I find it rather interesting that The Blade would refer to the recent passing of a law to allow loaded firearms in national parks as an action by the National Rifle Association to promote and support a particular law "just because it can."
That's a pretty liberalistic view for a newspaper that can't seem to find anything wrong with the American Civil Liberties Union supporting the rights of criminals over the need for compassion for their victims.
It seems to me the ACLU gets its nose into quite a few issues that I don't recall any particular group looking for help to resolve. Label them with the moniker of "just because I can."
I have been in the wilderness both in the United States and in Canada and I have felt very vulnerable when all I had around me for a weapon was a stick or a knife. I support the recent law because I can now be in these areas and feel some comfort in knowing I could reasonably defend myself against a bear or mountain lion attack.
Why does The Blade have to assume the carrying of a loaded gun in the park is solely to defend oneself against attack by a human being? This is another case of gun-control prejudice.
It is likely that part of the federal government's plans for health-care reform will include investing in prevention and disease management. And rightly so, as this not only helps to saves lives, but also avoids future health care costs.
Unfortunately, many federal proposals with potential long-term savings are disregarded because of shortsighted evaluations from the Congressional Budget Office.
This problem has long been overlooked. But a recently released white paper explains how to improve budgetary analysis for policy makers.
As president of the Ohio Osteopathic Association, I am pleased to see that this paper, from the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, includes suggestions to change the CBO's current scoring windows to capture the long-term value of programs aimed at wellness and prevention.
The fate of reform may rest on how much a proposed policy will increase, or decrease, federal spending.
That's why it is imperative that we consider the long-term impacts of any health reform proposal. Chronic diseases account for 75 percent of the $2 trillion we spend on health care annually.
Furthermore, the rapid growth in common and costly chronic health conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease, and obesity, could cripple our economy.
An ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure. Too much is at stake for policymakers to base their decisions on shortsighted budget information.
I encourage policy makers to improve the CBO's scoring methods.
dr. Barbara A. Bennett
Ohio Osteopathic Association,