Letters for November 7, 2019

Numbers guy

Do the math: Existing health care system minus CEOs, lobbyists, complex paperwork, etc., equals less overall costs. Hugely less. How the remaining cost of the system is distributed is the only remaining point of any rational discussion. Which is why Republicans are changing their argument to: “There are lots of folks who like their existing plans who will not tolerate the change.” Again, do the math. Why do those folks like their current plans? Because they have small or zero out-of-pocket expenses with all their health care needs being met. This is the definition of universal health care. It guarantees that everyone gets those premier plans, not just the lucky few. Republicans also toss in the “people want to keep their existing doctor” argument. Again, do the math. It would make little sense to move people from their existing doctors when every other doctor will already be plenty busy with their own existing and new patients. Republicans want to keep people scared and irrational. Universal health care means everyone gets premier coverage and the doctors aren't going anywhere. The only losers will be the insurance industry and any other industry that looks to make a profit by denying or cutting back on your coverage. I currently have excellent insurance (lucky me), and I'm not afraid of this change.

Michel Rottmann

Virginia City Highlands

Scientific observer

Re “Food for thought” (Left foot forward, Oct. 31):

In the November 2019 issue of Scientific American, an article entitled “The Inescapable Casino,” presents a strictly mathematical model based upon individual transactions between two “agents” or actors who decide to exchange goods, agree on a price and shake hands on the deal; i.e., a model for the most fundamental transaction that occurs in a free market economy. In the simplest of the Scientific American article's models, called a yard sale model, wealth moves inexorably from one agent to another producing a concentration of wealth in an oligarchy. Subsequently, the article describes enhancements to the basic yard sale model, identified as the affine wealth model, which under appropriate conditions reproduces distributions of wealth corresponding to those observed in recent years for the United States and various European countries. The Scientific American article ends with the conclusion that “the affine wealth model gives rise to economies that are anything but free and fair.” I encourage everyone to read the Scientific American article, recognizing that its conclusions rely only on a strictly mathematical modeling of a free market economy and in no way rely on political forces such as those described in Ms. Leslie's article. Since, as established in the Scientific American article, in an uncontrolled free market economy moves wealth inexorably from one agent to another thereby concentrating wealth in an oligarchy, I pray that citizens of the United States will consider that fact in casting their vote in the November 2020 election. Regretfully, I am unable to find any way to attach a copy of the Scientific American article to this email. I strongly encourage the Reno News & Review to contact the publisher of the Scientific American requesting permission from the publisher to post a copy of the article at the RN&R's website.

Donald Schreiber

Kings Beach

The old days

Re “Fan mail” (Letters to the editor, Oct. 31):

Mike spoke about Trump with some jabbing to the Trump haters. People hate him, because they are pushed to hate him via the press in general. Why? The press today is not the press I knew when I was a young man. I am now 75 years old going on death. Today, we actually have too much press, which causes high competition for customers. They will not get much attention if they say anything good about Trump. So, they try to out-do each other with silly stories and falsehoods. I long for Walter Cronkite's reporting. I clearly recall with my withered brain the evening Walter Cronkite said on the air on my Dad's black and white TV that it was time to get out of Vietnam! The deep state—yes, even 60 years ago—attacked him. But his truth was exposing the fact that America was losing tens of thousands of military men and women to protect our Democracy; yet we were fighting to keep a dictator in power along with his wealthy generals. In the case of Trump's popularity, he is difficult to love because he tells the truth: The deep state, insane Democrats (I used to be one, before they became corrupt money grabbers from the rich) endless wars, bloated government agencies, and so on. I will vote for him again. And, yes, he will be elevated by the impeachment thing. (I do not even like peaches.)

Charles Wayne Barnum