The Billings Outpost

Sponsor omitted

We appreciate the coverage given to the presentation on militarism hosted by the Unitarian-Universalist Fellowship last July 12. It was indeed sponsored by the Peace and Justice Forum, but the story neglected to mention a co-sponsor was the Billings Friends Meeting (Quakers).

Paul Whiting

Billings

Last Updated on Thursday, 01 August 2013 11:59

Hits: 955

Good coverage

The July 11 edition had good, even-handed coverage of the new Affordable Care Act. My wife and I have read and sent summaries to friends, but you are right, not many folks really bothered to find out what it does and means. Your article was helpful.

Take care.

Carl E. Wolf

Worden

Last Updated on Thursday, 01 August 2013 11:59

Hits: 946

Background checks

A letter from one of the prolific writers appeared in the July 4 issue of the Outpost, chanting the mantra regarding background checks.

They keep saying the same thing knowing that it is not factual, so here are some facts:

1. Criminals and sociopaths do not bother with background checks;

2. It is a myth that the government destroys the background checks after a given period. It is constructing a comprehensive data base on gun owners and these lists have historically, always, lead to confiscation;

3. No one can say what the Founders would or would not have thought, but it seems they wanted the people to have the same arms as did the Army and the government;

4. To say that the Second Amendment applies only to black powder is ridiculous beyond thinking comprehension; the people should have equivalent arms as do the terrorists, the criminals, sociopaths and other enemies of a free state; as has been shown in California where the criminals had more and more advanced arms than did the police; law enforcement learned that lesson hard and fast!

5. The idea that background checks and gun confiscation make the people safer is really mystical thinking. Check out Australia, where people cannot safely go out at night, and remember the young man who was chopped to death with a meat cleaver on the streets of London.

Also, in World War II the English came begging for firearms for the civilians to protect the country. The government later confiscated them all and destroyed them.  Don’t forget the 20th century gun confiscation program and the resultant gun deaths (and gas chambers) of hundreds of millions of people.

6. Those dumb criminals who filled out background checks were very, very few and those were hardly acted upon by the government, which could lead one to believe that catching malefactors is not the agenda of those pushing for expanded background checks.

The very premise is faulty because these checks do not deter criminals from getting guns illegally and do not make people safer. Having a means of self protection makes people safer.

Keith Babcock

Lockwood

 

Last Updated on Thursday, 25 July 2013 09:04

Hits: 1064

Names incorrect

Hi, I’m writing regarding the article by Sharie Pyke, “New Arts Venue Here” [Outpost, July 11] about the play reading of “Among Beautiful Women” at Sacrifice Cliff Theatre Company. I organized the event and was one of the actors in the reading so first of all, thanks to Sharie for attending and for writing the article!

There were just a few misspellings (my name was spelled correctly, thank you) and I’m wondering if it’s possible to correct them. First, the playwright George Carroll is correct but the poetry is by Gerald Locklin, not George Lachlan. The actor who played Burl is Gustavo Belotta, and Kate was Amanda Megyesi-McCave.

Also there is a sentence about the play being “written to be performed anywhere without having to pay a royalty,” which might give the wrong impression. While it’s a play written for actors to be performed anywhere, rights and permissions are granted on an individual basis.

And I hope someday the playwright does receive some royalties for all the effort he’s put into the piece.

Donita Beeman

Billings


 

Last Updated on Thursday, 18 July 2013 12:40

Hits: 1189

ACA won’t work

I was mightily relieved to hear in your issue of 11 July 2013 that the cost of health insurance in California, one of our most populous states, will face no increases. I guess that’s the reason four of the largest insurance companies have canceled all of their existing policies and are abandoning the state. They just can’t make money there under the ACA!

All this trash-talk about insurance costs rising by an average of $2,500 per year were worrying. I’m so glad to hear that all the organizations investigating where insurance premiums will go are wrong. As for a family of four having to pay an average of $20,000 per year for insurance surely can’t be true, can it?

Just thinking of all those lousy doctors abandoning their practices due to the ACA? They don’t care about the health of the people, do they? They should all go to Cuba and leave us alone with those who are left, most of whom will not be our regularly visited doctors. I say get rid of all those money-grubbing doctors and depend on those who are left – most of whom really will give good service, but only for cash on the counter, although there may be a problem getting gin in front of those tens of thousands of Canadians who drift down here to get what they can’t get under their only form of the ACA.

The rest of the information given you by an ACA promoter is so insipidly wrong that it needs no comment. I’m glad though, to hear that a lot of money is being spent on instructing school kids on how to tell their parents how great the ACA is. It takes time away from them being instructed on how to put condoms on bananas.

What form should health care insurance take? I say let’s do what Australia does. They have plans which provide for those insured to pay what they can for casual and uncomplicated care, but the plans then cover all the really disastrous illnesses. Seems to work quite well and maybe people should be required to take care of some part of their routine health problems but be covered if things get nasty, and really expensive.

As for the young taking over the healthcare costs for the elderly? Turns out that in Japan, more nappies are used by the elderly than by babies. The U.S. is facing this same problem of a declining birth rate. How long will the young agree to pay through the nose for the healthcare of elderly people in this country?

I think we’re reaching an impasse under the ACA, and my feeling is that the ACA is not going to survive for this and other reasons of high taxation and high costs involved with governmental oversight and control.

If you want it done at a reasonable cost, don’t have the government leeches involved.

J.P. Snively

Post Creek

EDITOR’S NOTE: The July 11 article did not say that health insurance costs would not increase in California. It said that costs “appear to be lower than projected.”


 

Last Updated on Thursday, 18 July 2013 12:40

Hits: 1102

Copyright 2012 Wild Raspberry Inc.

Top Desktop version