State should seek

permanent housing

for homeless people

In 2003, the city of St. Louis created a 10-year plan to end homelessness. Six years later, unemployment is almost 10 percent in Missouri. Despite optimistic reports that the recession is over, the number of people experiencing homelessness continues to grow. Last week, Gov. Jay Nixon announced more budget cuts.

Included are cuts to Medicaid and community mental health programs. Ultimately, the budget cuts will cost state and municipal governments more as it engenders unemployment, homelessness and a greater demand for benefits and social services.

As a result, more Missourians will experience homelessness and be forced to access care by utilizing emergency services such as hospitals, shelters and jails. The New England Journal of Medicine found that a homeless person is hospitalized an average of four days longer than a non-homeless person, costing an extra $2,414 per hospitalization. This can make the financial cost of homelessness to society quite high.

The good news is that there is a cost-effective measure that reduces the use of emergency services by the homeless and offers a long-term solution to ending homelessness: the development of permanent supportive housing. By supporting the reauthorization of the McKinney-Vento Act and increasing funding streams for the Missouri Housing Trust Fund, the financial costs to the taxpayers will be less and fewer people will be living on the streets.

Andrea Gross — Kirkwood



Field losses

As campground hosts, we were very displeased with the handling of the financial crisis in the state Parks Department. A statement from the governor emphasized the desire to increase attendance at Missouri state parks. However, many state park employees were notified by letter that they may be relocated, demoted or laid off. Apparently, the State Park Advisory Board was not informed of this before it happened. It seems that the body that approves the fee structure and naming of parks should have had the opportunity to provide insight before such drastic measures were taken.

If a lack of funding is the reason, why were cuts made to several of the lowest-paid field employees instead of within the higher-paid central office staff?

Given that most job losses will occur at the field level, it is inconceivable how the park system can maintain its level of services to visitors.

This should have been a last resort.

We understand the financial crisis, but it is our wish that state parks reevaluate their processes to find a more equitable method of making ends meet.

William and Diane Borutta — Lake Ozark, Mo.



Ramifications of Roe

Ellen Goodman, in her commentary "In pursuit of happiness" (Oct. 30), fails to make a connection between what was hoped to be the great equalizer, the "right to choose," and a surprising decline in happiness among women. According to a recent study Ms. Goodman highlights, in 1972 "women were four points more likely than men to describe themselves as 'very happy.' Today they are one point less likely than men to check that box."

It should be no coincidence that the Holy Grail of feminism, Roe v Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, coincided with the beginning of this slide on the happiness barometer. Let's consider one of the seldom-mentioned byproducts of feminists' right to equal promiscuity: Men no longer have to commit to marriage. Women are reduced to objects of pleasure, making them feel used.

Ms. Goodman forgot to mention one of the major ramifications of sex without consequences: Men get off the hook for hooking up, while women are left unhappy.

Sandra Y. Smith — Des Peres



Put spending

in perspective

I was disconcerted last week by the Post-Dispatch's lack of coverage of the defense spending bill signed by President Barack Obama. As conservative members of Congress and the media express outrage at the size of the health care reform bill making its way through the House, examining the $680 billion military spending bill — and the associated opportunity costs of this spending — would have helped readers put the size of health care reform into perspective.

Despite national headlines touting the Obama administration's victory over the military lobby, the new $680 billion military spending bill for fiscal 2010 was a $26 billion increase from last year. In stark contrast to the ever-increasing military budget, the analysis of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that health care legislation proposed by House Democrats last week actually would reduce the federal budget deficit by $104 billion over 10 years.

It is stunning that our national priorities are so skewed by special interests that our government is willing to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in war without blinking an eye, yet many of those in power continually block cost-effective measures that would provide health care to Americans.

Zoran Tasic — St. Louis



Medicare for all

The free-market economy has brought jobs and prosperity to America and will again.

A smaller, efficient government that adequately regulates business to prevent excessiveness will put us on track to a healthy economy.

But in health care, the free-market model works terribly. The proof is that private, for-profit insurers won't insure all Americans. Insuring sickness is expensive and decreases profits and income of insurers, the opposite of the for-profit business model. The only model that can work for health care is non-profit.

Medicare is a prime example of a successful model. It is efficient, popular and high-quality and it is one government program that has worked well, unlike many others.

But it's expensive because it insures the sickest people — seniors over 65. It needs a larger pool of healthier people to spread the risk. This can be accomplished by expanding Medicare to the 270 million Americans under 65. This would lower costs — premiums to a level much lower than the premiums we pay to private insurers.

Conservative economists have proven these costs to be attainable. One such proposal, HR 676, improved Medicare for All, would include dental, drugs and long-term care, would have deductibles and would not increase taxes on the middle class. There would be no insurers between patient and doctor. Government would finance but not provide health care.

Let the for-profit, free-market model work for industry and bring America prosperity and jobs, but let health care work where it works best: with a non-profit model, Medicare for All.

Robert Recht — Creve Coeur



A lesson from Madoff

The health care reform bill authors have taken a good lesson from Bernie Madoff. Everything in sight — from pacemakers to artificial knees to medical supplies — will be taxed, starting immediately. However, the benefits will start in three years and will be in effect for only the last seven of the bill's 10 years.

So, for the first decade the system will be revenue neutral (they claim). But for the second decade, it will run at a 30 percent deficit.

What a scheme. The people who brought us this "wonderful program" will be long gone, and the taxpayers will be left holding the bag. Our leaders have learned very well from Madoff. This is voodoo accounting.

This kind of reform we cannot afford.

Alfred Rosenfeld — Creve Coeur