Obamacare’s real future cost/benefit is unknown Re: “Tick, tick, tick: The cost of Obamacare is a time bomb,” Jan. 16 & “Obamacare reduces health care costs,” Jan. 19
David Bowen’s rebuttal to Examiner columnist Tim Carney is loaded with cliches, as have been all the articles I’ve read (both pro and con) about the Obama health care bill. While I am neutral on the debate, it is nevertheless instructive to call the public’s attention to the truth that none of these claims have been substantiated with a rigorous analysis of the facts. All we hear about the beneficial or detrimental aspects of the law are opinions and unsubstantiated statements based on so-called calculations of various contending groups, including the Congressional Budget Office speculating about “deficit reductions over the next 20 years.” How these consequences will play out over the long haul is left for the reader to accept by faith.
As Bowen’s op-ed once more demonstrates, the public is left to decipher fact from fiction. As to the law’s benefits or harm 20 years from now, let the reader beware.
Ralf Hertwig
Springfield
America’s appetite for drugs fuels Mexico’s drug cartels
Re: “Mexico losing its war with drug cartels,” Jan. 17
Sara Carter’s compelling analysis of the bloody conflict in Mexico is silent on the key driver of that conflict: America’s insatiable appetite for drugs. The American people send billions of dollars to Mexican criminal organizations every year, outspending their government’s comparatively meager counterdrug effort by a factor of ten to one.
In April 2008, using detailed analysis of repatriation data, the National Drug Intelligence Center estimated that at least $17.2 billion in U.S. banknotes were transported to Mexican drug cartels between 2003 and 2004. In contrast, over the three-year period beginning with announcement of the Merida Initiative in October 2007, Congress appropriated just $1.5 billion to combat drug-trafficking and criminal organizations in Mexico.
Even if NDIC’s bulk cash transfer estimates are only half-right, the data fairly confirms that Mexican cartels are being funded at a rate five times higher than efforts to assist Mexican security forces. This shocking disparity is a national disgrace that cannot be attributed to Mexican corruption or incompetence. Ciudad Juarez and hundreds of other Mexican communities are now living with the consequences.
Richard J. Douglas
College Park
Vaccine litigation protects vulnerable children
Re: “Trial lawyer at the center of fake autism study,” Jan. 9
Thank you for placing Mark Hemingway’s opinion piece in the commentary section, but no thanks for making it appear to be authentic news. Too bad Hemingway never explains his bold headline. I had measles and mumps many years ago, but was never aware my life was in danger. Why would Hemingway write this and offer no statistics?
One has only to look at the incidence of cases involving fraudulent and incompetent medical practice to realize that more (not less) litigation is needed. Hemingway notes that such litigation costs jobs. Of course it does, but it is the responsibility of the various medical societies to see to it that their members do not injure children. Many parents are shocked to learn that they must study medicine to protect them.
I implore Examiner readers to learn as much as they can about autism activists Andrew Wakefield. M.D., Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey — who see the possibility of a link between the mercury in vaccines and autism — and make up their own minds as to where the integrity lies.
If Hemingway had an autistic child in his own family, he would become a convert to the side that maximizes self-informing and can no longer be misled.
Bill Norwood
Greenbelt
