Out of touch
Given California’s current debt load, it would be inconceivable and irresponsible for someone from the political class to thrust yet another health care boondoggle on California’s taxpayers.
But that’s exactly what California State Sen. Mark Leno, a San Francisco Democrat, proposed to the tune of $210 billion in the first year alone plus a $1 million price tag to try and figure out how to pay for this latest unnecessary and ill-conceived venture.
It certainly gives new meaning to the term “out of touch.”
Never miss a local story.
Editor’s note: On Thursday, the state Senate approved Leno’s proposal.
U.S. is behind
The World Health Organization rated the United States 54 out of 191 countries in terms of financial fairness.
Thank God we are just ahead of Chad and Rwanda (but behind Bangladesh and 52 others).
In terms of health results like longevity and child survival, we are equally behind the rest of the world while spending phenomenally more money to be so second rate.
Why? Because we do not have a nationalized care system. It is your moral imperative to provide for the health of this country.
The insurance companies have proven that they are not in business to do so.
Five Supreme Court judges have just granted corporations permission to buy and own our government (“Supreme Court lifts campaign spending limits,” Jan. 22).
I hope all those people who have been concerned about government takeover of the private sector will be equally outraged at the prospect of corporate takeover of our government. I hope we can all come together against this outrage. Free speech is for those who actually have mouths to speak and hands to write. Corporations “speak” with money and that can never be “free.” It will cost us all.
Activism at work
A recent opinion printed in The Tribune advocated conservative activism (“Conservatism — the new activism,” Jan. 17). What this can produce was on full display on Jan. 21. On this day, five conservative activist Supreme Court justices, all appointed by Republicans, voted to overturn settled law.
Their decision grants corporations (domestic or foreign) the right to unlimited campaign advertising (“Supreme Court lifts campaign spending limits,” Jan. 22). The Republican leadership was jubilant upon receiving this news.
The amount of money multinational and pharmaceutical corporations, Wall Street and others have available to influence elections is nearly unimaginable. Just the amount of money Goldman Sachs sets aside this year for bonuses dwarfs all spending in our last presidential election.
Perhaps those who believe that the problem in our government was that lobbyists and corporations did not have sufficient power over our elected and appointed officials might explain why this tragedy is actually in our best interest.
San Luis Obispo