Don’t rush redesign of health help in Georgia
Sometimes, faster isn’t better.
I believe this line of thought should be applied to Georgia’s plan to redesign Medicaid for the millions of Georgians who currently receive benefits.
The state’s timeline for evaluating this restructure does not allow for a thorough assessment and study, especially considering the percentage of our population that requires behavioral-health treatment.
While I realize virtually every segment of government is facing difficult financial decisions, hurting those who need our help the most is not the solution.
I empathize with those who would be affected from these swift actions. These groups —individuals with mental illness or those who are developmentally disabled, children in foster care and our seniors residing in nursing homes — simply won’t be protected if these new standards become practice.
It’s time for our state leaders to protect all citizens, especially the most challenged in our communities. If we want to create real health care solutions, let’s start by adequately researching the problem to develop a viable plan.
Mike Collier, Jonesboro
Treat private citizens as we do the police
Should gun laws favor a policy of “stand your ground” or does that amount to “kill at will”?
Advocates for both sides can describe scenarios where the opposing policy produces outrageous results. Those arguments are specious. No system of laws is perfect.
For me, the proper standard is easy. For many years, any police officer who shot anyone has been subjected to an incredibly rigorous investigation to assure that the shooting did not involve “excessive force.”
If that standard applies to our sworn, trained police officers, no looser standard should be applied to ordinary citizens, who may be much more prone to use excessive force.
Do you want police officers to “stand their ground” without strict inquiry or consequences? I don’t. Police officers generally don’t want this, either.
Bill Fokes, Braselton
Watergate offenses outweigh good deeds
A recent letter in the AJC bemoaned that we got only part of the story on Chuck Colson (“With Colson, tragedy turned into a triumph,” Readers write, Opinion, April 25).
Yes, Colson did good in prison, and profited later. The main point to remember is he, along with such sterling characters as Spiro Agnew, committed crimes to subvert the democratic process. They both admitted only to what could be proven.
Colson fell on his sword to protect Richard Nixon, after showing scorn for Americans and the process of government.
Much of the nastiness in today’s politics can be traced to Colson’s White House. For that, he deserves only infamy.
Patrick Edmondson, Atlanta
