Linn land and a pig in a dress

Sunday’s headline, “Linn has 175 acres for you” (Sept. 23), was well worth its front page position. It appears to me that the county commissioners are trying to put a good spin on what was a bad decision to begin with. Their negotiations for a Renaissance faire seem to have been predicated on the “if you build it, they will come” premise.

Now that they are not coming, there seems to be a scramble to justify borrowing reserve funds to buy a piece of property that is not suited for a county park without extensive investment. Nor is the property viable for commercial development. Beyond the fact that it is not properly zoned for commercial development, it is also too far from a developed infrastructure to make commercial development attractive.

Even if the property is developed into a county park, how will it generate enough revenue to service the loan debt? I just do not understand how such an irresponsible use of county funds can be justified in the current economy. I would much rather hear the county commissioners step up to the plate and admit that they blew it. After all, if you put a pig in a dress, it is still a pig.

Kenneth R. England, Sweet Home

Give parents support, not blame

Who is Robin Givhan to sit in judgment of parents (“Toward a Tyranny of Children,” Sept 23)? She is a fashion editor for the Washington Post. She writes about the speed with which some parents “malign the parenting skills of others.” Yet she has no compunction about publicly maligning the parenting skills of parents “in a certain demographic” for being what she, a fashion editor, considers “overprotective.”

One person’s “overprotective” is another persons “being a responsible parent.” There are many ways of parenting in our culture, and each family has unique challenges, values and goals. When children are abused or fail to thrive, then we must act to protect them. When some children act out too much in school, then we offer parents help. But it is way past time to stop blaming parents for having a different approach to parenting than one’s own.

Givhan admits that “parents are in a difficult position as they navigate popular culture and try to keep their children from being prematurely exposed to sex and violence.” Then she complains that some parents are trying to get airlines to edit the films they show to passengers that include all ages of children.

I have been appalled at the explicit nature of some of the films shown during flights, when there is no way to keep the children from viewing them, and no warning given to passengers when they book their seats. Thousands of research studies make it very clear that such exposure has negative impacts for many children, not simply nightmares.

Givhan cites the “Supernanny” television program as if it provided expert advice, and deploring the practice of negotiating with toddlers. She speaks as if the desperate and dysfunctional families shown on that show are somehow common. They are not. In a typical family, negotiating with toddlers in certain circumstances is a very wise technique for enlisting children’s cooperation. It is part of a parenting style that has been shown by many years of research to have the best outcomes for children. This parenting style emphasizes setting firm, age-appropriate limits, providing plenty of nurturing attention, and being respectful of children’s feelings and ideas.

Let us refrain from sitting in judgment of parents. Child-rearing in today’s popular culture, and often with no extended family around to help, is very difficult. All parents love their children and are doing the best they can with the information and resources they have, with the challenges their children present, and within their own skills, values, and goals. Therefore there is a great variety in parenting approaches.

Parents deserve our respect, accurate information, and support — not blame!

Rachel Ozretich, Corvallis

The writer is a certified family life educator in Corvallis.

Medicare has not kept up

The fact that Medicare is in financial trouble and that “the problem could get a whole lot worse” (front page article, Sept. 23) should not be a surprise to anyone.

Enacted in the mid 1960s, Medicare policies have not evolved to meet the challenges of generational changes and the complex medico-economic demands of our society. A large portion of its budget is spent on specialty care to support heroic measures at the end of life, giving more financial incentives to providers based on “fee-for-services,” rather than to more true value-based preventive and primary care.

This year, Oregon politicians had the opportunity to step up to the challenge and advance new approaches and demonstration projects that may make Medicare more sustainable for current and future generations. But, under the pressure of various interest groups, they failed to give the Archimedes Movement (WeCanDoBetter.org) such a chance. Citizens should continue to work for effective changes by raising their voices with the newly formed Oregon Health Fund Board (www.HopeforaHealthyOregon.com).

For good reasons, many believe that a “Medicare-for-All” should be part of fixing our derailed healthcare system. With good leadership and political will, the shortcomings of the Medicare system are correctable. Given the trend of ever-decreasing employment-based health insurance and the deceptive practices of many for-profit insurance companies, Medicare remains the only relatively safe health care safety net for current seniors and retiring baby-boomers. We can’t afford to let it fail us.

Chinh Le, Corvallis

Access to care has become worse

Recently I heard a psychiatrist say he ends up practicing general medicine again sometimes lately because he can’t find a primary care provider for some of his patients. Amazing, since for years in Oregon the problem has been finding a psychiatrist to see patients with severe mental health problems.

For years, patients with severe depression or anxiety — bad enough to limit their ability to work, ruin relationships, lose jobs — all of these have been managed by primary care physicians with little training in handling such problems. Some family doctors in our area have become effective mental health specialists in the process, to their great credit.

In the last six years, this problem of access to mental health has become steadily worse. Our public mental health system now deals only with people who have the most severe mental illnesses, such schizophrenia and the most severe versions of bipolar disorder. Even if a patient is completely disabled by symptoms, if she or he is not suicidal or psychotic, help may not be available.

But if now even primary care services are beginning to become similarly scarce, perhaps our legislators will feel more pressure to create change. When even the rich cannot find the medical care they want, even if they can pay for it, perhaps then we will create a fairer health care system. I will try not to feel bitter knowing this was not possible when only the poor and the mentally ill were so profoundly underserved.

James Phelps, M.D., Corvallis