Letters To The Editor: Three Very Defining Names for a Team
Three Very Defining Names for a Team
Editor, Times-Dispatch: If I had known how lame the finalist names for our new baseball team would be, I would have submitted my own three favorites:
- Potholes. Nothing is more indigenous to Richmond than the pothole! Besides, just imagine: It's the bottom of the 9th, the score is tied, the bases are loaded and the batter is a scrappy young man who will do anything to get on base -- including, letting himself be hit by a pitcher! As one, the crowd leaps to its feet and screams, "Hit the Pothole! Hit the Pothole!" In fact, that could be our summer-long rallying cry.
- Humidity. Summer in Richmond is all about the humidity. Without the humidity, there can be no Richmond summer! One can visualize the newspaper account when yet another win is generated by the team's good defense and finesse pitching rather than power hitting and flame-throwing pitchers: "It's not the heat, it's the Humidity!"
- Procrastination. The name says it all regarding baseball (and almost everything else) in Richmond. Maybe we shouldn't have been in such a hurry to pick a name for our new team. Let's take a year or two, or maybe five, to make sure they are going to stay before we do anything rash.
Bill Armstrong.
Richmond.
It Works for China; Why Not America?
Editor, Times-Dispatch:
Michael Moore's new movie "Capitalism" throws a light on the cruelty that can occur in our nation at the hands of banks and self-serving monetary institutions. Toward the end of the film, Moore warmly encourages socialism as an alternative to American capitalism, with moving images of Obama against a swirling orchestral score.
Tell me, though -- Communist China is the largest socialist worker's paradise in the world, yet it is among the world's largest capitalist producers of consumer products. It is replete with denizens of workers earning but pennies a day in pollution-producing, sweatshop-type factories. If the capitalist system is good enough for the socialist Chinese, then why isn't it good enough for socialist Americans?
Richard K. Lumpkin.
Richmond.
Let's Take Time To Read the Bills
Editor, Times-Dispatch:
Who isn't tired of hearing about health care? Especially when it seems we are making little progress toward an acceptable plan for the country. But should we adopt a plan as hastily as the present administration would have us do?
The citizens need time to review the myriad aspects not previously presented which could make a difference in how we view any bill before Congress, particularly a program as momentous as universal health care for at least 300 million people. Our representatives in Congress are intelligent and hard-working, but no more so than the people they represent. Congress and the president need to be sure that sufficient time has been allowed for opinions and ideas to be presented through whatever media can inform the public.
A perfect example of this need for time is Bart Hinkle's Op/Ed column, "Individual Mandate Resembles a Peacetime Draft." It offers an aspect of the health care proposal that had not occurred to me. He argues that "not enough obloquy has been heaped on the most pernicious proposal of all: the mandate requiring every American to buy insurance. This is a dangerously sweeping expansion of federal power with no precedent outside of war." Thank you for making me aware of this oversight and for sending me to the dictionary for obloquy. If the administration's deadline for the passage of the reform bill had been met I would not have had the occasion to consider Hinkle's observations.
The least the government can do is to allow time for consideration of important issues involved in the health care proposal and for Congress to have the time to read it. The fabled tortoise knew the value of slow and deliberate.
Patty Love.
Midlothian.
Reader Reactions
Guess how many insurance providers there are in the United States. I’ll give you a hint, it’s “galactically” well north of 5. Let them all sell insurance wherever they want to and watch costs come down. The government option is not even constitutional.
Some genius really came out with the cure-all for reducing costs of our health care delivery system. Listen up. This is important info from a person who racked his brain to come up with his very best, most highly intelligent answer. Are we ready for this? Here goes (food for thought follows each bullet):
To actually reduce consumer costs:
-eliminate state barriers. (The Family of Five insurers; United, Aetna, Cigna, Wellpoint, Humana, have a monopoly controlling all 50 states and premiums within. They coordinate and share data technology from one primary source, Ingenix, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth, the insurer with billion $ CEO’s. The genius is so brilliant as to believe the 50 states who regulate insurers also regulate their premiums, which are based on costs of medical claims within each state. The Family is free to charge what they please anywhere. Medical costs are lower in Iowa than Virginia, but no Virginia resident is gonna be sold an Iowa policy at Iowa pricing, unless Genius and others who believe in “free enterprise” feel big government ought to dictate to insurers what prices to charge.)
-eliminate the tax deduction for employer-sponsored policies that insulate policyholders from true costs. (Say what? That $13,400 Y2009 premium cost, split 73% by employer, 27% by employee, should not get tax break; thus, should go to perhaps $16,000? Duh. How is that gonna reduce consumer (employer; employee/policyholder) costs? Want not that increase cost?
-Encourage high-deductible insurance. (Oh yeah! Now that is a winner. Genius does not realize insurers don’t need any encouraging, as they push on-going higher-deductible insurance by raising % of premium increases more for lower-deductible plans than higher ones. I know several people with $5,000 annual deductibles and who go year after year paying for insurance and 100% of the medical bills. When Y2019 rolls around and $30,000/yr premiums hit, look for $10,000 deductible plans as the norm.)
Wonder if the genius will share his plan with Eric Cantor?
Moore’s new movie is mistitled. What he’s harping about is corporate fascism, not capitalism.
I’m not sure how he can blame capitalism when those who control the taxpayer loot are not capitalists.
Johnny One-Note:
Sure, insurance premiums have doubled in past past 8 years to $13,400 average for 2009
How will mandated insurance, i.e. increased demand reduce costs absent price controls? If you’re for price controls you should say so.
To actually reduce consumer costs:
-eliminate state barriers
-eliminate the tax deduction for employer-sponsored policies that insulate policyholders from true costs
-Encourage high-deductible insurance
Ms Love has a valid point…“The fabled tortoise knew the value of slow and deliberate.“
We ought not rush into changing a free market health care delivery system, as after all, it is very profitable to some very important people. Agreed, all other advanced democracies began reforming their systems 50-60 years ago and have achieved broader health care coverage with much lower costs to GDP than we, but we really oughta think of the well-being of insurance executives and large Wall Street hedge funds who own majority of health insurance stocks and options. Then, there are members of Congress who depend on campaign funds from the industry. Don’t forget about their well-being.
Sure, insurance premiums have doubled in past past 8 years to $13,400 average for 2009 for employer’s coverage of one employee with family, and is straight-lining to $30,000 in ten years (Y2019), but we need to be patient (no pun intended) and not rush into reform. Let us see how the patient feels in, say, Y2019. If the pain is more severe, re-evaluate, discuss some more, and perhaps wait another ten years. After all, it has been primarily Democrat leaders who periodically propose reform. Harry Truman tried it 60 years ago. Last time twas Bill Clinton 16 years ago. Something must be bad with covering more Americans with less costly system, if only the Democrats are making such overtures. Best we wait few years until a Republican leader makes a proposal. They know what’s best for the patient. Eric Cantor is still a young Congressman. Let’s wait 10-20 years until he decides a Better Way to cover all Americans with less costly system.
If it worked for the tortoise, perhaps it will work for our shell….game.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement