To The Daily Sun,
Recently, the New Hampshire Senate voted unanimously to support legislation which will ensure affordable access to potentially lifesaving cancer treatments for Granite Staters. The Senate's support of this bill, which would prevent health insurers from charging a higher cost-share for an oral anticancer medication than for one administered by IV, is a step in the right direction — but there is still work to be done, as the bill must now be voted on by the House of Representatives.
Oral treatments can offer patients advantages over traditional IV chemotherapy, including the fact that they are targeted therapies which attack only the cancer cells. Oral chemotherapy also offers the flexibility and convenience of not having to drive long distances to a treatment facility for IV infusions.
For the more than 8,000 people who will be diagnosed with cancer in New Hampshire this year alone, it is imperative that the House of Representatives vote in support of this legislation, SB-137. It simply isn't fair that any cancer patient would have to forgo the most effective course of treatment due to out-of-pocket costs.
I urge all members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives to support Senate Bill 137.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 08 April 2015 10:16
To The Daily Sun,
Mr. Ewing's latest rant misleadingly tries to equate Indiana's shameful "freedom to discriminate" law with the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and the previous 19 state laws based on it. His letter is full of phony outrage, fueled by a persecution complex. But he conveniently ignores the crucial differences between the legislation that passed in Indiana and the others which make it a totally different creature.
1. The original RFRA applies to disputes between a person and the federal government. Indiana's also applies to disputes between individuals. People could use their beliefs as a defense against discrimination charges brought by other citizens. Or as a justification for discriminating against other people that would otherwise be illegal. Someone who believes in the old biblical "curse of Ham" interpretation might use it to refuse service to African-Americans. .
2. The original RFRA, and most of the previous state laws, provide protection only if a law substantially burdens a person's exercise of religion. The Indiana law only requires that a person think that their religious freedom is "likely" to be violated. That person can make up his own standards, as long as he claims that he's following his religion.
3. The federal law only grants its protections to people, non-profit organizations (such as religious groups) and, under the Hobby Lobby decision, "closely held" corporations where all owners share the same religious beliefs. Indiana's explicitly also includes for-profit corporations and public companies.
Comparing the RFRA of 1993 to Indiana's is like comparing apples to rotten oranges They are not the same. And Mr. Ewing can't try to hide behind what supporters of the original law said at the time it was passed. He should note that Senator Schumer, who he mentions, said that the new Indiana statute "in no way resembles the intent or application of the federal RFRA." It goes way beyond protecting religious freedom to give people and corporations a license to discriminate: against not only LGBT people, but also divorcees, women who have had abortions, people who eat shellfish, and more. Religion is not intended to be an excuse for someone to ignore equality under the law in our society. It is not a license for anyone to pick and choose whatever discrimination he favors. It is not a tool for people to make up their own laws and force others to bow to them. I wonder how Mr. Ewing would react if a Black Muslim store owner in Indiana had posted a sign in his window reading "Christians will not be served".
Last Updated on Tuesday, 07 April 2015 08:06
To The Daily Sun,
For a long time I have been wondering what has happened to America since I was young. Our quality of life is disappearing and I don't think people understand why. Politics and trends are so confusing that we are not even having the right conversations.
Here, in Robert Kuttner's paper, are some of the reasons. I have summarized this in a way that I hope people will understand.
Will the middle and working class be able to gain back their fair share of this country's wealth and political power? Currently, there is a huge discrepancy between the very rich one percent and the remaining 99 percent of those in the United States. Not since 1917 has this gap been so extremely wide. The general population does not seem to understand the magnitude of this problem. So, how can it be made right?
Kuttner, a professor at Brandeis University, wrote about this problem in an article that appeared in The Huffington Post. What follows are the points made by Dr. Kuttner as interpreted and summarized by myself. He lists seven reasons why it will be difficult for the 99 percent to gain back wealth and power they enjoyed in the 1950s and '60s.
(1) Discrediting of Politics Itself — The Republican Party has obstructed government to a point where the general electorate is confused and blame both parties for the dysfunction. In this atmosphere Republicans are rewarded as evidenced by the fact that they hold both houses of the U.S. Congress and the New Hampshire Legislature. The Republican Party promotes the transfer of wealth and power to the rich, or or percent.
(2) Missed Opportunity in 2008 — During the economic meltdown of 2008, new President Barack Obama supported the big banks and financial firms but did little for the 99 percent. A desire on the president's part to work with the GOP ultimately caused additional weakening of the middle class.
(3) Politicized Courts — With years of Republican appointments, the Supreme Court has become a "subsidiary" of the Republican Party. Two key (outrageous!) decisions by the Supreme Court tilted the field even more toward the one percent. Citizens United meant that the rich could essentially and easily buy candidates and sway elections in their favor. Also, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act has made it easier to suppress the voters most likely to vote for Democrats. The justifications for both decisions were mediocre at best and "criminal" at worst; simply bad law interpretation.
