Now
Mostly Cloudy
23°
High
25°
Low
11°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Opinion > Letters
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Letters, 7/22: Spend lives, treasure better

Comments 38 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Tuesday, Jul 22, 2008 - 12:52:53 am CDT

Edgar Pearlstein’s letter (July 18) spoke some good sense about Iraq.  We have to separate the colossal blunders that (1) got us there and (2) wasted our victory, from the debate of what comes next. And we must stop polarizing the discussion.

Bush’s successor, whoever, will have to clean up his tragic mess.  Barack Obama will have to back off the 16-month or so promise.  (Unless Afghanistan gets so bad that drawdown in Iraq is obviously unavoidable.) Straight-talking John McCain speaks with forked tongue when he says “100 years is fine with me,” and then waffles with qualifiers like “presence” and “no one getting killed.”  There is no conceivable scenario for that either.

What McCain means is the popular We Will Stay As Long As It Takes.  An open-ended commitment to keep Iraq among our highest national priorities, however we might need those resources elsewhere. Iraq is not important enough for that pledge.

We cannot afford a 100-year, or 50-year or 10-year campaign in Iraq, even if casualties ended tomorrow and a friendly, unified, stable, secular, democratic Iraq was likely to emerge at the end of the tunnel.  We can cross off two or three of these previous goals right now. 

We cannot afford what we’ve already invested there. By overseeing this Iraqi insurgency we are crippling ourselves and unforgivably handicapping our grandchildren, not to mention badly eroding our ability to fight terrorists.

We must weigh how better to spend lives and treasure, whatever the possible consequences over there.  A ton of devastation in our wake is a given, along with animosity and loss of international stature and advantage.  We’re fiddling now with decisions that might somehow alleviate a little bit, but won’t erase it, and will cost us plenty more that we cannot afford.

Tom deShazo, Lincoln

A slippery slope

Government is bailing out home loan companies to the tune of billions of dollars. President Bush says he won’t bail out General Motors, but the way bailouts are going, don’t bet on it.

General Motors is laying off, freezing pay, closing plants, discontinuing some models and trying to sell off others to keep afloat.

One thing they are also doing is quitting health insurance on salaried retirees at age 65. How convenient that is the age Americans can draw from a government medical program called Medicare.

If America gets national health care, what’s to keep poorly managed companies from quitting their employee health insurance at an age younger than 65 and expecting a bailout. How many workers including me have you heard say I’d quit work except for my company’s health insurance?

When people live as good or better not working than working, odds are they’ll quit work. America’s shrinking taxpayer base is sliding into a hole that will be hard to climb out of.

Bill Allen, Blue Springs

The $35M is just interest

Why? Why do the county commissioners want to indenture their citizens 20 versus 10 years and charge them as much as $100 million for a jail that’s worth $65 million?

The up to $35 million extra is only interest. It does nothing for Lancaster County, its citizens, nor does it improve the new jail’s quality or standards.

The up to $35 million would, however, buy 8.75 million gallons of $4 gasoline to transport prisoners to and from court (based on 10 miles roundtrip, at 15 miles per gallon). That’s a lot of gas, folks; enough for more than 13 million trips.

Gary Enevoldsen, Lincoln


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Letters > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Dan wrote on July 22, 2008 3:07 am:
" Good letter Tom. Just think, if after the 74 oil embargo, we'd have spent the money on alternative energy and fuels that we've spent protecting big oils money interests, do you think we would be were we're at? That shouldn't have been an insurmountable problem for a country that was able to put a man on the moon. I know the rightys will scream 9/11, but there are people out there who still think Sadamm was behind it all. "

