E-mail letters, June 7, 2010
Mesa County implementing
truly socialistic medicine
Here we go, now, since the failure to adopt the proper real health care reform for our nation.
We could have had a single-payer system—i.e. Medicare for all. This would have enabled medical providers (physicians, hospitals, HMOs etc.) to maintain their own free-enterprises and be paid for the Medicare services they provided. They would also have been free to name their own prices and offer additional non-Medicare services to compete for patients.
Employers would have gotten out of the business of actually providing health care and/or continual insurance shopping/administration matters, also. Employers would have focused on their enterprise functions, instead, and just done payroll deductions (as they already do) for employees’ Medicare premiums.
Our nation’s health care costs would have been reduced almost 30 percent immediately and the Medicare system would have become solvent with the influx of younger, healthier working persons.
Now, Mesa County is implementing truly socialistic medicine by a governmental entity, actually owning and operating facilities in competition with the private sector and in cherry-picked and inefficient manners. I hope taxpayers other than the tea partiers come out in force to squash this action.
VA card renewal shouldn’t
require trip to Front Range
As a World War II veteran, my wife carries a Veterans Administration identification card that expires every five years and which entitles her to VA benefits.
Western Colorado politicians please take note. We are informed that at present there is nowhere in western Colorado to get it renewed. We must go to either Buckley Air Force Base in Denver or Fort Carson in Colorado Springs.
The card-making machine and trained operator are not available in either Montrose or Grand Junction and her card expires in July.
What a lousy way to treat western Colorado veterans spouses.
School board has chance
to respond to Pugliese
Nothing stirs up a good argument like trying to defend an issue that is still open to wide interpretation, still in the throes of being settled by provable, replicable science.
Our family has plagiarized an idiom from my son who jokingly uses it when discussions threaten to turn angry. It goes something like this: “Yeah, but you’re dumb and your mother dresses you funny!” This phrase, although lacking in political correctness, injects a little sick humor while still maintaining the position.
That is the idiom that comes to mind when I read the vitriolic untruths that are being thrown around in various media avenues about the theories, suppositions and experiments that surround the issue of global warming.
Rose Pugliese entered a dangerous arena when she brought a petition with 700 signatures to a meeting of the elected school board. (I wish I had been in town to sign it!) Can’t she represent the points of view of a wide spectrum of thinkers? Isn’t this the very place to bring the concerns of many parents and their children who have a different world view? Aren’t the members of the school board supposed to be open-minded representatives for the position of the taxpayers, mediating and informing the public on the policies of the huge, well-funded teachers’ union, a union that doesn’t have a good track record of keeping parents and taxpayers informed on policies and curricula.
If Al Gore’s global warming movie is NOT being shown repetitively to students while denying the same opportunity to those who don’t accept that premise, it’s a simple fix: Go public! Be honest! Be open! Involve the students and the parents in an open forum! (And don’t be dumb or dress funny!)
Health care legislation
will raise costs, taxes
If you have health insurance, be prepared. The new healthcare bill will likely double your premiums.
It was “imperative” that this bill be passed immediately, but only a few provisions kick in before the next two elections (so Democrats can say it isn’t harming the economy, and so new taxes can add up before costs kick in!).
Children under 20 cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, insurance companies must pay for specific preventative care for policyholders, the “lifetime maximum benefit level” will be abolished, and policyholders can choose even high-cost specialists as primary physicians. These changes will raise your premiums.
The bill mandates a 10 percent tanning services tax, a first-time-ever healthcare tax on investment income, medical devices taxes and fines on employers who don’t provide and on individuals who don’t purchase government-approved health insurance.
The bill is too vague and confusing to ascertain exact costs, but it will significantly increase costs and paperwork of employers and health-care providers. Up to 16,000 more IRS agents may be hired to ensure you are following government’s dictates.
Translation: your medical costs and taxes will go up and your take-home pay will go down. Vote out those who voted for this monstrosity!
If county needs clinic
is our system so good?
Our very conservative Mesa County commissioners have devised a plan for medical care for their employees that smells a lot like the “socialism” and “big government” they so hate. Some local doctors have reacted predictably, but correctly, on what seems to be the details of the commissioner’s plan.
All this underlines that we have an irrational system of insuring people against the unpredictable and hard-to-plan-for medical needs we have. Our commissioners have behaved in the past and their fellow conservatives continue to say we have the best medical capabilities in the world. That may be true, but for whom?
Why are they having to devise a system to take expense out of their previous system? Can their new system provide savings without harming coverage and care? If so, why did their previous system exist in the greatest system in the world in the first place? Taking needless expense out of the system needs to happen everywhere, not just in county government.
A national system has been put in place but it is hugely flawed because it has been fatally influenced by the money of those who benefit greatly and contribute minimally in the current system that provides investment opportunities in needless areas. Thus, the system is full of potential savings if our elected legislators have the guts to focus on facts, not keeping campaign contributors happy.
The commissioners are on the right track. It will be interesting to see what their fellow travelers, particularly those of Janet Rowland, the tea partier, par excellence, have to say. Will this be another of those dodges from previous loudly espoused “principles” like the leasing back of facilities to get around TABOR that they are so much in favor of?