letters
02/04/2010
Some socialism is good
Peter Dreier speaks with a corporate voice and not a human one. The health care insurance reform bills harbor too many giveaways to the private insurance industry, harmful mandates that carry fines for noncompliance, a case review panel with no appeal from its decisions, no provision to control costs, which will go through the roof, and government subsidies to buy insurance, but at prices set by the industry!
The progressives, erroneously called “reactionaries” by Dreier, want single-payer, universal health care which would provide socialist relief from brutish American capitalism that is costing 45,000 American lives per year. (Socialism is always used, it seems, to save capitalism; this case is no exception.)
A government program would take the burden off small and medium-sized businesses, bring back full-time jobs and we would be more competitive with nations that already have universal health care. It would eventually put the private sector out of the health-care insurance business, where they never should have been in the first place.
Health care should never be a for-profit proposition. Some socialism is absolutely essential in this human world to protect us from the inhumanity of capitalism.
Now to my question: Why does Dreier quote writers who claim that there will be no action on health care for a generation if these fascist-inspired (Obama adviser Ezekiel Emmanuel believes in Hitler’s health care theories) health care bills fail to pass? If he agrees with this contention, why does he think so?
Dreier wrote this article before the Supreme Court’s decision allowing corporations to take over the entire election process from the people of the United States. Under their rule, nothing will ever again be done to help the American people, so my question is answered by that. We will have a human country run by inhuman principles and people, not worth living in, with much suffering and death.
~GERI MELLGREN-KERWIN, VIA EMAIL
A matter of life and death
On Jan. 1, the Every Woman Counts program, which provides mammograms to 350,000 underserved women in California each year, closed its doors and will not start screening women again until July. When the program reopens, women under age 50 will not be served. Why? To save a few bucks — just one-half of 1 percent — which will have little impact on the state’s massive budget deficit.
While the economic impact of these cuts is insignificant, for the women of this state they may mean the difference between life and death. Screening saves lives. When breast cancer is detected early, the five-year survival rate is 98 percent. We also know that the lack of regular screening leads to late-stage diagnosis, when treatment is more expensive and survival is less certain.
This is just the beginning. The governor just announced the likelihood of even more cuts to the state’s screening program for next fiscal year. If that wasn’t bad enough, he is also considering eliminating the state program that provides breast cancer treatment for low-income women. This will leave up to 9,000 women with breast cancer no treatment options. I find this unacceptable.
Our elected leaders face a tough economic situation. I get it.
There are no easy choices and few decisions come without consequences. Yet we also see the tough choices women who are on the front lines of our troubled economy face when they lose their jobs, lose their insurance and have to choose between health care and other important needs and obligations. Balancing the budget shouldn’t come at a cost of risking their lives.
Why are we turning our backs on women in our state when they need us the most? Every Woman does Count.
~DEIDRA GUYNN, LOS FELIZ
(Guynn is married to PW Publisher Jon Guynn)
FROM THE WEB:
Re: “Home away from home,” May 7
We do have laws in our country protecting legal rights of things like property ownership. Scripps was a private institution, and remained so when it merged with Episcopal Homes and the new project was christened Monte Cedro. Before any of its residents left Altadena for Alhambra, not only did I visit Scripps several times to talk to residents and family members (I got angry calls from the manger about “upsetting people”), I walked the entire area to talk to people, leaving a flier at each home, in case anyone wanted to contact me on this issue.
I was surprised that I did not get one negative comment; everyone seemed to think it was a good idea and acceptable land use of this property. I found this astonishing, but since I asked people how they felt, thought I should believe them. I did go on the record several times warning that this new project was an entirely different animal than Scripps, and again, on the record, repeatedly asked for Episcopal Homes to spell out precisely how they intended to carry out their “charitable mission.”
Only at the very end of the process and more than a year of very public discussions (the Episcopal folks held at least four public meetings, put flyers at every home within 1,000 feet, and came to Town Council to discuss their intentions) did opposition to Monte Cedro galvanize. As my position on the Town Council was to represent constituents, and I had done more than due diligence in seeking public opinion, I did vote for this project.
I still believe that it is a not bad project, (although not the homey and charitably inclined Scripps), quite well-designed, and it would serve Altadena’s aging population. It would also help give life to commercial activity along Lake Avenue, and is well served by public transit. It is rather naive to think it possible to take a piece of private property adjacent to downtown worth millions, wave a wand over it, and magically turn it into a watershed park!
I do wish people would pay more attention at the planning stages of developments and not wait until the thing is about to come down to speak up in opposition.
~ Posted by Michele Zack
The Michele Zack posts sound like a lot of political double-talk to me and representative of the classic conflicts of interests that are endemic to the Town Council! Another example of why the council should be disbanded!
~ Posted by Ramon Hernandez
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT
Related Articles
Comments
Geri Mellgren-Kerwin seems to think that it is alright to hate Jews ("Obama adviser Ezekiel Emmanuel believes in Hitler’s health care theories"). This is not uncommon among socialists, communists and other extreme left wing types. In recent years, they have taken to calling Jews Nazi's and stating that Jews are trying to carry out Hitler's policies. This is starting to seem like some sort of mass psychosis on the extreme left. Just to remind people, the Nazi's tried to wipe out the Jews (along with other minorities, gays, etc.) and Hitler's policies were the underpinnings of the Nazi party.
In addition, she implies that President Obama "believes in Hitler’s health care theories", since Emmanuel is an advisor. In other words, the extreme left is now doing what the extreme right has been doing for some time, which is to imply that President Obama is the new Hitler.
As it happens, I believe in universal health care and as President Obama has said, health care is a right, not a privilege. I think most Americans believe that as well.
However, what is happening is that the extremists on both sides have been trying to take over the debate and create mass confusion. They don't care about us, they just care about promoting their respective agendas.
Michele Zack, unlike others who toil in graduate school and academia for years, is a self-appointed "historian" (without the graduate degree) and is now almost famous. All you have to do is read the Altadena Town Council meeting minutes (on their website) to see that Zack took full advantage of her position as town council member to announce (read: market) her projects to the captive audience at monthly town council meetings, which were also broadcasted on cable tv.
And yes, her post does sound like a bunch of political double-talk: She pats herself on the back for serving her constituents and looking out for seniors, yet votes totally contrary to their overwhelming opposition to the project.