Letters to the Editor
Dear Editor,There has been a lot of talk lately about government-run health care. I believe every American should have access to affordable, high-quality care. But it should be a combination of public and private sector models, instead of implementing a government-run system. Some disagree; they want “free” health care. What happens if we adopted a system like Canada or European countries?First, taxes would be raised by at least 10 percent. United States taxes are currently around 25 percent, according to OECD Revenue Statistics in 2006. Canadian taxes were around 34 percent, and 41 percent in Europe.Next, we would eliminate 6,000 MRI’s and 23,750 CAT Scanners. That is how many more we have in the U.S. than Canada.Put 7,730,000 people on waiting lists for everything from doctor visits to surgeries. A 2006 Fraser Institute Survey showed that the average wait time from referral of a surgery to the surgery in Canada was 17.7 weeks, up from 9.3 in 1993.Make half the drugs the FDA approved in the last five years illegal; cut the national Research and Development budget by $77 billion; stop covering prescriptions outside of hospital; quit covering mental health; and put access to cancer drugs to a “post code lottery,” as described by the Euro Health Consumer Index.Simply put, the government can’t do the job. In June 2006, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the system was unable to serve all the people. Also in 2006, five out the six European countries with a single-payer system polled, showed a majority of the respondents claimed health care reform was an “urgent need.”I’m not saying our system isn’t broken, but government-created health care isn’t the answer. Look at the other government systems we have: Social Security, which will be bankrupt by 2042 if not earlier; Medicare will be bankrupt by 2019; and a national debt of nearly $9 trillion. We can solve this. Just don’t be fooled by the promise of something all the evidence shows is a failure. Mitch Helle Glenwood Springs
Dear Editor,It’s “déjà vu all over again,” as Yogi Berra would say. Once again, I found myself both agreeing tentatively – and disagreeing vehemently – with a Hal Sundin hit piece, uh, column.In his comments of Aug. 30, he did manage to produce some veracity, which extreme liberals still can’t quite grasp. One salient point is that Islamic states, especially those with the oppressive agenda of Shari’ah rule over society (like Iran), cannot coexist with the challenge of a budding democracy. One of the two will be overwhelmed in a violent struggle.But alas, he greatly errs in extrapolating that to apply to Iraq, quite possibly in the birth pains of transformation into a limited democracy, it never suffered under the cruelty of Shari’ah law itself, but under a different kind of brutality. He writes off the possibility of freedom in a land that, though it may seem a long shot, could be slowly opening to just such a paradigm shift. Even before the patient jury of time has rendered its verdict, Mr. Sundin has confidently registered his. Not wise.Then, characteristically, he makes another reckless leap, pontificating, “There should be a lesson here for those clamoring to remove separation of church and state from our Constitution.” Really? One wonders when he last read that abused document.Sorry, sir: Nowhere in “our Constitution” or its amendments is there mention of “church and state” – only in leftist recollections of it. There is simply, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Christians have no problem with this whatsoever; it doesn’t state people of faith cannot influence society or government, though apparently Sundin would prefer it that way.Yogi uttered another classic witticism: “When you come to a fork in the road, be sure to take it.” Mr. Sundin evidently took the one that veered sharply left. Watch those potholes!John HerbstBattlement Mesa
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.