GAMC REMEDY
Cost saving should be a model for U.S. reform
Over the last several months, numerous letters from readers and opinions from staff writers have been featured in the Star Tribune concerning the governor's intention to cancel the General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC) program. Most of these were highly critical of Gov. Tim Pawlenty and failed to mention that under his plan those people currently participating in the GAMC program would have been transferred to Minnesota Care, another health care program for low-income people. One was left with the impression that the people in the GAMC program would be left to fend for themselves.
Now it turns out that a deal has been negotiated whereby GAMC will survive in a somewhat reduced state of funding. Hospitals that treat GAMC patients will get a fixed amount of money each year, and it will be up to them to manage the care for these patients in an efficient manner. It seems apparent that this is exactly what the governor intended all along. An out-of-control, wasteful program has been brought under control. This should become the model for national health care reform.
ROBERT SULLENTROP, MINNEAPOLIS
dirty air
Recent pollution alerts point to policy issues
The Star Tribune recently reported that air pollution is reaching unhealthy levels in Minnesota ("Nice weather creates nasty air," Feb.27).
We can do better.
Our nation has the power to combat air pollution, and in order to do so the Senate must act. By passing a comprehensive climate and clean-energy bill that combats air pollution, the clean economy could be well on its way. A comprehensive climate bill would also create thousands of clean-energy jobs. By manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels, America could become a leader in clean-energy industries again. Minnesotans are ready for action on clean energy and climate. The Senate should pass a comprehensive climate and clean energy jobs bill this spring.
AMBER LANE, MINNEAPOLIS
political courts
The real problem is judicial activism
The Sunday commentaries on judicial elections provided two perspectives that both missed the point ("It's a judgment call," March 7). The problem is not politics in judicial campaigns -- it's politics in the judiciary. As long as judicial activists try to dictate social policy and impose their will where democratic institutions will not, politics needs to be part of the judiciary. The better solution is to prevent judicial activism. Once courts return to their appropriate role of deciding the merits of the disputes before them, the interest in judicial elections will go away.
