We need MaineCare

Maine has thousands of children, elderly, pregnant women and people with disabilities who need MaineCare to stay in good health. This program is funded with a combination of state and federal dollars, so these folks have access to health care even though they cannot afford to pay for private insurance. This is important because it is less expensive for us all when everyone has access to health care. Although legislators made devastating cuts in the state dollars supporting this program last session, it is still critically important. It pays for preventive care for children, long-term care for the elderly and disabled and prenatal care for pregnant women.

Unfortunately, Congress is seriously looking at permanently cutting back the federal share of Medicaid (MaineCare in our state). This would cripple Maine’s progress toward a healthy future. If we allow Congress to think such changes are acceptable, Maine will have to come up with even more money to avoid cutting benefits or throwing people out of the program. Since Maine’s finances are already hurting, I urge everyone to call Sen. Susan Collins at 622-8414 and Sen. Olympia Snowe at 800-432-1599 to say, “No cuts to Medicaid!”

Thomas Maher

Stetson

Sensible solutions

Our new Hampden Academy is a good example of a sound public investment: it will serve not only students but the whole community with state-of-the-art facilities for years to come. But it’s also, sadly, the kind of public good that’s under attack these days as governments at all levels cut budgets. While public finances have to be maintained responsibly, fiscal prudence doesn’t just mean controlling spending. It also means raising adequate revenue.

Congress is engaged in a great debate over deficits, spending and taxes. President Barack Obama and Republican leaders have already agreed to $1 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. Now there needs to be an equivalent agreement on revenue increases.

At the end of this year, tax cuts passed in the Bush administration will expire. Because, in our still-fragile economic recovery, the spending power of the middle class should not be impaired, the cuts should be extended for households making less than $250,000 a year, which is 98 percent of all American families. But the cuts should be allowed to expire for the remaining 2 percent of households, those with annual incomes above a quarter million dollars.

This tax change will raise a trillion dollars over the next 10 years, which, combined with the already-agreed-upon spending cuts, will get us halfway to the target of $4 trillion in deficit reduction. This is the kind of sensible solution Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins should vote for and advocate for among their colleagues.

Elinor Bucklin

Hampden

What do the patients win?

Maine Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Mary Mayhew signed on the dotted line, and Davita now owns Eastern Maine Medical Center dialysis assets. EMMC won $17 million tax-free dollars. Davita won all of EMMC’s dialysis patients and the profits they can generate for the corporation.

What did the patients win in this decision? My hopes for patients are these:

They will continue to be treated with respect and dignity, and there will be no issues with safety and quality of care. They will always have access to dialysis treatment in their region, with no dismissals without cause or refusal to treat because of inability to pay.

They will be encouraged and empowered to proactively participate in their own health care and be at the hub of all decisions regarding their care.

If they do have problems, their caregivers within the clinics will respond quickly and appropriately to their concerns. If not, quick resolution of problems will be provided by the ESRD network.

Their caregivers will provide them with the appropriate staffing mix and RN-to-patient ratios to ensure safe, high-quality care.

Their medical supplies and medications will be of excellent quality and readily available.

Their health status will remain optimum for their condition.

They will have an effective patient support council with state or community oversight.

That money and profits will never become the priority of the clinic.

Patients and their excellent health care outcomes must remain the priority of your caregivers and your dialysis clinic, no matter who owns it.

Kathy Day, RN

Bangor

Deer herd

I want to thank David Trahan and my friend and former colleague Gerry Lavigne for sharing their views on coyote control and deer management.

Although I don’t agree 100 percent with their positions, we share a common goal of restoring northern Maine’s deer herd. During debates, it’s important to acknowledge common ground. It’s my fervent hope that the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine will advocate deer-yard protection with the same passion it promotes predator control. Without adequate deer winter shelter in northern Maine, Old Man Winter will continue to suppress deer numbers well below levels beneficial to hunters, sporting lodge owners and Maine’s rural economy. On that point, I think we all can agree.

Ronald Joseph

Camden

Tax brackets

As a university professor teaching ethics and philosophy, my students and I speak often about the role of government in our lives and especially about taxes. Many of them strike the standard line about it being their money. But usually by the end of the semester, we have convinced each other not only of the utilitarian argument for taxes, that the prime ethical concern of society should be about maximizing the good and minimizing the pain, but also of the critical necessity of paying higher taxes.

In 1960, at the end of a period of rapid growth in America (which included the creation of the interstate system, the space program and the formation of the comfortably wealthy middle class), those in the highest tax bracket paid close to 90 percent. This trend continued until Ronald Reagan’s election, when the bracket was lowered to 70 percent, and the downward trend has continued to this day.

It is true that our current level of spending is unsustainable, but it is wrong to think that it is the spending alone. Rather it is the lack of revenue generated in the form of taxes. Last year Republican Mitt Romney (as poster child for the rich) paid an effective income tax of just 13.9 percent on more than $40 million earned. It cannot be wrong to ask those who have claimed so much, through hard work for some and inheritance and privilege for others, to pay at a progressively higher tax rate. Indeed, we must.

