Letters to the Editor - March 27, 2013
Confusing cause and effect
“We were just following orders,” was a common excuse that was responsible for the greatest tragedy of the 20th Century. Clearly, the intent and implications of “orders” have long reaching consequences. So when an unconstitutional anti-gun bill that has within its title the absurd warning; “to insure the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited,” (in clear contravention to the “shall not be infringed” text of that same amendment), any rational person who swore an oath to that constitution should consider that law itself to be illegal, and they need to come forth and say so.
The approach of seizing power by limiting essential rights is a key to any dictatorship, and the use of a tragedy’s emotional impact as a tool to do so is clearly the hallmark of disturbed individuals seeking a means to justify an end.
Perhaps we should review the circumstances leading to this abuse of power at the Federal level. A mentally unstable teenager on psychotropic medication kills his mother in her own bed, then kills random innocent people, and finally kills himself, I would guess that by the application of despotic logic that means we need to punish hundreds of millions of people by taking away one of their basic freedoms? Perhaps, if we really cared about the previous tragedy, we might consider legislation to insure that such people were incarcerated before they went berserk, or that their doctor could not prescribe medication that is shown by “situation” after “situation” to cause psychotic, murderous, behavior. However, that rational response is not very common, instead, a quick review of who sponsors the previously discussed, disingenuous, power hungry, disturbed, knee-jerk, anti-gun, legislation, reveals career politicians that live for these events. These are the same people who would tell you that you cannot drink a “big gulp soda” while, “just following orders.”
It’s not about guns it’s about control.
Bruce Hunn,
Thompson Falls
Support for Medicaid expansion
A letter to the editor,
Among the many issues that our Montana legislature is grappling with is the opportunity to expand health care coverage to include low-income individuals.
Sanders County’s high level of unemployment results in a disproportionately large number of our citizens being uninsured or underinsured. Without coverage individuals often put off obtaining preventative care and early disease intervention that would keep overall costs lower for all our residents. Clark Fork Valley Hospital has seen a dramatic rise in the need for assistance with healthcare costs in the form of Charity Care and the amount of bad debt. As we are all aware, the costs associated with such care leads to higher insurance premiums and hospital costs for everyone. Medicaid expansion will allow those most at risk of inadequate coverage to obtain the care they need.
During Governor Bullock’s recent Sanders County visit he highlighted other benefits of Medicaid expansion including job creation, a healthier workforce, and positive effects on healthcare professional recruitment. In addition, it is important to remember most of the needed funding for expansion has been obtained from changes in reimbursement and new revenues that occur regardless of Montana’s decision to participate. Montanans can choose to let these changes take funds out of our state and county without any benefit for Sanders County residents, or we can participate and gain many benefits. Economic modeling suggests Montana will benefit a net six billion dollars over 10 years for its investment.
Given the Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act the mechanism for many of Sanders County residents to obtain healthcare coverage is in place. The Board of Trustees and Administration of Clark Fork Valley Hospital support the efforts of Governor Bullock and others to give our low-income residents greater access to the healthcare they need through Medicaid expansion.
Gregory S. Hanson, MD
President & CEO
Clark Fork Valley Hospital