Competitive Medicare’s the solution
GOP’s losing war E-cigarette laws Pay up, Caltrans Pot farms a huge drain
Regarding “Medicare is a solution, not a problem for budget” (Insight, Aug. 2): At long last, Robert Reich has finally written something I can agree with. And that is, in essence, freeing Medicare to compete in the workplace for working America’s health insurance dollar. A competitive Medicare would not only solve Medicare’s solvency problem, it would force down health care costs nationwide, while at the same time ensuring that Medicare would be able to meet its mandatory obligations to the elderly and disabled. But sadly, our politicians will never let that happen as they depend on campaign contributions from the very health insurers who enjoy the protection of the politicians. And for those of you who think Obamacare is the solution, think again. Obamacare was deliberately written as a for-profit program, which explains why the health insurance industry has not made any vociferous complaints. To repeat what Reich said: “Medicare isn’t the problem, it’s the solution.”
Whit Bollier, Mill Valley
The GOP’s war on women is one of their own making, a fight of their own choosing. They cannot win. Taking on Planned Parenthood may generate short-term gains, but it will cost them the 2016 election. Just ask Mitt Romney.
Pat McCulloch, San Francisco
Regarding “As regulation nears, e-cigarette controversy rages” (Aug. 5): Reviving the proposal of electronic cigarettes is a understandable ideal that can maybe save lots of young lives. Thousands of people smoke cigarettes, and now many people turn them down by cheaper alternatives like e-cigarettes. Smoking cigarettes leads to the worst health consequences by inhaling tar and other chemicals in them. Personally, the clouds that seem to be made by e-cigarettes whenever walking past seem like another kind of secondhand smoking, which is dangerous as well. E-cigarettes fall into this category; they are designed to act like tobacco smoking. Despite what regular cigars do, e-cigarettes deliver nicotine with less of the toxic chemicals that is produced by burning tobacco, although these e-cigarettes contain harmful chemicals that can damage the brain. Like tobacco, nicotine can be very addicting as well. Increasing the age limit to 21 years old for all tobacco and drug uses is a possibility that is stated in the article, and it may be harder for teens to get their hands on them although there is the Smoke Free Act. Increasing the prices of these kinds of products can also help.
Karla Mae Aquino, Newark
Crucial climate talks
Regarding “Obama acts to slash coal power plant emissions” (Aug. 2): Thanks for your article describing the Obama administration’s new initiative on climate. Increasing cuts in power plant emissions to 32 percent from the former 30 percent by 2030, with rewards for expanding solar and wind power.
Also, the increased flexibility for states in meeting the new requirements, including a reliable safety valve to avoid disruptions in supplying power. Regarding the Paris climate talks, could you please do a piece on who will be setting the U.S. position going into the talks, so readers like me can write those officials, expressing our support for commitment to strong greenhouse gas reductions?
William Cutler, Union City
Regarding “Bridge experts spawn doubts” (Aug. 2): The late Chronicle columnist Herb Caen would call the people at Caltrans who are appointing the same nine experts who wasted $20 million of toll payer money on a failed Bay Bridge study to do a new $5 million study unclear on the concept. The excuses given by Caltrans are laughable. When will someone be held responsible?
Howard Epstein, San Francisco
Thank you for publishing “Pot’s hit on our water supply” (Insight, Aug. 2). However, the obvious conclusion that must be reached from the editorial is still hidden. If “regulation” of pot means issuing growers permits for water extraction for a fee, the creeks will stay dry.
Proper regulation and enforcement of water extraction in the creeks really means denial of permits and stopping the water extractions because of the need to protect fish and wildlife, which means no pot can be grown. The pot grows still drain the creeks dry during the summer even in normal rainfall years. So let’s not kid ourselves: Regulation of pot grows up north really means “no pot.” I’m in favor of that, but will the growers who supposedly want to go legal really agree?
Larry Vollintine, Oakland