Congressmen don’t read bills, and they don’t care

To the editor:

Just like the trillion-dollar stimulus bill that was passed without one single member of Congress stating that he actually read the bill before voting for it, this trillion-dollar health care bill seems destined to go up for a vote with few, if any, congressmen having actually read it.

But what should concern us even more is the fact that the congressmen are not even ashamed to admit that they don't read bills they vote on.

On the contrary, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., even questions the point of congressmen reading the health care bill: "I love these members, they get up and say, 'Read the bill.' What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"

If this is now the accepted norm, if our elected representatives are content to blindly rubber stamp whatever their party or president or lobbyists tell them to do, then we are truly lost as a functioning republic.

Jim Beckham

HENDERSON

Political priorities

To the editor:

Your Tuesday edition had a front-page report on Sens. Christopher Dodd and Kent Conrad, both Democrats. It seems Countrywide gave them both uniquely favorable discounts on their mortgages.

The two senators said they were not initially aware of such favorable treatment. They also were not aware that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

For many years I have said the majority of our elected officials have their self-interest as their first priority. The second is their party.

You guessed right if you thought the people came last.

WALTER E. GUNTHER

LAS VEGAS

Losing choices

To the editor:

I see the president wants to get the universal health care bill rubber stamped by the monopoly Democrat Congress before they recess. Sounds like another stimulus bill to me.

No one will be allowed to read it before voting so that the American public will be stuck with it, no matter how bad it is and how self-serving it will be to the Democrats.

I think we need to talk to some more Canadians about how much they love their socialized medicine. I've already heard about the aging out of the system. In other words, if you're too old, some bureaucrat will decide if your procedure or illness is worth the strain on the budget. However, you will still have to pay for a system that ultimately will refuse to care for you.

I wonder if euthanasia is covered under "Obamacare." America was founded on many principles, one being the freedom of choice. Socialized medicine would take away your choice, and therefore, one of your freedoms. How much freedom do we give away before we say "enough"? Right now, people with no health insurance do what they've done for years -- they go to the nearest University Medical Center and get cared for. In our city, as in others, UMC operates in the red.

Here's a solution for all: Let the federal government fund each state's medical centers, thereby providing coverage for all without insurance. Take all the money spent on Medicare and put it into local medical centers. They could set costs according to each person's ability to pay.

And to hold down costs, try instilling a little fairness in pricing. No more charging $10 for a Band-Aid. And why should a multiple-patient room cost more than the price of a stay at Motel 6?

If I'm going to be forced into paying for a system that benefits all, let it be that kind and let me keep my choices. If "Obamacare" passes, your only option if you're too old will be to hop the next chunk of ice that breaks off of a glacier due to global warming, and float away to die.

Roger Ouellette

LAS VEGAS

Get with the program

To the editor:

I am in the process of informing the Democratic Party leaders that I am not giving one single dime to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee until something is done to bring the "conservative" and "Blue Dog" Democrats into line with President Obama's proposals.

My husband and I, as well as others, worked very hard to get President Obama elected. We believed and continue to believe that with congressional support, his administration can complete the goals to support the Democratic platform that we all worked on.

Almost on a daily basis, I receive requests for donations to "fight the Republicans," and I have contributed as much as I could at the time.

I now believe that it is not the Republicans, but those people in the party who are only concerned about getting re-elected. They must understand why they are now holding office: We elected them to carry out the platform for all of America.

I am very disappointed in Rep. Dina Titus, as we also worked hard to get her elected.

Linda Henderson

HENDERSON

For the good of society

To the editor:

Regarding the health care debate:

Nationalize, socialize, the sky is falling, what could be worse? According to your editorial page, taking care of illegal aliens here in the United States.

Does a person's immigration status determine whether she should be able to call 911 and be treated in one of our emergency rooms when she is having a heart attack or stroke? Are their lives less valuable than those of "legals"?

Of course, the cost of treating folks who largely use the emergency rooms for their primary health care services pushes up our costs. Just ask UMC, Sunrise and our other hospitals. But what is their alternative? Which of our doctors will provide continued free care for patients without insurance? And why should they?

A "safety net" should cover all in need and in turn will benefit the entire society.

Or is "society" another dirty word? It sounds a lot like "socialism"!

A. Hawkins

HENDERSON

Of shepherds and clerks

To the editor:

When a veterinarian diagnoses a sheep's medical condition and suggests various courses of action, the shepherd does a cost/benefit analysis to determine the ailing ewe's future based on the greater good for the maintenance of his flock.

The Democratic Party leadership's effort to change the American health care system is comparable to the shepherd's concern for the flock. Their policies will task doctors to diagnose the medical condition of individual patients and empower government clerks to decide on the treatment based upon the needs and priorities of the welfare state.

When shepherds and clerks hold power, the life of an individual ewe -- you -- will not be respected.

ALLEN HAWKES

LAS VEGAS

Good for the goose?

To the editor:

The United States has the best health care in the world. People from all over come to be healed.

Now the same people who brought us "affordable housing" want to bring us "affordable health care." Our health care system is too complex and complicated for this kind of intervention.

Granted, the unemployed and people without any insurance need assistance. But if you want your own doctor under the proposed reforms, forget it. J.C. Watts (Sunday column) cites, "you'll find a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal."

If a bill does pass Congress, it should give every citizen the same plan that the members of Congress enjoy, since we are paying for it. If it is good enough for them, it should be good enough for you and me. If that can't be done, then will members of Congress be on the "public option," like you and me?

When our representatives are here on recess, let's ask them.

CURK JACKSON

LAS VEGAS