Too bad they didn’t read the bill
Re “Health law’s disputed phrase may have been an oversight” (Page 5B, May 26): I’m really enjoying watching the Democrats try to justify the error which may take the Affordable Care Act down. The spin now is supposedly that it was just a typo. Well, no, because when it was passed, they were sure that they could get states to buy in, and many states didn’t. Claiming it was not intentional will not fly, since Rep. Nancy Pelosi and others acknowledged they hadn’t read it. The argument is entirely disingenuous, and I doubt the court will be amused.
I don’t oppose health care reform at all, but this was bad law. It took a couple of good things – universal mandate, pre-existing conditions – and ignored everything else: interstate competition, choice for employees with employer-provided health care, tort reform and government-facilitated pools for people who must apply for more expensive individual rates.
Maybe we can do better.
Daniel Westover, Sacramento
According to the dictionary ...
I looked up “state” on Dictionary.com and, under noun, the seventh definition states: “A politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.” Therefore, websites created by state governments and the federal government are all established by the state.
I find it surprising that this is even a point of contention. It will be interesting to see what the courts decide.
Randall Dee Rich,
Four little words of the ACA
It’s amazing that nationwide funding of the Affordable Care Act could actually hang on four words in the 900-page bill. The disputed words, “established by the state,” are said to be inadvertent, an oversight or a drafting error. But, didn’t Rep. Nancy Pelosi say that the bill had to be passed to see what was in it?
Paul Lineback, Cameron Park
People have the freedom to choose
Re “Doctors must not aid suicide” (Viewpoints, May 26): I am glad that Dr. Eric Chevlen is not my oncologist. His despair comments indicate to me a very poor bedside manner and complete misunderstanding of his patient’s true feelings.
People in pain and with poor quality of life should not be kept alive so that doctors can continue to make tons of money from their patients’ misery. People should be given the freedom to choose how and when to hasten the ultimate outcome and end their misery.
Harvey Banks, Sacramento
The palliative care of last resort
I reject Dr. Eric Chevlen’s assertion that Senate Bill 128 would empower doctors rather than patients by allowing for medical assistance in dying. Within my own family, I know, as do many physicians, that not all pain from cancer can be relieved. Who but the patient should decide whether life under those circumstances is preferable to death?
Nor would SB 128 require Chevlen to proceed differently than he does in treating depression and counseling patients against prematurely ending their lives. Moreover, he could opt out of providing medication that would hasten death. And hastily scribbled lethal prescriptions won’t exist. SB 128 requires a second opinion from a qualified physician that the patient is of sound mind and has six months or less to live, and it also requires a 15-day waiting period after the submission of a written and duly witnessed request before such prescriptions can be issued.
Bill Pieper, Sacramento
Growing use of GMOs questioned
Re “GMO use is a growing controversy” (Feast, May 24): Genetically engineered seeds and crops are controversial for more than the article lets on. And that dirty little secret is increasingly coming to light.
A handful of global pesticide corporations with a growing presence in the Sacramento region are engineering seeds to withstand greater pesticide use. That’s why, according to USDA data, these crops have driven up huge increases in pesticide use. In turn, given increased plant and insect resistance, these corporations are marketing a return to the use of more hazardous pesticides.
These corporations are gobbling up traditional seed companies, consolidating the marketplace. We have a responsibility to question what is being developed in our backyard from seed to fork.
Paul Towers, Sacramento
EXTRA LETTERS ONLINE
Find them at:
HOW TO SUBMIT
Online form (preferred):
Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779,
Sacramento, CA 95852
150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.