(4) Equalizing Institutions have Collapsed — The government used to be active promoting opportunities for all. Strong unions meant that even the less educated were paid well and labor laws helped the workers. Higher education was free; debt was not incurred by students wishing to better themselves. Financial institutions were well regulated. A trading system was in place that did not promote outsourcing. A genuinely progressive income tax was in place. Politics changed all this.
(5) The Structure of Jobs has Changed — Regular payroll career jobs have been replaced by short term part-time jobs or contract work with little benefits. These jobs are harder to organize into unions. Workers bargaining power has diminished.
(6) The Internalization of a Generation's Plight — The youth today seem to have adjusted to their living conditions. Home ownership is accepted as difficult, good jobs with benefits are in short supply, college grads are saddled with extreme debt, and pension systems are becoming rare. Senior citizens remember the way the past was — ask them.
(7) The Absence of a Movement — Even with the assaults on the middle and working class there is no movement to correct this unsustainable injustice. Many simply do not understand this extreme inequality or the problems which have caused it. The "Occupy" Movement did focus attention on the "one percent" concept; that was a start. Political conversation does not even include the devastating plight of the middle and working class. Ask Vermont U. S. Senator Bernie Sanders. He is right on target expressing the problems. Also, U. S. Senator Elizabeth Warren is aggressive in explaining pitfalls in today's society.
Again, these ideas were taken from Robert Kuttner. Learn more by visiting www.prospect.org/authors/robert-kuttner
The 99 percent needs to stop fighting amongst themselves and focus on making life better for all Americans by equalizing the shared wealth and power of this country. The current downward spiral must be stopped to allow America, once again, a higher standard of living for all.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 07 April 2015 07:53
To The Daily Sun,
I'm so thankful Bernadette Loesch isn't going to "hate me back". The very thought has kept me up at night.
Really though Bernadette, I don't hate you, though I think your political views are silly, narrow-minded and without merit.
I remember well when you first started writing your letters a few years back. In one of the first ones, you accused every conservative who didn't vote for Obama of being a racist. Our reasons for rejecting Obama were clearly stated, had nothing to do with race and they have been proven out just as clearly as can be. Still you took the low road, the road of slander and personal attack. But never mind that's what liberals have been doing since the 1960s.
Also you told, insisted even, that everyone stop watching Fox News and you gave a whole list of acceptable left-leaning news sources for us to read or watch headed up by MSNBC. MSNBC has the lowest trust rating and audience of any cable news network, and for good reason. How many of their program anchors is it now who have been forced out, off the air for their foul-mouthed, unprofessional smear attacks on conservatives? As for Fox, all your accusations of lies are empty as you are unable to identify a single one. Instead you choose to label any opinion you don't like as a lie. You and L.J. Siden are just alike in that.
Now it's true I hate what Obama has done to the American people and do not separate him from his actions, and I have listed out those grievances many times and you have yet to challenge or debate a single point of my contentions except by dismissing them all as lies. Why is that, or are you unable to dispute the truth of my points? So in case you have forgotten I'll give you just a few for you to respond to if you dare.
Obama had no foreign policy experience before being elected. The results of this are being seen all over the Middle East right now today. Obama has lied over and over to the American people: He promised the most open and transparent administration ever. It is not. He promised to bring people together and be inclusive. He did not. He lied about the ACA — "If you like your Dr. you can keep your Dr." He knew that was not true. Same for the health insurance part of the ACA. And why are all his collage transcripts, admission records and travel passports still sealed until this day?
Start with these if you want, if you dare, do some homework, a little research instead of letting MSNBC tell you what to think and say for a change. I'll be waiting, but not holding my breath.
Gee I must be hitting some sore points. All the lefties are paying attention.
Last Updated on Monday, 06 April 2015 08:50
To The Daily Sun,
Now betrayer-of-the-environment President Obama has given Shell permission to drill for oil in the Arctic. Here's what Greenpeace released: "It's an indefensible decision," said Greenpeace Arctic campaigner Ian Duff. "The Arctic is melting rapidly because of climate change. But instead of seeing it as a warning, Shell sees profit. It wants to drill for more of the stuff that caused the melting in the first place. And all the evidence shows Shell can't drill safely in the Arctic. The extreme conditions means it's when, not if, a spill will happen."
Put blame on Obama, basketball-court guy, manicured-golf-course guy. Sell-out guy.
It ties in, too, with opening our treasure, Atlantic coast and waters to the oil industry. That's coming next. From Florida to Delaware we will see tragic oil pollution. In whale nurseries, in sea turtle habitat. Where people earn their livings with fisheries and tourism. President Obama is owned by business.
Related: April 29 is the deadline for you Sierra Club members to send in your ballots for our national board of directors. I'm voting for: Steve Ma, Joseph Manning, Allison Chin, Cliff Cockerham, Lawson Legate. I used e-mail and phone calls to discuss ocean oil-drilling with them. They are for keeping carbon-based fuels in the ground. This new permission given to Shell will appall them, activists that they are. I have more confidence in voting for Sierra Club board than in voting for politicians and presidents, that sham voting we get.
Lynn Rudmin Chong
Last Updated on Monday, 06 April 2015 08:44