Forget about phone calls. Instead of listening to his district, he blindly followed Pelosi and Obama.

In Grant’s liberal world, we should bow down to Salazar, thank him for ignoring us, and return him to office. I don’t think so. Send Salazar a message in November that he won’t be able to ignore.
Homer Gregory
Grand Junction

Socialized medicine will
reduce number of doctors
I think Dr. Pramenko should have practiced in Canada for 5 years so he would have a better understanding of how socialized medicine works. It’s so great in Canada that one of the high-ranking officials comes to the United States for heart surgery. Why is that?

He wants to thank Congressman John Salazar for standing up to insurance companies that want to make a profit. I hope the good doctor is happy with what the government will pay him for his services.

I hope the new insurance is more efficient than the other socialized health care plans that are provided around the world. It’s something we Americans are really looking forward to.

I hope that the waiting lists aren’t long and the doctors are all willing to work for whatever the government deems is appropriate. I’d hate to see any doctor make a profit, heaven forbid!

This should encourage the brightest and finest students to go into something besides medicine. How many excellent doctors are going to quit seeing patients? I’m hoping that there are other professions out that will still be available to these students, because if their only option is to work for the government, we will be a socialistic state.
I’m hoping that isn’t true, because there isn’t a socialist state that I want to move to.
John Justman


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Subscribe to print edition
eTear Sheets/ePayments

© 2017 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy