Fed-up voters want other options for White House job
Re: “Candidate Manchin has a lot of explaining to do,” July 21 commentary
Gail Collins worries that a third-party candidate like Sen. Joe Manchin “might affect the results just enough in a few crucial states to change the outcome,” causing President Joe Biden to lose in 2024 and “lead to Donald Trump’s return to the White House.”
If Collins is so concerned that Biden or some other Democrat candidate would lose that many votes to a third-party candidate and wants to ensure that it doesn’t happen, she should put her efforts into encouraging the Democrat party to nominate a reasonable candidate that would appeal to more voters, including true independent voters such as myself.
Collins spends a lot of time criticizing Manchin, but whether it’s Manchin or someone else doesn’t matter. The real issue is that many voters are fed up with the divisive politics of both parties and want a change. And the sad truth is that Trump and Biden are arguably the two worst back-to-back presidents in our history, and neither would be a reasonable choice in 2024. Like it or not, that is what prompts the interest in, and the possibility of, a third-party candidate at this time.
Jim Malec, Roxborough Park
Interventions are necessary to keep people in their homes
Re: “Survey shows nearly half of renters fear losing housing,” July 18 news story
Policymakers must heed the wake-up call that three of Coloradans’ top five concerns — the cost of living, housing affordability, and homelessness — all relate to keeping people in their homes. Colorado cannot move forward if this fundamental need is not met.
The solution is not solely to build more housing, which by itself would drive up disparities and accelerate the displacement of residents and small businesses from vulnerable neighborhoods.
We need to require and resource development that is affordable to people living on low and fixed incomes, including in communities close to public transit.
We need significant investments in programs proven to prevent homelessness, like rental assistance and legal representation in eviction cases, which have historically favored landlords.
And we need long-term solutions such as the ability to stabilize rents for existing homes, policies and programs to preserve and extend existing affordability, and protections to help keep renters who have not violated their leases in their homes.
All these interventions are supported by significant majorities of the Colorado Health Foundation’s Pulse survey respondents — even as state policymakers left most of them undone in our most recent session.
Now is the time to act. Housing stability must be at the forefront.
Kinsey Hasstedt, Denver
Editor’s note: Kinsey Hasstedt is the state & local policy program director at Enterprise Community Partners, an affordable-housing nonprofit.
Don’t let grocery store CEOs fool you about merger
Re: “CEOs tout proposed $25B merger,” July 22 news story
The CEOs of Kroger and Albertsons no doubt believe for the moment that their merger will produce no store closures, layoffs, or price increases.
Right.
It makes no sense to give control of most of our food supply to one corporation.
Let’s hope the regulators do not buy the CEOs’ line, rather that they wake up and protect the public.
Stan Moore, Lakewood
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. When Albertsons and Safeway announced a merger in 2014, they promised to keep stores open by divesting some locations to another grocery chain, exactly the same promise Kroger and Albertsons CEOs are making again to get their latest merger approved.
Grocery chain Haggen took them up on their offer, buying 146 stores. Less than a year later, Haggen filed for bankruptcy protection and closed stores, a spectacular but predictable failure. In 2016 Kroger invested millions in organic grocer Lucky’s. Less than four years later, Kroger yanked its entire investment, forcing Lucky’s to shutter 32 of its 39 stores. The one in my neighborhood, on north Wadsworth, remains an empty shell today. If you believe Kroger CEO Rodney McMullen that they’re looking to sell stores to “strong, viable competitors,” you’re ripe to get fooled a third time. McMullen and Albertson’s CEO Vivek Sankaran are making empty promises, crossing their fingers that they can fool us again. It would be a shame to let that happen.
Joan Jacobson, Lakewood
No Labels needs to redirect its effort
The No Labels effort: a disaster or positive contribution?
Common sense must prevail over ego and self-delusion for those behind the No Labels bipartisan effort to put up a presidential candidate. There is no doubt that a No Labels candidate would create a clear and present danger and enhance the likelihood that the former president would win the 2024 election. So it’s imperative that No Labels abandon its presidential effort.
Yet there are many productive avenues for a bipartisan No Labels effort that can make a positive contribution. Here are my suggestions:
• Redistricting: Support non-partisan redistricting through independent commissions that are bound by mandates of equity rather than political advantage.
• Election Integrity and Voter Participation: Set standards and advocate for effective, reasonable best practices for election integrity while also promoting voter registration and participation; they are not mutually exclusive.
• Grass Roots Pragmatism: Counter myth- and disinformation-based ideologies through support for active citizen involvement of reasonable, pragmatic citizens, including possible candidacy for local positions, from planning commissions, city councils, and school boards, to state legislative and executive branch positions.
There are good arguments for a more centrist, non-partisan presidential candidate. But for 2024, to avoid the real threat to our constitutional order posed by a second administration for the 45th President, No Labels must drop its presidential ambitions and redirect its efforts to other productive political strategies.
Charles Kreiman, Denver
Protect patients and doctors, not profitable health insurance companies
I took the Hippocratic oath to “do no harm” – helping people is what motivated me to invest my life in health care from the outset. Health insurance companies aren’t held to the same standard, and many go as far as to refuse to cover emergency medical bills even though patients pay expensive monthly premiums. Congress was right to outlaw surprise medical bills by passing the No Surprises Act, which established a fair system for doctors and insurers to settle billing disputes.
But the job is not done. Despite clear directives from Congress, Secretary Xavier Becerra’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sided with large profitable health insurers in implementing the law. Insurers routinely underpay doctors, kick doctors out of network, and deny coverage to patients. They don’t need the government to give them even more of an advantage.
I applaud Sen. Michael Bennet for taking a stand against large insurers and protecting physicians and patients. Congress must pressure the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement the No Surprises Act as originally intended.
Large insurers underpay doctors so that they can turn enormous profits. This means that doctors must pursue unpaid insurance balances after providing essential and, oftentimes, lifesaving care. This is wrong. Our health care system is still recovering from the strain of the COVID pandemic, hindered by the loss of almost 5% of the health care workforce from burnout, frustration, and financial strain.
Secretary Becerra will testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on July 26. Sen. Bennet and his colleagues in Congress must take this opportunity to tell him to properly implement the No Surprises Act and stop tipping the scales in favor of large profitable health insurers.
Matt Ledges, Denver
Editor’s note: Dr. Ledges is the VP Clinical Analytics at TeamHealth and is an emergency medicine clinician.
Left helpless on the tracks? This isn’t justice
Here is an education in civics regarding the police car parked on railroad tracks. The U.S. Constitution states that a person is innocent until proven guilty. There may be probable cause that a law may have been broken, but it’s the court that determines if a law has, in fact, been broken. In addition, the person caught in a police car stopped on railroad tracks pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge which is like a guilty plea. To say that the person did not take responsibility for her actions is incorrect.
Shouldn’t law enforcement be held accountable for stopping on a railroad track, murdering someone on the streets in Minneapolis, or shooting someone in Clear Creek County for not getting out of his vehicle?
Why were these police allowed to be in law enforcement in the first place? Some departments seem to cover up bad cops. Why not get rid of the bad apples? When arrested, the arresting officer is responsible for the safe transport of the suspect to the Jail. The accused have a right to be properly arraigned and the trial can proceed. The court system will determine if a law has been broken. That is the way the system works. Doing otherwise is inconsistent with the law.
Ed Moore, Highlands Ranch
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