 Zoomie wrote on July 22, 2008 6:28 am:
" Tom, agree with all you say except the comment about Obama's 16 month pledge. That pledge doesn't lock us into 16 months, but says "about" 16 months. Might be 24, might be 12. But it won't be 60 or 120 or 1200, as McCain promises! And its worth noting, that Sen John McCain has stated on several occasions that when the Iraqi gov't wants us to go, then its time to withdraw. Well, over the last 3 days they've made very clear they agree with Obama and his 16 month pledge, and are demanding a timeline for our withdrawal from their country (even Bush is now referring to a "time horizon" which is apparently GOP-speak for a timeline).
And Bill - Honda built a plant recently in Canada instead of the cheaper Alabama. Why? Because they could budget for healthcare costs in Canada, and they can't in the US. Our companies are uncompetetive on the world market because of healthcare insurance costs, which are predictable, controllable and equally shared by all, in literally every other industrialized nation in the world. Only in the US are healthcare costs rampantly out of control. The people of America spend more money, per person, on healthcare than any other nation in the world, we get less to show for it than the other nations (we've now dropped to 42nd in the world in a recent WHO index of health), leave more people uncovered. We spend an average of 2.5 times what the average EU nation spends, and they cover every person. If we went to a nationalized healthcare system, business would be out from under the crushing costs of past promises, Medicare and Medicaid would be rolled into the system (along with the VA, FYI), people would stop worrying about the cost of their healthcare (FYI, most than 50% of all bankruptcies are because of medical costs), and if we emulated, for example, the French system (rated best in the world) we could cover 100% of the country for half to 2/3rds what we are spending right now. "

 Greg wrote on July 22, 2008 7:09 am:
" Slippery Slope is missing the point. All of GM's overseas competitors reside in countries that have national(government funded) health care. This gives them a distinct competitive advantage over GM (or any U.S. automaker) since the cost of health insurance is not a factor in the price they set for their product, whereas GM must include those costs in determining its pricing. To take a broader perspective, national health care in this country would help to level the competitive playing field for most U.S. companies engaged in international markets. "

 To Mr. deShazo wrote on July 22, 2008 7:28 am:
" I wonder what would have happened if we had pulled out of Japan, Germany, Italy right after WW2.... oh BTW I am waiting for our exit strategy there! "

 Edgar Pearlstein wrote on July 22, 2008 8:24 am:
" In response to Mr. Allen's letter, I suggest that a "bailout" of companies' responsibility for health insurance would have good consequences. (1) The companies would not have to consider health insurance costs in their calculations of hiring workers, and so could create more jobs. (2) A national health care system would cost society less than our present multiple-payer mish-mush system, since there would be less paper work, and the paper work that remains would be standardized and thus easily mastered. "

 Lament wrote on July 22, 2008 8:32 am:
" Why? Why do people want to indenture themselves for 30 versus 15 years when buying a house?
Because it is difficult for most people to afford the huge payment required to pay off a house in 15 years. Most people prefer to pay many thousands of dollars in extra interest so that they can afford a home for their family.

Lancaster county is REQUIRED BY LAW to provide a jail. It is REQUIRED BY LAW to provide beds, shelter, and adiquate facilities to those prisoners. Lancaster county is way way way over the maximum occupancy of the existing jail. Lancaster County is in violation of those laws. We the taxpayers are paying to transport prisoners to other jails. Keep in mind, it is hard to find other jails to take them to, as most other jails are also over their maximum occupancy limits!

The County spends money on alternatives to incarceration. House arrest, ankle tracking units, etc... However, they cant simply let dangerous criminals out because a few whiners dont want to build a jail to house them.
The same whiners that would be up in arms if one of those dangerous criminals hurt or killed someone they loved.

The County doesnt want to build jails. They dont enjoy it. It isnt some fun recreation, or a hobby they took up to relax on the weekends. They have to do it. There is no choice.

