Let's be pragmatic on health care

Having come from Australia where there is universal health care, and now an American citizen, it is astonishing to me that we don't have universal health care here.

As I hear the arguments for a universal health system pro and con, they are simply based on two opposed elements of political life in America and may be summed up as the "I am my brother's keeper" view for the pro and "independent self-reliance" for the con. The entire American political spectrum is based upon these polar opposites.

Those of us in the middle need to be pragmatic. Insurance reform will strengthen Medicare, give seniors more choices of doctors and help each and every American.

If we do nothing, costs will keep rising and the Medicare trust fund will be at risk of going bust within a decade.

JUNE FORSYTH

Durham

Strange diet at UNC

With the understanding that The Herald-Sun is doing its level best to keep the public informed when it comes to all matters, whether said issues be local, national or international in scope, I find recent details in the coverage of what is transpiring at UNC, in regards to the attempt of UNC's President Erskine Bowles to downsize administration costs, a little like reading from a Weight Watchers menu.

The Herald-Sun obviously reports faithfully what it has been given by the university press office. What is highly conspicuous by its absence, however, in "UNC president targets bloat," Herald-Sun, Sept. 3, and "Bowles: UNC system to cut up to 900 jobs," Herald-Sun, Sept. 1, and anything appearing in The News & Observer for that matter, is the omission of attention to how outrageously high salaries, pay increases and perks are handled for the very top -- for example, the car allowance of $1,000 a month for a UNC dean.

Bowles' idea of trimming the fat is the kind of diet only Jack Sprat's wife could enjoy.

JOHN RHODES

Efland

What's absurd?

Joseph Ballentine, in response to my letter of Aug. 21, characterizes it as containing "absurdities" (known outside the liberal brain as "facts"). Ballentine proves my point -- he makes no substantive argument on the issue at hand, health insurance reform.

And since he brought up "absurdities," let's examine just a few: "Absurd" is a president who seeks legislatively to destroy capitalism and nationalize approximately one-fifth of the U.S. economy. "Absurd" is a president who demonizes doctors and insurance companies, attempting to rapidly pass legislation before anyone has a chance to understand the contents of the bill.

"Absurd" is a lap-dog, sycophantic Democrat Congress, who would have voted in favor of the bill without ever having read it. "Absurd" is a president who not only associates with known communists and America-haters, but appoints them to positions in his administration. I could go on.

Ballentine's claim that Obama has "persisted in seeking bipartisan support" is laughable. He doesn't need Republican support; as Obama himself said: "We won."

Never mind that a Democrat's idea of bipartisanship is that Republicans surrender their principles and agree with whatever half-baked legislation Democrats have proposed.

Ballentine is correct in at least one assertion -- the tables have been turned. But they've been turned on an inexperienced, egomaniacal narcissist used to getting his way -- Barack Obama.

MIKE MUFFLER

Durham