Letters to the Editor

Letters to the editor: Jan. 5, 2008

Praise for the CFC

I too was judgmental of Casey and Wendy Treat encroaching on our turf here in Federal Way. Why did they need to build a mega-church rather than use their existing facilities...why tear down beautiful, forested land?

However, my husband and I went to one of their recent services, and low and behold, we have decided to become regulars! They are doing wonderful work here in the community.

Our country is continuously barraged with so many problems — family killings, horrible abuse, drug issues, and on and on it goes. Just look at all the people who are struggling in life, seeking answers to their issues. If the Christian Faith Center can help lead people in the right direction, so be it!

Why should we be against this? I dare those who have been against the Christian Faith Center to go check them out. You may walk away a totally different person.

Lila Knox, Federal Way


ACLU’s true stances

The recent commentary by Angie Vogt (“Don’t claim that America is a secular nation,” Dec. 15) contains the rather blatant misstatement that the “ACLU is a huge contributor to the Democratic Party.” In reality, the American Civil Liberties Union is strictly nonpartisan and gives no money to any political party. It does not even endorse candidates for elective office.

This is a matter of organizational policy, coming from the ACLU’s mission of defending the Bill of Rights. We recognize that, sadly, violations of rights have come from officials of many political stripes. The old adage that “Power corrupts” too often holds true.

The organization has a long history of defending the civil liberties of individuals regardless of their political affiliations. At various times, the ACLU has stood up for the rights of communists and anarchists, as well as Oliver North, Rush Limbaugh

and Pat Robertson. The ACLU recently ran no-punches-pulled ads in the home districts of Democrats Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, portraying them as sheep for their timidity in challenging Bush administration policies on torture and warrantless surveillance.

To learn more about the ACLU’s actual stances, check out www.aclu.org.

Doug Honig, Communications director, ACLU of Washington


Not for the faint of heart

Angie Vogt’s column “U.S. soldiers witness another side of peace” (Dec. 29) was a good dose of medicine for the faint of heart masquerading as patriotic advocates for peace.

These same people often claim they support our troops but can’t really explain how. They are caught up in their own specious reasoning. Every thinking person wants peace, so that’s a no-brainer. Who doesn’t? To stand on a street corner bashing President Bush, and demonstrating for peace in a safe environment, is an empty gesture compared to those who put their lives on the line to create the conditions which allow others to live in peace.

The contrast is profound and gut wrenching for those in the military and their families. The self-righteous protestors find it inconvenient and uncomfortable to acknowledge the danger their country faces and the response necessary to confront it. They seem to view the conflict with our enemies abstractly. This permits them to claim they support the troops without committing to the means necessary for their success. How pitiful. The faint of heart have never won peace on Earth. The rest of us know who does. That’s a no-brainer too.

Don Payne, Federal Way


More on Medicare

Medicare beneficiaries here and across the country should be aware of the “therapy cap” that went into effect on Jan. 1, 2007. Under these arbitrary financial restrictions, Medicare will cover the first $1,780 for occupational therapy services.

If a patient exceeds the limit, their physical therapist can apply to Medicare for an exception — but this option is only authorized through 2007. The patient may face a difficult decision of forgoing care, paying out of pocket or traveling to an outpatient hospital for continued care if an exception is not granted.

As a physical therapist, I know for a patient recovering from a stroke, dealing with a chronic impairment or coping with more than one injury during the year, that $1,780 is an inadequate and unfair limitation to impose on their Medicare coverage.

In the past, Congress has recognized the potential harm the therapy caps case and has voted several times to keep the caps from going into effect. In December, they voted to let the therapy caps go into effect but will allow Medicare to make exceptions for beneficiaries needing additional medically necessary care — but only through 2007. The exceptions are a short-term fix to this policy problem. Congress should repeal the therapy caps and not place arbitrary limits on rehabilitation services. A bill in Congress, The Medicare Access to Rehabilitation Services Act (HR 748/S 450), would do just that.

Medicare beneficiaries, their loved ones and the physical therapists that provide their care should let our U.S. representatives and U.S. senators know how important it is for them to co-sponsor and pass the repeal of the therapy caps to provide a long-term solution to this short-sighted therapy cap policy.

-- Jim Fuller, Physical therapist and owner of The Clinic at The Woodmark in Federal Way

We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Read the Oct 21
Green Edition

Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.

Browse the archives.

Friends to Follow

View All Updates