Nunes and Janz ads | Letters to the editor, Oct. 9, 2018

Review of political ads tells all

Devin Nunes has had eight terms. What do we have to show for it? Nunes’ recent campaign ads are instructive. First he distracted with something not under his authority, the CA gas tax. Then came multiple stunningly false allegations against his very strong challenger, prosecutor Andrew Janz.

Notably, he fails to share his own accomplishments. What has he actually done to improve our water situation besides blaming “radical left-wing environmentalists” ad nauseum? The lazy blame game gets old. At the end of the day, one gets the impression that Devin prefers schmoozing with D.C. elites than rolling up his sleeves to work for us back home.

Sadly, Devin runs defense for Donald Trump instead of carrying out his mandate to perform checks and balances on the executive branch. He shows his disdain for his constituents by refusing to hold town halls, sending snarky letters to concerned citizens and using hyperbolic name-calling to describe any and all Democrats.

Andrew Janz is an effective local (deputy) D.A, praised by his boss Lisa Smittcamp. He has a full roster of realistic, well-thought out positions for review on his campaign website. For once, we have an excellent choice for the Valley in Andrew Janz.

Homelessness and police service

I am responding to Eduardo Martinez’s letter (Sept. 21), “Homelessness should be a crime.”Reading this article, I have mixed feelings about what should be done. Homelessness is an ongoing issue and growing in the United States. I agree that some individuals out on the street cause multiple incidents with the Fresno Police Department, resulting in arrests being made. I have a problem with how Eduardo contradicts himself by stating “the police should not be used to tackle the issue of homelessness, that’s not their job.” Later in the article he states “if they’re drunk or on drugs, the police must be present for protection.” I feel that doesn’t add up. The Fresno Police Department is hired “To protect and serve” and certain situations shouldn’t be off limits.

Hospital care needs to be explained

Ms. Barbara Anderson’s Sept. 20 article about the petition filed with the Supreme Court that would allow self-paying patients to contest their hospital bills highlights an important issue: People are often kept in the dark about the prices of treatment until after treatment has occurred.

This is unconscionable, as healthcare prices for the same procedure can vary widely. In one study published in JAMA found that “variation [in charges for a lower back MRI] ranged from $255 to a self-pay price of $6,221 at an academic medical center” (Aliferis, 2015).

People have a right to know how much they will be charged for a service and this information should be easily searchible before service is rendered. While some hospital visits are emergencies in which a patient may be incapacitated or may not have the time to shop around, according to a 2013 study, approximately 37 percent of visits to the emergency department (ED) are non-urgent (Uscher-Pines, et al., 2013). In these instances, patients would benefit from knowing how much a given hospital will charge them. We must end the secrecy and allow patients to make informed financial decisions about their healthcare.

Act now to slow global warming

In regards to the editorial “Pro: It’s time to make cars great again, and Trump plan does just that” by Steve Milloy:

In order to combat global warming, we must start looking toward the future and planning accordingly. The author states that current auto emission standards of 35 mpg are fine,and Obama’s planned emission standards of 55 mpg are not technologically attainable, therefore they should be rolled back.

A major reason behind Obama’s higher standards were to drive the auto industry (no pun intended) to produce vehicles with better fuel efficiency. There is no one clear solution to global warming; therefore, we must make incremental changes everywhere. The author drops a “0.08 percentage difference” between to two emission standards in regards to CO2 levels. A small percentage here and there can and do add up to a significant difference. Its all about the mindset for the future. Obama’s standard says that climate change is real and a problem that we are at least trying to address; the new standard proposed by Trump’s EPA boils down to “the economic market will solve global warming”. Unfortunately, the market takes a long time, which we are currently lacking.