Regarding the June 7 editorial "Health rate hikes need context, action": Smoke and mirrors. The Star Tribune Editorial Board sneakily argues a progressive stance. On one hand, it implies that the proposed rate increases are not so bad because they may come down. On the other hand, the board concedes that rates may still actually increase significantly but says not to worry about it. Are the editorial writers trying to convince and sell us on a broken product? Sorry to say, I see smoke.

I also see mirrors. The Affordable Care Act, MNsure and the Obama administration boast about an increase in individual participation. Maybe so, maybe not, depending on who is assembling participation figures, but even if the enrolled numbers are true, at what price? Many if not most consumers are or will incur actual out-of-pocket costs far greater than in years past because the combination of premiums paid plus deductible costs will exceed what most paid before the passage of the law, even when factoring inflation.

I see more smoke. This newspaper and the Obama administration want us to believe they have done the American public a great favor. I also see the mirror. Democrats passed the ACA, and it plays into the hands of corporate America. Forty-hour-a-week jobs are being replaced by less-than-30-hour-a-week jobs. More people are working two of the latter to eke out a living, and base wages, when taking inflation into account, are also in decline. The ACA seems more like an element of union busting and job contraction to me.

I see even more smoke. This newspaper and the Obama administration want us to believe Republicans are the bad guys because they don't support the ACA. In case you missed it, Democrats made this mess. Wasn't it Nancy Pelosi who said we should pass the bill to find out what's in it?

Bottom line: Let me decide. Don't try to sell me anything but your newspaper. I want to read information that is factual, objective and informative, not wishy-washy. I believed Glen Taylor when he said this was his vision when he purchased the Star Tribune. I can get the opinion as printed by the Editorial Board in the above-referenced article by sitting next to someone on a bar stool. You owe us, the public, more than that!

Kurt Cavalier, Champlin
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS

Some are thriving, and that perspective should be known

It's unfortunate the Star Tribune failed to reach out to the Southwest Journal for comments in the June 7 article "Community newspapers struggling to stay afloat." We would have loved the opportunity to offer a positive perspective about the state of community journalism in Minneapolis.

The Southwest Journal has been a viable, successful publication since 1990. We are a for-profit publication, as is the St. Paul Highland Villager, which did appear in the story. Unlike the Villager, we have 22 employees and continue to provide health insurance.

We take great pride in employing reporters, designers, administrative assistants, advertising sales people and a distribution manager. We serve tens of thousands of readers with news about City Hall, schools, parks, arts and much more. Our staff produces in-depth projects not found in most community papers, most recently on the risks of oil-train traffic traveling through Minneapolis and a special report on homelessness in Minneapolis schools.

We would not be in business were it not for our readers, who have made us an integral part of their community. We have been and continue to be financially successful, and hope to serve our communities for many years to come.

By omitting us from your story, the Star Tribune overlooked the work of our staff, the dedication of our readers and the support of our advertisers.

Janis Hall, Minneapolis

The writer is publisher of the Southwest Journal, The Journal, and co-owner of Minnesota Premier Publications.

'OUR PETROCHEMICAL OBSESSION'

If firefighters are paying the price, so should we all

I read some of the online comments accompanying Peter Leschak's article "Our petrochemical obsession: Rueing all that burns" (June 7) and found it unfortunate that it was mostly a slugfest about climate change. Leschak correctly identified an externality: Consumers in general may benefit from the 3,000 pounds of petroleum products per floor per house, but firefighters pay the price when they are exposed to the toxic chemicals those products generate when burned. Similarly, oil trains generate economic benefits for a large population, but when they burn, it is the responders and local residents who pay the price in terms of explosions and toxic chemical exposure.

For the firefighters, it is incumbent upon all of us who consume the petroleum products to pay for proper cleaning of their personal protective equipment. "Internalizing" this expense brings us closer to the true costs of the petroleum products.

Mary Yee, Edina
SMOKING

The evidence suggests clearly that taxes influence quitting

D.J. Tice is mistaken to characterize the evidence on cigarette taxes as "mixed" ("A dynamic duo sets its burdensome sights on vaping," June 7). The benefits of tobacco tax increases are quite clear. Research shows they prevent youth smoking, motivate quitting, improve health and save money from health care costs. In Minnesota, one study found them to be the top driver of smoking declines, accounting for 43 percent of reductions in smoking since 1993. Contrary to what Tice suggests, research this year showed that the 2013 cigarette tax increase strongly influenced smoking behaviors and helped smokers quit, with more than 62 percent reporting that the tax helped keep them from smoking again. It is largely because of cigarette taxes that Minnesota's smoking rate is at a record low of 14 percent — down from 22 percent in the 1990s. If that isn't progress, I don't know what is.

Matt Schafer, Eagan

The writer is vice president, government relations for the Midwest Division of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

MILKWEED FOR BUTTERFLIES

This sounds like a job for — well, not government

I'm fully supportive of the federal government's plan to plant a billion milkweed seeds ("Seeding a path to save monarchs," June 7). It is a wonderful idea, but I'd like to remind everyone that we are the government and we don't really need the federal government to do this for us. If everyone would just assume a little personal responsibility (and take about five minutes of their time) to plant some milkweed seeds, we could make extraordinary progress on this issue. In doing so, I'm confident we could best the government's less-than-ambitious plan to bring back 225 million butterflies by 2020. Why not shoot for bringing back a billion monarch butterflies this year? The government can't do it, but we can.

Jack Uldrich, Minneapolis