Letters to the Editor - Letters

Health care needed for all
Bambi Lin Litchman
Honolulu

NO BAMBI LIN LITCHYMAN WE OPPOSE THE "OBAMACARE" SOCIALISTIC HEALTH CARE PLAN.

HEALTH CARE IS NOT NEEDED FOR ALL
WHAT ABOUT THE 20 MILLION ILLEGAL
IMMIGRANTS IN THE USA?
WHAT ABOUT YOU PEOPLE WHO DO NOT CARE OR WANT TO PAY FOR A HEALTH CARE PLAN? DO THEY DESERVE FREE HEALTH CARE . WE SAY NO

Health care plan opposed
After being a dues-paying member of AARP for more than 16 years, I submitted my resignation on July 28. AARP has taken the wrong course by going out and supporting Obamacare and by aiding President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in their drive to socialize our health care system.

Records indicate that A. Barry Rand, the CEO of AARP, gave $4,600 for the president’s campaign committee in 2008 plus another $4,300 to Barack Hussein Obama’s victory fund.

AARP’S continued blind support of Obamacare or the plan to socialize our health care system, which works perfectly well now, could be the death of this organization. They promise seniors high-quality care, but in reality, Obamacare will be nothing more than long waits for critical appointments with medical specialists like in Great Britain, Canada and other countries.

Wake up, people, and realize that AARP supports socialized medical care, which will surely fail if and when ramroded through Congress.

LT COL (RET) Al Eisner
FREQUENT ANNUAL HAWAII VISITOR
@ THE HALE KOA

LT COLONEL AL EISNER wrote:

Health care needed for all
Bambi Lin Litchman
Honolulu
NO BAMBI LIN LITCHYMAN WE OPPOSE THE "OBAMACARE" SOCIALISTIC HEALTH CARE PLAN.
HEALTH CARE IS NOT NEEDED FOR ALL
WHAT ABOUT THE 20 MILLION ILLEGAL
IMMIGRANTS IN THE USA?
WHAT ABOUT YOU PEOPLE WHO DO NOT CARE OR WANT TO PAY FOR A HEALTH CARE PLAN? DO THEY DESERVE FREE HEALTH CARE . WE SAY NO
Health care plan opposed
After being a dues-paying member of AARP for more than 16 years, I submitted my resignation on July 28. AARP has taken the wrong course by going out and supporting Obamacare and by aiding President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in their drive to socialize our health care system.
Records indicate that A. Barry Rand, the CEO of AARP, gave $4,600 for the president’s campaign committee in 2008 plus another $4,300 to Barack Hussein Obama’s victory fund.
AARP’S continued blind support of Obamacare or the plan to socialize our health care system, which works perfectly well now, could be the death of this organization. They promise seniors high-quality care, but in reality, Obamacare will be nothing more than long waits for critical appointments with medical specialists like in Great Britain, Canada and other countries.
Wake up, people, and realize that AARP supports socialized medical care, which will surely fail if and when ramroded through Congress.
LT COL (RET) Al Eisner
FREQUENT ANNUAL HAWAII VISITOR
@ THE HALE KOA

Sir! You are under a socialized medical plan if you are a retired military officer--our government thru our tax dollars takes care of your medical needs.

Re sidewalk art sales: The Supreme Court decided last year that art sales on public property are a 1st Amendment protected right, and it is unconstitutional to regulate it AT ALL.
Contact Lawyers for the Arts, sue, and it will be protected here, too...

antique old lady wrote:

<quoted text>Sir! You are under a socialized medical plan if you are a retired military officer--our government thru our tax dollars takes care of your medical needs.

Yes you are correct, the difference is, he EARNED IT, it was not just handed to him because some misguided people think it is some kind of right......which it is NOT.

Ms. Litchman,

Please explain to me and the public why out of the population, 90% have insurance and of the 90%, 80% are happy with their coverage, why you want us to give up our insurance and pay for the uninsured?
You are also working with faulty numbers, You wrote in 50 million.
Well out of the 50 million, 12 million are illegals, 11 million can afford to pay for their insurance but chose not to participate and 9 million just didn't take the time to figure out the paperwork to obtain insurance under medicare.
That leaves around 18 million, so now you are saying that the whole country should be turned on it's axis for the remaining 18 million or less?
Why should we pay for people that can afford it? Why should we pay for illegals?

I guess you haven't read the bill. Yes, on pages 425-430, there was plenty to say about end of life care or lack there of.

