Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, November 15, 1993 TAG: 9311160243
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: EDITORIAL EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
In the Nov. 6 paper, we learned that Rick Boucher has decided his position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (``Boucher to oppose NAFTA out of concern for jobs'' by staff writer Lon Wagner), which a great majority of economists support because only a North American pact on free trade can redress our competitive disadvantage with the European community. Boucher decided by polling a number of local companies. Since the majority of their perceptions and fears indicated a belief (unfounded, as those who really listened to the vice president on Nov. 9 likely learned) that there might be net loss of jobs in Boucher's district (which is my own), he has decided to oppose the president's position.
It would be hard to find a better example of parochialism, or followership.
PAUL METZ
BLACKSBURG
Take care against zebra mussel
THANKS to the watchful care and attention of Pelican Point Yacht Club's
staff, Smith Mountain Lake was recently saved from encountering the zebra mussel - a devastating form of shellfish presently finding its way into freshwater sources throughout this country.
Easily introduced via transient water-craft arrivals and related moving waters, this small mussel rapidly forms tremendous colonies that can ultimately take extensive toll on marine installations of all kinds.
Let's take care. Every visiting craft entering our lake warrants careful scrutiny in protecting the jeweled waters we share.
DONALD V. WAY
UNION HALL
Don't allow apathy to govern
I HOPE everyone exercised one of your greatest freedoms - the freedom to cast your ballot on Nov. 2 for the man or woman of your choice. If you didn't and were eligible to do so, then you are part of the problem.
Americans are allowing a cancer called apathy and cynicism to take over our country. We don't take the time to read about and study the issues. We have the media tell us what they are, how we should feel, what we should think, what we should do and how we should vote in regards to them. Do you remember when all you got at 6 p.m. was news, weather and sports? Now, we get the likes, dislikes and opinions of commentators who tell us what they think the president really said and meant in speeches given and what we should do about it.
I'm tired of being openly manipulated by the media. The Roanoke Times & World-News supported the Democratic candidates for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general. I was appalled by the biased reporting in articles regarding Mary Sue Terry vs. George Allen, Don Beyer vs. Mike Farris and Bill Dolan vs. Jim Gilmore. And yet a judge placed an injunction against some women in Virginia to prevent them from handing out two conservative-voter guides that state Democrat Party lawyers deemed to be put out by what they called nonpartisan organizations misrepresenting positions of the Democratic candidates. I hope America still stands for free speech, even though we're prohibited from religious freedom and even though Christian beliefs suddenly became a liability in this past election.
Most of us, especially Sarah Wirt of Buchanan (Oct. 28 letter to the editor, ``Keep religion out of politics''), need to review our early American history. The colonists came to America to have the freedom to worship God without being told how or when. Our Founding Fathers, those who drafted and signed the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, were all Christians and believed this to be a Christian nation. They wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect our Christian heritage. The First Amendment was drafted to protect states from the federal government's promotion of a central religion or national church, such as the Church of England. It was not to prohibit me from praying or to prohibit religious activities at school, if these actions are voluntary on my part and the part of others who may join in.
It's time we hold government officials responsible to us, and to demand that the ``taxation without representation'' that goes on now in Congress be stopped. The deficit we hear about was created by an overspending Democrat-controlled Congress, so let them dip into their pockets and pay back the American taxpayers who've been robbed.
Let's work to bring America back to a state of greatness by bringing God back into the moral fabric of this country. We're leaving a bigger moral deficit for our children that's beginning to bear fruit.
MARGIE GUTHRIE
BEDFORD
Again, Baliles forecasts it wrong
EX-GOV. Gerald L. Baliles in his Oct. 31 commentary (``How NAFTA can boost the economy'') states that the North American Free Trade Agreement is a good deal for the American worker. If so, why is $3 billion in new taxes needed to cover duties that will be lost at the border? What about the $3 billion in U.S. taxes to clean up pollution already made there?
They say we're exporting billions of dollars to Mexico. They don't tell us that American-owned factories are exporting to themselves and sending it back to this country. We're the market, regardless of what happens.
Gov. Baliles' administration taxed the heck out of this state - gasoline, titles, etc., - and said it would take us through the year 2000. Guess what? They're already talking more taxes. So much for him.
The truth is that the powers-that-be figured they didn't get enough from stealing from the savings-and-loan companies, which they got by with. Why not dismantle factories and move them to Mexico away from U.S. control? Keep the same market; pay no duties, taxes, Social Security, pensions and no clean-up costs. How nice.
They say Mexico will buy all this stuff from us. On the wages they get, they can't buy a wheelbarrow from us, and certainly not a $20,000 car. The joke will be on the American worker.
CECIL E. DEANE
EAGLE ROCK
Adapt Medicare to cover all
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE to see why it would cost less to create yet another health plan (there are 417 different plans in the federal government alone) to meet everyone's needs, including those not presently covered, when there's a plan already in existence with cost caps and with the bureaucracy already in place. Medicare is working, albeit with some flaws, that can more easily be corrected than to attempt to create an entirely new system.
If Congress passes a Medicare-type health plan with a single-payer system for everyone, costs could be reduced $70 to $100 billion annually. It's been suggested that the president and Congress are so obligated to the insurance industry that they're reluctant to affect it in this way. But, as with Medicare, people could purchase supplemental insurance to cover things not paid for in part or in full by its guidelines. This way the insurance industry would not be hit so hard.
Medicare costs $36.60 per month per person with a $100 deductible per person. I doubt those enrolled would complain about raising the fee by $50 per month per person and the annual deductible to $200 per person while keeping the current services. This additional revenue could cover a major part, if not all, of the cost of adding those unable to pay for health care. It would also help those already enrolled who would find it a hardship to handle this increased cost.
Not all of those without health-insurance coverage are indigent. They should be brought into the Medicare-type system, if for no other reason than to eliminate their use of expensive hospital emergency-room services, while expecting the health-care plan to pay for it, unless it's a life-threatening condition. And, with the enactment of this type of health plan for everyone, there'd be no further need for Medicaid programs at the federal and state levels. By eliminating these bureaucracies at both levels, the savings would more than likely pay for dental, eye, hearing and mental-health coverage as well.
It's imperative that everyone be enrolled in this type of health plan. including those employees who have negotiated health-care coverage as part of benefits from their companies. Taxpayers help pay for these company plans through increased costs for products and services. If employees want coverage over and above what they would receive through a Medicare-type plan, they should pay for it themselves. It seems the only fair way to handle this situation - for all to have the same coverage and at the same cost, except for the poor who would be subsidized. Employees whose health plans have been paid for by their employers, either in full or in part, would find the costs less than they are currently paying into a corporate plan or will be paying if the Clinton plan is passed.
Also, I don't understand why it will take another year or more to enact a health plan. Past presidents and Congresses have handled other critical legislation (and some not so critical) in less time. Is there anything more important than health-care coverage for all? I don't think so. This should have the highest priority.
ROBERT ST.LAWRENCE
SALEM
by CNB