Some people like to pay off their house in 15 years. Most dont. Lets give the County some credit. With a 20 year plan, they can pay it off early, if things go well with the economy. Why make taxes higher than they have to be for people who are already feeling the crush of the poor economy? Lets keep it flexible! "

 CS wrote on July 22, 2008 8:50 am:
" Bill, i'm sure you and I would clash on this if we met up at the West End or the coffee shop, but if there was a national health care plan the employers could pay a wage commensurate with the job and the employee could pay for private insurance or utilize the national plan and save for their own retirement. No one is guaranteed a pension-It was GM's folly to provide this coverage, evidence3d especially now in the face of the current economy. 20 years ago there was no way they could predict the economy of now, however they could have engineered their product line towards profitability instead of SUV's. A national health care plan has nothing to do with a poorly managed company, other than a poorly managed company is going to have issues fulfilling their promises to their employees. Baby boomers like to preach self reliance to us, but then you write a letter like this and make me question why it is we as a younger generation should continue to look up to you. You obviously have lost some of that which made it worthy to do so. "

 for cs wrote on July 22, 2008 9:16 am:
" While I don't necessarily agree with bill on health care, national health care is possible. I was stationed in europe several times and heard about theirs. They provide for care of normal illness. If you want a facelift or transplant you have to have supplemental insurance. It don't cover everything. As far as calling out baby boomers, maybe you better put your mind in motion before putting it on a screen. I am sure you and I would clash. Just how much do you figure you owe your parents? Who paid your way through your first 21 years? How many like you are moving home because they can't cut it out in the world? I've read your blogs about boomers taking social security and you have to pay for them. Just who do you think has paid into social security then see it robbed to be spent on pet projects or pork barrel project by our government? Quit complaining about the boomers who have kept this country running for 40 years. "

 Big Chief wrote on July 22, 2008 9:51 am:
" Although I think a national health care program would be a disaster the arguments put up by Zoomie, Greg, Edgar Pearlstein and CS make a lot of sense. I might have to rethink my position. "

 Sean wrote on July 22, 2008 10:11 am:
" Hey (chicken little) deShazo...you know...the sky really isn't falling..right? "

 CS wrote on July 22, 2008 10:24 am:
" I own my house. Im 30, not 21. I pay for their social security-there is no fund for each person. My money is getting robbed out of it as well and I *might* see something if it still exists when my kids are older. I moved out when I was 16, and worked through HS and all of college and paid my own rent and tuition. I have no problem with national health care at all. Ive seen it in action in other country's that I have been in. Im a veteran, too. There-I think I fixed all that for you. "

 Josh wrote on July 22, 2008 10:38 am:
" It's so funny that some people think a national healthcare system would be a disaster. What is that based on? As others have mentioned, EVERY other developed country in the world has nationalized healthcare, and most of those rate ahead of ours for efficiency. So what's the problem? It's that narrow minded people are so afraid of a change to something that sounds like socialism- because they think that is a dirty word. "

 eddie wrote on July 22, 2008 10:59 am:
" Why do people want the government making their health care decisions? "

 Well wrote on July 22, 2008 11:16 am:
" lets see, the younger ones complain about paying into social security.
And in Nebraska those receiving social security, are paying nearly the
highest property taxes in the Nation, paying a second time for a jail,
pay state income tax on all their social security whereas the state I
moved from you pay NO TAX on social security plus get extra exemptions
and everyone gets a big homestead exemption on their property tax. Yeah
social security was meant for the retireds, but you'd be shocked to know
what you younger ones are paying into social security is ALSO paying for
millions of CHILDREN and you name it!!! "

 Zoomie wrote on July 22, 2008 12:07 pm:
" Eddie - I don't want gov't making my healthcare decisions. And I don't want health insurance companies making those decisions, either, which is what they do today. In France, a consortium meets every 2yrs and represents major unions, gov't, various business groups and the medical professions. They hammer out agreements over general rates and services that will be covered under the national health. Patients select any doc they want, can go any time they want, docs can see (or refuse to see) any patients they want. If you need medical care, from routine and preventative, to emergency, to surgical, etc., then gov't basically picks up the cost (you have reasonable office visit charges, with procedures in place to cover the poor). If you want elective care (ie. nose jobs, etc.) you pay for it yourself or buy supplemental insurance. But everyone is covered for all necessary or preventative medical care, all the time. What is so bad about that?
Well - last time I checked the annual report at the Tax Policy Institute, Nebraska's overall tax burden puts us either at 24th or 26th (can't remember which, but it was basically in the middle) compared to the other 49 states. We're a long way from the most tax burdened state in the country! "

