We’re running out of doctors

I read in the newspaper this morning that bill S1776, which would stop the proposed reimbursement cuts to Medicare contracted physicians, did not pass. Needed was a vote of 60 and the vote was 47-53. Both Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray voted to pass this bill, probably because they know how Washington state is running out of good doctors. Washington state physicians are reimbursed lower than most other states and our doctors are leaving to go to other states or retiring.

Congress needs to get real and stop tap-dancing on how to reform our medical problems.

Get to the nitty-gritty of it, Congress! Get to the dirt and grim as to what needs to be changed to make our health system good. Our physicians who contract with Medicare need fair reimbursement for the services they provide.

Obama has said we can keep our doctors under his plan. We can’t keep them if they’re gone!

Barbara Andersen

Anacortes

My dad would be a good choice

I am writing this as a proud daughter and supporter of Gary Molenaar and his campaign for Ward 2 city councilman.

Currently attending Washington State University in Pullman, the distance from my hometown and family has only made me more of a proud supporter of our beautiful city and the commitment for which my dad has to offer us all as a city councilman.

Now I know this letter will be expected as biased, yet I can say fully, without a doubt, that my dad has what it takes to be a part of our City Council.

My hard-working dad has provided for my family with a humility and strength that I have and always will admire. This same strength could be used in endeavors and decisions that would only benefit our city and community.

He has been the rock in my family and has been an immeasurable support. Whether coaching me in track or watching me cheer at the Friday night football games, my dad has always been there. I can say with confidence that he would show the same support to our community as well.

We are at a crucial point in our community, state and country, and I know that my dad has the decision-making skills that it will take to carry us through.

Please consider my dad, Gary Molenaar, when voting in this upcoming election. I know he would work hard to make our community a better place.

Kammi Molenaar

Mount Vernon

R-71 final insult to marriage

The editorial board’s consensus that R-71 is fair is based upon misconceptions of the relationships between marriage, culture, government and the people.

Marriage was instituted by God from the beginning, preceding religion, culture and government. Marriage is foundational to every culture. By definition, it is the union between a man and a woman. It was intended to be a sacred union for life.

On the other hand, civil unions have not been recognized or honored by any culture in all of history, even in those cultures that have condoned or even promoted homosexual behavior. The deterioration of the sanctity of marriage in any culture has always resulted in the demise of that culture.

Men of wisdom in our history have recognized the enormous value in maintaining the strength and sanctity of marriage. For marriage is the foundation of providing for our children the healthy nurturing environment necessary to produce good citizens with high morals. Their response was to create laws specifically to honor, support and protect the institution of marriage and its individual members from threats without and within.

Our Legislature has tried to apply the laws that were specifically crafted to honor, support and protect marriage and bestow these privileges and honor on a small group of people who do not have the same needs or function as marriage. This is not fair to children or the rest of us.

Marriage has two enemies: those who despise and neglect the commitment and responsibilities that come with the privileges and joys of marriage, and those who seek to destroy our culture and remake our society. R-71 is the final insult to this sacred institution. To approve R-71 is to give the same honor and support to “civil unions” as we would to the God-instituted, sacred union of marriage.

Bob Gunderson

Bow

The trail to I-1033

Let’s take a quick walk down memory lane. Initiative 601 was voter-approved in 1993, during tough economic times. It established a supermajority (two-thirds) vote requirement for tax increases. Twelve years later, in 2005, the Legislature, ironically, used only a simple majority vote to suspend the supermajority vote requirement. A neat trick — a simple majority trumps a supermajority! The Legislature can perform this legerdemain after an initiative is two years old!

To counteract the 2005 legislative chicanery, in 2007, the voters passed Initiative 960, re-affirming the 601 supermajority requirement. So, as night follows day, the Legislature, in 2008, filed a lawsuit to constitutionally toss out the supermajority rule. The State Supreme Court, in March 2009, “unanimously” (9-0) rejected the lawsuit. That ruling, by keeping the two-thirds threshold intact, temporarily protected the taxpayer.

However, next year (2010) I-960 will be at the magic two-years-old point and already there is legislative discussion to do to I-960 as they did in 2005 to I-601. Simple majority will trump once again!

However, if I-1033 passes, it will protect for 2010 and 2011, but watch out for 2012! “Heads, I (government) win, tails, you (taxpayer) lose.” The initiative is totally dependent upon the integrity of the governor and legislature.

Proposed Initiative 1033 would never have been necessary if the Legislature had left the 1993 601 initiative alone!

The initiative process, as the taxpayer’s main protection, has itself been under unrelenting attack. The taxpayer needs a “bailout” as much as the banks, financial institutions and car companies. That, in turn, allows the taxpayer to give spending “stimulus” to the economy.

As Will Rogers put it, “The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn’t get worse every time Congress meets” (circa 1935).

George Khtaian

Anacortes