Nico Jenkins

Sargentville

Join the Conversation

20 Comments

  1. Nico Jenkins–Exactly!
    Our oligarchs have spent decades actively demonizing taxes while unethically shifting the burden-from they that can afford it to the rest of us whose quality of life is declining.
    They have also been advertising the ‘job creator’ myth. The wealthy won’t create jobs if no one can afford to purchase anything. It’s time to admit that supply side economics is a lie and return to ‘trickle up’ economics.
    The message that will pull us out of our mess is “progress through progressive taxation.”

    1. rich people don’t need to be taxed more…we need to put our taxes toward resources that will actually benefit people. giving aid to a marijuana dealer for instance because he’s “disabled”

    2. Returning the wealthy to the Clinton tax rates makes economic sense. We also need to return the capital gains tax rate to at least 25%, and go back to treating dividends as ordinary income. Income earned by sitting at home waiting for the quarterly check to arrive ought to be taxed the same as income earned by the sweat of one’s brow.

    3. We don’t have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem, and a credibility problem. Every time the “balanced” approach of increased taxes and reduced spending is tried, it is only the taxes and not the spending cuts, that materialize.

      The federal govt is far too large. We have severely drifted away from the governments mission as expressed in the US Constitution. Entitlements and tax loopholes are strangling us, yet this once great nation just re-elected a man who lacks any leadership skills to correct these problems.

      Any hope of righting this listing ship of state was lost on November 6th.

      1. When you begin with a plan to slash military spending and imperialist incursions, the elephant in the room, I will listen to you, otherwise you are just being a good dittohead.

        1. Summers said he knew where the fat was at the Pentagon and would cut accordingly. Angus wouldn’t know how to cut a dime from the budget to save his life. Meahwhile, empty-suit Michaud has turned the VA into a giant entitlement program. Who did you vote for, Jonesy?

      2. We have a people regurgitating talking points problem. Come up with your own thoughts and stop being a parrot.

  2. Stated with class and scientific stout Mr. Joseph. SAM has lost much
    of its relevance and so has Levigne. He is a poor excuse for predator
    knowledge. Plum Creek helped build SAM’s current clubhouse and with the
    help of George Smith they marched unimpeded through deer yards like
    Grant through Georgia. Unless a miracle were to occur, and SAM were to
    split or evolved into a higher way of thinking, they will
    continue to be the mouthpiece for the most embarrassing set of
    “sportsmen” in the USA. Maine is currently the laughing stock. The flags
    of poaching, habitat destruction, worm dunking, butchery, bear
    trapping, and an agency that is handcuffed by a dying industry that
    corrodes its on environment are becoming well known. Frankly I think it is too late. When the Moose season becomes five different seasons, including a ridiculous Broccoli season,
    and over kills the main wildlife calling card, the writing is on the
    wall. Habitat destruction continues and it will not abate until industry
    demands change and conservation to SAM always begins and ends with killing something.

  3. we DO NOT need Mainecare. As a full time employee who works for his own insurance…I have to pay the state $2.14 a week for this socialist crap

  4. Whoever owns the dialysis units, the people of Maine should know that they’re obsolete. Dialysis, at least 90% of it, can be prevented. I published how in 2002. If you have diabetes or high blood pressure, you’re at risk for going on the kidney machine. The risk is a whopping 50% if you’re diabetic, only 15% if you have high blood pressure. Contact http://www.genomed.com while you still have 50-100% of your kidney function left (this means a serum creatinine less than 2; do you know your serum creatinine?). We’ll do our best to keep you off dialysis, just as I’ve been doing for all my patients for the past 18 years.

  5. Seems strange that too many people do not see “state and federal funding” as coming from the taxpayers who work hard to pay those federal and state income taxes each year, and who would like to see consistent and responsible, managed care of their money by those who are given the task. Governor LePage has been working towards that end, but he has been villified for trying to do the right thing.

    1. I agree…its because too many people in this country have become dependent on aid from the government. if you have a legitimate problem I don’t mind helping out but when you can go out and buy cigarettes and alcohol and get high on heroin, bath salts, cocaine etc. and don’t at least make an effort to get yourself out of the pit your in I feel no pity for those people.

      1. More people have become dependent on social programs in the last 20 years due to the fact that their paychecks are stuck in the early 90’s. More and more working Americans are having to sign up for food stamps, heat assistance, and “free” heath care down at the emergency room. Maine is a great example of the failure of “trickle down” economics. A carpentry job that paid $15 an hour 20 years ago now pays $10 an hour. You really don’t need a degree in economics to know what is wrong.

    2. gov. lepage has been vilified because of the way he’s trying to make cuts (and his terrible attitude). i don’t think one can reasonably argue that our whole welfare system does not need changes, but those changes need to be made with a scalpel, not an axe. there are a whole heck of a lot more people who depend on social services to survive than that are playing the system. yes, we need to get those welfare cheats and treat them like the thieves they are, but you shouldn’t do that by hurting the people who do need it. gov. lepage is attempting open heart surgery with an axe, and when anyone tells him that he’s going to lose the patient, he just tells them to “kiss his ass.” there is a whole lot more involved in fiscal responsibly than just numbers, and if republicans would just get that through their heads, we might get somewhere.

  6. Elinor

    Lets say Obama gets that 1 trillion tax increase. And lets say he actually agrees to the 1 trillion in spending cuts. (Cuts I doubt will actually happen.)

    So how do you propose we address the rest of the projected deficits? You know, the additional 8 trillion at least over the next 10 years.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *