On July 1, Nebraska state government implemented a series of structural changes designed to “improve” the disbursement and provision of mental health care to clients in need of these services. Such changes were implemented in an effort to streamline the provision of care by placing a few flagship organizations in charge of the disbursement and provision of care referrals. Although the premise behind such changes is great in theory, it will have a negative impact on clients and clinicians alike.

This new system fails to account for the individuals who are likely to get lost in the shuffle. In turn, low-income individuals who are in desperate need of psychological services no longer will have ready access to the services they require to function. Instead, they are likely to drift through life not living up to their full potential.

Although the impact of this new system on the clients is appalling, these changes also will affect the clinicians responsible for the provision of psychological services. By making a few select organizations responsible for the bulk of the provision of services, smaller groups and private practice organizations will suffer and are likely to be run out of business. This will, in turn, lead to a greater reduction in the number of available providers for the already suffering clients in the community.

Sadly, no one seems to benefit from this new system. It is my greatest hope that government officials will realize the negative impact this system will have on the community and will make changes accordingly. Until then, clients and providers alike will need to hold on and try to make the best of a less than ideal situation.

Heather Bradshaw, psychological intern, Nebraska Mental Health Centers

A sad day at the movies

My heart broke the night my husband and I went to see “The Dark Knight” at the theater. We were excited to see the movie; we had enjoyed “Batman Begins” as well. But right before it started, an adult woman came in with a little boy, about 4 years old, and sat a few rows back from the very front of the theater. The boy was carrying a Thomas the Train “blankie,” as I heard him call it, and I would suggest that watching a Thomas movie would have been a much better choice for that little guy that night.

Being a mother of a 3½-year-old son, I was so saddened to witness the senseless exposure of such a young and innocent little boy to violence, evil and horror that is far beyond his years. I just can’t even imagine bringing my son or any of his three siblings to a movie like that.

I cannot understand why more parents and mature adults don’t try harder to protect the innocence of the young children they are entrusted with. Isn’t it our responsibility to protect our children? We certainly shouldn’t be willingly exposing them to things they are too young to process and understand.

I would like to propose that our local theaters adopt a policy to help protect young children from the careless choices of the adults in their lives. Much the same way that a person must be 17 or older to attend a movie rated NC-17, it is my opinion that PG-13 movies are rated as such for a reason, and no one under the age of 13 should be permitted. If parents want to expose their children to things of this nature, make them wait a while and think about it until the movie comes out on video. Maybe, just maybe, they will change their minds and choose to keep their children innocent just a little while longer.

Stacy Decker, Bennet

Time for some respect

Regarding your editorial (July 30) supporting the Ponca Tribe’s efforts to build a casino on its own land: Congratulations! Nebraska has ripped the Ponca Tribe off throughout its entire history in our state. If you want to know how, read Helen Hunt Jackson’s book “A Century of Dishonor.” It’s time we gave them a little freedom and respect.

Geo D. Fannon, Syracuse

Try another method

If Pat Loontjer (Local View, Aug. 4) put as much energy in helping the Ponca people as she  puts in opposing gambling that is not taking place in Nebraska, maybe the Ponca would not have to resort to gambling.

David L. Foster, Brainard

Share the road

It is perfectly legal to bike on the street!

In fact, in certain parts of the city (downtown), it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk.

Not only is it legal to ride on the street, it’s safer for me. How many times have drivers nearly hit a pedestrian or a cyclist on the sidewalk as they turned into a lot or out onto the street? Drivers are not watching the sidewalk. And do you know who loses in a car/bike crash? I do; one of you hit my sister recently.

You may not like seeing me on “your” streets, but at least you can see me.

So I’m sorry my taking up a lane going 15-20 mph puts a cramp in your style. I know it’s a real hassle to slow down for three seconds to get in the other lane and go around all five feet of me. But I am just not comfortable with a few thousand pounds of metal passing two feet from me at 40 mph, so on streets with more than one lane, I will take up the outside lane.

I am even more sorry that the prospect of arriving at your destination 10 seconds later makes you want to lay on your horn and scream obscenities. It is not my fault you left late.

I am sorry you and your 15 mpg SUV are polluting our planet. I am sorry you are selling the souls of my children to Saudi oil barons.

I am sorry that you, in the comfort of your air-conditioned vehicle, will continue to drive through at Mickey D’s on the way to your couch. Way to keep America among the fattest countries in the world.

This is my alternative to paying upward of $50 to fill my tank. This is my alternative to Lincoln’s unfortunate public transportation system. This is how I get to work; this is how I go grocery shopping. I am not doing this to irritate drivers.

My bike is cheap. My bike is energy efficient. My bike is healthy.

People need to share the road!

Misha Coleman, Lincoln