www.roanoke.com

Government can raise costs endlessly

Did anyone on The Roanoke Times editorial staff ever pass a course in economics?

If so, I am certain your staff would not have quoted George Will in your June 24 editorial "Stand firm on health reform." When Will stated the government did not have to make a profit while private insurers did, The Times staff implied it meant the government would have cheaper insurance. No.

What Will was saying was that when the government's insurance cost goes up, the government can raise our taxes to cover the additional cost. It always does.

If a single-payer government system is so good, why has it not worked when tried in other countries?

If the government-mandated insurance program that will be forced upon us is so good, why will members of Congress not enroll in the new plan?

On page 13 in this same paper, President Obama is quoted as saying, "there can be some legitimate concerns on the part of private insurers that if any public plan is simply being subsidized by taxpayers endlessly, that over time they can't compete with the government just printing money."

Why can't The Times print a complete, honest report, based on facts fairly presented?

No bar against carrying a gun openly

It is not against the law to openly carry a sidearm and consume alcohol.

Read that sentence again and digest it fully. I will break it down for you. Not against the law = legal. Openly carry = the weapon is in plain view. A sidearm = revolver or semi-automatic pistol. Consume alcohol = drink in a bar/restaurant.

The essay "Concealed weapons are for safety" (June 24 commentary) states, "The laws prohibit the consumption of alcohol and carrying any weapon." That sentence is false.

Now, I don't suggest or recommend anyone consume alcohol while openly carrying a firearm, but the laws of the commonwealth of Virginia are very clear concerning what a citizen can and can't do while carrying concealed and openly carrying a firearm. Simply put, open carry is legal in Virginia because there is no law against it.

Or if you need to understand it this way: If it is not specifically stated in the code, it is legal. Nowhere does it state that it is illegal to open carry and consume alcohol. It is legal.

Once again, perhaps it is not the smartest thing to do, but it is legal.

No good can come of public insurance

We have the best health care in the world. Many uninsured are so by choice. A public (government-run) plan will destroy the quality of care people in this country receive. It will result in rationed care, with seniors in many cases being denied the care they need, and will kill research and technology.

This is true for every country with government-run health care. Anyone who thinks differently is living in a make-believe world.

We need to open competition among insurance companies and control litigation, among other things, to reduce costs in our system. A government-run system will increase everyone's taxes, causing financial suffering for all.

This administration is so bent on implementing its agenda that it loses sight of what is good for the country and the people. All should be contacting their representatives, adamantly opposing any form of government-run plan, and demand that Congress include themselves in any plan they want to cram down America's throats.

Health coverage no longer works

Re: John M. Givens' commentary, "An employee benefit -- for employees only" (June 25):

Christopher Walter's life may have been saved if he had been uninsured ("Socialized insurance saved my life," June 21 commentary), but his outcome would have been compromised. Having one's life saved only to be left broke or homeless is unacceptable.

Millions of Americans are uninsured because they are unemployed or employed part-time; millions more have inadequate coverage. Further, Givens' statement that a "good health insurance plan" is "part of the cost of employing people" is out of touch. Good health insurance is the benefit of few.

Givens concisely states the conservative viewpoint, the crux of which is that his earned income is more important than the fate of others, particularly those less adept or fortunate than he, and that those who are not employed well are not deserving of anything better. Our president rejects this Dickensian philosophy, indicating the majority of voters possess more evolved moral sensibilities.

Employer-provided health insurance worked when most of us were employed full time and health insurance plans were fair to those insured. This model works no longer. We voted for change, and we mean to have it.