Save 2nd Ammendment
Ronald Jarvella’s opinion (“Right to bear arms is a relic,” OpEd, July 10) on the relationship of the militia and the right and need of Americans to bear arms was clearly related to the period, and the need for Americans to come to the aid of their community and country. Given the presence of America’s police and national law enforcement agencies it may not be necessary for Americans to keep and bear arms in defense of their community and country.
Michael McCabe (“Right to bear arms,” letters, July 16), concurred with Jarvella, yet has a different approach. He suggests that because our present law-enforcement agencies seldom go beyond their authority and seldom interfere with American individuals and families, it may be time to change the Constitution so that state, lo-cal and national governments can restrict the types of weapons owned by private citizens.
I disagree with both gentlemen. There are both federal and state laws that restrict the types of guns Americans can own. While our police officers are trained professionals, they cannot always be there when you need them, especially in rural areas. Human beings have a hard-wired program for self-protection — fighting back, safeguarding their homes, families and communities. As Americans, that’s why we preserve armed self-defense as part of our Second Amendment protections.
Gun control provides an overwhelming advantage to criminals. Strict enforcement of existing laws and aggressive prosecution of those who violate them, and prosecutors and judges who will enforce the laws as they’re written, is needed not changing the Second Amendment.
• • •
Butt out of health care
Politicians shouldn’t come between patients and doctors as the Obama-Pelosi health care package intends.
No one is telling us what will happen to all the health care industry employees or administrative support staff jobs. No one is telling us what will happen to related jobs, such as insurance agents and staff, home-care nurses, and companies that make medical beds, crutches, testing devices, etc. How will they survive the transition? What new regulations will they have to comply with to keep working? What will those cost?
There is nothing cheaper than me paying the doctor directly. Where does the extra money come from to support office buildings full of secretaries? And we’re to pay the paycheck of the pencil-pushing worker who tells us we’re too old to have a hip-replacement?
There is nothing more basic than the right of people to decide their own care, guided by a doctor they trust. Since Michael Michaud and Susan Collins do not have the responsibility to change my baby’s, or my bedridden parents’ bedding, they should not have the authority to decide who can best serve my family.
When they do the finger pricks for the diabetic in my household, then they can pick the doctor. When they pay for my daughter’s glasses, then they can choose the style. Until then, they can just butt out.
• • •
It is the height of hypocrisy to have to listen to the PUC scold the fledgling FairPoint Communications. Kurt Adams (the former chairman of the PUC) and his ilk were warned by multiple industry insiders that the problems that are plaguing the company would occur. The testimonies at the public hearings were recorded by the PUC; it would be interesting to hear them again and to ask the PUC why it failed to listen to anyone.
What’s more disturbing is the fact that most commission members have no telecommunications experience and are less than qualified to make decisions regarding the state’s complex telephony issues. Kurt Adams was at a law firm that dealt with energy issues. Why did such a person have any responsibilities regarding telecommunications? The new chairman at the PUC also has no telephony experience. You might as well appoint a Wal-Mart greeter to oversee Maine’s phone lines.
Now the PUC is threatening to revoke FairPoint’s certificate to operate as a utility. The PUC needs to get behind FairPoint and assist it in the difficulties of the transition, not make ridiculous idle threats.
• • •
Shift, not reform
In the July 16 BDN, Health Care For America Now, an entity whose constituency was unidentified, sponsored a full-page ad touting Mike Michaud and his support for the Obama health care reform plan. This plan purportedly will fix the nation’s broken health care system, which is plagued by rising costs, higher premiums, in-creasing co-pays and inadequate coverage.
Apparently, health care delivery and quality of service, including that provided free to illegals and the indigent, are adequate, since they were not mentioned as contributing to high costs. HCFAN assures us that Obama’s plan, spearheaded by Mike Michaud, will, among other salubrious effects, lower costs.
On July 16, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the health reform proposals released by House Democrats would not reduce the steep trajectory of federal health care spending. Rather, they would significantly expand federal responsibility for health care costs. I guess that in standing up to the big insurance companies to lower costs, Mike Michaud is shifting projected higher costs to the taxpayer. Way to go, Mike!
• • •
Petitioners not hateful
It is kind of far-fetched for Brian MacFarland (BDN letters, July 13) to call 55,000 people who signed a petition for believing marriage should be between a man and a woman as hateful. I don’t know what “gospel” he is referring to, but God instituted the marriage these 55,000 people are petitioning for.
By the same token would he want 55,000 people calling him a hateful person for what he believes in?
Cecil L. Reed
• • •