 SB wrote on July 22, 2008 12:17 pm:
" How about a ‘national gas coverage’ so I can also pay for all the people commuting 60 miles a day in their SUVs? "

 universal health care wrote on July 22, 2008 12:20 pm:
" In a universal health care plan (also called a single payer plan) the government does NOT make your health care choices for you. YOU pick your doctor. Universal health care covers things you would normally see a doctor for, but may not be able to due the cost of an office visit. It will also cover emergnecies. But it will not cover things like plastic surgery, that are OPTIONAL. You would be paying for that. Also you still can maintain your health coverage with a third party.

This whole socialism idea of universal health care was started by the AMA during the Cold War when the idea was being batted around by Congress. the AMA thought it would be a bad idea. So they sided with the insurance providers to get the idea of univeral health care shot down. They labeled it socialistic and something a commie would do. it somehow takes money from you and you don't get any benefit (like health insurance, if you don't use it). So the idea was killed. Europe adopted it though. Now, the insurance companies are dictating what doctors can and can't due, because the insurance companies are the ones holding the purse strings and only have the interest of higher profits in mind. So right now the health of the patient is a secondary concern, profit is the primary concern. With a universal health plan, the government isn't out to make a profit, there are no shareholders, no CEO with a 100 million dollar salary and golden parachute.

The US is the richest country in the world, so it should stand to reason that we would have the greatest health care in the world. We don't. Poorer countries have better health care. why? they put the patient first, profits for insurance companies don't factor into their health care systems. "

 CS wrote on July 22, 2008 12:21 pm:
" For general maintenance, a national health care system makes sense. If you take care of yourself and get checked out on a regular basis, many debilitating diseases and disorders never happen. If people would treat themselves as good as they treat their cars or their stereo equipment they would be better off. Most national systems have private practice insurance as well if you want to see a specialist and not wait. A lot of the negatives that I hear about national health care come from those that either have not used it in the past in another country, used a system that is completely government controlled rather than a combination of govt/private, or merely dislike being told that they aren't really as bad off as they think they are during triage. "

 Response to Josh wrote on July 22, 2008 12:23 pm:
" The reason that many other countries have (relatively) operational national health care systems is because they are free-riding off of the advances made by the world's foremost privatized health care system (the US). Privatized health care does raise costs, but it also allows doctors to specialize (thus being able to innovate new life-saving procedures and technology), and the high costs of drugs subsidized the R&D which leads to new medications.

It is an accurate statement that more people get a more standard level of healthcare in countries with a government-sponsored/nationalized healthcare system. However, the US still leads the world (by quite a margin) in medical technology, surgical procedure and medication innovation. Nationalized healthcare would destroy that. "

 CS wrote on July 22, 2008 1:35 pm:
" NO it wouldn't. Where does this idea come from that Doctors suddenly stop doing research in a Nationalized system? Only 2 of the last 7 years have only US doctors won the Nobel prize in Medicine. The rest of them had the US, UK, Australia, Singapore, South Africa, and Sweden. "

 Federal Ruling wrote on July 22, 2008 2:52 pm:
" One of the reasons that GM was able to stop paying health care of individuals when they hit the age for medicare was made in a federal ruling because the individuals were qualified for medicare at that time. However, health care, if policy and provided by labor contract, cannot stop before that time due to ERISA. Check it out...with health care costs escalating, something will have to change...especiallyl since the numbers indicate that the largest portion of our populiation will be retiring soon and using medical treatments more often. "

 Greg wrote on July 22, 2008 3:19 pm:
" "Response to Josh" seems to believe that on the day after National Health Care begins, all specialists practicing in our medical community will cease to function as specialists and all those in training to become specialists will opt to become general practitioners instead. This baseless and absurd position is merely a red herring intended to mislead and frighten people through disinformation. "

