Letters to the Editor, May 27
Thanks to authors
I want to laud co-authors and Star Trek experts Paula M. Block and Terry J. Erdmann for their wonderful presentation at the Comic Convention hosted by the Medford Library on April 29. These gracious speakers from Hollywood who have relocated to Jacksonville inspired in me an effort to get to know better the Star Trek movies I must have missed when I was working full-time.
Most of the people in the audience at the Higher Education Center were younger than I and seemed to know all the movies and characters. I found myself at a loss, almost, to what they were talking about but determined to go out and find these old movies and start seeing them. I checked out "The Wrath of Khan" and "Star Trek Beyond" at the Medford Library and found "The Search for Spock," "The Voyage Home" and "Insurrection" at the Talent Library Sale, so I am getting a good start on my quest.
Thank you so much Paula and Terry for your efforts, and now I must go out and find your books. And thank you, Laura Kimberly, library manager, for doing so much to promote this convention and generate interest in this worldwide convention.
When Trump was running for president, he promised health care for everyone and a lower premium. Now, he enthusiastically supports the draconian "health care" bill passed by the House that leaves 24 million without insurance and provides billions in tax savings for the wealthy.
This is not health care, it's wealth care. Ryan said everyone would have access to insurance. Sure, and everyone has access to a Mercedes — if they can afford it. So many sick citizens are on their own as the Republican ideology is based on the individual paying their own way. At the same time, the Republicans have destroyed unions and have fought a higher minimum wage. We have outrageous inequality in this country.
It should be noted that Greg Walden was a principal architect of this bill that is designed for the insurance industry. What's more important to him, insurance company profits or healthy constituents? As they say, follow the money.
Congress has avoided the obvious solution — Medicare for all. It would eliminate billions of insurance company profits, be more efficient and provide better care for all.
Yes, I know it is "socialism." But ask anyone who is on Medicare if they care.
ACA is unaffordable
The recent letter from persistent critic of the Republican Party Michael Steely (May 19), leaves me confused but at the same time amazed at his unfailing contempt for his perceived adversaries.
In a manner that typifies today’s liberal thinkers, Steely attempts to pull the wool over our eyes. He twists himself into knots over an insurance proposal that is not finalized and has not yet passed through the U.S. Senate. In addition, he conveniently forgets that millions of people lost their previous insurance as a result of Obama's "Unaffordable Care Act." This happened because their plans failed to meet Obamacare requirements which, for example, included maternity care coverage regardless of the age or gender of the insured. Needless to say, the aforementioned "UCA" is collapsing due to insurers pulling out of the marketplace while premiums continue to skyrocket.
We should all hope that the insurance legislation that passes is helpful to all Americans. That is obviously the intent of the bill’s authors.
Electoral College worked
The article regarding the Oregon Legislature considering a change in participation in the Electoral College again raises that issue. Our system of government is well thought out with the checks and balances of President/Congress/Courts and leavening agents such as the Electoral College and how our Congress is constructed.
The Electoral College action worked just fine. The framers of our government were very cognizant of individual rights as well as the rights of the "states" that would make up our nation. Appropriate representation was paramount for the small colonies versus the larger. Thus, the Electoral College giving states representation for their electorate to mitigate the differences in each state's population. If one objects to that process, it is only intellectually consistent to change the Senate, for the same concept applies.
It was the political strategy that didn't work, not a failing of the system. Had Democrats/liberals been in tune with their constituents, the outcome might have been different. Had Dr. Carson and Senator Sanders been better integrated into the plan, the potential voting bloc could have been unbeatable. Instead of blaming the "system," consider the strategy needed to include past supporters of the party and implement it with enthusiasm and class.