Letters on KanCare, gun safety, Electoral College, Russian influence, polarizing labels

Expanding KanCare would save lives

In reference to “Expand KanCare to create jobs, lower health costs” (Dec. 15 commentary) I would have added “save lives.” A few years ago, a young Hispanic woman collapsed while working as an intern in my lab. She was seriously ill because she was afraid to go to the doctor. Her parents, with whom she lived, did not have health insurance even though her dad had a full-time job. She ended up in an emergency room receiving blood transfusions to save her life. Her illness, if treated months earlier, would have been much less expensive, and no harm would have been done.

A study in Massachusetts some years ago showed that universal health care coverage saved about one life in 800 people per year. Do the math for Kansas. If Medicaid expansion gave coverage to 150,000 Kansans, then over five years it would save approximately 1,000 lives in Kansas. To me it is not about creating jobs or lowering costs. Medicaid expansion is about the compassionate act of saving lives of vulnerable people in our state.

Gun safety

My doctor is part of one of the large health care systems in Wichita. Being over 65 years old, I have an annual wellness check in which a nurse does screening for dementia, depression, etc. There is also an assessment of risks of injury in the home due to falls, fire and other hazards. The questions asked are not in any way related to Medicare coverage or requirements. I noticed that there were no questions about firearms. When I asked the nurse why that was so, she told me that there used to be a question asking whether any firearms in the home are kept unloaded and locked up. She said they dropped the question because so many patients became irate and abusive, assuming it was part of a government effort to infringe on their Second Amendment rights.

It is appalling that the NRA and its enablers, including our entire Kansas congressional delegation, have stoked the irrational fears and biases of so many people that health care providers are intimidated from asking reasonable questions geared to the welfare of their patients.

Have we completely lost our senses about guns?

Need Electoral College

Following the presidential election, we have heard the mainstream liberal media remind us, almost daily, that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by just over 2 million votes. This has renewed calls to do away with the Electoral College and allow a simple majority vote to determine our president. No doubt the popular vote favoring Clinton has given added emphasis to the protests around the country. If we look into the vote totals by state, we will get a better understanding of the election results and the necessity of an Electoral College.

One has only to look at two states for an answer why we must keep an Electoral College: California and Texas. In California, Clinton had 7.23 million votes to Donald Trump’s 3.84 million, a difference of 3.39 million votes. In New York, Clinton had 4.1 million votes to Trump’s 2.6 million, a difference of 1.5 million votes. Combining these two states gives Clinton a 4.89 million vote advantage over Trump.

Without an Electoral College, simply put, California and/or New York would determine the presidential race. The other 48 states would be irrelevant. One more interesting data point: The county of Los Angeles, Calif., alone gave Clinton a voting plurality of 1.273 million votes — almost enough to elect a president if only a popular vote. We should not be discouraged the vote total favored Clinton. Rather it should strengthen our resolve to keep the Electoral College as the only truly representative way to elect our president.

Russian influence

Attention Patriotic Americans: President Barack Obama and the United States government are counting on your help; we need YOU to identify Russian sympathizers who have infiltrated our country to influence its people. They already helped Donald Trump win an election by spreading false news stories casting our beloved Hillary Clinton in a bad light for nothing more than compromising our national security with unsecured classified e-mails, and selling access to the Secretary of State’s office.

It is outrageous that they spread false news stories; that is the broadcast networks’ job. We must stop the Russian sympathizers at all costs; you the citizen must know the signs. Does your neighbor act different, like someone from a different culture? Do your co-workers criticize our government? Has a friend admitted voting Republican? Turn them in so they can be silenced, lest they spread their influence like a witch casting a spell over the nation. It is time to stop the Russian influence; it is time for a witch hunt.

Polarizing labels

As we look forward to a new president in January as well as many new appointed government officials, we anticipate that there will be changes, struggles, tension and arguments between people and groups with differing opinions. Perhaps we are all tired of the old labels: liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, left-wing, right-wing. They are not very accurate but tend to immediately polarize and divide our citizens.

May I suggest that we adopt a different label when we talk about the position a person or organization relies on to guide policy or behavior? I hope we will use the term “moral” to judge the policies and actions of our government. To quote Hubert Humphrey, “the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”

Of course private charities and families can and do help as much as possible, but there are situations and circumstances which require assistance from a benevolent government.

This story was originally published December 18, 2016 at 5:50 AM with the headline "Letters on KanCare, gun safety, Electoral College, Russian influence, polarizing labels."