Readers Write: Republicans in a Harris administration, health insurance, guns, inflation

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Vice President Kamala Harris received some mild praise for saying in her recent CNN interview that, if elected, she is amenable to appointing one Republican to her Cabinet. Although not promising to do so, she based her willingness to consider that due to her desire to encourage and absorb differing viewpoints.

But why just a single one?

There are 15 Cabinet positions for department heads and another 11 Cabinet-level slots, a total of 26. If she truly welcomes divergent voices, rather than just a token Republican to create an aura of bipartisanship, she certainly could find and appoint more than a solitary Republican, probably stuck in some secondary role.

Many past presidents of both parties have had at least one, occasionally more, opposite-party members in their Cabinets, including high positions. It would not be unusual for Harris to emulate that pattern and eschew a Cabinet full of think-alikes.

About one-third of the electorate has allegiance to the GOP. If she really wants her Cabinet, as Democrats dating back to Bill Clinton are wont to say, to “look like America,” a Harris administration ought to include at least a couple of Republicans, maybe more.

Doing so would not only reward Republicans who crossed over to support her, reflect bipartisanship and lean in favor of her rival’s short-lived plea for “unity,” but it also would be a testament to diversity, equity and inclusion, the concept scorned by the GOP and dismantled by the Supreme Court last year.

Further, how about including a MAGA adherent in the Cabinet as well? They matter, too.

Marshall H. Tanick, Minneapolis

Returning from my Labor Day vacation, I caught up on the Star Tribune report of another Minnesota corporation doing battle with a Medicare Advantage corporation (”Sanford to exit Advantage plans offered by Humana,” Aug. 30). This article more firmly cements for me that our federal government continues to let we the people suffer in the crossfire of large corporations waging profiteering wars against each other. I’ll research the candidates for Congress we have on our ballots this November to determine which are most likely to intervene to remove the warring industrial giants from the health care playing field and restore civil order by implementing improved Medicare for All. My vote will go to the congressional district candidate and the U.S. Senate candidate — certainly not Sen. Amy Klobuchar — who appears more loyal to human well-being than to party loyalty or to corporate campaign contributions. Not exactly a novel concept for concerned and strategic voters.

Diane J. Peterson, St. Paul

The writer is co-founder of Health Policy Advocates.

•••

Regarding “The $3,300 surgery bill that wasn’t” (Aug. 31): Thank you for this article, which shows the combination of incompetence and lack of responsibility from the UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage plan. Unfortunately this story is part of the dysfunction in Minnesota and American health care.

It would be a service to Minnesota if you regularly report on the problems in our health care situation as compared to all other modern countries. These problems include substandard outcomes (infant mortality, maternal mortality, life expectancy, etc.), medical debt, care avoided due to inadequate or absent insurance, the wasteful expenditure of dollars that would be better used in people’s housing, education or retirement funds, and an inability for the community to effectively plan a quality health care system for the state.

I suggest you consider an article looking at the opportunity cost of U.S. healthcare. Look at the difference in cost per person per year between the U.S. and the second most expensive country in the world (Germany or Switzerland) and calculate (using compound interest) the cost over 65 years at a market rate of interest. The dollar amount is quite large, and these are dollars that should be available to pay for housing or retirement rather than disappearing into the wasteful U.S. health care situation.

Let’s work to have a truly cost effective health care system providing excellent care for every Minnesotan.

Mark Brakke, Coon Rapids

•••

Regarding “The $3,300 surgery bill that wasn’t”: How insidious! Due to an error, the gentleman in the article had to jump through two years of hoops from his knee surgery to finally get the money back that he shouldn’t have ended up owing in the first place. Ridiculous and all too common, unfortunately.

I’ve never had surgery before, but when or if I ever do, I’ll plan on asking (through clenched teeth) the penetrating questions required for my own financial safety. Who knows how my recently obtained Medicare Advantage plan will work?! Will my plan cover my surgery? If not, how much will it cover? Is my provider in network? Is the lab in network? Is the actual owner of the building that holds the lab in network? Is the surgical center part of the hospital system that is in network? Is the anesthesiologist in network? Is the hospital or clinic in network? Are the intake staff in network? Are all of the aftercare staff and equipment in a recuperation room in network? Are the nurses, surgical techs and assistants in network? Who is the “payer” for the insurance company, and are they in network? Are there parts of the network that are not in network? Ugh! If there is a change in any of these companies, procedures or policies, will I be notified? Did I miss anything?

Absurd, indeed! Yet this is how these separate entities make their ill-gotten profits and why surprise medical bills are so rampant. Quite frankly, at age 65 now, I dread the day I have health issues and need expensive medical care. Enough is enough! It’s time to consider realistic rules and regulations against the multitude of so-called “entities” that absorb our hard-earned money!

Seriously, it’s time we wake up from our coma and realize that universal health care can’t be as bad as this.

Sharon E. Carlson, Andover

People don’t kill people, bullets do. As our nation remains paralyzed in the face of wanton destruction and the violation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can far too easily fall into a pit of despair and helplessness. But we are not limited to crude arguments about keeping our guns or banning them (“Take these weapons away,” Readers Write, Sept. 6). There is a whole universe of options out there. At a minimum, we can enact a 500% gun tax. We can enact a 500% ammo tax. This is very doable, especially in Minnesota. The cost of liberty is steep, and we should soon pay it, or we will pay in other ways — at the hands of a very angry God, the God of children, the God of orphans and the God of the innocent.

We are in for it. We better start asking forgiveness sooner rather than later.

Philip Sturm, Minneapolis

The impact of inflation hit home for me on a recent walk. I spotted a bright silver dime on the street, gave it a fleeting thought and simply kept walking. Had this been 60 years ago, that dime would have been quickly pocketed for the purchase of a full-sized candy bar.

As I continued to amble on my evening walk, it also occurred to me, being the saver that I am, perhaps the real reason that I didn’t pick up that dime wasn’t as much related to its diminished value as much as my diminished flexibility.

Daniel Johnson, Crystal