Keep insurance out of health care
Why should insurance companies have anything to do with the delivery of health care? Insurance is a wager against the odds that accidents happen: fire, lightning, theft. Health failure is not an accidental occurrence. We all experience it. As members of a community, our country, it is both ethical, as an act of fraternity, and sensible, as a precautionary action, to provide for the health care of our fellows.
The whole immigrant question is smoke and mirrors. In England, I had the flu, went to the local doctor, got an examination, medication, and paid nothing. I might have had a virulent disease, of course, but my visit to a doctor would have alerted the medical profession. It makes no sense to have sick people walking around, no matter how they got here. Besides, does anyone doubt that illegal immigrants once in hospital would not be subjected to deportation procedures immediately upon their release?
In many countries, Americans are the illegal immigrants. Although there is no longer any nation that threatens our military might, we have 700 military bases throughout the world. Diego Garcia, for instance, where the island's 2,000 Chagossians were forcibly removed to Mauritius 1,200 miles away so an American military base of 3,500 could move in. In 2000, the British High Court upheld the islanders' claims that their removal was unlawful. The base is still there. The Chagossians are not. Closing that base and some others could pay for health care here.
As for the private sector being more productive, efficient and trustworthy than the public _ do we mean the automobile, investment, clothing and appliance industries? We are a well-endowed country despite our troubled economy. We could live well and sensibly within our means with our own resources, and afford a national health system. Medicare for all!
Carole Satrina Marner
Franklin
We're losing ability to debate the facts
Traditionally, the term "liberal" refers to a mode of government that supports personal freedom and equality of opportunity, the cornerstone of American democracy. We speak of promoting liberal governments elsewhere as a means to secure peace and prosperity. Traditional conservatives and progressives have always disagreed on priorities and policies, but they have always circled around a liberal center. They both know that personal freedom requires a stable and secure society and that sometimes active steps must be taken to assure equality of opportunity. And despite a history of heated debate including misrepresentation, character assassination, distorted descriptions and definitions, even outright lying, both sides have at least pretended to be looking at verifiable facts, to be drawing logical conclusions, and to be using unbiased descriptions and definitions. Thus their contentions, logic and language can be examined and debated. Consensus and workable compromise were always possible. We are losing that ability.
The terms communism, fascism, socialism and liberalism have always referred to distinct ideological positions. They have their own histories and resonances. These distinctions are dissolved when they are applied to the same object. They become white noise, pure expressions of disembodied emotions and thus impervious to debate or reference to fact. It is impossible to make fact-based arguments to contentions drawn from fantasy. How can one point to what someone actually says and does as evidence of intent when their detractors pretend to a mysterious ability to read minds to "know" what someone "really" wants?
President Obama is a liberal in the best American tradition. His actions are certainly open to debate, but far too much of the invective heaped on his head is fundamentally un-American if it makes any sense at all. I fear for our future when the Glenn Becks of this world drown out its John McCains.
Duncan Smith
Oneonta
