E-mail letters, Jan. 25, 2011
Children should be taught good sportsmanship
After watching professional sports teams this past year, I believe they are setting a poor example for the younger generation of athletes.
The key word is taunt. When young aspiring athletes watch their heroes perform on the big stage, it is natural to want to emulate them. Consequently this is where the taunting is prevalent.
In “Webster’s New World Dictionary” to taunt basically means: “to reproach scornfully or sarcastically, mock” or “a scornful or jeering remark.” Which defines unsportsmanlike conduct to the maximum.
Taunting (primarily in pro football) is commonplace with the fist-pumping, finger pointing, trash talking, dancing, rolling their eyes at the officials, boasting after a game, showing disrespect to coaches, etc., which violates the sportsmanship clause written by the Colorado High School Activities Association.
All parents and fans should keep in mind that coaches control the actions of the team in all aspects of sports or at the very least, may or may not condone their players’ actions.
Fans can be worse because some have menacing mentalities and do not believe they have to adhere to any rules, but yes they do. They can be escorted out of a sporting event for unruly actions or bad behavior.
If one athlete or team beats another senseless — be it football, baseball or wrestling — then stands over the helpless youth in a taunting fashion, it would be an abominable act.
Teach your children good, old-fashioned manners and they will carry over into all facets of life, even sports.
Congress should relinquish their federal, health care plan
I feel that if cutting costs and adding jobs for the unemployed were the true aim of those in Congress opposed to health care for everyone, they would start by dismantling their own very expensive — and expansive — health care. If these members would start with their own benefits and salaries, they would have more credibility with the public.
When every member of Congress cancels her/his Congresscare, returns the salaries to the 2008 level and prove that balancing the budget is really their primary aim, this action would seem less hypocritical to me.
CAROLYN S. WILDER
Congress exempted themselves from Obamacare
David L. McWilliams’ letter was wrong on the facts. The Democrats in congress voted to exempt themselves from Obamacare. They do not have to participate in it.
They can see the doctor of their choice. They can pay a physician to treat them when this bill takes effect. Two things we as citizens cannot do under the law.
Mysterious health care bill is going to reveal bad news
The beginning of the end for Grandpa and Grandma: As soon as this mysterious bill was shoved through Congress, the Department of Health and Human Services went into action. It became a field day for them and, under their auspices, the insurance companies started scrambling for ways to increase their profits at the expense of American consumers. This has led to higher premiums costs and manipulation of every medical cost in this country. All because of the National HealthCare Reform bill.
While the administration fed us lies about how life was going to be better for all the people, they failed to tell us about the myriad of possible side effects. Their deception was devious and the truth surrounding it is yet to be discovered, 11 months later.
As a result, there is a malicious yet subtle smokescreen hovering over the elderly of this nation — those citizens who have worked all their lives, paid their taxes and lost their retirements in a society immersed in greed, power and deceit. Social Security and Medicare recipients (unlike Medicaid recipients who enjoy the free ride) are the victims of these atrocities. They are the vulnerable part of this society who have been denied a meager 3 percent cost of living raise for the past two years and who are now faced with a catastrophic dilemma.
As of Jan. 1, all prescription drug (Part D) participants had their premiums increased, anywhere from 100 percent to 400 percent or more. In addition to premiums, the cost of drugs has increased tremendously. A 30-day prescription of a tier 1 drug in 2010 cost $4. The same drug in 2011 costs $28. The reason? It has become a non-preferred generic tier 3 drug. Insurance companies arbitrarily moved drugs into different tiers — the unknown metaphorical payment levels set by our very own Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
But last May when Secretary K. Sebelius sent out her lovely full-color brochure to every single Medicare recipient, only half of what was going to take placed was extolled. The downside of everything mentioned was not even alluded to. It enthusiastically announced that the magic donut hole would be eliminated by the year 2015. Sounds fantastic, doesn’t it?
Step back a bit. Remember I mentioned the arbitrary moving of drug criteria to different tiers? By the time 2015 rolls around, the insurance companies will have made up all the money that will be possibly lost by closing the donut hole. That means, in the two to four years before this takes place, they will be able to recoup their perceived losses (before the fact) by increasing their costs during that two to four year period.
Secretary Sebelius also failed to mention that her department would be the deciding factor in the classification of drugs used in the Medicare Part D Prescription drug plans along with a multitude of other medical decisions that should be left up to medical personnel, not an administrative bureaucrat. If all this was just not enough to satisfy the greed of the insurance companies and the deception by the federal government, all other costs such as supplemental Medicare insurance or Medicare Advantage Plans (which have and continue to fraudulently use funds distributed to them by the federal government), along with increases in medical deductibles and higher costs are placing our elderly in harm’s way.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time. The elderly are being forced to make drastic life and death decisions.
With no increase in benefits and rising costs in medical/drug and living expenses, it can only mean one thing. They will have to decide whether to buy food or to buy medicine, both of which are bare necessities for them to live and many will die sooner, much to the satisfaction of our administration under the malicious veil of oratorical rhetoric and political control. After all, the elderly are perceived to be non-productive members of our society. This bill, a Pandora’s box, will only continue to raise its ugly head as we go forth to “find out what’s in it”. The proof is in the pudding and the pudding is this: the elderly in this country are set for elimination while our government says ‘look at the wonderful things we’ve done’.
PATRICIA HAMMONDS LYON