Why bring race into the debate?
This beautiful Sunday morning, Chris Matthew’s show caught my attention. He was referring to the “mobs.” No, not that honorable group that gave us the “Godfather” movies. These mobs were angry, disruptive people who dared to disagree with the proposed changes in our health care system. He further described the mobs as being “well dressed, educated people.” Looking at the news clips from many of the administration’s supporters, I am amazed that he would dare bring up the issue of education and dress.
Mr. Matthews and his guest continued opining that they were organized mobs sponsored by right-wing groups. He failed to make mention of the organized left wing groups from ACORN and sadly, by 2012, the new army President Obama is creating with the incongruent name, Americorps. (This group of millions will be funded and be stronger than our current armed forces, so says our president.)
His guest made the following comments. Paraphrased: “I believe that 40 percent to 65 percent of the mobs gathering to protest health care changes are actually motivated by the president’s race. Can I prove it? No! Do I believe it? Yes!” Mr. Matthews seemed eager to agree with her.
How sad it is when citizens cannot disagree, even passionately so, over political philosophy that they believe is changing both the history of America and its future and is threatening to shred its Constitution as well, without being told that their opinions are race-related.
I for one refuse to cringe in the shadows because those who disagree with my political opinions have no arguments to present other than that I am a racist. I urge citizens of all races to follow this example and engage opinion and policy based upon their perceived worth and legitimacy rather than the race of the person expressing them.
ó Chuck Hughes
Salisbury
No need for reform
The cry for health-care reform seems to revolve around the high cost of health care, and for those who have no health care. One-third of those without health care have chosen not to participate, for whatever reason. One-third have their own health savings accounts that they contribute to regularly. The remaining third simply cannot afford health care. This last group does need help and is helped; all they need to do is show up at the emergency room for treatment. This is a burden all of those with health insurance contribute to indirectly.
To pay for the care of those with no insurance, the medical provider, hospital, clinics, etc. are forced to include the cost for this care on what the rest of us pay. Your medical insurance is higher to cover these costs. Your taxes are higher to cover the free clinics that also treat anyone, including illegal aliens. This is quite a burden we are becoming less willing to bear.
My question to those supporting this Democratic monstrosity called health-care reform is this: Just how will the government reduce the cost of coverage? Two ways come to mind. One, the government decides how much it will pay for your medical needs, doctor and/or hospital. Second, provide less coverage for everyone by deciding for you whether you need or deserve coverage.
There is nothing in Democratic health reform to reduce costs other than to dictate to the medical profession what it will be paid. I see down the road nationalized hospitals, a nationalized medical profession and nationalized pharmaceuticals, which will result not in the best health-care coverage in the world, which we as a nation presently enjoy, but probably the worst. The majority of Americans are satisfied with their health care. We don’t need a major overhaul.
ó Richard Roberts
Kannapolis