Continuing debate on health care as a “right”
Re: “Two arguments why health care is not a right,” May 1 Open Forum.
Drs. Paul Hsieh and Michael Stahl are, in my view, entirely entitled to their opinion when they say that health care is not a legal “right.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines a right as “Something that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or moral principle.” However, they veer to absurdity when they equate universal health care with slavery. Such a comparison is completely baseless – not to say wrong – and offensive to the real victims of slavery.
Dr. Hsieh claims that “Trying to create a universal ‘right’ to health care turns patients into pieces of meat and turns doctors into slaves.” Dr. Stahl, in turn, claims that “A ‘right’ to health care necessarily involves enslavement of health care workers.” Neither claim is remotely true; any American doctor would be entirely free to decide whether to continue to practice medicine or to move to a different field.
That freedom to choose is the essential difference between what Hsieh and Stahl describe and actual slavery.
While the debate over universal health care is certainly necessary, the use of incorrect and odious comparisons does not advance but rather hinders the serious and thoughtful discussion this issue demands.
Robert T. Edwards, Denver
…
Let’s see. Dr. Paul Hsieh opposes universal health care in the U.S. because, as practiced in Canada, the system leads to rationing and patients waiting months for tests.
First, this is not Canada, and we are free to do the job differently. Second, how can a member of the “compassionate” profession maintain that rationing it and waiting for it are somehow worse than not getting health care at all? This is the reality for more than 49 million Americans right now, and people are dying, quietly, every day because of it. Lastly, the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America affirms it is established to, among other things, “promote the general welfare.” Well, if everybody needs something (like health care), it must be general; and certainly health has to do with welfare, right?
I just hope this guy practices medicine, even if it’s only for the privileged, better than he interprets law.
Susan Williams, Lakewood
Oversight of the Denver Police Department
Re: “Progress with police oversight,” April 30 editorial.
In a city with 1,078 official complaints of police misconduct last year, one incontrovertible incident of abuse is captured on video and the perpetrators are ostensibly held to account (why no assault charges for the police officers?), and you conclude that “the public can be satisfied that officers will be held accountable when such incidents occur”?
Does this include the hundreds of other incidents of police abuse that occur outside the view of the video camera and where no record is made to contradict the “officer’s version” of events? Or do you assume the police always tell the truth about these incidents?
I guess I’m glad the editors are “satisfied.” But having personally watched the Denver Police Department routinely get away with far worse than the thuggish assault of suspect Kenneth Rodriguez for the past four decades, however, I can’t say that I share your satiety.
Terence Kane, Englewood
Death of Denver philanthropist Jim Bye
I was heartbroken to hear the news that Jim Bye has passed away. Jim was a national treasure and his philanthropy and civic involvement will be sorely missed in Denver.
Summer Scholars was privileged to have been one of many non-profit organizations that benefited from Jim’s leadership. He could be known to talk your ear off, but his message was always one of compassion and engagement in serving those less fortunate. Education was an unfailing passion for Jim, and he walked his talk by engaging directly with kids and the organizations that serve kids. Our organization is stronger from Jim’s involvement, and his contributions will serve Denver youth for many years to come.
Jim inspired us all to stand a little taller and work a little harder for Denver’s kids. Thank you, Jim.
Anne Byrne, Executive Director, Summer Scholars, Denver
Call for review of Newmount mining practices
Re: “Mining and responsibility,” April 25 editorial.
The Post’s editorial highlighted a shareholder resolution passed at the Newmont Mining Corporation’s annual meeting last month calling for a review of community opposition to its operations in the U.S. and around the world. The editorial ended on a crucial point: “Properly conducted, such a review could be a model for greater corporate responsibility in developing parts of the world.”
In order to “properly conduct” this review, Newmont must call on experts who are completely independent of the company and won’t just tell executives what they want to hear. The company must also seek input from affected communities themselves. This review is an opportunity for Newmont to take a serious look at how it does business and to take steps toward greater corporate responsibility. It is now up to the company to make good on it.
Keith Slack, Senior Policy Adviser, Oxfam America, Washington, D.C.
Radhika Sarin, International Campaign Coordinator, Earthworks, Washington D.C.
Canada’s fluorescent light-bulb mandate
Compact fluorescent light bulbs are undoubtedly energy savers, but what about the potential for pollution? Fluorescent bulbs contain mercury. The packaging states, “Dispose according to local, state or federal laws.” These bulbs will end up in landfills, increasing mercury levels in the environment. Mercury is poison. Mercury damages the central nervous system, kidneys and other organs. Mercury can cause serious birth defects and have severe neurological consequences in young children. Bulb manufacturers and local government must have an easy, effective collection and processing system in place to handle these toxic, everyday household items. Canada should address collection issues before it mandates the use of fluorescent bulbs.
Fluorescent bulbs are energy-efficient poison.
Katie Soles, Fraser
Piñon Canyon plan
Kudos to Reps. Marilyn Musgrave and John Salazar for being the leaders in Colorado’s congressional delegation to recognize the shortsightedness of the U.S. Army’s massive proposed expansion of its Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site onto private lands in southeastern Colorado.
One of the last intact expanses of shortgrass prairie anywhere, this unsung Colorado gem is also home to the largest site of dinosaur tracks in North America, Native American petroglyphs and a portion of the Santa Fe Trail. The lesson of the 1930s dust bowl should not be forgotten: This rich but fragile ecosystem will not withstand the heavy, erosive tracks of tanks and intensive troop maneuvers. Consequently, conservationists, local governments and the ranchers who have called this area home for generations have come together to decry this 400,000-acre expansion, which might someday encompass as much as 2.5 million acres – the entire southeastern corner of our state. The military already has 25 million acres nationally on which to train; Colorado’s ranches, rural economies and prairie ecosystems do not have to be sacrificed to meet our security needs.
Elise Jones, Executive Director, Colorado Environmental Coalition, Denver
Online extras
For more letters to the editor, go to blogs.denverpost.com/eletters
To send a letter to the editor
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 101 W. Colfax Ave., Suite 600, Denver, 80202; Fax: 303-954-1502
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.
To reach us by phone: 303-954-1331
