HAVE YOUR SAY

Bill key to our health, as a nation and individually

When I worked for a health clinic, I was elated when the Affordable Care Act was passed because it meant that our patients could get the care they needed without needing to consider costs.

I also remember feeling angry that working-class people like me made too much money to qualify for subsidies, but not enough to afford our deductible. A program aimed at improving health should benefit the people, not insurance companies.

It is even more infuriating to think that with the recent coronavirus outbreak, there are still nearly 30 million Americans who are uninsured and millions more who are underinsured or cannot afford to take time off work to see a doctor if they are sick.

The passage of HR 1384 would mean that anyone would be able to visit a service provider with no out-of-pocket costs. This is important to our health, individually and as a nation.

— Camille Walker, Sunnyvale

I read with sadness about Susan Hammer’s passing

Re: “Susan Hammer leaves San Jose a legacy of diversity, inclusion” (Editorial, March 10):

I read with sadness today about the passing of Susan Hammer.

I was lucky enough to work with her and her friend Janet Gray Hayes for a few years in the mayor’s office. These inspirational women brought a bright and dynamic new leadership to City Hall and made me proud to call San Jose my hometown.

Susan, in particular, was articulate, witty and compassionate. I didn’t run in political circles but was lucky enough to share common experiences and see her from close up. I learned about leadership and communication and took these lessons with me as I moved on to other roles with the city.

I am thankful to have had these great women in my life

Letters to the editor:

Letters of up to 150words should be submitted online at www.mercurynews.com/letters. Commentaries: Submissions should be 600 words and include a tagline and daytime contact information. Email submissions to mnopinion@ bayareanewsgroup.com. No attachments please.

and to be able to refer to them as my friends, Susan and Janet Gray.

— Bill Guraro, Chico

Homes within communities better for homeless families

Re: “When it comes to the homeless, the Bay Area’s compassion has a limit” (Mercurynews.com, March 8):

Perceptions related to homelessness tend to revolve around individuals with mental health disorders, which can cause families affected by homelessness to be overlooked.

The article referenced mixed emotions felt by those in the Bay Area if tiny homes or encampments were built within their community.

If there is an emphasis on how families are helped, it may influence those residing within the Bay Area to make more considerable changes.

Lack of affordable housing can be a contributing factor for homelessness among families, especially for those at or below the poverty line. Resources such as tiny homes or encampments within communities will not only provide a preferred environment for families, but it can also allow them to feel like part of the community while changing views on homelessness.

— David Arias, San Jose

Remote island nation more on top of virus than we are

Arriving in Papeete, French Polynesia, on Feb. 22, we presented a travel history questionnaire required for entry to public health workers who greeted us as we deplaned. They were wearing gowns, masks and face shields, and they screened everyone’s temperature, using notouch infrared thermometers before we were allowed to enter passport control. It was impressive and reassuring.

Returning to San Francisco International Airport on March 1 with the devastating news of the worldwide progression of this virus, we expected similar public health screening. Approximately 800 passengers from multiple flights were queued together with passports in hand. Not one thermometer or public health representative in sight.

Yes, Mr. Trump, there is nothing to worry about when French Polynesia, population 280,000, in the middle of the South Pacific, halfway between Australia and South America, totally outperformed and outclassed the United States of America in protecting its citizens from the coronavirus entering its shores.

— Richard Alexander, San Jose

Buying more than needed is selfish and self-defeating

We have been seeing on TV that masses of people converged on stores, emptying shelves and even getting into fights over products.

A first reaction is to think about the anomaly of people crowding into certain areas so they can sequester themselves to avoid people.

We also have heard, in our churches, a wake-up call — that hoarding more than you need is selfish and immoral, since it keeps supplies from others who need them.

Now, think a bit further: If you buy, say, 10 bottles of rubbing alcohol and 10 bottles of hand sanitizer and 10 bottles of hydrogen peroxide and other people have none, those people will be out and about anyway, and may catch the virus and spread it around.

How have you helped yourself if you have helped to spread the virus by preventing others from getting supplies?

— Theresa Rieve, San Jose