The Great Healthcare Debate

(In response to "Violence Works. Incrementalism Doesn't." by Ted Rall in the Aug. 27 -- Sept. 3 issue of Urban Tulsa Weekly.)

Dear Editor:

The author of this article adds nothing to the health care debate. Zero. He seems to (amusingly so) make an attempt to associate himself with the intellectual community by implication and then proceeds to use "argumentum ad hominem" "ad nauseum."

I have watched some of the town hall meetings and the term "violence" does not seem to fit. Has the word been redefined? Perhaps this article is a attempt at the use of sarcasm, castigating both sides (but I doubt it). If so, I may be tempted to concur.

Citizens do have the right to express their opinions in the town square and to voice their objections when politicians flippantly ignore them or attempt to demean the concerns expressed.

I have concluded that the current health care reform debate is not about health care but rather about the prevailing ideological divide. I can only hope that the people of our country will continue the vigorous debate when this issue slips into the world of the "passe."

Thrasymachus

Dear Editor:

This has to be one of the most unprofessional articles ever written. Referring to everyday people as idiots, rednecks, and stupid people for expressing their point of view and fighting for what they believe to be right puts you, at best, on the same level, and at worst, an elementary school aged child calling people names thinking that will make a point without actually stating why you support something. Maybe your insurance is so much because of excessive litigation against physicians/health care staff and all the money spent for taking care of those who shouldn't even be in this country.

Illegals use the ER's in this country like you use your primary care physician, only the trip to the ER is 20 times more expensive. Can't imagine how all those "deserving" people will feel when they are unhappy with their health care and can't sue their doctor cause of their government employee status or have to wait in an ER for 10 hours for the child's ear infection.

Boomer

Master of the House

Dear Editor:

During a recent town hall meeting a lady confronted Senator Coburn. The lady was desperately in need of health care aid for her ailing husband. Her desperation was clearly visible. She was begging for help. Fortunately for this lady, Senator Coburn promised his office to aid her in finding a solution.

However, in the same breath Senator Coburn also told her that she should not rely on the Government but seek help from private individuals instead. Senator Coburn specifically mentioned the lady's neighbors.

Is Senator Coburn so blind that he cannot see the health care problems faced by his constituents and other common people? How can neighbors be of any major help beyond the usual food package, baby sitting, or yard work etc.? These neighbors can hardly keep their own heads above water, certainly not when it comes to health care. Does Senator Coburn really believe the falsehood that there is no health care problem in America? If Senator Coburn does not know the difference between fact and fiction, then one wonders whether Dr. Coburn has the capability to diagnose an illness and plan proper medical procedures. It may explain why Dr. Coburn needs additional income to supplement what is derived from his medical practice.

A Congressional position first in the House and now in the Senate was the perfect choice. Not only would a Congressional position mean supplemental income, but it would provide name recognition as well. MDs and DOs commonly achieve name recognition by knowledge and exceptionally excellent medical practices.

His inability to separate fact from fiction surely ill affects Senator Coburn's discharge of his Congressional duties. Like so many in the Government, Senator Coburn proclaims that the Government cannot be trusted, cannot do anything right, and that the Government is the problem.

Obviously, by their own admission, Senator Coburn and many of his colleagues in Government are not up to the job they have been elected to do. They are hereby reminded that in America Government is not only of the people, and by the people, but also for the people. It behooves Senator Coburn and his incapable colleagues to resign from their profitable, elected Government positions. Resigning is the only proper and honorable thing to do.

- Bernard Bornemann

Up in Arms

Dear Editor:

(In response to "The Guns of August" by Ted Rall in the Sept. 3-9 issue of Urban Tulsa Weekly.)

I just finished reading the Rall rant, "The Guns of August" and as usual his analysis is missing the point. Hillarycare didn't have people up in arms because with the makeup of the Senate and the Congress at that time, there was no chance that it would be crammed down our throats.

Obamacare could very well be crammed down our throats, and that is what has many motivated to cry out against it.

I spent the last 20 minutes looking at your picture at the top of your column...is that a liberal smirk that I see, or did you tell the photographer to make you look erudite and knowing?

Again, this rant leaves me wondering if you are the orifice, or the product that is squeezed from it, but as usual you leave me thinking about the issues that you rant about.

- Steve Meador, Owasso

Dear Editor:

Rall sure never lets the facts stand in the way of his rants, does he?

Fact: the protester in NH was separated from the President's venue by several blocks and several hours. He had permission to be where he was. There was never any direct threat to The Annointed One. I am certain the Secret Service would have acted had there been a threat in someplace more than Ted Rall's fevered imagination.

Fact: the protester with an AR15-model rifle in AZ was a black man. Yet, Rall finds it necessary to launch into a KKK broad-brush rant a mere two paragraphs later in his column. Further note, most of the media have cropped that picture to take away the easily-noted fact about this man's race. I wonder why they would do that?

Fact: in both venues, both men were absolutely within their rights and the laws of the state to be armed. That would be why the authorities did not act - there was no cause.

This debate is not about healthcare alone. People are waking up to observe that the government is intruding further into their lives and they are realizing that there is a broader debate. Healthcare is merely a metaphor in this moment. Actually, cap and trade is more intrusive to our everyday life but it just hasn't risen to the top yet.

As to John Lott being "too clever by half", I would suggest that Ted should take a look in the mirror. Rall set out in the column to show us his intellect. I would suggest he shows us his rear end instead.

- B. Pickens

Political Shenanigans

Dear Editor:

In 2004, Senator Edward Kennedy asked the Massachusetts political leadership to change the law that allowed the governor to appoint an interim Senator, because Governor Romney would have appointed a Republican if Senator Kerry won the Presidency. The politicians changed the law to require a special election within five months of a vacancy.

Fast forward to 2009 and the Massachusetts legislature and the governor are currently evaluating a recent request from Senator Kennedy to again change the law of succession for a senate seat. The current law requires an election be held 145 days to 160 days after the death of Senator Kennedy. Massachusetts is considering changing the law to allow Governor Patrick, a Democrat, to appoint an interim senator.

The move is designed to keep the number of Democratic senators at 60, which is the number needed to cut off debate and stop a filibuster. It is possible the passage of health care reform legislation might hinge on just one vote. Hopefully it will be defeated to save this country from Socialized health care, which will cost the U.S. an additional $1 trillion, and $500 billion will come from cuts in Medicare. Approximately 50 million new patients will be immediately added to the currently stretched system, including 13 million illegal aliens.

Kennedy served his country well, but Massachusetts should not change the law to satisfy partisan politics and contribute to the Socialization of this country.

- Donald A. Moskowitz, Londonderry, NH