West metro letters

Trees die, city shrugs

As the mayor and City Council of Plymouth continue to ignore their constituents, another 50,000 trees will be wiped out.

In 2006 and 2008, "We the People" voted for open space, trees, wetlands, wildlife and unpolluted air and water, just to be ignored. From 2001 to 2006 the first of 50,000 trees were wiped out for development. Now that housing is picking up again, the first of many more developments was approved Oct. 13, wiping out a beautiful forest.

Plato said it best in 300 B.C. "Those who do not take an interest in public affairs are doomed to be ruled by evil men." Although our mayor and City Council are not evil, wiping out 100,000 trees and exterminating the wildlife is.

STEVE GARDNER

PLYMOUTH

Clampdown on crowds

What gives with the excessive control of Gopher football crowds by the University of Minnesota -- and now by the city of Minneapolis, too? It is turning into a fiasco.

First the U pats down ticket-holders on their way into TCF stadium. Preventing the import of forbidden booze? Prevention of terrorism? For what purpose? Nobody else does that. Not at the Dome. Not at the X. Not at Williams Arena or Mariucci. Nowhere.

Then the U says anyone who buys a student ticket for Gopher football must also show up with a student ID. Anyone who has a student ticket but no student ID will not be admitted. Hey, scalping has just been made legal, remember? Why shouldn't an enterprising student be allowed to sell his/her ticket for whatever the market will bear to whomever is willing to buy?

Now comes the city, fining Dinkytown business owners who want to make an extra buck selling parking spots to Gopher fans on football game days (Star Tribune, Oct. 9). Business owners have been doing that for years around the Dome for Twins and Vikings games -- and Gopher games pre-TCF -- with no problem.

All told, it smells. Where is the American Civil Liberties Union when we really need it?

FRANK WRIGHT

RICHFIELD

Private plan looks better

As I understand it, insurance companies take my premium and invest it in the stock market and such. They leverage my payment to cover the costs of keeping us healthy.

The government will take my tax dollars and try to pay my health coverage with it.

If my annuity is doing well, so is the insurance company. If the government is doing well, I'm paying a lot of taxes.

Now I'm just an unemployed pipefitter, but the private insurance seems like a better deal to me. Anyone going against the private insurance company is basically going against my retirement. Am I wrong?

JEFF CARLSON

ST. LOUIS PARK

Ugly parties rule debate

There are two unpleasant actors in the current health care debate.

What do the health insurance companies bring to the table? They do not perform research to find cures for diseases; they are not in the emergency room, surgical suite or with the doctor or nurse as care is provided. They don't visit the hospice or pediatric cancer wards. They do, however, profit from these events -- and they do profit quite nicely. They live off the illness of people.

The 130 million who have health insurance have an unsympathetic, brutish posture: "I got mine -- you don't? Too bad for you!"

The health care debate, captured in a simple but brutal spectrum -- from reprehensible greed to myopic self interest.

M.F. HOFFMAN

RICHFIELD

Reining in health costs

According to an Oct. 8 Associated Press article on health care legislation, "the Senate Finance Committee proposal would expand coverage to 94 percent of all eligible Americans at a 10-year cost of $829 billion."

Let me see now. We are going from 85 percent coverage under private insurance to 94 percent for $829 billion via government programs. That's covering 9 percent of 300 million people or 27 million Americans at a cost of over $3,000 a year for each additional person covered, and paid for by $325 per year additional costs by the 85 percent already covered.

I guess cost-control wasn't a goal after all.

If the government limited its involvement to catastrophic health costs that result in personal bankruptcies (as was proposed by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy years ago) and limited the absurd, greed-motivated malpractice lawsuits (which increase costs via wasteful, defensive medical care practices), the cost of private insurance would fall dramatically.

Also, state insurance and health care commissions could then deal with cost competition based on their local needs and demographics.

Finally, accounting and tax rules must allow for layered cost structures so low-risk emergency care (e.g., flu or sprained ankle) is not subsidizing high-risk care (e.g., dialysis and intensive care units) through $10 aspirins and $150 minimum per-visit fees.

And who are the 6 percent "ineligible" Americans? I thought $849 billion was for "comprehensive" health care coverage with no judgments within the health care system, except eligibility by citizenship or legal entry.

What other judgments lie ahead?

Oops! Congress has done it again -- solved absolutely nothing! When will we get moderates back in Congress to solve problems instead of the blind right wing of the Republican Party and the deaf left wing of the Democratic Party?

GARY SCHLIECKERT

BLOOMINGTON