Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Profit-driven healthcare is the problem
Re: “Dropping essential hospital services harms East San Jose” (Page A6, March 13).
Thank you, Dr. Kapur, for your insightful piece. I remember when the response from HCA Healthcare in the early 2000s to our call to keep San Jose Medical Center and its trauma center open was, “Don’t worry — we are building a new hospital and trauma center at Regional Medical Center.” Now, 20 years later, HCA is abandoning RMC.
This is the result of profit-seeking corporations’ takeover of most of our health care system during recent decades. Health care should be run by caregivers dedicated to the mission of healing people and serving the public, not by profiteers and their agents.
A good start to creating such a system is “single payer” legislation at the state and federal level. San Jose Assemblymember Ash Kalra recently introduced CalCare AB 2200, which would go a long way toward curbing the profiteering and establishing a rational, cost-effective system that serves everybody, rich and poor, well.
John MillerSan Jose
MHUSD should findways to forestall cuts
As a concerned Morgan Hill Unified School District parent and on behalf of other Morgan Hill families, I write to express my objection to the proposed budget cuts that threaten the very foundation of our schools.
Our children’s future hangs in the balance, and we implore the boardto reconsider. We have collectively started a petition advocating for the following: Student impact — the proposed cuts directly affect our children’s education and jeopardize the quality of learning and student well-being. Teacher hardships — our dedicated teachers and staff face uncertainty about their jobs and livelihoods, and their commitment to our students should not be overshadowed by financial constraints. High compensation — we believe that the district should consider other avenues for cost savings, such as reducing high compensation for certain district staff.
Additionally, we would like to have more transparency on the budget decisions through an independent auditor who can guide us through potential missteps on managing the one-time COVID fund.
Anahita YazdiMorgan Hill
Ranked-choice votinginspires broad appeal
Re: “Garvey’s win marks loss for election reform” (Page A6, March 14).
Marcela Miranda-Caballero and David Daley’s commentary on ranked-choice voting hit the nail on the head. Ranked-choice voting, whether tallied with instant runoff voting or Condorcet (which is a round-robin of all candidates) are well-known methods to empower voters to select the leaders they actually want, without worrying that they will create “spoilers.”
In addition, ranked-choice voting rewards candidates who have the broadest appeal across the political spectrum, and rejects those at the fringes. Contrast this to primary election systems that increasingly favor those who meet “party purity,” who most vocally attack the opposition, and who refuse to work with others once they are in office, resulting in political gridlock.
Strengthen the power of everyone’s vote by encouraging the use of ranked-choice voting at every level of government, from the school board to the presidency.
Scott StanfordMountain View
BART cost increaseswarrant audit, vote
I recently found some data on the BART extension to San Jose that is highly relevant to the debate about the project.
Estimates for cost and completion of the BART extension: 2014 — $4.7 billion, 2026; 2020 — $6.9 billion, 2030; 2022 — $9.3 billion, 2033; 2023 — $12.2 billion, 2036; 2024 — $12.8 billion, 2037. The project has yet to break ground.
The taxpayers should demand a top-to-bottom review of the entire project including an analysis of the projected ridership, the projected operating costs including equipment replacement and upgrading over the projected life of the project, the expected shortfall between fare box revenues and the actual costs and expected sources of the funds to make up for the shortfall. This review should be completed and submitted to the voters for their approval before further expenditures are authorized and ground is broken.
Ray GirouardAtherton
Trump candidacy isbuilt on weakness
Re: “The Rematch” (Page A1, March 14).
Related Articles
Oakland leadership | Navigating VA | Horror of conflict
Letters: Remake education | College elitism | Follow Oregon | ‘Barbie’ at Oscars | Biden’s speech | Everyday acts
Letters: Runaway rates | Rent control | Mosquito abatement | Hurting democracy | Third-party vote
Letters: Protect the birds | Continued service | Reversed casualties | Trump precursor | Anyone else | Climate solution
Letters: Lee’s legacy | Let go of landlines | Support for teachers | Calling out Trump | Firing employees
Donald Trump is — inexplicably — the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential candidate. I’m stumped as to his qualifications for that (or any other) public office.
Of his notable political strengths, he is first and foremost a habitual — but evidently convincing — liar. Of course, he has years of practice. The truth doesn’t sway him; he has mastered obfuscation. Trump excels also at character assassination, ridiculing his critics almost daily. He envies dictators for their authoritarian powers — not what should be desired of our elected presidents (who are customarily expected to “preside”).
Trump is exceptionally adept too at braggadocio, e.g., about his unrivaled business acumen. His multiple past bankruptcy filings, recently proven fraudulent net worth and tax accounting, and impending massive court-adjudicated reparation payments must have just been bad luck. Perhaps his most bizarre claim is total immunity from prosecution in those pending criminal trials.
Never, ever Trump.
Jerry MeyerSan Jose