June 19, 2018
Letters Latest News | Poll Questions | Susan Collins | Tiny House Surprise | Stephen King

Dec. 21 Letters to the Editor

Moving too fast

I just arrived home after yet another stressful journey home from Bangor. We live in the peaceful town of Dixmont. Our preference is to drive Route 9 to Route 7 on most days, instead of the fast-paced interstate.

At this time of year, the roads can be extra challenging with snow, rain or ice. I have seen so many close calls, feeling my heart in my throat, as thoughtless drivers fly by on hills and curves. Yet another innocent soul comes practically head-on as this person scrambles to get back into the correct side of the road.

Doesn’t it make more sense to slow down, be five minutes late getting home, instead of not get there at all?

Nancy Lusignan



No mulligan allowed

He had an opportunity to accomplish enormous good by virtue of his esteem and celebrity, universally idolized and lionized by young and old alike as he was. The good he could have accomplished in his lifetime could have easily dwarfed the positive achievements of most of those living among us today. And now it is all for naught, for it will never be. Never can be, never will be.

Tiger Woods, a name now forever cast in infamy and salaciousness. A fallen angel. Sad.

Phil Tobin



Stimulus questions

I’m a bit confused. President Obama is considering another stimulus package to assist small businesses that have been unable to obtain loans. I strongly recommend readers check out the Web site, Recovery.gov. On this site there are several companies listed that have received loans or grants from the last stimulus package under the heading, “To aid small businesses which are unable to obtain financing in the private credit market.”

A pizza restaurant, a bakery, a pool and spa company and a wine seller each received between $25,000 and $130,000. These are a few of the many businesses in just the Bangor area that have received this same assistance.

Who does the president have in mind for the next package?

Gregory Bouchard



Lower truck weights

Sen. Collins convinced lawmakers to give Maine a one-year test for heavier trucks on I-95 north of Augusta. She said many in Washington objected, based on the danger of expansion for longer periods on more federal roads. Rightly so. The federal government chose 80,000 pounds as a maximum truck weight for safety and road longevity. I don’t want heavier trucks moving 65 mph on I-95 alongside light family autos.

It’s bad enough Maine ignores federal safety guidelines, allowing overweight trucks on the turnpike and in-state highways. The danger to safety and road and bridge wear cannot be overstated, but Maine continues to allow it here. Now we want them on I-95, traveling twice as fast with more weight and instability. On local highways, trucks must travel slowly and safely.

The belief that this will reduce or eliminate overweight trucks on local highways is laughable but dangerous. There is no agreement to ban such trucks from local highways; but now they can also use I-95. More heavy trucks will use all our roads with impunity and danger. They’ll continue to use local roads and now travel at unsafe speeds on I-95.

If Maine is serious about ending overweight trucks on local highways, we must lower our weight limit to accepted federal standards, not ask the government to accept our unsafe weights. Your highway taxes and safety will suffer until officials stand up for safe truck weights on all Maine roads.

Paul Chartand



It’s all rural

An editorial in the Dec. 16 BDN said 81 percent of highway deaths in Maine occurred on rural roads. While that may be true for other parts of the state, it isn’t for the County or what some legislators have sneeringly called “Nowhere.” Here, 100 percent of highway deaths occur on rural roads, because the state and federal governments have never seen fit to give us anything else.

Carroll B. Knox



Misleading ad

I was quite surprised to see the full-page ad in the Dec. 17 BDN claiming that “physicians agree Senate health care bill is bad medicine for patients.” My experience here in Maine has been quite the opposite; most physicians are desperate for health care reform.

I checked out the Web site in the ad, and discovered that not only is this group not Maine-based, but also that it is made up of very few medical sub-specialties. I believe these groups represent those doctors who feel they will be directly affected by reform, such that their current high salaries and standard of living would probably drop.

I believe everyone has a right to advocate for him or herself. However, presenting the issue in the ad as one of patient care is misleading. I urge readers to talk to their own physicians in their own communities to find out what is actually in the interest of health care for all.

Julie Balaban



Maine patriots

We would like to thank two patriotic and caring citizens of Maine for their generosity this Christmas season.

Many young men from Bravo Co., 3rd Battalion, 172nd Infantry, would not have been able to spend Christmas with their families before their deployment but thanks to Stephen and Tabitha King, this will now be possible.

Jim and Joanne Bosse

Old Town


Do no harm

The full-page ad in the Dec. 17 BDN reads: “Physicians Agree – Senate Health Care Bill Is Bad Medicine for Patients.” It continues by asking people to call Sens. Snowe and Collins to request they vote no on the sweeping health care bill now going through the Senate to “protect the doctor-patient relationship.” At the bottom are the smiling faces of the two Maine senators. All this courtesy of “Physicians United For Patients.”

What about the thousands of patients who do not have insurance or can’t afford health insurance and care? Where is their doctor-patient relationship? There is none. Why are two powerful senators called upon to vote no and deny thousands of affordable insurance, when they have taxpayers pay for their plush health insurance where they have at least two doctor-patient relationships.

Where are Rep. Mike Michaud and Chellie Pingree? Can it be that they are Democrats who want to provide affordable insurance and health care to all who do not have it? Can it be that their Christian principles are driving their push for reform? That they believe that there should be more fairness in the process? That those who do not have health insurance, for whatever reason at the time, be given the opportunity to get what the rich have, at all times, at the expense of those who do not?

Bottom line — the physicians who do not support this ad should speak out against it. They should honor and support the first of their most important oaths: “First do no harm.”

James Chasse

St. Agatha

Have feedback? Want to know more? Send us ideas for follow-up stories.

You may also like