Upset with the Salem Utilities Dept.
To the editor:
I receive utility statements each month since 2009 with the names of Esther Garrett and Richard Holland on them. I make a copy of the statement and ask them to remove the name of Esther Garrett for she died in 2009.
Payments are made on time with checks showing Annie and Richard Holland, yet each statement comes the next month in the name of Esther Garrett.
I have three times asked in person and presented death certificates - but they pay no attention.
Dec. 5 to Jan. 24, 2014, Annie and I were in the Philippines to help the needy and visit her family. Monday of this week (Jan. 30), I received a letter from the Salem Utilities Department: an apparent concern regarding water meter being stopped or reflecting average consumption not being used.
I guess I received this letter because my deceased mother wasn't using enough water.
Don't let health care mimic the UK
To the editor:
On the 18th of December, I was admitted to the Salem Community Hospital for a left hip replacement. I was a little apprehensive that after the surgery I might suffer from permanent pain. From the 20th through the 24th I underwent therapy and care in the rehabilitation unit. I left the hospital feeling fine and so satisfied with the successful surgery and my recovery.
I feel compelled to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to my surgeon, Dr. Paumier and attending physician Dr. Banning, and their professionalism and expertise. The concern and compassion of the nurses, therapists and all other employees in both the hospital and the rehab unit were so overwhelming.
Sometimes when one is bedfast he endures embarrassing moments that require cleanups and extra work. These situations were all handled so routinely and so dutifully without complaint. Everybody's attitude was wonderful and I returned home so satisfied and so grateful for my care. My wife and I would like to thank everybody from the bottom of our hearts.
Pleased with kindness shown by hospital
To the editor:
Cal Thomas has written an interesting article on the problems the people in the UK are having with their NHS National Health Care. To quote Mr. Thomas, their health care is in critical shape and has been since the beginning. Because of the lack of funds doctors are being under paid and the results many have left their practice. The UK now has fewer doctors per person than any country in Europe
This is only one of the many problems facing the British people. It takes weeks sometimes months to get to see a doctor. The government makes the decision who and when one will get to see a doctor.
The people in government also decide if an operation is practical. I have read certain conditions are required before some operations are approved. Age and other conditions such as general health are considered before the procedure is approved. What is going on in England is the rationing of overall health care. I don't believe that rationing was even considered a possibility when the NHS was introduced, but government mismanagement and lack of money caused them to cut the quality of care and consequently, the complete failure of the NHS.
We here in the US would be completely naive not to believe the Obamacare will also be a monstrous failure. A system that has over and over again produced proof it contains flaws of a nature that makes the system unworkable.
Yours and my health care should be of a private nature and no business of the government. We must not be of the opinion that what is happening in the UK will not happen here. We are a people who possess more individual freedom than any country in the world. To be told and forced we must have insurance by our government is a direct attack on our personal freedom and we must not stand for it. However, this monstrous system must be fixed before it collapses on itself and cripples out already weak economy.
LEON J. WHITE,
Offering his counter points to ops
To the editor:
In response to a recent criticism of President Obama's handling of Colorado and Washington's recent end to marijuana prohibition in the editorials, the only logical first question to the editor is have you ever read the Constitution?
While reading the law lecture from a newspaper editor, the answer to that question should be very clear to everyone. I'm well aware that it is not.
The editorial was published on Jan. 29, under the title, "So drug policy is 'just say maybe?'" While very emotionally charged, emotions are basically all it has going for it. It's as factual as something published by The Onion. About as rational as something written by a child throwing a temper tantrum.
However, I don't mean this as a personal criticism of the editor. Many people would have written something along the same lines. Many of the older generation. Indoctrinated with lies. Brainwashed by propaganda. I've said all of these things before in various outlets, and it's often met with a vicious personal attack aimed at me by the same people I'm talking about.
People who don't want to give up on the things they've been made to believe. Instead of that being your first reaction here, can I ask, do you not want the truth?
First and foremost, we'll speak specifically about what is driving most of this discussion, marijuana. I've heard a loud cry that Obama is violating his oath to the Constitution and selectively enforcing laws by saying he won't go after Colorado and Washington. While I certainly don't commend the President on his record of upholding his oath to the Constitution, why don't we take a look at that document and really investigate the issue. In the Bill of Rights, the 10th Amendment is clear, short and to the point (much like the rest of the document), it states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In case you're one of those who requires a Captain Obvious to explain everything to you, this clearly means that anything not granted as a power to the federal government, specifically by the Constitution, is left to the states or the people to decide.
Now, on Jan. 16, 1919, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. This prohibited alcohol. For the federal government to prohibit alcohol, it needed to amend the Constitution through the process that is in place to do so. The reason why is very clear, it had no authority to prohibit alcohol otherwise. The Constitution doesn't grant the federal government that power. There is no such amendment for marijuana, or any other illicit drug and there is no language in the Constitution that grants them the power to prohibit it. And while I'm certainly not advocating the use of these substances, is it not rational to think that the President is absolutely upholding his oath the Constitution by allowing these states to proceed with what their people have decided on the ballot? Is it not rational to think that the prohibition of marijuana (and yes, all illicit drugs) is illegal in the first place?
This will be a big issue with the younger generation of this country. If anyone should be at the forefront of it, it's people who claim to be small government conservatives, especially those who still hold the Constitution in high regard. The War on Drugs is one of the biggest excuses for the advancement of big government, and it's a complete failure-there isn't even an argument you can make to the contrary.
There is a whole lot more that can be said here, from the facts about the benefits of marijuana, to studies that disprove mostly every negative thing that has ever been taught about it, to the failed war on drugs.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you want a real education on the pros and cons of marijuana, start with Dr. Sanjay Gupta's study for CNN. If you don't want the truth, then ignore it. I don't want to indoctrinate you, I want you to find out on your own. But the fact of the matter is, not all of us are asleep at the wheel. If you think rationally and logically about the issues that we face, most of them are not hard to solve.
It's when you allow the lies you've been taught to mix with the emotion and let that control the discourse that everything becomes very complicated. I have no doubt that this letter will stir up the exact kind of emotional reaction from some that will serve to prove my point. However, if you still respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, can you really argue against what I said here?