Letters to the Editor

Times Observer ^ | 3/29/2010 | Pete Westover

[msrngtp2002]

I‘m glad national health finally passed...

[msrngtp2002]

I noticed today in my local paper 3 different letters to the editor praising the passage of Obama Care.

This has to be a coordinated effort probably steered from the local Democratic committee.

Does anyone else notice similar things in their local paper?

[msrngtp2002]

Just re-read my post. Didn’t mean for it to appear that I am glad this passed!

That is just the first sentence of one of the letters!

[Always Independent]

The LA Daily news is always full of operative letters weekly.

[I still care]

IMHO, these are the least effective way of pushing an agenda, unless they have a good argument that is interesting.

People who read letters to the editor, especially from a print edition, are usually more aware and have developed opinions from other sources. All they tend to do is confirm the feelings of the believer or enrage the opponent.

[edcoil]

So there was no PA state care at all? The people of PA did nothing for its citizens and have waited all this time for a federal bailout?

[throwback]

Who reads the local paper anymore? I don't. I read the WSJ, and even the stories in there are not objective a fair amount of the time. Every paper around this country is overrun with one ideology and props up government.

[walford]

Here is the full text of the letter writer. If his claims about the relative percentage of GNP spent on health care are true, that is disturbing. I must note that he gives no breakdown between government and private expenditures:

“I’m glad national health finally passed. You would think we could have simply expanded medicare coverage, but, considering the lack of cooperation from the other side in Congress, we’re lucky we got this hodge-podge. It’s a start.

One question: Why as a nation are we willing to blow endless trillions on unnecessary wars and war toys, but scream bloody murder about spending one trillion on social programs?

One comment: the BBC had some interesting United Nations based statistics on health care on their web site the other day. The US currently spends 16% of the gross domestic product (GDP) on health care, versus 11% in France, 9% in the UK - both national health countries. Americans spend over $7000 per capita on health care, over twice what the French ($3600) and British ($3000) spend. But our life expectancy is slightly less than theirs, and our infant mortality rate, at 6.7%, is worse than either Britain’s 4.8% or France’s 3.8%. And 45 million Americans were uninsured.

If the numbers are correct - and I suspect they are - sounds like someone has been ripping us off but good for health care. Wonder if that could be the same someone whipping up the current poisonously anti-national health frenzy? Naaaah - of course not!

If the citizens of comparable national health countries indeed pay half what we in the US currently do, wouldn’t it be logical to say that, while the new system is going to cost $1 trillion, continuing the old one would have cost us $2 trillion. I know. Naaah - of course not!”

[jimmango]

One question: Why as a nation are we willing to blow endless trillions on unnecessary wars and war toys, but scream bloody murder about spending one trillion on social programs?

Maybe it's because one is outlined in the constitution, and the other is not!

[lp boonie]

I’ve noticed the exact same thing in the Omaha World Herald. No question being coordinated by the Dim’s.

[The Duke]

I sent a letter to the editorial section of my own local paper yesterday that suggested if Obama was ever incapacitated the American people could at least take some comfort in the fact that there’s a spare in Venezuela.

[walford]

Agreed.