Economist John Phelan claims that we're lucky to have capitalism, and that "it's worth considering if you favor systemic change" ("We live in the luckiest era in history, and here's why," Dec. 24). A couple of points, Mr. Phelan:
In November, a report of the Journal of the American Medical Association found an increasing mortality rate and falling life expectancy for Americans aged 25-64, in contrast to trends in other wealthy countries. Dr. Steven Woolf, the report's lead author, said the results represented a "distinctly American phenomenon," and that the deaths are "so diverse that it makes us think something systemic is responsible."
In other news, the U.S. infant mortality rate in 1960 was 25.9 deaths per 1,000 live births, the 12th-lowest in the world. By 2017 the rate had dropped to around 6 per thousand, but the U.S. rank had gone from 12th to 55th.
Oops! It appears that nations as lucky as ours, which base their health outcomes on rolling the dice in the systemically crooked health care marketplace, might have crapped out.
Thanks, capitalism!
William Beyer, St. Louis Park
• • •
Phelan makes a weak case crediting capitalism with the decrease in childhood mortality over the last couple of generations. He does this without mentioning the childhood vaccines that are actually responsible for it. Smallpox, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps and rubella were the cause of many of these deaths, and the vaccines developed to prevent these were the product of medical science and compassion rather than capitalism. If there is a drug with a strong connection to capitalism I would suggest that it's OxyContin and the wonderful purveyors of Purdue Pharma, the Sackler family. Now there are some fine capitalists!
William Voje, Newport, Minn.
GUN LEGISLATION
The bill is being misunderstood
I was disappointed to see the letter on gun legislation printed in the Dec. 23 Star Tribune Readers Write section because it contained false statements about House File 8. It claimed that it would have made it "impossible for hunters and competitive shooters to share a rifle with a friend, co-worker or even some relatives without first paying government fees and getting a federal background check done on them." No. By going online to the text of the bill, anyone with an internet connection can readily see that on lines 7.13 and 7.14 of the bill (in item 6 of Subdivision 12 on Exclusions), the text explicitly excludes "a loan between persons lawfully engaged in hunting or target shooting if the loan is intended for a period of no more than 12 hours" from the requirements for criminal background checks for the transfer of firearms (see tinyurl.com/housefile8). Those opposing any action on background check legislation should consider that those of us urging action to address at least some of the gun safety issues currently facing the public just might have nuanced views, and expect legislation to be written carefully. I am more supportive of legislators doing the hard work to draft, edit and debate good legislation than I am of Sen. Warren Limmer, who just calls it bad and blocks it from getting to the full Legislature for debate, possible amendment and a full vote. In any case, he or his supporters should take more care not to mischaracterize the bills that have been proposed.
