Dialysis act is flawed
The Dialysis Patients Demonstration Act attempts to remove patients’ choices. All patients should have a choice in their dialysis providers. There is no reason for patients to be involuntarily enrolled into an organization and then be required to opt-out within a specific block of time, in order to preserve their freedom of choice. This puts an unnecessary burden on the patient.
In addition, this model should include chronic kidney disease care, palliative, transplantation, medical management and hospice. Unfortunately, this act covers none of those critical services and requires a patient to leave the organization if that care is needed. Patients risk being abandoned by their expanded care teams at critical times.
I have worked with dialysis patients for the past 29 years and one thing remains constant for the character of every patient, they want to be heard and be a part of their care. Dialysis patients are already receiving an end of life treatment and by forcing them to leave their facilities potentially strips them from having a say in their care. Society is failing dialysis patients if this bill passes, therefore I oppose the DPDA!
Based on these concerns, please oppose the Dialysis Patients Demonstration Act.
Lori S. Peters,
Follow the rules
I must offer a rebuttal to Mr. Pitt’s column on tear gas. Lots of professions have rules they must follow. Lawyers, for example, are subject to a rule that requires them to bring to the court’s attention any legal authority known that is directly adverse to the client’s position. Other than the AP Stylebook and defamation laws, it seems Journalists, on the other hand, are free to do as they please.
Reading Mr. Pitts’ column, we are left with the impression that President Trump is waging chemical warfare on children. Were Mr. Pitts making this argument in court, he would have to point out that use of tear gas is not a violation of U.S. or international law when used for law enforcement, which includes crowd control. Further, he would have been required to tell the court that tear gas was used at the border at least 56 times during the Obama administration. Pepper spray was used much more often. Finally, he would have to distinguish who among the many are the few truly legitimate seekers of asylum.
But that does not fit his narrative. Nor does it fit his narrative to discuss why parents have their children in a mob of folks throwing stuff at the Border Patrol.
I appreciate both the desperation and the hope that brings people to the southern border. In response Mr. Pitts pleads for us to save and rebuild the world. But until the Department of Transportation extends Interstates 25 and 35 across Mexico to Guatemala, there is a border in place and there are rules.
Paper’s opinion has changed
There was a time when the Ledger-Enquirer had journalists who were capable of balanced, thoughtful well-researched editorials and opinion pieces. I did not always agree with them, but their integrity made me respect newspaper people such as Billy Winn and Richard Hiatt.
The editorial page has always had columns from other newspapers and well-known columnists, but I find that the present Ledger-Enquirer has a biased preference for The Washington Post and other such liberal newspapers.
Occasionally, there will be a column by a conservative journalist, but I suspect that it was simply an accident. The bias exhibited by the Ledger-Enquirer is both blatant and tasteless. The real Ledger-Enquirer has been replaced by a left-leaning one cobbled together by group of braying liberals.