Letters: Fear-mongering on Trump, opioids, spending, organ donations
Our government has been building fences along the Mexican border for 20 years, we even have something called the “Border Patrol.”
Why suddenly is it front-page news? All you Trump protesters we read about every day, don’t you realize that you’re as closed-minded as the racist idiots who thought the world was going to end when we elected a black president?
Actually, you may be worse, I don’t recall hearing about violent protests and riots when Obama won.
Why is it so wrong to do a background check on potential immigrants, from all countries? Maybe we could not only keep out some terrorists, but rapists, murderers, drug dealers, and pedophiles as well. Why is that a bad thing?
People who hate Trump don’t seem to understand that he was elected president, not king. We are a democracy designed to prevent one man from having absolute power, so why all the fear mongering? Trump may be an idiot, but he’s a genius in comparison to George W., and we survived that, twice.
How is it possible for illegal immigrants to think they deserve free or discounted college tuition? If they are dumb enough to say that, do they actually belong in college? Last month, Yalies were rallying for a free Ivy League education for 10,000 Syrian immigrants.
Let that soak for a minute. Is there any group of people more out of touch with reality than wealthy teenagers? I think not.
Dave Cerrito Branford
Congratulations on your editorial.
My parents emigrated from Italy in the mid-’30s, shortly before I was born. I have always been a patriotic American, and I am horrified by the recent national campaign against immigrants. Immigrants made America.
Your editorial makes me proud to live in New Haven, a city that has welcomed immigrants throughout its history and that has stood up as a sanctuary city.
— Jane Jervis New Haven
What next? The latest scheme to raise tax revenues is to make gun ownership unaffordable for the average person.
Three-hundred seventy dollars to renew your permit every five years, are you kidding me?
The irony is that our illustrious governor, already so unpopular that he will likely not run again, is now extracting the new fee from the people whom he purports to be always “fighting for.”
Well, the lower-income folks are the ones that will find this a very difficult burden to bear. It is, after all, the low-income residents in the inner cities that are most exposed to violent crime. People who need guns the most will be denied the exercise of their Second Amendment rights and become ready defenseless victims for thugs who see them as easy marks.
This sounds to me like tactics that Southern Democrats might have used in segregation days to keep minorities from fending off the likes of the Ku Klux Klan.
Placing regulatory burdens on gun ownership is bad enough but to try to price citizens out of their constitutional rights is over the top. Economics are also at work here. The sin tax on cigarettes was partially to raise revenue while reducing consumption. Getting the picture? The difference is that constitutional rights should never be a subject for sin taxes.
Connecticut, according to a recent study by the Yankee Institute, is rated dead last amongst all states in financial management. The new taxes will only raise a measly $9 million, a drop in the bucket. It’s generally accepted that the higher the tax, often revenue falls, so don’t ever believe $9 million. It is little wonder that moving vans that leave Connecticut generally return empty.
Gov. Malloy, stop the new fees and taxes and start containing the out-of-line spending. Stop unnecessary services. Get the state employees’ pay and benefits equal to private jobs and stop dreaming up new fees and taxes.
Don Hutchinson Milford
More than 1,500 Connecticut residents are currently waiting for a donated organ, and the demand is growing quickly. This process can be long and agonizing. Many will die on the waiting list. Yet, this problem is entirely avoidable. We can easily increase the availability of donated organs.
I have proposed a bill, SB 750, An Act Concerning Organ Donation, that would change our state’s policy on organ donation so that all citizens can become donors upon their death unless they join an official registry to “opt-out.”
Connecticut has an “opt-in” donation policy, meaning only those who have given explicit consent are donors. This policy results in a small percentage of citizens who donate their organs at the time of death, even though polls show that over 90 percent of those surveyed say that they would be willing to donate their organs when they die.
Over 30 countries around the world, including 24 European nations, have “presumed consent” or “opt-out” policies, resulting in very high organ donation rates.
Connecticut can lead the way — and save lives — with an easier and more compassionate organ donation policy.
— Ted Kennedy Jr. Branford
(Editor’s note: Kennedy is a health care lawyer, 12th District Democratic state senator and vice chairman of the Public Health Committee.)
Gov. Malloy is proposing another new round of regulations to reduce the scourge of opiate addiction in Connecticut.
Unfortunately, the burden of these rules falls on prescribers and not on the people with addictions.
Less than one year ago, the state of Connecticut enacted a series of rules governing how physicians prescribe control substances.
Now the governor wants to further micromanage physician practices by requiring electronic-prescribing of opiates and special counseling to patients about the addictive nature of opiates.
The message being sent by the governor is that doctors don’t know what they are doing and patients are too stupid to realize that opiate medications are potentially addictive.
These new regulations will further encourage doctors to shun patients with chronic pain and treat patients with addiction like pariahs rather than people suffering from an illness.
If the governor would like to seriously address the problem of addiction in our state he should be encouraging more doctors to treat patients with addiction rather than adding increased regulatory burdens on physicians.
Primary care offices are an ideal setting to treat patients with addiction. Physicians who complete a short course and obtain a waiver can prescribe buprenorphine to patients suffering from opiate addiction.
This medication, along with therapy, can help patients overcome addiction and lead productive lives.
Limiting access to prescription opiates will not cure addiction. It will simply drive addicted patients from pills to heroin. In recent years overdose deaths from prescription medications have leveled off with better controls, but heroin deaths are on the rise.
I applaud the fact that the governor is concerned about the problem of addiction, but his focus should be on expanding treatment options rather than making it more difficult for physicians to practice medicine.
— Frank J. Mongillo III, M.D. New Haven