Silence translates into inclusion

From: Michele Bachmann, Congresswoman, District 6

Far too often the Washington way to include controversial provisions in legislation is simply to not exclude them.

Covering illegal immigrants in the House’s leading health care bill, H.R. 3200, is a prime example. In fact, its proponents are not shy to admit their strategy.

A Roll Call article from July reported, “Leaders of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) met with Speaker Nancy Pelosi to ‘reiterate that illegal immigrants should be covered under health care reform legislation’ that comes out of the House. Asked if CHC leaders will ask Pelosi to specifically spell something out in the bill to address illegal immigrants, (one) member said no. Rather, the member said the CHC simply wants to make sure the bill – as drafted – doesn’t prohibit illegal immigrants from accessing care. ‘Sometimes if you don’t say something, something happens,’ said the Hispanic lawmaker.”

A report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) confirms that they got their wish. On Aug. 26, 2009, CRS stated that, “H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens participating in and paying for coverage available through the (Health Insurance) Exchange.”

The relationship between illegal immigrants and our nation’s health care system is one that cannot be overlooked. The expense of illegal immigrants’ health care in California, for instance, has become so unbearable that many municipalities had to eliminate this benefit to save tens of millions of dollars. And Texas estimates that illegal immigrants cost hospitals there $1.3 billion in 2006 alone.

The issue can’t be side-stepped. Any fair reading of the bill says that illegal immigrants can be covered. It may not be politically palatable, but it’s clear that a bill that is silent on eligibility means a bill that includes illegal immigrants.

Bachmann represents District 6, which includes a huge chunk of area that is northwest of the Twin Cities. At its southern end, it includes Wright County.

Falsehoods persist on health care

From: Rev. Eugene Brown, Winsted

In the Sept. 21 issue of the Herald Journal in which I addressed the letter of Joan Neururer of Sept. 7, she has another letter on the same page as mine.

Like her previous letter, this one contains misstatements and inaccuracies regarding President Obama’s plans for health care reform and the bills presently making their way through Congress.

The letter writer states that when Congressman Joe Wilson called the president a liar he was just expressing what the majority of the American people are thinking. This is an outrageous claim, made without proof. Since the president’s approval rating is still well above 50 percent, and no one who agrees with his policies would call him a liar, such a statement is false on its face.

To address some of the specific instances in which the writer says that President Obama is a prevaricator – her term:

All of the health care bills that have been passed through committee forbid the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, as does the Hyde Amendment. When the president says that abortions will not be covered by any bill that he signs, he is telling the truth. She calls Obama the most pro-abortion senator, and now president, which is simply not true. He considers all abortions a tragedy and wants to greatly reduce their number; however, he believes there are better ways to achieve this than by threatening to throw a woman and her doctor into jail. To call someone pro-abortion who wants to treat, with compassion, a woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy is grossly unfair and misleading.

She insists on calling undocumented immigrants illegal. No human beings are illegal, for we are all children of God. Why would anyone want to deny health care to those who need it, regardless of their immigrant status? The fact is, however, that all of the proposed bills exclude undocumented immigrants from coverage. When President Obama says that they will be not covered, he is telling the truth.

She keeps talking about death panels, when there is no such thing in the bills being considered. There is a proposal for a commission made up of health care professionals who would determine which medical procedures are effective and which ones do not contribute to the health of the patient. To say that this commission would decide who is worthy of a procedure and who is not, or to accuse anyone of promoting euthanasia, is to stretch the truth beyond recognition.

President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have tried to reach across the aisle and engage the other side in a bipartisan effort to achieve true health care reform, but the Republicans (except for Olympia Snowe) have blocked these efforts at every turn. They have not come up with any meaningful proposals of their own and seem only to want to defeat the president politically. Where is their concern for the good of the American people?

We do not have the best health care system in the world, as the writers claims. Yes, we have some of the best doctors, hospitals, and medical procedures, but the way health care is delivered in this country is broken, and the costs are spiraling out of reach for all but the most affluent.

We need a major overhaul of the system, which is what President Obama is trying to accomplish. Instead of using scare tactics, setting up roadblocks to reform, or calling the president a liar, how about working with our neighbors, Republicans and Democrats, along with our representatives in Congress, to bring about real health care reform that will benefit everyone?

Opponents admit no death panels

From: John Deitering, Howard Lake

Finally, in last weeks’ paper, the opponents of health care reform admitted that there are no “Death Panels,” no provision to fund abortions and no health care for illegal immigrants.

I was astonished, however, to read that while the writers now agree that there was no basis for their objections, they somehow insist, nevertheless, that their argument still stands. A simple “I was mistaken, I apologize” would have been nice.

If the opponents of health care reform have a better plan, they should bring it forward. To oppose reform because it will “kill freedom” or “destroy health care” is hardly a plan.

Library expansion points explained

From: Sheila Rieke, Cokato Librarian

In response to last week’s article, regarding expanding the library I would like to provide additional information that I hope will clarify some points, provide a better understanding of where we are at in the project, the Library Expansion Committee’s role and what the committee had come prepared to discuss with the city council.

In May, the City of Cokato approved a committee to pursue the library’s expansion. We called on three architectural firms with prior library experience to help us decide on allocation and give us their professional opinions on our project.

At no cost to the city, each firm came out numerous times to tour the sites we were considering: renovation of the former Ben Franklin store, construction of a new building on the city-owned Paulson lot (and adjacent parking lot if necessary), expansion of the existing library and city museum building north into the Paulson lot (and adjacent parking lot, if necessary).

After evaluating the sites and our project, each firm came back again and presented their findings to our committee (along with other interested citizens and Great River Regional Library managers).

After reviewing the information provided to us, it was our recommendation as a committee to pursue the expansion of the present library and the museum building into the Paulson lot/parking lot based on the following:

• An expansion project shows greater potential for grant and low-interest loan funding.

• Library and museum staying in one structure maintains an 80-year tradition.

• The city would not have to acquire more property; the city owns the lot north of the existing building and the adjoining parking lot.

• Proximity to Cokato Elementary School and Peterson Park.

• There is adequate existing parking in the adjacent lot and streets.

• Structural integrity of the existing library/museum building is more conducive to expansion.

Based on our criteria, interviews and presentations given to the committee, it was our recommendation that we work with the architectural firm of Short, Elliot, Hendrickson, Inc, (SEH).

The $20,000 we were asking of the city council is for architectural fees. Going forward SEH would test our recommendations by performing an extensive study that would include a program study of our library space, a site analysis study and a schematic design.

These components are necessary to ensure that our library expansion is obtainable and done right. They are also vital to the success of our grant application process; we cannot submit a grant application without it.

The council asked tough questions in performing their due diligence; nevertheless, they still treated me with respect, and I am grateful for the opportunity to meet with them again.