Our Readers’ Views

Health care puzzle unscrambled

Thanks for finally offering readers a tangible example of the dysfunction of our nation’s health care system. By describing the Catch-22 of a poverty-stricken man in need of medical help in the Feb. 3 story “Ailing local man faces health care puzzle,” reporter Scott Hewitt highlights how medical expenses explode when a person loses the safety net of health insurance/employment because they get sick. The cost for care is extra high because without any provision for health care, a sick poor person’s only option is the emergency room, over and over again. And we all pay for that.

This is why we so desperately need the health care law that our nation’s leaders fought bravely to pass. Without it, “free” emergency care provided to the sick and poor will continue to cost taxpayers a fortune.

This reality has been underreported in the debates about the new health care law — and the reason that the new law will save money and lives. The only people who lose money in the deal are insurance giants, who would prefer to keep taking money from healthy people and dropping sick people from their plans.

Health care coverage for all citizens will save all taxpayers money when the nation’s unpaid hospital bills come due.

Jerri Clark

Vancouver

Laird’s views on tolls are misguided

Regarding John Laird’s Feb. 6 column, “Even tax-averse Texans tolerate tolls,” while it is true that there are many toll roads around these metro areas, they are there as optional alternate routes that drivers choose to use to avoid main highways that have higher volumes of traffic.

Unlike the Pacific Northwest, Texas values moving people on their way and avoids constricting traffic. To my knowledge none of the referenced tollways Laird mentioned is an interstate highway.

So give us commuters a freer flowing bridge alternative, i.e. Camas to Troutdale, Ore. or a Lower River Road to Northwest Portland route, then tolls may be warranted.

Mike Herrema

Vancouver

Rights are violated in new health bill

The Columbian Jan. 31 online story “Obama health plan found unconstitutional” reported on how 26 states, including Washington, sued President Obama’s health plan because they thought it was unconstitutional. I agree with Washington’s Attorney General Rob McKenna deciding to sue Obama’s health plan. People’s rights are being violated by making them buy health insurance or they have to face consequences.

Their reasons may be more important than some people think. Some families may not have the money to buy health insurance. To make them face penalties is unconstitutional, as the story reported, “A federal judge ruled Monday that the Obama administration’s health care overhaul is unconstitutional, siding with 26 states that sued to block it.” This is only one of the many reasons the states sued.

“The states also said the federal government is violating the Constitution by forcing a mandate on the states without providing money to pay for it.” Some people don’t go to the doctor because they don’t get sick as often and making them pay anyway is not right, and the ones with a lot of health problems are going to be paying more. Either way, no one is going to be happy with the health care bill.

Ally Pankratova

Vancouver

Ban the dropping of policyholders

We need health care reform. The problem isn’t how many people are covered but the quality of the health insurance. Congress needs to change the system to provide high-quality affordable health insurance with basic consumer protection and regulations on the insurance companies.

Here are a few statistics from the World Health Organization: America is ranked 31st in the world for life expectancy, 37th in infant mortality, and 34th in maternal mortality. We rank so low because insurance companies don’t insure people whom they label unhealthy or high-risk. They find minor illnesses or pre-existing conditions that the policyholder failed to state, justifying them to drop the policyholder. They increase their rates so high that the policyholder can no longer afford the insurance.

What these insurance companies are saying is, if you pay them money they will cover you when you get sick. However, the truth is, they will take your money until you get sick, and then find a way to drop you from their policy. To avoid this, Congress must put regulations on private insurance companies protecting policyholders from unethical practices.

HoDong Herremans

Battle Ground

Animal products are ubiquitous

I just wanted to pen a quick note in response to a Feb. 8 letter, “Boastful story not appropriate,” by Michael Fox-Lambert, which commented on an “Everyone Has a Story” regarding use of a shotgun to hunt animals. Unless you are a total vegan with no animal products in your home whatsoever, which would include leather shoes, belts, etc., you are standing on the porch of a glass house throwing stones.

George Bermudez

Camas

New trail will be open to all

I applaud the Feb. 8 editorial, “A place to walk: Privately funded Evergreen Highway Trail deserves support from local contributors,” supporting fundraising efforts for the Old Evergreen Highway Trail, but I wonder why you believe that “a walking trail would greatly enhance the beauty and accessibility of the region” only for “able-bodied local residents.” The federal grant earmarked to construct a portion of the trail will require that the trail is accessible to all, including people with disabilities.

As former President George W. Bush proclaimed on Oct. 21, 2004, “we continue to work to ensure that people with disabilities can participate fully in … all aspects of community life, including the enjoyment of local walking trails.” In using the adjective “able-bodied,” you intentionally exclude all members of the public with disabilities from your well-meaning editorial. Why?

Melanie Gangle

Camas

Aid to wealthier nations unjustified

In the latest Time magazine, the story “U.S. weapons to Egypt never linked to human rights” reports that the U.S. taxpayers are giving Egypt $3.5 million a day to buy military jets and tanks. The Feb. 8 Columbian story “Egyptian regime stands firm at core” says that government is giving its 6 million public employees 15 percent raises.

With the U.S. government spending more money every year than it is taking in, I do not see how they can justify giving money to all these foreign countries, some more financially secure than the U.S.

Edwin Burgstahler

Washougal