Letters: 8/25/16

2
Wikimedia Commons

‘Longest Hate’ superficial
I was very glad to see you address the issue of anti-Semitism in your August 4, 2016 article entitled “The Longest Hate.” However, I felt the analysis was terribly superficial. Blaming the burgeoning anti-Semitism on “hateful rhetoric in politics these days,” as asserted by Scott Levin, regional director of the ADL, misses the point.

In the midst of the U.S. so-called negotiations with Iran, Iran announced its intention to “wipe Israel off of the map.” There was no strong voice of condemnation from our president, nor from most of the Jewish community, who seem to be comfortably vocal when defending the pluralism of minority rights, but strangely silent when it comes to loudly decrying voices of genocide directed against us alone.

The silence of the Obama administration in response to Iran’s blustering genocidal threats is very much in line with the characterization of the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy as a problem of the “settlements.”

It is not a problem that Abbas openly declares that there should be no Israel. It is not a problem that he openly incites his citizens to execute Israelis and Jews, be they babies in their strollers or old people getting on buses, and then financially rewards the families of these “heroes.” This is not a problem. So, from the highest office in our land, the world is signaled to be deaf and blind to the issue of Jewish genocide, whether it is the battle cry of Iran or the endless propagandizing voices of Palestinian victimhood.

The distortions, slander and outright lies about Jews and Israel is accepted with unblinking propriety as politically correct, while any criticism of radical Islam is quickly labeled “Islamophobia.”

This age-old virus of anti-Semitism, which has plagued the Christian West for two millennia and is now merging with a virulent radical Islam is what really deserves our very serious attention, not simply “hateful rhetoric” by some politicians. Jews and non-Jews need to speak up, for ultimately this will affect all of us.
Miriam Pollack/via the Internet

DEA outrage
Thank you for your recent article on the denial of the 2011 Rhode Island-Washington Marijuana Rescheduling Petition by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) [Re: Weed Between the Lines, “The DEA says ‘no’ to rescheduling marijuana,” Aug. 18]. It’s encouraging to see such outrage in response to this decision, but the truth is that this was completely expected.

With the DEA and the FDA believing that the only way a substance can have medical use is if it has successfully passed the FDA new drug approval process, it’s easy to understand how these federal agencies could ignore the fact that FDA approval is just one form of accepted medical use. We must not forget that the DEA is an administrative agency that does not have the authority to ignore federalism and deny a standard of medical care that states have adopted, especially when such accepted medical use has a direct impact upon federal scheduling.

However, we can’t blame the DEA for failing to recognize a form of medical use that continues to go unrecognized and unsupported by those states that have accepted such use.
Tell the DEA to reschedule marijuana based on state-accepted medical use and let’s have the kind of public discussion on the scheduling of marijuana that is required of federal rescheduling proceedings.
Clifton Otto/Honolulu, HI

Observations on Amendment 69
• 870,000 Coloradans are now under-insured and in danger of delaying pressing healthcare needs for too long.

• 350,000 additional Coloradans are completely uninsured at his time.

• Well over 500 Coloradans die each year due to lack of insurance.

In responding to this crisis, ColoradoCare offers all of us the following:

• A citizen/member-owned platinum level insurance program with no deductibles and complete choice of primary care provider with no mandatory sign up period: a program more comprehensive than the best plan on the Colorado exchange, and one designed to save costs for 85 percent of present Medicare beneficiaries.

• No deductibles and no annual or lifetime limits. If you are sick, you get the help you need!

• No co-pays for primary or preventative care.

• While providing limited dental, vision, and hearing services for adults, Amendment 69 will set a minimum standard the same as ACA and Medicaid have established.

Owned by Coloradans for the benefit of Coloradans, this program is estimated to keep billions within our state borders and demonstrate to the rest of the nation what Colorado can provide in leadership.

Be wary of those who would have you believe that, while increasing fraud reduction, and by removing $6 billion from the salaries of insurance industry billionaires and returning those financial resources to dedicating the improvement of your health care will not be in your best interest. Beware.
James A. Mischke, Professor Emeritus, Social Sciences/Cortez, CO

  • ernie_oertle

    A question that still hasn’t gotten answered from this spring’s contestations in theDailyCamera before cheesy editors, who couldn’t pay moderators due to their declining subscription-rates & cut-off theCommentSection = if a guy is young enough
    to still be a working-man & his boss is dictated/mandated/commanded to pay 6.67% of the young-guy’s ColoradoCare-tax burden, which either comes out of the boss’s profit-margin or the business is forced to raise its prices — which wrecks its competitiveness, especially across state-lines who are outside the bounds of CC – then it is likely the employer will answer that business-problem by eliminating that young-guy’s job, …….. is that young-guy now responsible for the whole 10%?
    And if the young-guy isn’t on the hook for that 6.67%, then who is? CC goes into arrears doesn’t it? Or, now other Colorado taxpayers see their rates go up. Or, CC can be a sop to Husseincare on a national-level & thru crooked underhanded accounting, CC & Zerocare DemocratParty-apparatchiks can “invent” money to cover the bank-balance, doubling inflation. …….. OR, ColoradoTears can reduce staffs & lengthen wait-times & reveal they LIED about deductibles – & ultimately, come down meanly on PerfesserJeem’s piggybank.

    • WB

      Individuals pay 3.33% of wages, and 10% of other non-wage income. If young-guy is unemployed, has not wage or other income, yes, he pays nothing.

      In the example you give, are you assuming the employer currently is not paying any contribution to employees’ healthcare? If so, then your example is correct that the employer now has a new expense to consider (that 6.67% of their total payroll). However, if in your example the employer is already paying an employer contribution of young-guy’s healthcare, then they may not have any additional expense (or, possibly less expense) under ColoradoCare.

      Also, eliminating an entire job position due to a 6.67% tax doesn’t make sense because the business will still have a need for that labor resource; otherwise, young-guy wouldn’t have been hired in the first place. So the more likely scenario is IF this raises business costs (which if may not), the business would raise prices.