SCCC students should be old enough to follow pedestrian rules
Let me preface my letter by saying that I would not like to see any pedestrians get injured. Now, having said that, I read with interest the Aug. 4 editorial about the need to make the SCCC students safe on their trip from the dorms to the school.
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t these same students also of an age to be responsible for their own safety? They are old enough to be away from home to go to school, so why does the school or city have to make more changes for them? Are they really incapable of walking down to the corner and pushing the traffic control button and walking when they should? Apparently they are quite able to walk across a street while texting, having earbuds in, and not watching for traffic that has the right of way.
The editorial goes on to talk about a safety education campaign for the students, signs for drivers and police presence. How about a school crossing guard, since these same students can not figure out how to cross the street safely on their own?
As a driver, it is enough that I have to watch for other cars, bike riders weaving in and out of traffic, people opening car doors into traffic, people loading children and groceries from the street side rather than the sidewalk. And I have to be the one also watching for pedestrians walking in the street with their backs to traffic, while they text or talk on their phones while listening to music as they push carriages in the street.
How about we start making students/pedestrians/”ped-textrians” be responsible for their own actions? We teach grade-school children how to look both ways before crossing a street; did that part of their education get lost when they got older? Maybe if pedestrians who got injured for doing any of the above actions were held liable for their own injuries, they would stop and think.
For the college students at SCCC, welcome to the adult world. Start using common sense for your own safety. We can’t be your parents forever, watching out for your irresponsibility and inattentiveness.
Obamacare can’t deliver on all its promises
A number of people have written that Obamacare is a good thing for the American people.
On the surface this might appear true. A closer review [exposes] the following [fallacies]:
1) The original cost promised by the president was $900 billion over 10 years. The current projection by the Congressional Budget Office is $1.6 trillion, and by the Senate Budget Committee $2.6 trillion.
2) All Americans will have health insurance. Millions would not because many states will not expand Medicaid given the cost. For New York state, the additional cost would be $52 billion over 10 years. Forty percent of those without health insurance were supposed to get it through Medicaid.
3) People can keep their current health insurance plans and current doctors. It is estimated that half of the current health plans do not meet the essential coverage requirements of Obamacare. So these people will have to have different plans to be in compliance, most likely at a higher rate.
Seeing current doctors will be problematic. There is currently a shortage of doctors, and according to recent polls many doctors are considering retiring, quitting, cutting back practices, not taking Medicare/Medicaid patients or changing to specialities like plastic surgery or Lasik [eye surgery] that don’t require third-party transactions; or moving to specialities like dermatology that require less malpractice insurance.
Add to this the 30 million people the government claims that have no health insurance coverage, the chances of keeping your current doctors or seeing them timely are not good.
4) Health care costs will be contained/reduced. They will continue to rise if only based on the new taxes — $47 billion — assessed against drug companies and medical device makers.
5) No funds for abortion. Religious employers and facilities are being forced to provide services such as birth control and abortion that go against their beliefs.
6) There will be exchanges to buy insurance. Many states are not going to set up the exchanges. Federal subsidies can only be provided through state exchanges. This allows employers to not provide or drop coverage for their employees and not face any “tax.” The tax can only be assessed if the company has at least one employee getting a subsidy. The result could be fewer people getting coverage.
7) No additional taxes. There are taxes. There will also be additional costs when people figure out that it’s cheaper to pay the tax than to get insurance. They can wait until they are sick and then get coverage as pre-existing conditions don’t preclude getting coverage.
Unfortunately, the promises made for health insurance for all cannot be kept.
J. Peter Gifford
Obama is running — away from the economy
Why is our president more worried about votes than the economy?
Over 8 percent are unemployed and collecting unemployment insurance. What about the thousands who gave up looking and are not collecting unemployment insurance? I am sure if you added them in, it would be a lot more than the 8 percent that they keep saying are without jobs and losing their homes.
A lot of promises but no results.