Less anonymity
I fail to understand why the .COMments feature, which selects comments made on the BDN’s Web site, is not held to the same standards the paper uses for its letters to the editor.
In .COMments, contributors can hide under the anonymity of an e-mail signature, while elsewhere people need to identify themselves and state their towns. A person has a right to hide behind a pen name when they write on the Internet. But if they are going to get their material published on an editorial page, they should be held to the same standards that warrants publication in letters. If, in asking them for real names and addresses, they are unwilling to back opinions, they don’t deserve to be published.
Ben Fuller
Cushing
···
Brown’s prescription
Republican Scott Brown’s victory for the open Senate seat in Massachusetts Tuesday should be a wake-up call for supporters of expanded government who have been running Congress since 2007 and within the Obama administration.
This race was based on a national issue: health care reform. Many independents and Democrats have rejected the big government, huge bureaucracy creating a monstrosity of a bill under consideration in Congress. The Democratic majority’s bill is full of tax hikes, special deals for unions as well as Nebraska and Louisiana, new penalties on individuals, expansion of the IRS, and passage of more crippling costs to the states through Medicaid expansion — costs we cannot even cover today.
Perhaps Congress will now seek a more balanced health care reform effort including malpractice reform to cut the significant costs of defensive medicine, insurance reform and allowing citizens to purchase insurance policies across state lines.
Bob Walker, M.D.
Lincolnville
···
Remove profit motive
Several weeks ago PBS ran a segment on how other nations administer their health care. Some interesting things were found. Key among them was the idea of forming nonprofits out of their insurance industry and hospitals. These nonprofits are not government-run programs. I do not know the details of funding, but that can easily be worked out. Perhaps it could be administered tax exempt as Blue Cross Blue Shield was originally.
This smacks of socialism, but as many agree, our health care (insurance) system is broken; can a little socialism in this case hurt? We already have a hint of socialism in our political system in the form of Medicare (which works despite some fraud) for just one example. Nonprofit insurance companies would be less inclined to reject pre-existing illness. If not, this and other stipulations could be added.
There need be no sweetheart deals nor sweeping reforms. We have here in the U.S. the best medical team anywhere in the world. They are hampered by a greedy impersonal thing called profit. That is what needs to change. The other impressive point made in the PBS program was the answer in these other countries to the question: “How many of your citizens have become homeless and bankrupt due to medical issues?” The universal response: no one. That would be a scandal. Something I’m sorry to say cannot be proclaimed in this country.
George Mitchell
Bar Harbor
···
Saltwater freedom
Being well past 70 years old, I am not affected by the proposed law mandating a saltwater fishing license. Here in Washington County, there are three types of fishermen. A few commercial fishermen, during the summer; some visiting sport fishermen; and out on the docks — in both good and bad weather — are subsistence fishermen, guys and some gals fishing to put food on their tables and feed their families.
What wondrous bounty are they getting? Some small mackerel, an occasional dogfish and some inedible scaloppini. Hardly a gourmet diet.
If they do happen to catch a salmon (both wild and those escaped from a pen) or a halibut, they have to throw it back. Add to this the fact that Maine is the only state that requires an expensive license (lobsterman’s license) just to fish for crabs off the dock.
I suppose the state could make an exemption for the poor folk trying not to starve. They could be required fill out some humiliating form and have them wear a sign on their backs saying “poor person” when they go fishing. Or, some common sense could be used and the ocean — one of Maine’s last remaining tourist attractions and local asset — could be kept free and unencumbered any more than it is now regulated.
Hal Goodman
Eastport
···
Live and let live
Peter Rees’ letter (Jan. 16) expressed a reasonable and well-considered approach to the abortion question. As human beings, we each have personal philosophies and preferences and balk at being told what to believe.
Yes, laws are important so we don’t overstep our personal boundaries at the cost of someone else’s, and sometimes these laws can be extremely difficult to write to be fair.
My mother always said, “Live and let live.” She also followed a personal code of conduct that was inoffensive to others — and showed a great sense of humor.
Thank you, Mr. Rees, for expressing the issue so well.
Margaret R. Parker
Orrington
···
Women’s rights fragile
In January 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Roe v. Wade case on abortion, I was a senior in high school and I thought that the matter had been decided. On this 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I am aware of how fragile women’s rights remain in this country.
I am a person of deep faith and my faith teaches me to love and respect others, even my adversaries and enemies. My faith requires me to work for justice, to live compassionately, and to walk humbly with my God. Women’s access to full reproductive health care is a matter of justice and compassion.
Abortion is often posed as a question between right and wrong; it is not such a choice. For women faced with the choice, it is a heartbreaking moment that requires them to choose between two wrongs.
As a minister, I have had occasion to talk with women about abortion and it is never an easy conversation. No one I know has ever been happy to have made the choice to have an abortion, even when she knows it was the better choice. In the debates over reproductive law and heath insurance reform, we will again be tempted to sacrifice women’s reproductive rights in favor of what we say is ethically right or a pragmatic approach to cost reduction.
For both religious and ethical reasons, this would be wrong.
Margaret A. Beckman
Dedham