Principled stands could prove costly
Sen. Russ Fulcher says that "if you believe in the principles of socialism ... then you will want to support the state-based exchange." Apparently he has never researched the comparative costs of a "European" style health care system with our for-profit insurance model.
Using OECD data, I compared the average health care spending of five nations (Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom) to that of the United States. What I found was this: If our system operated on a par with the average of these five nations, total government savings would be $300 billion each year. That would go a long way toward fixing our deficit problems. Savings to businesses and families would amount to a staggering $1 trillion annually. That's about $10,000 per household, $3,300 for every person in the nation. That's money out of your pocket spent to preserve the insurance industry, dear reader.
Sen. Fulcher can take his principled stand against what he perceives as socialism. It is important for you to know what his principles are costing you.
You can verify this information by going to www.itsabouthealthstupid.com, where you will find a link to the OECD health data.
GEOFFREY BURNS, McCall
Crews react slowly
A question from a tax paying member of the community: Why is it ACHD winter road crews don't have the ability to predict and react to storms when every local and national news agency lays information right in front of your face? I can understand difficulties in trying to control hazardous winter driving conditions, especially when you don't react (time and time again) until conditions have already deteriorated, but to lay down ice melt when a forecast is above freezing with very little chance of rain or snow? Guessing since it wasn't used when needed, it has to be dumped to get rid of it and assure budget projections/increases for next year? I'm also aware winter road maintenance is a very small slice of the ACHD pie but as a taxpayer my frustration about these observations and others lends question to who's accountable for ACHD practices?
WILLIAM JONES, Boise
WOMEN IN MILITARY
Females shouldn't serve in combat
The government is fixing to place women into combat? Are you kidding me? This is perhaps the dumbest government idea ever.
I was in the military. My company had three platoons, one of which was all women - most of them were beautiful. The other two platoons adored these women. Our government is so filled with idiots that they do not understand what that means.
I can speak only for myself. Were these women placed into combat, most of the male soldiers would protect them and even sacrifice themselves for the lady soldiers. I tell you that I would have taken ridiculous chances in combat to save my female soldier compatriot. Male casualties would absolutely soar. Leon Panetta - are you listening?
MARK CUDMORE, Emmett
Sheriff reasonable with his approach
I would like to thank Ada County Sheriff Gary Raney for his thoughtful opinion piece in the Statesman. While other sheriffs around our state (and the nation) are engaged in chest thumping and ignorant bloviating, Raney has demonstrated a considered reasonableness regarding gun regulation.
Sheriffs such as Donahue in neighboring Canyon County, and the sheriff in Eastern Oregon appear to have little understanding of, or respect for, the law. I don't know what oath of office they may have taken, but I am pretty sure it did not include interpreting the U.S. Constitution as they see fit. As a civilized nation, we employ a judiciary to weigh constitutional matters, thank you. What kind of anarchy would we face as a nation if constitutionality were decided locally by each sheriff in each county?
The sheriffs' duty is to uphold the law. I mention this because they seem unaware of the limitations of their responsibilities. If a time should arrive when they can't in good conscience perform their duties, then it is time to step down.
DALE MERRELL, Boise
'Reasonable' gun laws do not exist
A headline on a Reader's View by Sheriff Gary Raney states, "I uphold all of the Constitution not just a part of it." He then explains at considerable length how this, maybe later lapdog mentality, is justified by the supremacy clause, conveniently ignoring the fact that the supremacy clause cannot validate unconstitutional law.
The first line of defense against unconstitutional law is nullification. Nullification is not a hollow promise. Nullification killed the Real ID Act dead, it has marijuana laws on the run, and it can stop gun control in its tracks.
No matter how oppressive the gun laws, there will always be one more loophole. For the exact same reason that illegal drugs can't be kept out of prison, there will never be a criminal who can't get a gun.
The nearest good example of this whole bad idea, is the supposedly gun-free zone of Mexico, where defenseless citizens are murdered at will or imprisoned for arming themselves.
Thankfully, we live in a state where legislators and county sheriffs are encouraged to honor their oath of office, put their foot down and demand a cease-fire against the Second Amendment. There are no reasonable gun laws, because there are no reasonable criminals.
GRANT HAWK, Idaho City
Raney does his job
We should all rest easier in the light of Sheriff Gary Raney's sober, enlightened position on the issue of federal gun control proposals. Raney's personal opinion, bias, or party affiliation has absolutely nothing to do with it; his job is to keep the peace and uphold the law. Thank God he knows what the law is, and has the courage to transcend the political implications and do the job he was elected to do. It would be helpful if our sheriff could venture over to 2C country and give that clown over there a civics lesson.
MIKE BLACKBURN, Boise
I am hoping someone can answer my question: In the last year and a half, why has the traffic on Overland Road doubled? It is now a regular "race track." If I slow up with my signal lights on to turn into my driveway, I get honked at.
Sure would appreciate an answer.
DOROTHY RODDA, Boise