 Easterner wrote on July 22, 2008 4:47 pm:
" I remmember our governments "universal" health care. Your illness and treatment was based on the needs of the state not the needs of the individual. Health care was rationed to the populace but readily available to the politicals who were more needed by the state. Why did Sen Kennedy go to a private hospital instead of a public hospital if the system needs to be defended? I see coming what we had in the DDR, a rationed system for the masses and a totally diferant system for the politicals. Is that not what you have now with the current politicals having a better healthcare system as well retirement system. And this is what you really want? We in the DDR did not, one of the reasons the whole system failed. "

 CS wrote on July 22, 2008 4:59 pm:
" Because the DDR is the only system from which to draw examples. Good grief. "

 Dave wrote on July 22, 2008 6:12 pm:
" I am not afraid of government run healthcare. They do a pretty good job with the fire and police departments. Our arrogance in this country is really unfounded- We could learn a lot from our European friends. "

 Letss ask Obama wrote on July 22, 2008 6:21 pm:
" Why don't we ask the great Obama what he thinks. He has all the answers for everything under the sun. I don't know how all of us got this far in life without Obama. He may even have an answer for the county jail boondoogle. "

 Zoomie wrote on July 22, 2008 7:52 pm:
" CS - there are no waits in France, or most of the European nations. There are some in Canada and the UK, but both of those nations are among the worst examples of a universal health system. And let me remind people, we have waits here in the US, too! I had a herniated lumbar disc that literally left me bed-bound almost 2yrs ago, yet the wait for surgery was almost a month. Got my annual physical 4 weeks ago, and they recommended some preventative checks at the hospital (ie. cardio stress test). Five day wait for the stress test, 3 weeks for the other test. This phoney terror of "waits" ignores the fact we've had waits here ourselves for years.
Easterner - please! In case you missed it, the DDR is long gone, a total failure. Meanwhile, Germany -- which has had a national health system for 50+ years -- is doing just fine! As is France, Sweden, Spain, Ireland...shall I continue? Finding one failure of a nation that used a poor health system doesn't prove the concept is a failure, only that the DDR didn't know how to do it (among other things). In case you've not read the news, if we do nothing our healthcare system as currently configured will also fail in another couple of decades. "

 NHS Survivor wrote on July 22, 2008 8:13 pm:
" My question is, why do Canadian's come to the US to birth baby's or for major no-wait health care if thier system is so perfect? Why do English have smiles with teeth like keys when the NHS provides such great service?
Why do German's have actual health care "ration books" and if no coupon get out the wallet, and only if you can find a doctor that will treat you. I do remmember news story of a Canadian lady who had to come to Montana? because the neo-natal health care system in her Canadian city was "full", and no care was available till a slot opened, and unfortuanately nature does not have a schedule that conforms to the "available" health care. Why do major european celebrities come to America for major health care issues if thier home systems are so good?
These systems are are hyped as "perfect" or better than American by Americans with an agenda, yet the people served by these great health care systems head directly here if possible, if a "major" illness strikes. Alternative is wait and hope not to die before your "appointment" opens up and pray you do not have a major problem. I left Great Britian six years ago, and love your current form of health care over the NHS, which many here do not truely understand by the views here. "

 CS wrote on July 22, 2008 9:25 pm:
" Zoomie-I agree with you. Im not against it at all. NHS suvivor-It's not your fault that Canada's system is completely run by the government. Major celebrities and political figures come to the US because they are selfish, or want procedures that aren't for their health. There are many national systems that allow you to be as selfish as you want and buy your way into care-just not at the expense of others. "

 No wrote on July 22, 2008 11:18 pm:
" Universal health care is NOT a magic plan where everyone gets health care. The majority of those seen and helped are people with common illnesses, children, nothing that will cost big bucks. When faced with a major disease, these people are put off. Please don't bring up cosmetic surgery as an example. Most private insurance companies already DO NOT pay for plastic or elective surgery. I belong to a web group of spinal cord injured. Some are from Canada, London, New Zealand and Denmark. For minor problems, they are seen and treated, but for the major problems that accompany spinal cord injuries, they are not treated for months. They often don't get the equipment they need. Some from Canada have spent every last cent to come to the US to see a specialist, because they don't have enough in Canada. They have been left in hall ways in hospitals because there aren't enough beds. While we in the US with insurance have the same level of care as a child with the flu. I know several young women who would rather shop for shoes than buy health insurance. It's not necessarily the poor that doesn't have health insurance here, it's the people that would rather spend their money partying and shopping. I don't want to lose my "good" health care which I pay for through my job for one that only covers the minor things. "

