Letters To The Editor

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Medicare changes ‘ill-advised’

Re: “Tough medicine” editorial, June 30.

At a time when we should all be calling our senators, urging them to carry out the bipartison agreement on Medicare they reached in May, staff writer Jamie Tobias Neely’s editorial tells us the Senate’s Medicare proposal makes sense.

The Senate increased the age of eligibility for Medicare from 65 to 67. Though Neely ridicules Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., for saying this change will swell the ranks of the uninsured, where do you suppose people without insurance go for treatment? If they go to hospital emergency rooms for critical conditions, we all pay higher hospital bills.

The Senate asks for a $5 co-payment for home health visits. My husband has a visiting nurse once a month, compared to the expensive hospital care he had been receiving. But what about low-income patients who require several home visits and can’t afford to pay?

The Senate eliminated House-approved funds to help low-income people pay their Medicare Part B premium and increased Part B premiums for those with incomes over $50,000. This would affect a small fraction of the Medicare population. But everyone would be required to document their income level. Administrative costs would greatly reduce any savings.

The bottom line is that the Senate changes will further delay passing of this legislation that promises to balance the federal budget and keep Medicare solvent for the next 10 years.

Call Sens. Patty Murray and Slade Gorton now to urge them to pass the bill without these ill-advised changes. Elinor F. Nuxoll Spokane

Tobacco foes want money, power

Extortion, coercion, theft. Most would agree that these are crimes but, for the government, they are becoming a way of doing business - not unlike Mafia practices.

The tobacco companies, under the proposed deal, will pay fines, ostensibly for health care, education programs and such. In return, the government will protect them from lawsuits. This is nothing more than extortion, coercion and theft by the government.

The tobacco companies will no longer have First Amendment rights. Restrictions on how and where they may advertise or promote their product will be imposed.

The tobacco companies will be required to lose business by being responsible for reducing youth smoking. The tobacco companies will be regulated and, eventually, no American may be able to smoke under “smoking prohibition.” There goes freedom of choice for individuals - which has already been infringed.

But those who seek punitive measures against the tobacco companies don’t really want prohibition. Their apparent goal is to punish, regulate and collect more revenues to promote their new version of nationalized medicine, i.e., requiring corporations to be socially responsible and dumping upon them the costs of health care.

If anti-tobacconists really believe smoking is as harmful as they claim, they would insist upon a total ban. But this is not their goal. Money, power and control over people’s lives is their goal.

The next targets will be your morning cup of coffee, fatty foods, alcohol (again) and any other potentially lifeshortening habit.

But don’t worry. Your government is only trying to protect you, and especially your children, from evil. Janice M. Moerschel Spokane

Republicans didn’t hit on Jones

Republicans get blamed for everything in this town. Last time, it was slavery. Now, it’s Paula Jones. Ernestene D. Becker (“Enough of Jones and Republicans,” Letters, 1 July) accuses the Republicans of convincing Jones to “go after” President Clinton.

The Republicans didn’t invent Paula Jones, and I’m unaware of any Republican plot to have her sue Clinton. Quite honestly, most Republicans don’t relish the thought of our nation’s highest elected official being sued for soliciting oral sex any more than Becker does, although their grief is more for the respect of the office and for our country than for Clinton himself.

If you must blame someone for Clinton’s current embarrassment, however, you should really blame him. Congress has been trying to pass some meaningful tort reform since the Republicans gained the majority. President Clinton keeps vetoing it to repay all those trial lawyers who gave so generously to his campaign.

If the United States operated under the English law system that requires the loser to pay the winner’s costs, perhaps Jones would have thought a bit more about filing her suit if it’s as flimsy as Becker seems to think it is.

Becker also mentions dropping out of the women’s lib movement if those in it support Jones. Well, that would be a shame. I’m sure she’ll miss those trips back to Boston to campaign for Ted Kennedy, that champion of women’s rights. Hal R. Dixon Spokane

LAW AND JUSTICE

So much for tell it to the judge

Re: “Comment earns man life term” (News, July 1).

Once again, I am shocked but not surprised at the miscarriage of justice at the highest levels.

Judge Lawson Little of Dothan, Ala., has exposed whimsical use and abuse of judicial power by changing a pronounced sentence of 20 years to life because the offender made an obscene comment.

In theory, a judge is required to be nonbiased and rule within the boundaries of the law. However, it seems that Little feels that judicial powers are to be used at his fancy.

Through personal experience, I have learned to fear and hold in contempt the police because of their wide and absolute power they hold over the citizen populace. I have held the illusion that the accused will have a fair chance at justice when in the courtroom facing a supposedly nonbiased judge.

