Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor,A recent article discussed filmmaker Michael Moore’s claims that a single-payer health care system is in the best interest for the American public (“Block insurers from health care, filmmaker says,” June 13, 2007). While it is clear Moore opposes our current system, it is difficult to understand whether he truly understands what a government run single-payer system would mean for Americans.What Moore failed to mention during his testimony is that under a single-payer system, the government would hold a monopoly over health care coverage, offering one insurance plan option with no alternatives. That means if the government decides to reduce funding or deny coverage for medical technologies or procedures, Americans would have to forgo those life-saving procedures or finance them out-of-pocket. Americans deserve a system that encourages quality, innovation and efficiency among health care providers, not one that limits choice and access to care.Virtually all countries that have implemented versions of the single-payer model, many of which Moore romanticizes in his film and during his recent press tour, have been plagued by a range of critical problems, including health care rationing, loss of physicians and restrictions on health care investments. For example, according to the World Health Organization, every year over 25,000 people in Britain die because they are unable to obtain the latest cancer treatments through their government-run system. And in Canada, physician shortages force many to come to the U.S. in order to receive the medical care they require. The list goes on …No one is denying the need for health care reform or the moral imperative to provide health care access to all Americans. However, a single-payer system is simply not the answer, and we need to look further to alternatives, such as free market competition, multi-payer systems or refundable health insurance tax credits, and seek a better answer for universal care. Mitch Helle Glenwood Springs
Dear Editor, In regard to the letter submitted by one Omar Mancinas (Aug. 16), the word “illegal” means against the law. By definition, they are criminals, so your whole letter is an oxymoron. Let’s see now. Why is it that Omar is surprised at the attitudes of legal area residents? Could it be that one Hispanic shot another in the leg at the Oasis last August, or … another Hispanic male, age 32, shot and killed his 20-year-old nephew at the Ponderosa recently, or … the episode at Mr. Amigo where a police officer was summoned at 3 a.m. to investigate a problem and was attacked by three Hispanics and held against his will? He had to call for help, and the result being that Mr. Amigo is still closed as of this writing. Check the Cop Shop section written in this paper on a regular basis and notice the Hispanic names. Let’s not forget the most outrageous incident to happen in Glenwood since I’ve been living here (21 years), the attempt by Hispanic males to kill a police officer. Luckily, he was wearing a bullet-proof vest. For those who are Americans or those that wish to become legal Americans, whether they are of Hispanic or any other immigrant ancestry (like my family) who work hard and raise their families and lead a respectable productive life, go for it! So, Omar, what do you expect, regarding immigrants, Hispanic or otherwise, who are here illegally? Shouldn’t they be made to get the heck out? And as an American, Omar, how could you not have the same attitude? To be a true American, one has to totally assimilate into this society, and only then does your ethnic background take second place. Stan RacheskyGlenwood Springs
Dear Editor,Winning in Iraq has many definitions. An obtainable one is a stable Iraq whereby U.S. troops can leave. This is achievable. The Bush administration’s definition of an Iraq having a U.S.-controlled puppet government, providing U.S. corporations with cheap oil and allowing large U.S. military bases on its soil so we can control the Middle East, is not. Iraq is in chaos. The area-by-area achievements we are claiming the “surge” has brought about are temporary and transient. Those we label terrorists are stateless and will leave Iraq once it is stabilized. A winning strategy involves engaging in talks with Iran with a settlement of differences, requiring us to relinquish preconditions for talks, being open to a win/win strategy and remembering they helped us after 9/11 by capturing al-Qaida members escaping Afghanistan through Iran. The Iranians offered their help in stabilizing Iraq, which is in their interest – including a nuclear issue compromise. Instead, the Bush administration makes unsubstantiated claims, such as parts of Iran’s army are terrorists and that explosively formed projectiles (EFPs) are provided by the Iranians, despite discoveries by U.S. forces of many workshops manufacturing such devices in Iraq. With a Shia majority in Iran and Iraq and the al-Maliki ties to Iran, these two countries are already allied. An Iranian-allied Iraqi state is in a better position to defeat al-Qaida and other non-state forces in Iraq. For this not to look like a U.S. defeat, we have to establish a friendly relationship with Iran now. This will require a phased U.S. withdrawal, support for the nationalist elements in Iraq, and an end to our suppression of those challenging the al-Maliki government. The challengers are those who oppose the U.S. occupation, and have the most support from the Iraqi people who mostly oppose the foreign occupation. The Bush administration needs to be forced to negotiate with Congress and not approve another $145 billion supplemental appropriation to continue the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan this September. Cathleen Krahe Carbondale
Dear Editor,Each American citizen should get a copy of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, then sit down for about an hour and actually read the documents. In so doing, they would come to realize that all the senators and congressmen who voted for the “revised” FISA act, directly violated their oath “to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” They have made themselves complicit with the outlandish crimes of the Bush administration. Any citizen foolish enough to believe they are being “protected” by this garbage act hasn’t bothered to read it.Furthermore, if the cowards and self-servers in the House continue to fail in their duty to impeach the president and vice president for their criminal acts, we may expect to see these abuses continue in future administrations, and the hard-won rights of Americans continue to be eroded. I strongly advise citizens to read a few of the outrageous “Signing Statements” used to abrogate our rights, issued by this president, and decide for themselves whether they are in the best interests of our country and its people.Partisan politics has reached complete absurdity. Elected officials and the citizenry itself are far more interested in furthering the control and funding of their respective parties than in determining the best and most honorable course of action for the nation. How can any American, in good conscience, condone the institutionalized torture of prisoners for any reason? Are we not embarrassed before the world by the total abandonment of our own citizens on the Gulf Coast and New Orleans? What would the money and lives wasted in Iraq have done to solve the energy crisis or repair our failing infrastructure?How much longer are the citizens of this country going to tolerate the gross incompetence and self-serving behavior of our two major political parties? Stop funding these institutions until they get the message that it is service to the nation, not the party, that matters. Anything less and our country will continue to follow their mediocrity into oblivion. Robert W. BoyleNew Castle
Dear Editor,I noticed a letter to the editor on Thursday, Aug. 16, on the discussion of illegal immigrants. In this letter, I noticed one sentence saying, “illegals are not criminals,” and another sentence using the words “honest and criminal.” Also mentioned was the statement some illegals are not committing crimes.il-le-gal (i-lee-guhl) -adjective1. forbidden by law or statue; 2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.; The Judge ruled that he was an illegal immigrant.-noun3. informal. illegal alien)origin:1620-30; ML illegalis)I am not certain about other cultures, but in the United States is it not illegal to break the law? Is breaking the law not a crime? And when is it honest to be a criminal?My assumption was that the word “illegal” in illegal immigrant suggested that it is not legal.Chad LenyGlenwood Springs
Dear Editor,Do you think for a minute that Karl Rove is gone for good? There was a reporter on television today that “hit the nail on the head” – Rove is gone from the White House but he is in Texas. He is still Bush’s brain, still on the payroll and still running the White House. They just pulled a fast one on the dumb people of the U.S.A. You will find out one of these days that it is true.Bush and Cheney are laughing their heads off. Bush is not appointing a replacement, just going to spread it out among other people. Ha!Mildred BaumliCarbondale
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Readers around Glenwood Springs and Garfield County make the Post Independent’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.
Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.
Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User
Grace Wesseling is an animal lover, a cheerleader of seven years and another soon-to-be graduate of Bridges High School, class of 2021.