I am tired of reading about misinformed people pushing for
health care reform. Yes I agree that reform is needed, however, the
government is NOT the answer.
Dear Editor,
I am tired of reading about misinformed people pushing for health care reform. Yes I agree that reform is needed, however, the government is NOT the answer. What program has the government run successfully? Not even the cash for clunkers was run efficiently. Just imagine every person in America subject to that inefficiency.
Also, the government already runs a medical program – Medicare, and it’s almost bankrupt. Think outside the box. Government does not solve problems and is not the answer.
Rebeca Torres, Morgan Hill
Health care reforms are needed, but not a nationalized system
Dear Editor,
Regarding the letter titled “It’s time to change the health care system,” and the story about the man stuck with a $75,000 bill. Though anecdotal accounts can be disturbing, they should not be the basis of federal policy discussions.
Most insurance plans have a provision for the bill the man received. It may take a little time to resolve, but these charges will most likely be reversed. I had similar experience after an emergency surgery and my insurance company covered the costs for me after learning of the circumstances. All I did was file a very simple appeal form.
I agree with the letter writer about the need for reform; but not a nationalized system. Reforms like inter-state competition, full medical deductions for all individual taxpayers, sensible tort laws, portability, and “major medical” coverage for the uninsured who truly want it and can’t afford it; reforms that expand, not ration, care are what is needed.
Should my neighbor pay for my insurance though I can afford it were I to give up cable service, cell phones, eating out, etc.? Not to mention beer, cigarettes and fast food.
Wendy Larner, Morgan Hill
Keep the skate park free
Dear Editor,
I attended a recent city council meeting and one issue in particular caught my attention. It was the idea of charging a fee to use the new skate park. I do not skateboard myself, but I see many people who do. Before the skate park opened kids were on the street skating. Since the park opened kids have a better and safer environment. If a fee is charged to use the skate park, kids will be back on the street.
The economy is struggling and many are affected. Money is tight and no one wants to spend it to skate at a public park. If so, what’s next? Will we have to pay a walking fee to get to school? Will we have to pay a sitting fee to use a public restroom? If the skate park needs extra money they could approach the users and the people of Morgan Hill with a different attitude. For example, the skate park could ask for donations. I’m sure many kids would be willing to donate or get someone to donate. Most people are more willing to contribute when they have a choice.
Another thing the skate park could do is to have a fundraiser. I’m sure kids in civics class would be willing to help to gain volunteer credits. People are always looking for a new cause to donate to and keeping the kids of Morgan Hill off the streets could be the new cause.
I just believe there are better alternatives that would make both sides happy.
Sophia Schoenberg, Morgan Hill
How we view freedom is different
Dear Editor,
I think the recent Around the Water Cooler question (Should there be felony charges for those who ignore mandatory evacuation orders?) was a fascinating illustration of the schism in world view between those who are willing to allow others to make decisions for themselves and those who think others must be directed and controlled for their own good.
My son is a firefighter, and I understand both sides. I would not want him to be at needless risk. At the same time, most firefighters will allow that homes are sometimes saved because someone was there to douse embers that fly around. I would not advocate such risky behavior, simply because I think lives are more important than houses. However, I would allow members of a free society to make informed decisions for themselves. Therein lies the difference.
Apparently, if one believes free citizens do not deserve the respect that comes with allowing them to make their own choices, the natural response is to label such actions as “stupidity” that should be “criminalized.”
The thing people don’t recognize is this: Once an aware adult makes a decision in such matters, that person willingly assumes responsibility. This includes forfeiting the right to expect rescue. I’m sure those who refuse to leave their homes at such times are cognizant of the risks. Harsh? That depends on how you view the world. Do you see others as individuals entitled to make decisions and assume responsibility? Or do you see them as children who must be constantly governed and managed?
Diana Hall, Morgan Hill