It now seems that illusion takes its rightful place alongside Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Ronald D. Stewart Cheney

Justice served in Bergman case

After months of worrying about the outcome of Sven and Jeanette Bergman’s animal abuse case, I am relieved by Pend Oreille County District Court Judge Chuck Baechler’s ruling. He heard and viewed the evidence and rendered a fair and just decision.

I am sorry that he was offended by the actions of the Animal Legal Defense Fund. People who love animals do at times become overzealous due to the fact that the punishment for animal cruelty is so minimal in comparison with the severe suffering the creatures have endured.

I also thank Deputy Prosecutor Tony Koures for preparing and presenting a good case. Step by step, we are moving toward a more sympathetic and educated approach to a serious problem. Maybe, just maybe, the next step could be felony charges and serious jail time for people who choose to exploit and abuse the animals they take into their care. Barbara K. Alden Spokane

Lawyer’s complaints without merit

The nuisance trial was a victory for Dog Patch’s neighbors, when the judge ruled barking dogs at Dog Patch to be too loud.

Unfortunately, the trial judge had no scientific measurements to consider, such as decibel readings. Nor did either lawyer raise the possibility of somehow mitigating or muffling the noise.

On a motion of Dog Patch’s new lawyer, the Court of Appeals allowed time for the mitigation issue to go back to the trial judge. With the neighbors’ lawyer complaining all the way, the trial judge has agreed to hear evidence after Dog Patch builds and tests modern new enclosure. The mitigation trial will be held in the fall.

Having neglected to raise the mitigation issue at trial, the neighbor’s lawyer has written a letter to the editor complaining about Dog Patch and the injustices of the legal process. Imagine, if every desperate lawyer did this. The newspaper would be a lot thicker. Clinton Glover Evans, Wash.

PEOPLE IN SOCIETY

Again, lawsuit follows bad decision

Terry Novak’s 28-year-old son and nephew let poor judgment lead them into an abandoned mine tunnel. That was the epitome of poor judgment.

Terry Novak’s judgment of responsibility, accountability and obligation should be questioned, also, since he has filed a $1.5 million dollar lawsuit against the Forest Service. The trend of the time is to blame or use everything but oneself for all our inadequacies and lack of responsibility. Novak is the perfect example.

Miners of past times, before high technology, carried a bird in a cage into a mine. If the bird died from bad air, they got out of the mine. Go into an abandoned mine? No way.

God doesn’t cause the unwanted, unsolicited death of a comrade in the field of battle. A friend of your own child, mankind, does. As a veteran, I experienced three sudden deaths, but the strength that God offers all of us makes it possible to immediately go forth and not falter.

Grief is handled better by other cultures than our own. The Navajo culture has a four-day ceremony to grieve and then everything returns to normal. Marvin L. Mckeever Spokane

Second language worth learning

When God proliferated the number of languages at the Tower of Babel, the family of man moved away from each other, with the positive benefit of populating the entire Earth. Unfortunately, language barriers have ever since divided nations and people. Learning a second language opens up a whole new world.

A second language is an open door for service. Bilingualists are valued for their translating abilities. In many places in the United States, Spanish-speaking immigrants make up a large portion of the population. So, hospitals, businesses and schools in those areas constantly search for Spanish-speaking employees. As for missionary work, learning the dialect of the people to whom you are ministering is a critical first step. Otherwise, your effectiveness sharing the gospel will be extremely limited. Even when on vacation, it’s nice to be able to order dinner without using sign language.

It is a long commitment of time, but lifelong rewards make it well worth the effort. (Adios y tiene un bien tiempo apprende otro lenguaje! ) Andrew J. Schrag, age 13 Davenport, Wash.

BELIEFS

There is a rationale for annulment

Re: the recent news item about Catholic dissidents demanding that the church recognize/grant divorces and stop the annulment process.

So very much is involved in this issue. Fine, accurate distinctions must be made. There is no sufficient explanation for anti-religionists or anti-Catholics. I’m attempting a brief, simple explanation for people of good will.

Civil law grants annulments, something other than divorces. For example, couples may have gone through an elaborate marriage ceremony, have several children and have been married for several years. If at any time either party can prove an essential civil law requirement for civil marriage wasn’t met at the time of the marriage ceremony, the marriage is annulled. The judge declares that, contrary to all appearances, there was no valid marriage from the very beginning.

The children are not considered illegitimate. The couple may be required to meet the same obligations of couples getting a divorce, e.g. child support. Their marriage is annulled; they aren’t divorced.

The Catholic Church law is like the civil law in this. In fact, common civil law is largely derived from canon (church) law. The church marriage court may find, upon sufficient evidence, that one or both of the spouses, from the very beginning, didn’t believe that Christian marriage is forever, that Christian married love is unconditional. The church court declares that there was no marriage. The children are not considered to be illegitimate, nor are the couple judged to be fornicators. The persons involved are not kicked out of the church. James J. Flynn Spokane