Letters to the editor

Health care

If we could bottle the remedy for intellectual paralysis

Editor, The Times:

I could not agree more with editorial columnist Lance Dickie's "Why the nation will embrace universal health care" [Times editorial column, June 3], about the need for universal health care. It is time for a change. The "market"-driven system that the medical community embraces is simply not working for a growing number of Americans.

We pride ourselves on being innovative in this country, but when it comes to taking the best of universal care from around the world, improving upon its weaknesses and then creating a truly innovative and effective universal-care system in this country, we seem to lose our ability to be creative and innovative.

We say we value families in this country, yet we do not apparently value the health-care needs of families. We apparently value the protection our military provides all of us by funding it. We value both police and fire protection for all, by funding them. We say we value health care, yet we do not fund it for our mutual benefit.

I hope the outcry of Americans will be loud and long come the next election. Only by electing those who believe we all need to have health-care coverage, and being willing to fund such a plan, will we be able to then move forward on universal health care in this country.

— Bryan Nelson, Tumwater

Etherized upon a fable

More than a few years ago, a female cousin of mine married a Canadian national and was living under the socialized medical system in Canada. Suddenly, every month she endured two to three days of agony that even morphine only ameliorated. The diagnosis was an ovarian tumor.

Surgery (then) was at best months out and, after nearly a year of waiting, my family dashed across the border, wrapped her up and had her on a surgery table in Seattle in less than 12 hours.

This type of horror is repeated daily in Canada, Great Britain and every country where socialized medicine is the rule.

That this horror is bad and only getting worse by any real world definition is ignored by socialist, neo-comms attempting to force [their] faith-based socialism on the rest of us.

— Craig Sarver, Bonney Lake

Homeopathic advantage

Lance Dickie is wrong about nationalizing health care. One look at Cuba and Canada should dispel this notion. Nationalizing health care (or any other industry) hasn't worked, as economics teaches. After all, health care is not a public good or natural monopoly.

Without a market failure, government should stay out. Do you want a health-care system [run] like the postal service or Amtrak?

Food is probably the most basic necessity, but no one is suggesting nationalizing agriculture or grocery stores. Socializing health care is just as irrational.

— Jeff Jared, Kirkland

Child care

No surrogate for parent

Thank you, Seattle Times, for "Parental consent for abortion is simply common sense" [Kathryn Jean Lopez syndicated column, June 3].

It has been a long-standing topic of incredulity to realize that your child cannot have a Tylenol [in school] for a headache or PMS, but she can have a major operation without her parents' knowledge.

An abortion is not like getting one's ear pierced. It is a real operation, and because of anesthesia and all the other procedures an abortion entails, a person runs some very serious risks.

A woman's "right to choose" is legal in this country. A child should not make these kinds of choices alone. We can't trust them to drive or vote or take a Tylenol independently, but we can trust them to take their lives in their hands?

There are many other options besides abortion, and they need to be fully informed of those choices. Many kids are scared by friends, relatives, and even doctors into thinking abortion is their only option. Some choice.

— Ann Marie del Rosario, Kirkland

Disguising the enormity

I have read a lot of simplistic reasoning from Times' guest columnists before, but Kathryn Jean Lopez's column on parental notification for teen abortions hit a new low.

To equate a pregnant teen's seeking to end her pregnancy to a teen who wants to get a tan or a tattoo is just plain ridiculous. Since when were tans and tattoos equivalent to parenthood?

A young girl who is pregnant is usually completely mortified and scared of [the prospect of] her parents' reaction. It is to encourage girls to get help in a timely way that many states allow minors confidentiality in the case of pregnancy. A 14-year-old can wait four years for a tattoo; she can't wait that long if she wants to terminate a pregnancy.

Once a girl receives counseling, she is better able to tell her parents, if it is safe to do so, and together they can make the decision that is right for her.

The laws requiring parental notification have the effect of keeping girls from revealing their pregnancies until it is too late to get a safe, first-trimester abortion. That is clearly the intention behind the parental-notification laws that 33 states have and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

— Suanne Kauffman, Seattle

Without a care

Pearls before decline

In discussing class in America today ["Whatever your level, we're all about class," page one, May 29], we must not overlook the impact of runaway consumerism on our economic security.

Most economists believe our aggregate savings rate, especially for retirement, is far too low. Even among workers who have 401(k) plans available, the majority do not take advantage of this opportunity. Clearly, part of the problem is the urge to spend as much as possible now on "stuff" to emulate the glittery ideal set by the super-rich.

We are under constant pressure to enjoy the luxuries of $4 daily espresso, $50-per-month phone service and $30,000 SUVs. Gambling as recreation has never been bigger. Banks openly encourage customers to borrow against their home equity for vacations! We are induced to act like spoiled children, and so we have.

But economic class is a function of wealth, not spending. Runaway consumerism increases the class gap by decreasing the wealth of middle- and lower-income people as they struggle to feel prosperous; even worse, it distracts them from investing in a better future for their own children and the greater community.

Choice is good, but we really don't have enough social choices today. What works fine for the rich can be poison for the rest of us. The simultaneous skewing of our tax policies and cultural ideals toward the super-rich is undermining our nation's future.

— Tyler Page, Kent

Kin scare

Overexposed to the sons

George Herbert Walker Bush recently announced that he wants his son Jeb [governor of Florida] to run for president but that the moment isn't right yet. I know what he means by that. You see, the stars have to be aligned, and anyone who understands the science of statistics knows that, too.

I mean, think of the staggeringly high odds from our last election. Out of the 296 million people who live in the U.S.A., the son of a former president happened to be the one who got elected to the same position. It happened. It really did. Oh to be so star-crossed, and beat the odds!

I know what you are thinking, that I am a simpleton, and it was really the powerful connections of the Bush family, and business interests like Halliburton; but to that, I say — prove it!

What we have here is simply a good ol' Texas family that has been blessed twice, soon thrice. Besides luck, the Bushes have values that win elections, hard-working American values that are easy to understand: preemptive war good, gay marriage bad, Social Security bad.

Beating the odds three times will shatter the science of statistics completely when Jeb Bush wins. I tell you, I am tossing my statistics book out the window.

— Matt Travis, Fall City