Consider alternatives to health care ‘reform’
A recent letter writer asserts that health care reform will provide “vital care” and “significant savings” (“Readers write,” Opinion, Jan. 12).
This massive bureaucracy would cost hundreds of billions of dollars with only a negligible portion going to actual health care. Its main purpose is insurance for all, but anything paid for by insurance always costs more, because the recipient has no compelling reason to care, and the provider knows it.
Conservative suggestions, which have been ignored, are tort reform, and tax incentives to individuals — rather than employers. My wife has made one of the most logical suggestions I’ve heard, and that is to create a greater role in the system for nurse practitioners, and to train more doctors.
John Stanfield, Peachtree City
Truth behind Reid’s comments hard to take
As politically incorrect as Harry Reid’s comments about Barack Obama may have been, there’s a big white elephant in the room that nobody has the courage to acknowledge. That elephant is called “truth,” and the truth is all that Reid actually said. Even with candidate Obama’s impressive academic achievements and political accomplishments, had he been a dark-skinned black man, who spoke with an inner-city dialect, he would not have been elected. Even if he delivered the same speeches, the message would not have survived the filter of his skin and his tongue.
T.J. Norman, Atlanta
Don’t blame just Israel for Palestinian impasse
Regarding the letter from James J. David, which states that we should “focus on the real problem: the state of Israel” (“Readers write”, Opinion, Jan. 13), oddly enough, in the same issue, a guest column by Daniel Burnett talks of still another rocket attack into the Israeli town of Netivot.
This continuing action, coupled with the Palestinians’ persistent refusal to recognize Israel, doesn’t seem enough to persuade David that Israel isn’t the sole cause of the inability to achieve peace with the Palestinians.
Arthur Jacobson, Sandy Springs
Lobbyists should back an effective ethics law
Steve McWilliams makes a valid point (“No apologies, no regrets for career as a lobbyist,” Opinion, Jan. 13). The unfortunate truth is that groups are affected by the behavior “of a few.”
Since the Legislature is a body whose business is the public interest, members should take that seriously and act accordingly. The group should self-monitor, and understand that everyone plays by the same rules. The Georgia Legislature has not acted to include an effective prohibition of conflict of interest, but perhaps that will change this session.
Lobbyists interested in good government should encourage effective ethics legislation. Such legislation protects their profession as well as the public.
Alida C. Silverman, Atlanta
Credit: Family contributed photo