Netlets for Saturday, July 12

The bridge to somewhere, maybe an apology? Now that the Interstate 35W bridge replacement has spanned the mighty Miss and is on track to be safely completed at least two months, if not more, ahead of schedule, will the opportunistic politicians and Aesop-like losing bidders who railed against then Transportation Commissioner Carol Molnau and Gov. Tim Pawlenty for taking the higher bid from Colorado, of all places, apologize for being wrong about awarding the contract to Flatiron?

How many billions of dollars will be saved in the long run in productivity by shortened commuting/transport time, less gas/diesel burned and a return of normalcy to local businesses in Marcy-Holmes, Seven Corners and Northeast that survived the closure along with increased revenue.

In the private sector, sometimes to hire the best, you have to pay for the best. In this case, foresight by Gov. Pawlenty and Commissioner Molnau was 20/20.

Thank you, Flatiron crew, Gov. Pawlenty and Lt. Gov Molnau.

JAY MASTRUD, MINNEAPOLIS

Good times, and Congress' influence A July 5 letter claimed that in recent years there has been positive correlation between Republican control of Congress and economic prosperity, and a negative correlation with control by Democrats.

The fact is that recent Republican administrations, supported by Congress, have indulged in deficit spending -- which has helped support the economy but at the expense of huge increases in the national debt, with no apparent likelihood of long-term corrective measures. When this was acknowledged under the first President Bush, and then under President Bill Clinton, thanks in part to advice from Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, taxes were raised to correct the situation and prosperity emerged along with budget surpluses. Sadly, under the current administration, this came to an end.

The writer might find a relationship between prosperity and who controls Congress, but the subject is much more complex. And, contrary to the letter writer's beliefs, the budget policies practiced under recent Republican administrations, and Congresses, can hardly be called conservative. Republicans of earlier, more responsible times, would never agree with that. Traditional conservatives believed (and still believe) in a balanced budget, which is essential (not necessarily on an annual basis, but over the business cycle) to our long-term economic well-being.

RODNEY E. JOHNSON, MINNEAPOLIS

Countrywide's loans to elected officials and others After three years of making regular payments on my mortgage, Countrywide lowered my interest rate by 1.75 percent at my request.

As far as I know, they are not aware of my political affiliation nor have they any reason to expect any favors of me. I suspect they acted in the interests of good business practices.

It can safely be assumed that our elected officials do not give up their rights to buy property and negotiate mortgage terms that suit both mortgagor and mortgagee. What is all this fuss about? Can't we get back to the issues?

Jesus' reading list in dispute Regarding the article "What would Jesus Read" (Variety, July 5): Except for one book about the life of Mother Theresa, all the books recommended were either fantasy novels or self-absorbed / self-help books.

Jesus would read none of these and he would not limit himself to books sold in Christian bookstores. Rather, he would read about helping the poor and underprivileged, about social equality and correcting racism in our country, about threats to the environment, about peace, and about the subversion of religion for profit and political gain. Perhaps he would read "Uncle Tom's Cabin" by Harriet Beecher Stowe, "Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts Faith and Threatens America" by Randall Balmer, "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life" by Barbara Kingsolver, "A Prayer for Owen Meany" by John Irving, and an "Inconvenient Truth: The Crisis of Global Warming" by Al Gore. I hope a follow-up article on what Mohammed would read is more enlightening!

SEAN ELLIOTT, MINNEAPOLIS

Managed care mental health discrimination in Minnesota Minnesota already has a state mental health parity law. And pending federal parity legislation is a step toward reducing insurance discrimination here. But we'll have to change current mental health managed-care practices by Minnesota health plans which discriminate against patients with mental care needs.

Many self-insured Minnesota employers bypass mental health coverage as an unwanted mandate, and most individual health insurance plans issued in Minnesota provide little coverage for outpatient treatment of mental or substance-related disorders. And, at the behest of its clients -- employers and government -- Minnesota nonprofit health plans often "outsource" mental care management for their mental patients. Medica, for example, contracts with United Behavioral Health (UBH), a for-profit subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group to do this rationing work. Would Medica segregate management and budget for hypertension or diabetes? I think not.

Enrollees in Medicare Advantage Plans (MA) are similarly treated, because MA plans also require their enrollees to see network psychiatrists and mental or addictions "providers."

So, despite our mental health parity law in Minnesota we have discriminatory managed-care practices: excessive mental health care network restrictions, low allowable payments to providers, and arbitrary denials for services from "out of network" providers.