I guess you haven't been listening to Canada, when just this week, the new Dr. in charge said their Health care is imploding.
I guess you didn't see Daniel Hannen from British Parliment come over here to beg us to not implement this neew HC bill.
He said it is health care rationing. I don't think you understand this is a bill for the healthy only. They have young people dying right and left. He stated that it takes between 4 -12 months to get a surgery.
Mr. E. Emmanual has made it very plain that the people to take care of are between the ages of 15-40, since we have a investment in them. Newborn preemies are not included.

No one wants anyone to do without HC, but there are free clinics, there are the emergency hospitals, that cannot, by law, turn you down.

If you implement this system, do you not think the people will abuse the system and tie up the Drs. offices with contrived problems? Of course they will, it's free.

Using your figure of 50 million, that would mean a sudden need for 10,000 new Drs., if they could handle 5,000 patients apiece. Talk about long lines.

You want to blindly follow a adminstration that has already put us into a debt we will never see the light of. The Govt. has been totally irresposible handling Medicare, Mediaid, USPO, Auto Manufacturing, Banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and on and on. They are running amok.
They need to be held accountable for their actions.

love it when people who HAVE health insurance, especially medicare, medicaid, VA (e.g. SOCIALIZED MEDICINE) don't care and don't want others to HAVE access to medical care.... this country, when it comes to medical care, is simply ridiculous.

willie wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes you are correct, the difference is, he EARNED IT, it was not just handed to him because some misguided people think it is some kind of right......which it is NOT.

I am not misquided! My husband is a retired military medic and my son is a chaplain currently with troops headed to Afganistan--so I know what he earned--also, how many of you are aware that medics and chaplains serve in combat areas with no weapons to defend themselves?. Eisner was kinda running down socialized medicine and I was just reminding him that he was receiving socialized medicine. He has worked 30 years to earn his medical and retirement(hale koa) paid for by us taxpapers. The "poor" work 45 years in the private sector and yet you, who us taxpayers support, object to the "poor" receiving anything from us taxpayers medicalwise even tho' they work 50% longer than you did. You got yours but you don't want anyone else to share in the wealth of this country. It seems to me that the "poor" should get 50% more benefits than you do. Or have you not heard of the working "poor"?

antique old lady wrote:

<quoted text>I am not misquided! My husband is a retired military medic and my son is a chaplain currently with troops headed to Afganistan--so I know what he earned--also, how many of you are aware that medics and chaplains serve in combat areas with no weapons to defend themselves?. Eisner was kinda running down socialized medicine and I was just reminding him that he was receiving socialized medicine. He has worked 30 years to earn his medical and retirement(hale koa) paid for by us taxpapers. The "poor" work 45 years in the private sector and yet you, who us taxpayers support, object to the "poor" receiving anything from us taxpayers medicalwise even tho' they work 50% longer than you did. You got yours but you don't want anyone else to share in the wealth of this country. It seems to me that the "poor" should get 50% more benefits than you do. Or have you not heard of the working "poor"?

You are misguided, ask your husband and son again. They're classified as non-combatants while acting as a medic/chaplain. Once they side arms, they lose that non-combatant status and are free game! Though no one plays within the rules of the Geneva convention (except US), it's their call. You husband and son also have the option to decline the medical plan (tricare) when they retired--again personal choice. So what's the problem?? I just get tired of having to support the majority of the "Cart Riders" for all their wants and needs--I had to save and budget for mine.

Choices, choices and more choices. Every choice we make determines what fate befalls us. If someone makes a choice not to work for a company or government body that provides health care options (even at a significant cost), that is their choice. If more employees would just say no to part time work, low wages, and no health care coverage, the employers would have to give in. Of course, that would mean fewer employers being able to employ the same number of employees and would also cause higher prices, but that is the way the ball bounces. Why do you think we are having a "jobless recovery?" (Obama's words)
Employers do not know if they will have to provide health care coverage to all their workers at what level/cost or if they will even be allowed to terminate their employment.
The next 3.5-7.5 years are going to be tough on everyone.

Dave wrote:

