Pitts’ asinine liberal bias is the real problem, not Trump
In “Dear Senator: Equating you with Trump not a large leap” (Opinion, May 6), Leonard Pitts Jr. paints every Trump voter as a bigot with the query: “What’s the functional difference between being a bigot and just voting for one?” Borrowing from Pitts, such an argument is “asinine,” as his not-too-clever question shows neither insight nor purity, but the depth of his bias. One could just as easily ask Hillary Clinton supporters, What’s the functional difference between being a liar and just voting for one? Or between being a feminist hypocrite and just voting for one? Or between being a dishonest person and just voting for one? You get the idea. One assumes Pitts voted for neither of the two presidential candidates, not wanting to be tainted by either’s stench. And following such logic, to be a “good” person, in Pitts’ world, no one could have voted for them.
GREGORY MARSHALL, MARIETTA
Concern over ‘socialized’ medicine is largely misplaced
A reader wrote that health care is neither a “right” nor “free” and that it must not be “socialized” (“Socialized medicine has no place in U.S.,” Opinion, May 6). Wrong. Our current health care system is already “socialized medicine” in two respects: government subsidies and insurance. The problem with both is they create classes of “haves” and “have nots” amongst health care recipients, which is all of us. Only by eliminating all government health care subsidies, starting with tax-free employer-provided health insurance, as well as all health care insurance, so that the healthy are not subsidizing the non-healthy through insurance premiums, will you achieve a system of non-socialized medicine. Only then will health care in this country not be “free” for anyone at a “cost” to someone else. And with regard to it being a “right,” everyone should have a “right” to health care – provided, of course, they pay for it. Is that really what the reader wants?
MARK TUNE, BLUE RIDGE
About the Author
