Bad healthcare, New Castle land deal, divisive concepts and more: Letters

Socialized medicine not the answer to our health care woes

April 29 − To the Editor:

Mark Brighton's experience at Portsmouth Regional Hospital has generated many letters to the editor. Some of the authors think that socialized medicine is the answer, while others think there is too much government intervention already in our health care delivery system. I think the latter view is closer to what is making our system cumbersome and costly.

I was born and raised in Puerto Rico, and I still have friends and family there.  They do have a local version of Obamacare health insurance, paid mostly with federal funds.  My friend in PR is subscribed to it. It’s not unusual for her doctor's appointment to require most of the day. In many instances, she needs to bring a lunch with her. She recently needed to see a pulmonologist, of which there are only three servicing her insurance on the entire island. It’s usually “first come first served” regardless of whether you have an appointment or not. On a recent occasion, she got to the medical office at 6 a.m., and there were already 15 people signed up ahead of her. Yes, another all-day appointment.

But they do have a better care system for those with private insurance and willing to pay on their own. The same is true for other countries such as England and even China. Socialized medical care would come short of what we have come to expect of our healthcare delivery system. But our present system has become too expensive to be sustainable. It’s time for something else to happen, but don't expect politicians to fix it. Every time they try, they make it worse. 

Sue Polidura

Portsmouth

Despite vague wording, intent of divisive concepts bill is clear

May 3 − To the Editor:

This is in response to a Letter to the Editor: Columnists should read divisive concepts bill before criticizing it (April 24). First, we are glad to see that our column is being read and is getting a response. Dialogue is good and the very reason that our column exists.

Second, the “divisive concepts” law was read carefully before the column was written.

We wholeheartedly agree with the need for honest discussion of the issues. If we are to be honest, we must look behind the ambiguous wording of Alabama’s House Bill 7  to see who wrote the law and why; what they intended; and how the words can be interpreted by people who think waking up to injustice and examining our country’s history are bad things.

So let’s dig down into the law and its intent. What exactly is the intent of HB 7 concerning Divisive Concepts?

It is instructive to know that the bill was originally introduced in the 2022 legislative session, with different wording. The session ended before it came up for a final vote, but when the bill was rewritten for the current session, it was toned down to be less overt. But the original wording clearly reveals the intent of the bill.

In its definitions, the bill listed among the “divisive concepts” teaching “that this state or the United States is inherently racist or sexist.”

The facts? From lynchings to setting dogs on people to water hosing children, from hiring practices to healthcare, blatant racism and sexism have been as thick as cement. In June 2020, the Alabama Department of Archives and History issued an apology for promoting only the Confederacy and ignoring Alabama’s Black lives and history. So while the state has officially issued an apology, HB 7 will prohibit learning from past mistakes by censuring these truths from schools.

Also defined as divisive was teaching “that with respect to American values, slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to the founding principles of the United States which include liberty and equality.”

The facts? Many of this nation's Founding Fathers held enslaved Blacks in forced labor, not liberty and equality.

This original bill, though vague in wording, had a clear intent that will intimidate teachers from risking their occupation by helping future generations learn and discuss the facts.

That the new version did not include these definitions only deepens the wrong by hiding behind vagueness. But the bill is being proposed and backed by the same people who have the same values they had a year ago.In April 2023, the bill’s author, Rep. Ed Oliver, told the House State Government Committee that the bill is needed because people are concerned about racist ideas and what he said are “woke policies” taught to children.

Guy Trammell Jr., Tuskegee, Ala.; Amy Miller, South Berwick, Maine

Color Us Connected columnists

Why we must vote YES to purchase Coast Guard property in New Castle

April 28 − To the Editor:

I understand there is some reluctance to vote “YES” to purchase the Coast Guard property in New Castle citing there is lack of detail and no concrete plan. Yes, $5 million is a lot of money but consider this. I’ve heard two parties have stepped up (so far) to pledge a total of $1.5 million so we can preserve this open space. $3.5 million is almost the same amount Durham residents voted on in 1989 to purchase Wagon Hill Farm.

I won’t trivialize this. Many Durham residents declared the town already had a lot of open space and they did not want their taxes to increase any more. When the special vote occurred, Durham also did not have a concrete plan. The reality was that if Durham didn’t buy it, developers would and there would probably be a nice big subdivision on Route 4 instead of the iconic wagon on top of the hill. That’s how real estate sales work. Now there are trails, a living shoreline, a huge community garden, sledding, picnicking and bird watching, just to name a few.

The public hearing and town vote to authorize acquisition of Wagon Hill Farm was to preserve scenic views and preserve open space in order to provide for a healthful and an attractive outdoor environment for work and recreation and to conserve land, water, forest and wildlife resources.

The Coast Guard property sits up on a hill looking directly at the recently restored and preserved Wood Island Life Saving Station in Portsmouth Harbor. It also looks out at Whaleback Lighthouse and The Isles of Shoals. There are sweeping views of New Castle Beach and in the other direction the Piscataqua River and over toward Fort McClary in Kittery. And of course it is directly adjacent to Portsmouth Harbor Light and Fort Constitution. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for the town to take ownership and protect one of the last significant open spaces instead of letting it fall prey to development. If we take ownership, we have some control over what happens to the property. If we take control and later decide we don't want it (I can't imagine why) then we dictate what happens to it so we don’t end up with an ugly overcrowded subdivision. Can you imagine what could have happened to New Castle Common in 1963 if it hadn't become a park for all to enjoy?

Beth Barnhorst

New Castle

Need to adopt best practices for appointments in Rye

April 25 − To the Editor:

Any objective person attending the Board of Selectmen meeting on April 24 would have witnessed that the most qualified applicant for Rye Conservation was not appointed. Any unbiased person who read Ritchie White’s resume and heard him speak as a lifetime forester with commitment to the protection of wildlife and habitat and board experiences, would have concluded he would have been a huge asset to the Town.

BOS Chair King spent majority of his time on a disrespectful witch hunt, trying to discredit applicants who were not recommend by the long-term homogenous insiders who control the RCC, including his wife. He repeatedly criticized a candidate for filing a Right to Know. He also repeatedly tried to imply that a well-respected builder and lifetime resident of Rye did not support its zoning laws.

The fact is the BOS and RCC do not follow common sense, best practices as recommended by the NH Municipal Association or other well-run towns. In Exeter, for example, conservation members can serve two three-year terms and then must sit out for a term unless there are no other qualified residents applying for the seat. They can still attend meetings and contribute. They just do not have a vote, ensuring that a small group of insiders cannot overly control the commission and its appointments.

Residents ask that the BOS utilize an attorney from the NHMA to get an unbiased opinion about implementing and following best practices, avoiding conflict of interests, and ensuring that well qualified residents have an opportunity to serve on the RCC. The town’s attorney is not that person as he is hired and compensated by the BOS. It is time to move away from what serves a few and do what is right for all residents of Rye.

Shawn Joyce

Rye

This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Bad healthcare, New Castle land deal, divisive concepts: Letters