Doctors and nurses support the public freedom option while
health insurers are in strong opposition to the House bill.
Who cares more, medical personnel or insurance companies
Dear Editor,
Doctors and nurses support the public freedom option while health insurers are in strong opposition to the House bill. We have to decide which group cares more about affordable, quality health care for all Americans.
Frank Crosby, Morgan Hill
Taxpayers caught between two sides battling over reputation
Dear Editor,
The protagonist in the classic movie “A Man For All Seasons” is Thomas More, Chancellor of England under Henry VIII who was tried and executed for refusing to support Henry’s efforts to have his marriage to Katherine of Aragon annulled. In the big trial scene More’s prosecutor Thomas Cromwell attempts to convince the jury that it should interpret certain of More’s actions in the way people normally do in daily life; however, such an interpretation would run counter to an axiom of law which required the opposite interpretation. More objects to Cromwell’s tactic, saying “The world may construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.”
Reputation is an ephemeral thing. What is it? Where is it lodged? How does it manifest itself? What causes one to gain or lose it? There are many activities which are protected by law or the Constitution which people in daily life may still find unappealing or even damaging to one’s good name – Neo-Nazi hate speech is a glaring example of conduct which is and should be protected by the First Amendment, but how do most people respond to it?
So if one’s conduct becomes public and one’s reputation suffers, did the damage occur because a government didn’t construe according to the law and protect the activity or because the world did construe according to its wits and found the activity disreputable? Was the reputation ruined by government’s reaction to the conduct or by the general perception of the conduct? If both occur, how do you separate one from the other and quantify the proportions of damage?
It appears that the taxpayers of Morgan Hill will be blessed with the opportunity to join the search for the answers to these fascinating questions.
Robert B. Mitchell, Morgan Hill
Socialism is the only rational solution – of socialists
Dear Editor,
In his Oct. 2nd letter to the editor entitled “Socialized health care is the only real rational answer” Dr. John Quick reveals hypocrisy when he so strongly advocates socialism or “socialized medicine” as he then goes on to openly admit “As a business owner I (Quick) struggle to afford good health care, but cannot afford to give the same care to my many deserving employees.” He personally exemplifies what he terms the “NIMBY thing” that he so quickly uses to condemn others. Under a new socialized medicine, does Quick not expect to pay more for his employee’s medical care as a taxpayer? Does he expect us to pay more for his own described “good health care” which he now “struggles” to afford? Generally, socialists love socialism; and even more so they love “Animal Farms” socialist pigs, who are “more equal” than the other animals.
When appraised historically the lesson we learn about socialism is that it seldom works. All its ‘successes’ are torturously defined by the socialists themselves (hypocrisy not withstanding).
Perhaps with the Thanksgiving holiday on the horizon we might consider America’s first organized English import of socialism. Dr. Quick quickly points to England’s socialized medicine as “equal or better” to ours in the anecdotal example of his two-year experience in that “Kingdom.” Lets keep in mind Dr. Quick’s simplistic, hypocritical, and pejorative assessment of capitalism (and what he apparently tells his employees), “I’ve got mine, what you get is your problem,” as we reconsider the events surrounding the first Thanksgivings of our English forefathers:
The experiment with socialism by the Pilgrims lasted only for the first year or two … and significantly contributed to the result of half of them dying. In his journal William Bradford, leader of the new Plymouth Plantation, documents the utter failure of their rather pure form of socialism. Then, he went on to quickly confirm that negative evaluation of collectivism by his immediate and successive counter-experiment; he ordered that capitalism be practiced; prosperity quickly and successfully followed.
Here is William Bradford’s own assessment of socialism written nearly four centuries ago:
“The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.” (William Bradford brilliantly and succinctly describes the prototypes of George Orwell’s socialist pigs of “Animal Farm.”)
And William Bradford’s assessment of the freedom and prosperity of his new capitalistic system, free from the concerns of government bureaucracy: “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content.”
As portrayed in George Orwell’s novel “Animal Farm,” we must be cautious of some of the farm’s animals (the pigs – the socialist instigators of his story, and the eventual oppressors) because they are hypocrites, and hold themselves “more equal” than the rest of us. The Pilgrims learned the pitfalls of socialism early on, but at a very dear cost. Must we and our children again be led down the path of the “rational solution” of socialism … only to find it lacks the wisdom and insight into true human nature? We have only to look at our own lawmakers; they vote to themselves the best of medical care and pensions while contemplating a separate and non-equal system for the rest of us.
Somehow I’m very glad Dr. Quick thinks that he risks “boring” his readers. That way less of George Orwell’s “farm animals” might mistake his sophistry as rationality.
Dr. Jon Knapp, Gilroy
