Corvallis is home to ‘houseless’ people

I object to Curly Finster’s implication (Letters, Aug. 5, “Put homeless camp out by the airport”) that most or all of the homeless in Corvallis are thieves with no connection to the community. From my own experience, I know that honesty and integrity have very little to do with one’s residential status or economic standing. I also know a number of homeless people who were born and/or raised right here in Corvallis, and many more who have lived here for decades. Some have family, most have friends and support networks just like the rest of us.

What’s more, it might surprise Mr. Finster to learn that many homeless people work — some intermittently, some full time. Isolating these people in a camp in the ’burbs with no means of transportation, no means to eke out some kind of living and no access to social services, just so they would not “offend the senses” of some of the more delicate members of the community, is something that I hope would be beneath the city to even consider.

Whatever the city eventually decides to do about this issue, however, I think it’s way past time to end this silly cat-and-mouse game in which the police root out homeless people for “illegal camping” in one location only to have them — surprise — reappear somewhere else. These efforts have always failed, and they always will because, believe it or not, there are “houseless” people in the city who consider Corvallis their home.

Don L. Parker, Corvallis

‘Global cooling’ was never proven threat

Pat Burrell’s Aug. 7 letter, “Global warming a scam,” cites that 30 years ago, “climate cooling” was a scientific consensus. Yes, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and other climate change deniers cite this falsehood continually and maybe Pat picked up this myth from them.

Hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate surveyed from 1965 to 1979 reveal that only seven papers supported global cooling; that global cooling was never scientific consensus — not even close — even though a news magazine, Newsweek, ran a cover on it.

Bold assertions need proof, and repetition is not proof. Even President Johnson was warned about climate change and warming from fossil fuels — 43 years ago!

Republicans in the House are holding a “drill here, drill now” party (the newest scam). I dare Pat Burrell and other climate deniers to ask those politicians five simple questions:

Would you support raising mpg in cars to 50 mpg by 2012? Would you vote to end all tax subsidies, tax credits and tax loopholes for all oil companies immediately? Would you impose a $25 per ton tax on coal with the funds going to wind energy, ensuring that 25 percent of all electricity is generated by the wind by 2020? Would you support a bullet train system across the urban centers of the United States by 2020? Would you support a $5,000 tax credit for hybrid car purchases and a $5,000 tax credit for home solar panels starting immediately?

Enough with fantasies about climate cooling. Let’s discuss solutions.

John F. Borowski, Philomath

Single-payer plan a needed change

A recent report in the Annals of Internal Medicine states that about 11.4 million Americans with chronic illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes or asthma lack health insurance, causing many of them to delay or forgo needed medical care.

The authors say that under our for-profit private health insurance arrangements, access to care for people in this situation often “seems to be unobtainable.” As a result, their treatable conditions go untreated and “many may face early disability and death as a result.”

These findings dovetail with an Institute of Medicine study that estimates 18,000 Americans die each year because they lack health insurance.

Private insurers profit by enrolling the healthy, screening out the sick and denying claims. They burden us with wasteful administrative costs, including over-the-top executive salaries. We simply can’t afford this fragmented, inefficient system anymore.

What is needed is an improved and expanded “Medicare-for-all,” a single-payer national health insurance program — where care is publicly financed but privately delivered.

Such programs have a proven track record of delivering better-quality, comprehensive care to everyone at lower cost.

It was Medicare, for example, that paid for Sen. Edward Kennedy’s superb treatment for brain cancer.

The U.S. National Health Insurance Act, H.R. 676, would enact such a program.

As a physician, I want to provide the highest-quality care to all my patients. We should adopt such an approach without delay.

Elizabeth Waldron, M.D., Corvallis

Seniors: Too busy to hang around center?

The Corvallis City Council put a $13.6 million bond measure on the November ballot to replace the current senior center with a larger senior center and make some improvements to two parks. However, Corvallis does not need a larger senior center.

Using the 2007 Corvallis Citizen Attitude Survey, population data from the Portland State University Population Research Center, and the population forecast from the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis, Department of Administrative Services, I conclude the probability of Corvallis needing a larger senior center at this time is very small.

The population of people between 55 and 65 has been noticeably growing in Corvallis. However, the number of people over 65 has been growing very slowly. Future growth appears to stabilize around 2020.

Will the people in the “new” prime of life — 55 to 65 — use the senior center? Will the people over 65 use the senior center in the future? According to the popular press, the new crop of seniors, if they retire, will be busy self-actualizing. And, speaking as a senior, I am much too busy to hang around the senior center.

A larger senior center is not needed at this time and would be a waste of money. For details, see www.peak.org/~detweij.

If we must spend money, maintaining roads would be a better investment.

John H. Detweiler, Corvallis