Text Size:
A|
A|
A
Email
PrintI was disappointed when I read your editorial "Call to Action: Obama Makes a Strong Case for Reform" (Sept. 11). While the editorial laid out the health-care issues well, as did the president, I'm surprised thoughtful people like yourselves don't reach the higher ground. You could propose a new way to approach the problem, rather than blaming the Republicans or counseling U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire to fall in line.
No matter how we got to this place in the debate (your assertion because of "months of lies and misinformation"), it is time to realize that many Americans don't want this plan because of its size. Telling them "trust us, you've been lied to" misses the point.
The health-care problem is real. There are people without insurance. There are people who lose insurance when they change jobs. There are people who are denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Costs are too high. That doesn't mean Congress' plan or the president's plan is the right way to go.
A more thoughtful solution would be to hear the opposition, realize they are Americans, too, and start to pull apart these problems and deal with them separately, because it is the size and monolithic nature of the proposed solution that is the problem.
True leadership, compromise and bipartisanship mean hearing the opposition and people's fears and rethinking the course with that in mind.
The PG editorial board could start the conversation in a new direction. Jason Altmire could as well. I would expect nothing less from thoughtful people in leadership positions.
STEPHEN L. ECKERT
Bellevue
A moral issue
Unless I have missed it in what I've read and what I've seen discussed on television and in Congress, there has been an almost total lack of consideration of the central issue in the provision of health care. It is a profoundly moral issue. I think it can be taken as a given that we have the most excellent medical schools and therefore superbly trained physicians and nurses. We also have top-quality hospitals, research and technical innovations. But do we have fairness?
Lets say there are two different parents, each with a child who has leukemia. One parent is wealthy while the other is unemployed and uninsured. Should each child get the same medical treatment? Then ask yourself whether in our current system of medical care each will get it.
If we truly have the moral sense that as humans we supposedly have, then the answer should be obvious. And the basic position of our Congress should start as a sine qua non that universal care, not universal insurance, must be provided. From there it then determines how it will be paid for. As I see it, we are all responsible for each other's health care, through taxes apportioned by the ability to pay. To profit from someone's illnesses and disabilities is morally repugnant. To deny care on the basis of ability to pay is more so -- and shameful.
LEWIS DIANA
Mt. Lebanon
People you know
President Barack Obama's address to Congress last week left me, as a personal believer and supporter of health-care reform, with an even greater sense of urgency and understanding.
The president did such an eloquent job of stating the case and the absolute need for health-care reform. He made the point that in our current system we are all possibly one disease, one car accident, one lost job away from joining the ranks of the uninsured. The president explained how those currently insured will benefit from greater insurance company regulations and competition. As for the uninsured, he described how our country will begin to catch up with the rest of the world by doing the right thing and making sure that everyone will eventually have access to some sort of quality, affordable health insurance option.
With this said, there are undoubtedly still critics out there who believe if someone can't afford worthwhile health coverage it must be their fault and they should do something about it themselves. What these people fail to realize is that 70 percent of the uninsured are in families that work full time. The uninsured are probably some of your friends, your recently graduated sons and daughters, the people who wait your tables or the drivers whom you share the road with every day. In this economy especially, the uninsured are not nameless, faceless people looking for a free ride -- "they" are members of your community.
TED ZIMMER
Mount Washington
Fashion fascism
I cannot believe that your editorial board did such a ridiculous editorial as "Fashion Police: Student Safety Trumps Style at Woodland Hills" (Sept. 9), with such ridiculous assertions.
"For their own safety, students are now required to wear their shirts tucked neatly into the waistlines of their pants ... Far from being ridiculous, the rules are a good-faith effort to keep weapons out of the school and the students safe. When baggy shirts and pants are the norm, it is hard to spot weapons being smuggled into school."
Now, if this were some city with a southern climate, I might actually give you a pass. But it's not. Overcoats and parkas are the norm in this city from October until the end of April. Considering that this local government-mandated dress code doesn't ban overcoats and parkas -- in which weapons could very easily be hidden -- your argument for the dress code is, shall we say, not exactly logical. Actually, it seems like a blatant falsehood. As a middle-aged fat guy who purposefully wears my shirt untucked to cover the belly, I personally find both the dress code and editorial offensive.
I also don't understand why this doesn't rile up all those Obama-haters. The government dictating what clothing people may and may not wear is closer to communism/fascism than government-regulated health care could ever be.
JAMES LAWRENCE
New Castle
Serious about rules
I would like to commend Woodland Hills School District for sending the students home for not tucking in their shirts ("Woodland Hills Students Tuck In on Second Day," Sept. 5). It might sound silly to the parents, but enforcing the rules and letting the students know they are not going to get away with breaking the simplest of the rules in school might make them think that the next time they try to break other rules, there will be consequences.
There is a problem in many schools with enforcing the consequences when a student breaks the rule. This causes disruption in the classroom, hallways, cafeterias and on the buses. This shows the students Woodland Hills means business. It is a rule, so the students should follow it with no exception.
JEANINE CEGELSKI
McKeesport
Taken for fools
Remember the song by The Who that says "don't get fooled again." That's for fans of the Pirates.
After all these years and nearly a generation of fans not able to know quality baseball in Pittsburgh, it is the truth. Rebuilding, five-year plans, whatever. It's a shame that a beautiful place like PNC Park gets large crowds only for bobbleheads and fireworks.
What about putting forth the needed ways to get a quality product? Seeing the recent list of all the players since Sid Bream slid into home at Fulton County Stadium ("17 the Tragic Number," Sept. 8 Sports) should be numbing, but it's like getting a cortisone shot in the knee without lidocaine.
Hey, Pittsburgh, people have been told not to drink the Kool-Aid, but I guess the bobbleheads, fireworks and overpriced bad food without even a .500 season show you really have drunk it up. Being a loyal fan is one thing, but being taken advantage of and treated as an idiot is totally different.
STEVE BLOOM
Moon
More regulation isn't the way to encourage humane practices
I am writing in response to your Sept. 3 editorial "Chicken and Egg: Wanton Killing of Chicks Is a Picture of Depravity." I, too, was horrified when I read about the mistreatment of male chicks by the Hy-Line company. It's an unnecessary practice that only serves to desensitize the workers. But I'm afraid that's where our agreement ends.
In the last sentence of the editorial, you make the quantum leap of logic from discovering a problem to asking the federal government to fix it through legislation, as if there were no alternative. Grocery chains like Whole Foods have made strides in demanding that their products come from ethically treated animals. We should encourage consumers to educate themselves and make choices that reflect their values. Given an educated option, most consumers would opt for the humanely treated foods. The only reason we bury our heads now is because many of us don't know that other options exist.
Your knee-jerk reaction to invite more government regulation is well-meaning but severely misguided. Asking the government to make sure companies are treating animals humanely is like asking the fox to watch over the henhouse.
MIKE HUSELTON
Butler
