Printed Letters: Sept. 11, 2016
Amendment 69 exemplifies progress
ProgressNow Colorado, which recently came out against Amendment 69 (universal health care for all Coloradans) should change its name to RegressNow Colorado. I suggest as a symbol they create a car stuck in reverse and unable to go forward.
Their pronouncement ignores their parent organization ProgressNow statement that their mission is to promote progressive causes.
ProgressNow Colorado fails to address the facts of U.S. health care today. Obamacare has been a step in the right direction, but doesn’t cover everyone and has insurance companies in charge of U.S. health care. Not only are the insurance companies restricting health care, but in many cases refusing to pay for treatment or drugs prescribed by your doctors. A universal health care system is the only answer; thank you Bernie Sanders for promoting it, as more Americans are now demanding it.
These are the facts:
1. More than 80 percent of all Coloradans will be paying less than they are paying now by eliminating the private insurance companies.
2. All medically necessary care will be funded through a ColoradoCare cooperative, such as doctor visits, hospitalizations, prescriptions, mental health care, rehab, home care, eye care, and dental care.
3. By eliminating the health insurers, billions will be saved in administrative costs.
I suggest every Coloradan look at the cost of their health care from five years ago and compare it to the cost today. Every Coloradan should be aware that the U.S. is the only industrialized nation in the world where two-thirds of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills.
Don’t listen to the naysayers like RegressNow (aka ProgressNow Colorado). Vote Yes for Amendment 69 in November. Once Coloradans obtain universal health care by its passage, Colorado will lead other states to do the same.
VIRGINIA W. RYAN
Sentinel fell short in reporting on drainage district action
The Sept. 4 story on the Grand Valley Drainage District decision to turn over taxpayers to a collection agency oversimplified the issue of “fee” vs. “tax.” Further, the story omitted a discussion of how the decision was reached.
The story stated “Two Colorado Supreme Court cases currently stand for the proposition that a charge for storm-drainage services ‘is in the nature of a fee.’ ” This statement, though taken from Judge Bottger’s decision, misleads Sentinel readers.
Bottger cited two Supreme Court cases to justify his ruling denying the preliminary injunction, but he prefaced his citation to the cases by noting they “did not address the precise issues raised by the plaintiffs” and “they predated TABOR.” The Sentinel chose not to include these important distinctions in the story, which could easily have led readers to conclude that the county and the chamber are wasting time and taxpayer money by contesting the district’s heavy-handed behavior.
Further, had the reporter fully done his job, he would have determined how GVDD made the decision to turn taxpayers over to the collection agency. Was this recent decision made by the elected board? If not, why not? If so, was it made in an open meeting that had been properly noticed? Was the decision of the board unanimous? Are minutes of the meeting available for public perusal? In my opinion, all of these questions should have been addressed in the story.
Last May, Cody Davis was elected to the board of GVDD. During the campaign, he stated that he believed this charge is a tax, not a fee. He was correct in reaching this conclusion — if it walks and talks like a duck, it’s a duck (even if some judge says it’s a chicken). Hopefully he has not changed his view. If he will stick to his guns, the solution to this problem is to elect a like-minded person next May (before the court case is heard).
Politicians should lead by consent, not by bullying
Donald Trump, commander in chief — what a scary thought. Like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, he would get rid of the generals not loyal to him. The United States military serves the people of the United States, not one individual. Every dictator, including Donald’s pal Putin, surrounds himself with flunkies who don’t dare question their master. Fortunately, Trump will be blocked in his intent because of the need to get the Congress to go along.
We need a true leader who understands that government in the USA leads by consent of the governed, not by bullying. In business, you do not need your employees to agree with your actions. Sorry Donald, if running over people is your management style, go back to running casinos (except for Atlantic City where you failed).
As to military spending, as the Republicans are always fond of pointing out, throwing more money at the problem (if there is one) will not solve the problem. How about we concentrate on those in active service and not the defense contractors? If spending $600 billion a year isn’t working, what guarantee will we get that more will solve the problem? If increasing spending can be shown to be the solution, how about raising taxes on the 1 percent who benefit from living in the USA?
DANIEL H. HARRIS