Ms. Litchman,
Please explain to me and the public why out of the population, 90% have insurance and of the 90%, 80% are happy with their coverage, why you want us to give up our insurance and pay for the uninsured?
You are also working with faulty numbers, You wrote in 50 million.
Well out of the 50 million, 12 million are illegals, 11 million can afford to pay for their insurance but chose not to participate and 9 million just didn't take the time to figure out the paperwork to obtain insurance under medicare.
That leaves around 18 million, so now you are saying that the whole country should be turned on it's axis for the remaining 18 million or less?
Why should we pay for people that can afford it? Why should we pay for illegals?
I guess you haven't read the bill. Yes, on pages 425-430, there was plenty to say about end of life care or lack there of.
I guess you haven't been listening to Canada, when just this week, the new Dr. in charge said their Health care is imploding.
I guess you didn't see Daniel Hannen from British Parliment come over here to beg us to not implement this neew HC bill.
He said it is health care rationing. I don't think you understand this is a bill for the healthy only. They have young people dying right and left. He stated that it takes between 4 -12 months to get a surgery.
Mr. E. Emmanual has made it very plain that the people to take care of are between the ages of 15-40, since we have a investment in them. Newborn preemies are not included.
No one wants anyone to do without HC, but there are free clinics, there are the emergency hospitals, that cannot, by law, turn you down.
If you implement this system, do you not think the people will abuse the system and tie up the Drs. offices with contrived problems? Of course they will, it's free.
Using your figure of 50 million, that would mean a sudden need for 10,000 new Drs., if they could handle 5,000 patients apiece. Talk about long lines.
You want to blindly follow a adminstration that has already put us into a debt we will never see the light of. The Govt. has been totally irresposible handling Medicare, Mediaid, USPO, Auto Manufacturing, Banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and on and on. They are running amok.
They need to be held accountable for their actions.

Don't be so hard on the Bush administration. They didn't mean to screw things up. They were just a little bit incompetent so give them a break. As a retired e.r. nurse, have you tried any of the free clinics or go into an e.r with no insurance? Until you have walked in the working "poors" shoes you are no expert on this subject!

antique old lady wrote:

<quoted text>I am not misquided! My husband is a retired military medic and my son is a chaplain currently with troops headed to Afganistan--so I know what he earned--also, how many of you are aware that medics and chaplains serve in combat areas with no weapons to defend themselves?. Eisner was kinda running down socialized medicine and I was just reminding him that he was receiving socialized medicine. He has worked 30 years to earn his medical and retirement(hale koa) paid for by us taxpapers. The "poor" work 45 years in the private sector and yet you, who us taxpayers support, object to the "poor" receiving anything from us taxpayers medicalwise even tho' they work 50% longer than you did. You got yours but you don't want anyone else to share in the wealth of this country. It seems to me that the "poor" should get 50% more benefits than you do. Or have you not heard of the working "poor"?

No one objects to helping out those less fortunate. We object to those who "expect" a hand out. As for our country's "wealth", look at the deficit, and watch your tax dollars fly to China. The USA is broke, period.

Ref: Antique Old Lady comment. When I received my commission in the Marine Corps I was told that I would receive medical, dental, and vision care, and if I made the Marine Corps a career those benefits would continue into retirement. After retiring, military medical care was turned over to a civilian HMO with accompanying annual premiums. Then when I was turning 65 I received a letter from Social Security that in order to retain my Tricare Prime (military medical benefits) that I would have to also carry Part B, Medicare. This increased my annual premium 7x over what I was paying for TriCare Prime alone.

And FYI military, active duty and retired, also pay Federal and State income tax. Being in the militay is NOT A FREE RIDE as many civilians would believe. Better let you sons know if they plan on making the military a career.

just retired 2 wrote:

<quoted text>
You are misguided, ask your husband and son again. They're classified as non-combatants while acting as a medic/chaplain. Once they side arms, they lose that non-combatant status and are free game! Though no one plays within the rules of the Geneva convention (except US), it's their call. You husband and son also have the option to decline the medical plan (tricare) when they retired--again personal choice. So what's the problem?? I just get tired of having to support the majority of the "Cart Riders" for all their wants and needs--I had to save and budget for mine.

My husband never carried a gun! And my son as a Chaplain can't--they don't even have a side arm! My son's protection is the cross on his apparel and the troops he is with. He has a "assistant" which is armed so kinda is like his personal body guard at the front! So if that gives you warm fuzzies great but as his mother it doesn't as it didn't when my husband was in Vietnam etc. Apparently you know more than their commanding officers? I don't think I was complaining about the military health care (tricare), so what's the problem? Alot of the working "poor" don't have the option of saving and budgeting--too busy feeding the family etc.

kimo wrote:

<quoted text>
No one objects to helping out those less fortunate. We object to those who "expect" a hand out. As for our country's "wealth", look at the deficit, and watch your tax dollars fly to China. The USA is broke, period.

Of course we're broke! We don't make anything in this country anymore--jobs went overseas during the Bush Administration. Some one please tell me how many manufacturing jobs were lost during the Bush years? It may not be his fault, the corp[orations are the ones that are stabbing us in the back. At least Obama is talking about trying to get our manufacturing back but I don't hear anything from the corporations trying to help him do that. Do you have any suggestions?

