Readers Write: U.S. Bank Stadium and Twin Cities Marathon, health care and Medicare, negative ads, homeless encampment, personal solutions to climate concerns, Trump's slurs

Ah, yes, the "people's stadium," paid for by all but not available to participants in the internationally renowned Twin Cities Marathon ("U.S. Bank unlikely to host future marathon warm ups," Oct. 12). Let's add "people's stadium" to the other great deceptions: We need a new ballpark to win the World Series and If you build a new stadium then we'll win the Super Bowl.

While the Star Tribune Editorial Board's defense of Medicare, as a response to political attack ads against single-payer health care, described the value of this system over the years since its inception, it failed to address the cost going forward that ignores the reality of a system that currently is not sustainable (" 'Single-payer' attack ads ill-serve debate," Oct. 15).

Understandably, there is great support for these benefits reflected by a recent Pew poll showing that only 15 percent of Republicans and 5 percent of Democrats favor trimming Medicare. Once people have received a benefit, it is very difficult to accede to necessary reform measures that might even hint at a cut. It is no wonder that virtually all political candidates either promise not to touch Medicare — or other entitlements — or at best, refuse to even seriously address reform measures.

Yet the fact remains the Congressional Budget Office points out Medicare will run a $40 trillion cash deficit over the next 30 years — $19 trillion for Social Security — that will add another $23 trillion to the national debt.

The editorial cites several legislative initiatives that could very well help address the predicted shortfall for Medicare, but I suspect there may not be such support even for these limited measures, much less a serious reform effort that will face the reality of the CBO budget figures.

While the Editorial Board offers those limited proposals as solutions to build on Medicare's proven foundation, it would seem clear that to sustain a satisfactory level of benefits into the future, our elected officials must have a more honest and direct conversation about real reform and how we will pay for it.

• • •

This characterization willfully misrepresents what single-payer means. In actuality, single-payer means that everyone would have a robust set of comprehensive benefits without the headaches and games of our wasteful multipayer system. Hospitals, clinics and physicians would still operate independently. There would be no more "networks" to restrict access to your preferred provider and no more worries that you would forfeit coverage if you lost your job.

As for Johnson's fearmongering that public insurance would financially threaten rural hospitals, he should instead be worried about what's happening right now. Nearly 75 percent of Minnesota's hospitals are designated critical-access hospitals, located more than 35 miles from another facility. Last year, almost half were at risk of closing. Rural hospitals are disproportionately burdened by the cost of billing in our outrageously complex health insurance system. A single-payer system would eliminate this burden, empower hospitals to negotiate global budgets based on operating costs, and incentivize providers to practice in underserved areas.

Our current system is convoluted, inequitable and dysfunctional for urban and rural Minnesotans alike. A single-payer system, by contrast, would guarantee everyone access to comprehensive health care, save money and be publicly accountable. We should be demanding no less from our elected officials at the state and federal levels.

The writers are volunteer board members of Physicians for a National Health Program-Minnesota.

• • •

The writer is a retired physician.

We are all fed up and overwhelmed with the number and vitriol of campaign ads ("Don't you political types realize you're alienating all of us?" Readers Write, Oct. 11). There is something voters can do besides pressing their mute buttons: Cut off the source of the big money funding these ads. The U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision to unleash unlimited contributions, commonly known as Citizens United vs. FEC, eliminated common-sense limits Congress had placed on contributions. The only way to reverse this unwise decision is with an amendment to the Constitution. So far, 19 states have petitioned Congress for such an amendment. Minnesota needs to join them, because not only are the money and resulting ads annoying, but the decision has given corporations, unions and the ultrawealthy an unfair advantage with their exaggerated voice and influence.

Minnesota Citizens for Clean Elections surveyed all nonjudicial Minnesota candidates for their position on this issue before the primary and followed up again this month. Go to cleanelectionsmn.org to see how your candidates declared themselves on this issue. If you do not see your candidates' name, they chose not to answer. Call them up and ask them where they stand. Politicians have an interest in keeping the money flowing. Only the power of the voters can bring change.

The writer of an Oct. 11 letter about the Hiawatha homeless encampment stated: "Most of the campers are addicts/alcoholics."

I would like to know what statistics she is quoting, and who did the counting.

The writer is a student.

I wonder how many young girls across the country were called "Horseface" by young boys this week? ("Denigrating tweet continues pattern: Trump used the insult 'Horseface' to refer to porn star Stormy Daniels," Oct. 17). Great — another pathetic slur sanctioned by the president of the United States.