The value of a national health care system
Re: “U.S. health care system,” Feb. 12 Open Forum.
Letters (such as the one from Scot Clark) which criticize the idea of a national health care system because it would require increased taxes always amaze me. What possible difference can it make whether we pay for our health care through taxes or premiums? It’s still just money either way.
As an example, right now I have to pay approximately 5 percent of my gross pay for ever-increasing medical premiums. If I would instead have to pay 5 percent more in taxes, then I end up with the same amount of money. However, if I know that other people now have health insurance coverage who might otherwise not have it, due to a national health care system, and there is more stability in what I have to pay, then I know I am getting greater value from those increased “taxes.”
Why do conservatives always see the word “taxes” as some kind of obscene word? It makes no sense.
Paul Ruzicka, Aurora
Forced benefits for corporations (Wal-Mart)
Re: “Wal-Mart needs to step up its benefits,” Feb. 18 editorial.
I am no fan of Wal-Mart; however, Wal-Mart is a private corporation and does not owe its employees anything other than a paycheck. There is no law that demands corporations provide their employees health care, or any benefits for that matter. Employees of Wal-Mart make the choice to work for them or find employment elsewhere. Are people leaving high-paying jobs with benefits to work at Wal-Mart? As noted in your own editorial, Wal-Mart pays on average $9.50 an hour – well above the minimum wage.
This should please Democrats, but it does not. This is typical anti-business legislation, which the Democrats do so well. Does state Rep. Judy Solano, D-Brighton, have a plan for those among Colorado’s 22,000 Wal-Mart employees who could lose their jobs over her legislation?
Jim Carr, Denver
…
The Fair Share Health Care Act is based on a simple and effective concept: Government enforces minimal standards of human decency on large corporations to avoid social and economic problems. The bill would require companies with more than 3,500 employees in Colorado to pay for health care or pay into Medicaid.
Almost everyone benefits from enforcing this standard. Taxpayers benefit because there will be fewer people who need public assistance. Humane businesses benefit because health insurance premiums will go down, they will not compete as much with businesses whose prices do not reflect the full cost of production, and better-paid consumers will spend more money. All working people will benefit because it will raise the standard for employee benefits.
When people who work for large corporations qualify for public assistance, it makes a mockery of efforts to reduce poverty. It is misguided to allow companies to underpay their employees and then try to make up the difference with government programs and charity. This humiliates hard-working people.
To some, good wages and fair benefits are extreme left and anti-business. In reality, good wages and fair benefits are the basis of our American democracy, standard of living and way of life.
Bruce Morrison, Arvada
Review of Coldplay concert at Pepsi Center
Re: “Coldplay warms fans with the familiar,” Feb. 20 concert review.
Ricardo Baca’s review of Coldplay’s performance at the Pepsi Center on Sunday was predictable, bland and pointless. Predictable, in that Baca had already subjected readers to a “preview review” in last Friday’s Post (“By-the-numbers formula keeps Coldplay hot”), wherein he made his disdain for the band abundantly clear, thus guaranteeing any subsequent concert review would be equally disdainful. Bland, in that Baca’s style of writing is as snide and insipid as a junior-high student’s blog. Pointless, in that Baca’s attendance at a Coldplay concert is nothing more than an excuse to heap criticism on the band and its fans.
As anticipated, Baca’s “review” accomplished just this: “With Coldplay there are no surprises. The band gives fans exactly what they paid for and little else.” This observation is both illogical and inane. What type of “surprise” does Baca deem absent? And exactly what “else” should fans expect beyond what they paid for, which is to be entertained by a band they love? What did Baca not “get” from Coldplay that 13,000 other people did?
Chris Winningham, Westminster
Federal funding priorities: Iran vs. Katrina
Re: “Rice seeks funds for Iranian democracy,” Feb. 16 news story.
Has Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice bothered to pick up a newspaper lately? If not, then someone should point out to her how preposterous her request for $75 million to spread freedom in Iran really is – particularly in view of the fact that thousands of Hurricane Katrina victims have just been evicted by the federal government.
Wouldn’t this money be better spent on our own citizens? They could use some freedom, too – and should have priority here.
Grant D. Cyrus, Boulder
Custody battle
Re: “Court rules in child’s interest,” Feb. 20 editorial.
I am not surprised that you agree with the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to ignore Stephen and Sara Sherwood’s clear desire in their wills to have their child live with Stephen’s mother. But you misstated your case when you said that “the Colorado Supreme Court has sensibly affirmed a legal standard that puts what’s best for a child before all other considerations.” What you are really saying is that an unelected judge who has no relationship with the child or his family is better suited to determine what’s best for the child than his own parents. This ruling only serves to dilute parental rights and vest more control in the hands of the government. Should the government have absolute power to determine for parents what is best for their child?
Robert M. Webb, Denver
Legislating responsibility
Re: “Smokers’ responsibilities and Medicaid,” Feb. 16 Open Forum.
State Sen. Ron Teck writes, “Taxpayers cannot be endlessly called upon to subsidize the knowing and willful irresponsibility of others,” referring to smokers. By this token, I suppose we should also cut off Medicaid to anyone who is fat. Obesity is a widely known health risk linked to numerous chronic health conditions and health expenditures, and affects more people than smoking. If Senate Bill 101, which was killed by the legislature earlier this month, was needed to uphold personal responsibility, where’s the consistency? Who cares if millions suffer or die from heart disease, diabetes and other serious ailments? After all, people who eat Twinkies should know better, right?
Janice Colvin, Highlands Ranch
Electricity blackouts
Last Saturday night, after hearing all day about rolling blackouts and being urged to cut energy consumption, I drove down Federal Boulevard past Invesco Field. The stadium was lit up just as bright as it would be if there had been a game scheduled. It hit me that the stadium has been lit up every night that I’ve driven by it – whether or not there is an event scheduled. This is a shameful waste of energy. Please turn off the lights.
Janet Keeley, Denver
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
