Justice?
The Affordable Care Act passed the Supreme Court with three of the Justices dissenting. Justice Scalia criticized the court’s interpretation, which he said “means nullifying the term ‘by the State’ not just once, but again and again.”
He called the decision “interpretive jiggery-pokery,” a “defense of the indefensible” and “pure applesauce.”
And he wrote about the “somersaults of statutory interpretation” the court performed and said that “words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’”
Then he writes the majority opinion for the case concerning the EPA’s decision to limit mercury emissions from power plants. ‘The court was not deciding whether the law required the agency “to conduct a formal cost-benefit analysis in which each advantage and disadvantage is assigned a monetary value,” Scalia wrote. “It will be up to the agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost.” (Quoted from the Washington Post.)
During the justice’s review of the case, Justice Antonin Scalia interjected that it does not make sense for the EPA not to look at costs simply because a statute doesn’t require it.
“I would think it’s classic arbitrary and capricious agency action for an agency to command something that is outrageously expensive and in which the expense vastly exceeds whatever public benefit can be achieved,” he said.’
We know that Justice Scalia is not an activist judge (at least according to Republican Presidents and Republican Senators) so why is this man flip-flopping? He says the language does make a difference when it is something he is against and that it doesn’t matter when it is something he is for! Why aren’t Republicans calling for him to be booted from the court?
Kevin Bracken, Kelseyville
Reducing healthcare costs
Not day goes by without some mention (usually a complaint) concerning healthcare costs. When one considers the problem, it is amazing the number of actions we Americans could take to reduce those costs if we had the courage to make some hard decisions. This letter is intended to be facetious and is designed to cause serious thought, not to make specific recommendations.
First thing, of course, is to learn not to get sick and not to have accidents that damage us. Next is to have the decency toward the rest of the population and die not more than one year after we cease to be productive and retire. Seems that the older we get, the more we cost to keep going. Given that up to 40 percent of Medicare funds are spent during a patient’s last year and 40 percent of that during the last month of life, we should arrange not get to that stage. Everyone should have a notarized document outlining how that patient chooses to go. We should honor those who have the courage to self-terminate. Certainly we should take the stigma off suicide! Along the same thought, if unwilling mothers wish to abort unwanted children, we should offer them whatever support they need. Following on the theme that the fewer people needing help, the lower the cost, I have a hunch the country would benefit from a provision to render both males and females who have produced two offspring no longer capable of reproducing.
It is far past time that our country takes stock and logically and rationally reconsiders the value of (any given) human life. Let’s face it, all people are not equal and, it follows, not the same value to preserve. For example, I am 87 and a shadow of my former productive self. There is no way one can justify the use of limited assets to save me, if it means that a productive 50 year old will die because the asset has been used. We come back to the value of a human life. For perspective, the “asset value” of a body may be as much as $10. If the body can be “harvested,” the parts may be worth beyond $100,000. In some cases the potential earnings (had he lived) is a pretty good base. But the valuation of a person must be reasonable and objective. There is no place for emotion, in any valuation of life. There is a “personal for the immediate family” value, but that is outside the loss economics for the rest of us. Reviving the limit for tort suits is probably a good idea.
Next we need to consider the cost of treatment and care to extend a dying patient’s life. I suspect there are many instances where minimum home treatment would save a lot of time and effort. If there is no alternative to formal treatment, contact a mid-level practitioner first, if possible. Often they offer at least the same level treatment and diagnosis, a far better bedside manner, and will recommend any care they can not provide. If a visit to a specialist is next, let’s make sure that Medicare is not asked to pay for re-tests or second opinions, requested by the patient. One more time, when a patient is 75 years old, there is evidence that the productive value of that patient has been pretty well used up and that “cost to keep” far exceeds “value of contribution.” A great deal of estate reduction and loss of benefit to families occurs in this way. I suspect that if some of the organs are still viable, selling rather than donating might help family finances.
Next a discussion of the high cost of medications should happen, but this already too long other than to suggest that extremely high treatment costs for very, very rare conditions should not be borne by the 99.999 percent of the people who do not have the condition.
Guff Worth, Lakeport
Concerning bridge replacement
Once again CalTrans has, seemingly, displayed an astonishing level of utter disregard for the motoring public. If Highway 29 were a seldom traveled back road, the inconvenience of one-way traffic might be tolerated. However it is a major thoroughfare. Thousands depend upon this highway to travel to their needed destinations. There is no doubt in my mind that the bridge project could have been easily designed to keep, at least minimally, two lanes open.
On Friday evenings, one can witness traffic backed up all the way to RLS. If one counts the cars stopped at each cycle of the light system, then multiplies that number by at least 5 minutes, the result is a staggering amount of thousands of hours of needlessly wasted time.
The 5 minute wait isn’t the end of the world. What makes this system even worse is that it groups all of the traffic into long trains of cars that adversely affect everything down stream. For instance, try getting onto Hwy 29 from the library in Middletown. It can be maddening. Or, if heading south, the wad of traffic turns into NASCAR amateur hour at each passing lane.
The long lines of cars are a terrifying experience for the few peeps in the area who ride bicycles. The first car in line is likely to see the bike. All of the followers won’t see the bike. Many hug the fog line, zipping inches past the hapless rider.
I do not understand the mountain of fill that has been removed. This looks like phenomenal overkill for a project to replace two lanes of highway. In addition there seems to be only a very minimal crew and equipment working on this project that is going to take a whole year to complete! Really! The construction crews work 8 hours a day, five days a week. The traffic is affected 24/7. The road could easily be two lanes while the crew is not working.
The old bridge sits there with one lane doing absolutely nothing.
Oh, and by the way, when is there going to be some discussion about a tunnel through that (pain-in-the-rear) mountain. Devil’s slide in Pacifica got one. Napa and Sonoma counties have over 200 miles of wine caves. We can’t do five miles of tunnel?
Eric Striedieck, Middletown