 Nina wrote on July 23, 2008 8:22 am:
" The sky already fell for the thousands of Americans killed or wounded in Iraq, because of Bush's great lies to the American people. The sky has also fallen for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the young of whom have never known security. Iraq has now asked us to leave; we should get out while the getting's good, because sooner or later, these people will revert back to their centuries-old infighting. The first President Bush recognized this, as did Clinton, and does Obama. "

 Zoomie wrote on July 23, 2008 9:29 am:
" And I have more relatives in the UK than in the US, and one (a nurse) who has lived here and in the UK, prefers the NHS to our system of catch-as-catch-can, profit-aheard-of-care system. To each their own. Notice people keep bringing up Canada to argue against universal care, dispite the supporters such as myself constantly pointing out its about the worst example there is? Can we forget Canada, since it would never be the system we would (or should) emulate? And FYI - EU nations DO have better healthcare than we do! That isn't opinion. It has been repeatedly documented by numerous groups (MDs, UN, WHO, OECD) and all find we are NEVER in the top 10 by nation for any objective measurable standard! And I repeat - we have waits here in the US and people who pretend otherwise are never sick, or are misstating the reality. And that assumes one has decent insurance. Oh, and NHS survivor - don't know what they do over there now, but last summer in the UK I noticed that teens all seem to have as good teeth now as our kids do. It used to be bad over there, I agree (many of my older cousins have very crooked teeth), but it doesn't seem to be a problem any longer! "

 Lindsay wrote on July 23, 2008 9:48 am:
" My husband is British and he was very happy with the NHS as he had a severe birth defect which required multiple surgeries throughout his childhood. Luckily he lived near a doctor who was one of the top doctors in his field who developed new methods of cleft repair. He had access to the speech therapists as well as hearing specialists - in the far north during the Thatcher era I might add. Similar surgeries and care could easily bankrupt a family over here. There are horror stories in every system, and the NHS is far from perfect. However, I've never heard any of my British friends and family say sod the NHS...let's have a system exactly like the one in America! "

 Apples Oranges wrote on July 23, 2008 10:43 am:
" I see we still have Bush Jr. apologists comparing World War II with our Invasion of Iraq. And doing it in a one line sound bite. Nice. That way you don't have to explain yourself. "

 National Health Care wrote on July 23, 2008 11:01 am:
" Lots of people on this post have esp when it comes to National Health Care. Get ready, because it IS coming. "

 Priceless wrote on July 23, 2008 1:18 pm:
" The NICU bill that our insurance didn't cover: $15,500
Well-baby check-ups not covered: $129 each
Immunizations not covered: $20 @ the health dept or over $500 @ the doctor's office
Daily growth hormone injections for our daughter: $25,000 per year
National Health Care System: Priceless "

 Neo wrote on July 23, 2008 5:25 pm:
" Rising healthcare costs will not be solved by communist propaganda. Healthcare costs have increased because new drugs, new procedures, and new equipment have extended the lives of the population. This research comes at a high cost and extended lives leads to other issues such as greater incidents of dementia. It's plain and simple and costs will continue to escalate.

Socialized medicine will make it unprofitable to continue research to find cures for diseases and the quality of life will go down.

For those that throw Europe around as a great example of how to run things, take a close look at their unemployment numbers, number of people on welfare and the tax structures. You will not like what you see. "

 Ray wrote on July 23, 2008 7:08 pm:
" Nina,
Did you mean lies like this?
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
or this?
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Are these the lies that got us into Iraq? "

Ads by Yahoo!