Readers Write for Saturday, July 11

Sarah Palin is faced with 11 months of media scrutiny, then folds like a cheap suit. Her supporters feel that criticisms of her family and personal life were unwarranted and further proof of a liberal media.

Nearly 20 years ago Hillary Rodham Clinton began her odyssey under the media microscope that has included: the size of her hips, her sexual orientation, how ugly her daughter is, her role in the "murder" of Vince Foster, critical television documentaries and her husband's infidelity -- just to name a few. Two decades later, Clinton has never quit; she has grown stronger.

The media focus on Palin taught us that it is one thing to see your adversary from your front porch and another to face them head on.

J. TODD EMBURY, RAMSEY

•••

Regarding a reader's complaint that Sarah Palin is not emotionally equipped to handle criticism of her family and children, I'm sure that most of us would agree that Palin has long been a fear of the Democratic Party. You do not see or hear similar jokes or needless lawsuits brought against President Obama, do you?

Nor would you be happy if your governor cost the state of Minnesota several millions of dollars to defend himself against groundless allegations or had to spend 80 percent of his time fighting nonsensical lawsuits.

The "new" General Motors is formed by a kangaroo court and dancing as President Obama works his puppet strings, leaving owners of GM cars built before June 1 of this year with no recourse if their defective car starts on fire.

Former workers suffering from asbestos-related health issues are abandoned, officially barred from suing "Government Motors." The shareholders who owned the company get nothing, but the United Auto Workers gets 17.5 percent in a blatant quid pro quo for their support of Obama in the election.

Just to top it all off, the government paid more than $50 billion for a company with a market capitalization of less than $1 billion. Why didn't it just buy it on the open market and give us taxpayers the other $49 billion?

What a complete fiasco from start to finish, and we are supposed to believe the government can run a car company any better than Amtrak (34 straight years of losses and counting).

BILL GAMBLE, HOPKINS

Now is not the time to wait. Now is not the time to stand and do nothing. We need leaders at moments like this. Leaders who are willing to lead and take action to make health care reform possible this year. It needs to be all of us, including our elected officials.

JASON WITTAK, MAPLE GROVE

•••

Michael Gerson seems to be taking perverse pleasure in the idea that health care reform will have to wait until the economy recovers. I submit that without health care reform, the economy will never recover.

DAVID PERLMAN, NEW HOPE

Health care reform must be determined by one simple question: Who decides? The correct answer should be the patient.

The promise of health care reform by our politicians and health care CEOs include many buzz words and phrases that demand to be defined. Words and terms like "paying for quality care," "value-index formulas," "cost-effective results," "reward health care efficiencies," "value-based payment system" and "healthy competition."

Also needing definition would be terms like equitable, sustainable and free.

Rewarding health care efficiencies and cost-effective results translates into payments to doctors and hospitals, but according to language in proposed bills, patient care must comply with government-treatment guidelines. Policymakers, not patients, will determine which treatments and drugs are authorized by government as "safe" and "cost-effective" and available.

"Fee and formula schedules, coordinated systems and rewarding efficient delivery" will not reduce the cost of care. This has been repeatedly proven to be the case as seen in Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, veterans' benefits and the Hawaii and Massachusetts state universal health care plans.

Patients must make health care decisions, not government bureaucrats or health care providers. To reduce the cost of patient care, true reform of the health care system requires less government interference, not more. Congress knows this. It is planning to exempt its members from whatever mandates it puts on us.

Coverage does not equal care. Coverage by government mandate will never equal quality care. If the health care reform proposals are not good enough for the Obama family and our politicians, they aren't good enough for the people of America.

SUE JEFFERS, NEW BRIGHTON

In his July 5 column, "Searching for grace at Norm's place," Nick Coleman continues to attack Norm Coleman and anything in the center or right of center politically.

Doesn't he recognize that his statement that Norm Coleman shouldn't have any "delusions of still seeking higher office in a state where he has now lost to a wrestler (Jesse Ventura) and a comedian (Al Franken)" is as much a criticism of the state of Minnesota's political situation as it is of Norm Coleman?

ARNOLD ANGELONI,