Letters to the Editor
xufapemu
Published Letters: 406 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Where's the weenie?
[Read the article: How close were Barack Obama and Tony Rezko?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm still looking for the scandal here. I haven't made a decision who I'm voting for but this certainly isn't going to influence me one way or another.
First, isn't this the same "scandal" the Chi Tribune and ABC News already investigated? Is the hope that if the same ground is turned over and over again something might grow? Ken Starr would be very proud.
Just so that I'm not mistaken, the seller wanted to sell the two lots at the same time. The two lots were divided between Obama and this other guy so that Obama could afford to buy the lot that the house is on. Obama paid market value for the lot he bought. He then bought some of the other lot to extend his yard and paid for that parcel at ABOVE market value.
None of this is illegal and no one is saying Obama did any favors as part of the sale.
THIS is a scandal?
-
I'm not an "Obamabot".
[Read the article: How close were Barack Obama and Tony Rezko?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm a lifelong Democrat who'll probably vote for Hillary, but I just don't see the scandal here. This story has been around for a few months now and nothing new has been uncovered. It just seems like people who want to bring Obama's aura down flailing their arms.
The biggest implication being that Rezko didn't get the chance to call in his favor yet. What the hell is that? It's a scandal because it could have been a scandal some time in the future? Find something new. Picking up and dusting off the same tired story over and over smacks of desperation.
-
Maybe this is why the Clintons need to muddy Obama
[Read the article: How close were Barack Obama and Tony Rezko?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22926743/
I'm not holding my breath waiting for Salon to cover that story.
-
I don't subscribe to Salon to be insulted
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've supported Sen. Obama from the start. I've never been to one of his rallys. Initially, I supported Sen. Obama based on his opposition to the war. I also do not believe that forcing folks to buy private insurance will 1) provide universal care (what about undocumented workers?) 2) Is a progressive way to acheive true universal healthcare.
I expect this crap from Brooks. But for Salon to print this quote with no comment except -- "From New York Times columnist David Brooks' latest column, on Barack Obama and his supporters." Is an insult to its progressive readers who happen to support Mr. Obama, because the quote does not criticize Mr. Obama or his policies, but the people who are "stupid" enough to support him.
I will not be renewing my subscription.
-
@SB4609
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So, are you saying Brooks wrote a balanced article about Obama's supporters, and Salon selected the most insulting quote from his article to publish?
-
@Anon
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not so certain Hillary "easily" beats McCain. Throw Bloomberg into the mix and even NY is in play.
However, even if she wins in the electoral college by 1 vote, do Dems gain the needed votes in the Senate to get past Republican filibuster? Does she gain enough House seats to pass her forced insurance scheme?
I've never been concerned about whether Hillary could win. My concern has always been will the Democratic Party win. The two could actually be mutually exclusive.
-
@SB4609
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I take issue with Salon's decision to insult a good portion of their subscribers.
I don't subscribe to the NYT and don't pay Brooks a dime.
-
I believe the right wing smear machine failed before.
[Read the article: A week of petty though typical attacks on Obama produced nothing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I recall them going after another man who still believed in a place called Hope.
As I recall, he left office with a very high approval rating.
It's a shame his wife couldn't run the same positive, "hopeful" campaign.
-
Mrs. Clinton's plan is not "universal"
[Read the article: The quest for universal healthcare]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No plan is. One could say her plan comes closer to covering everyone, but is it enough to get premiums lower for everyone?
Its easy to flippantly explain away how 10% of the economy that is "off the books" can get a weekend job to pay for health care. But if they aren't doing it now for insurance, why in the hell would someone take a job that forces them to do it? Add in other "cheats" and you're probably pretty close to that 15% uncovered that some say Obama's plan leaves out.
Forcing everyone to purchase private insurance means the federal government has a moral responsibility to subsidize those who can't afford the premiums. How does that get funded year after year when there is so many other unfunded mandates already written into the law?
I don't know a single person who is without health insurance by choice, and could afford to purchase it.
Mrs. Clinton's plan proposes to bring the costs of premiums down by mandating everyone be covered by private insurance.
We've had mandatory auto insurance in my state for years. Yet a National Association of Independent Insurers found that "the average liability insurance premium for the non-mandatory states is 26 percent less than the nationwide average. Meanwhile, policyholders in states requiring the purchase of insurance pay above-average premiums. Moreover, from 1992 to 1996, the average liability premium in mandatory states rose $46, while rising only $37 in non-mandatory states."
So I don't trust that simply mandating insurance automatically means lower costs. In the meantime, we're forcing folks who can't afford the premiums to buy them, hoping the insurance industry will lower their costs.
And mandating everyone purchase insurance does nothing to lower the health care costs that are forcing insurance rates up in the first place.
Health care inflation is running at three times the rate of the general consumer price index and that rate of inflation has little to do with how many people are un-insured.
Obesity, aging populations, shortage of primary care physicians, drug costs etc, are far more responsible for the high cost of health care.
How would mandated insurance be the solution to those issues?
A viable plan should seek to get health care costs under control first, and not slam working families with an unfundable mandate to carry burdens they can't currently afford.
Under those conditions, Sen. Obama's plan comes the closest and is more feasable.