Retired Marine Aviator wrote:

Ref: Antique Old Lady comment. When I received my commission in the Marine Corps I was told that I would receive medical, dental, and vision care, and if I made the Marine Corps a career those benefits would continue into retirement. After retiring, military medical care was turned over to a civilian HMO with accompanying annual premiums. Then when I was turning 65 I received a letter from Social Security that in order to retain my Tricare Prime (military medical benefits) that I would have to also carry Part B, Medicare. This increased my annual premium 7x over what I was paying for TriCare Prime alone.
And FYI military, active duty and retired, also pay Federal and State income tax. Being in the militay is NOT A FREE RIDE as many civilians would believe. Better let you sons know if they plan on making the military a career.

Don't think I said it was a free ride! Welcome to the real world--that is why you see so many senior citizens working at Wal-mart, Target, McDonald's now to make ends meet

antique old lady wrote:

<quoted text> My husband never carried a gun! And my son as a Chaplain can't--they don't even have a side arm! My son's protection is the cross on his apparel and the troops he is with. He has a "assistant" which is armed so kinda is like his personal body guard at the front! So if that gives you warm fuzzies great but as his mother it doesn't as it didn't when my husband was in Vietnam etc. Apparently you know more than their commanding officers? I don't think I was complaining about the military health care (tricare), so what's the problem? Alot of the working "poor" don't have the option of saving and budgeting--too busy feeding the family etc.

Here is the deal. The Lt Col and my self STAYED in the miltary partly because one of the FEW benefits was health care for life. We knew that going in and stayed. Your "poor" or working in the private sector folks had the SAME option for the most part, taking a job with health insurance as part of the package after they retire, they could have choosen the miltary also. yes some SMALL percentage would not have been able to serve. If they are disabled and can't work they QULIFY for medicaid..paid for by US..you and I.They are NOT without care as I have pointed out over and over.

Your husband (and thank him for his service, double for being a medic...)would have ualified for health insurance had HE STAYED IN....same goes for your son, if he stays he gets it. Comparing people who have earned their insurance to those without is apples and oranges period....No one is going to die or not be treated if they have no insuurance...get it..NO ONE.

kamaaina expat wrote:

love it when people who HAVE health insurance, especially medicare, medicaid, VA (e.g. SOCIALIZED MEDICINE) don't care and don't want others to HAVE access to medical care.... this country, when it comes to medical care, is simply ridiculous.

Name those who do NOT have medical care in this country....who are they? I don;t mean medical INSURANCE I mean CARE...

antique old lady wrote:

<quoted text>Of course we're broke! We don't make anything in this country anymore--jobs went overseas during the Bush Administration. Some one please tell me how many manufacturing jobs were lost during the Bush years? It may not be his fault, the corp[orations are the ones that are stabbing us in the back. At least Obama is talking about trying to get our manufacturing back but I don't hear anything from the corporations trying to help him do that. Do you have any suggestions?

Let's not be so nearsighted. Jobs started to leave overseas during Clinton's NAFTA debacle and have continued. Corporations have no incentive to bring back jobs. Unions, over the top environmental laws, increasing corporate taxes, and hostile anti-business/development attitude (e.g., Superferry) rule defeat any business interest. My point being when you say the poor should share the wealth of the country, show me the wealth?

antique old lady wrote:

<quoted text> My husband never carried a gun! And my son as a Chaplain can't--they don't even have a side arm! My son's protection is the cross on his apparel and the troops he is with. He has a "assistant" which is armed so kinda is like his personal body guard at the front! So if that gives you warm fuzzies great but as his mother it doesn't as it didn't when my husband was in Vietnam etc. Apparently you know more than their commanding officers? I don't think I was complaining about the military health care (tricare), so what's the problem? Alot of the working "poor" don't have the option of saving and budgeting--too busy feeding the family etc.

I commend the service of your husband and son--I personally feel are two of the most vital jobs on the front, especially the medic (most protected). I was only trying to educate you on the side arm issue. They say the military spouses/parents job is harder than the active duty member itself,so you deserve just as much credit as they do. As for the woring poor, I always ask myself why they are working poor?? Are they living within their means? Are they waiting for the govt to spring the bill for the great sevices they provide? c'mon let's look at their whole picture, some of them have nicer vehicles than me and nicities. And let's not forget the number of kids that they can have, just because they can and the welfare will always be there. That what gets me.

Chuck Cohen,

You hit the nail on the head! I remember when there were people arrested at the Bush "townhall" meetings(what a laugh)who were wearing "subversive" T-shirts. God help us!!!! Those shirts might have been loaded.
They were far more dangerous than the psycho with a gun strapped to his leg and another loaded handgun in his glove compartment.