Pick women, people of color
Re “White men hold lion’s share of state’s public offices” (The Buzz, Oct. 28): Just a thought for voters still making decisions about candidates for election. Two-thirds of elected officials in the United States are white men, when this group nationally constitutes one-third of the population.
In Sacramento County, we white males are less than one-fourth of the population. How about we all make an effort to vote for women and people of color in this election?
Maybe someday we will redress historic injustices and have political leadership who truly looks like us. The power to change is in our hands. Racism and sexism can only be overcome when we vote for different candidates both nationally and locally.
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to The Sacramento Bee
Rev. Alan Jones, Carmichael
Measure L and city managers
Re “Why change now?” (Letters, Oct. 26) The No on L campaign is being bankrolled by special interest political action committees, one of which made a $34,000 contribution to protect the interests of city managers. It’s clear to see their motivation.
That’s why I’m glad to see that Sacramento’s recent longtime city manager Ray Kerridge, who doesn’t have a financial interest in this issue, was honest in announcing his support for Measure L
Louis Morton, Sacramento
Weak council, strong donors
Re “Sacramento next in line for reform” (Dan Walters, Oct. 24): Dan Walters supports Measure L by suggesting that people who question it are quaintly behind the times or selfishly opposed to progress, concluding that a strong mayor leads to improved accountability.
However, cities with a strong mayor and weak council system are more easily influenced by contributors who give the largest donations to that mayor’s campaigns and pet causes.
By contrast, Sacramento benefits from a robust City Council that provides broad-based democratic checks and balances to such narrowly focused influence. Walters talks about the drawbacks of city manager systems without exploring the drawbacks of strong mayor systems.
I’m voting to keep our City Council relevant by voting “no” on Measure L.
Michael Doughton, Sacramento
City system needs no change
I am a senior citizen and lifetime Sacramento resident, and I have seen many good mayors who were for the people and ran Sacramento well. Current city governance has proven to work quite well for many years. Why make such a drastic change?
Measure L is supported by the mayor, billionaires, millionaires, developers, investors and big corporations. They have contributed heavily to Measure L, almost a million dollars. Measure L will give too much power to one politician, more power than a governor or a U.S. president. Do the people of Sacramento want to hand over complete control of city government to one Sacramento politician that can be influenced by billionaires and corporations?
Don’t be misled by this drastic measure that the mayor wants. Democracy is people rule, not one-man rule.
Angelina Chavez, Sacramento
Liberal crime prevention fails
Re “Has crime faded away as a big issue,” (Dan Walters, Oct. 26): Dan Walters let his liberal bias show in this article. He claims crime is no longer an issue. Why? Because crime is low, and liberals are winning the current debate on Proposition 47. Oh, how history repeats itself.
Just wait until California’s inner city residents become increasingly victimized by burglars who should be behind bars and we’ll see a quick reversal of such liberal insanities as George Soros’ Proposition 47.
Liberals had a good thing going talking about the obscene numbers of drug users and sellers in prison. So what happened?
Now they want to make it easy on thieves who mostly prey on the poor? We already tried crime prevention the liberal way. It gave us the crime-ridden decades of the 1960s and 1970s. It was the tough-on-crime policies of the 1980s and 1990s that gave us 30 years of declining crime.
Christopher Ewing, Carmichael
No on 46: You will pay
Re “Voters will settle lengthy battle over malpractice cap” (Page A1, Oct. 28): Let’s put some facts out about Proposition 46. Obstetrician-gynecologists pay $38,000 in California for annual medical malpractice insurance. In New York City, they pay $227,000.
Malpractice rates may be lower in California than many states, but Medi-Cal reimbursement to doctors are the lowest in the nation in part because of low malpractice premiums we pay.
If Proposition 46 passes, access to care for Medi-Cal patients will shrink drastically. For full prenatal care, delivery and postpartum care, doctors are reimbursed $1,100 by Medi-Cal and $2,000 for a private patient.
In New York, the reimbursement is $7,000 if you can find a doctor who will take insurance. Ultimately, the consumer pays for higher malpractice premiums. If Proposition 46 passes, insurance rates, particularly for women’s health, will skyrocket and access to care, particularly for the most sick and medically challenged patients, will start to disappear.
Steven Polansky, MD, Carmichael
Yes on 46: Help the victims
Opponents of Proposition 46 want hatred of lawyers to blind you to what it really does: helps innocent victims of bad doctors.
I was a victim of medical malpractice at a relatively young age. The current $250,000 cap on pain and suffering is less than $1 an hour for living in constant pain the rest of my life.
Would you let me put you on a rack and torture you for $1 an hour? The fact is 80 percent of medical malpractice lawsuits are based on preventable error. If doctors want to reduce lawsuits, all they have to do is work mindfully. Instead, they miss obvious diagnoses by relying on stereotypes and ignoring all evidence that they’re wrong.
Three spinal fractures were missed by multiple doctors who said my pain came from divorce and told me to cure myself by getting a boyfriend.
Karen M. Campbell, Sacramento