Writers weigh in on healthcare measure, Pacific University fundraising campaign, shooter identity following tragedy

Support Measure 101 in January

We have a very important election coming up in January. We need every person to vote. Please join me, and thousands of healthcare professionals across the state, in voting yes on Measure 101.

For 20 years I worked as a registered nurse at the Virginia Garcia Memorial Health Center. I have seen the suffering of people who did not have health insurance and did not get care until they were very seriously ill. In my job as a diabetes nurse I have helped people learn how to manage this complicated disease by taking several different medications and often insulin and by balancing what they eat with the medications they use. People who don't do this correctly can have dangerous episodes of low blood sugar.

Imagine a person who is laid off who needs to use insulin. Just one month of insulin without insurance costs between $200 and $400. How do you pay for that on an unemployment check? Unfortunately, healthcare today is simply too expensive to pay for without insurance.

Without the medications they need diabetics will suffer severe damage from high blood sugar levels including things like foot ulcers, amputations or kidney damage and dialysis. Paying for these complications is much more expensive than paying for the treatment to prevent them.

We can't afford to slide backward to a time when only the wealthy could afford medical care. Please do the right thing and vote yes on Measure 101.

Ruth Dallas


Editor's Note: Measure 101, the Oregon Healthcare Insurance Premiums Tax for Medicaid Referendum, is on the ballot in Oregon as a veto referendum on Jan. 23, 2018. A "yes" vote supports upholding certain taxes on healthcare and healthcare insurance to provide funding for Medicaid expansion by approving five sections of House Bill 2391. A "no" vote opposes certain taxes on healthcare and healthcare insurance to provide funding for Medicaid expansion by rejecting five sections of HB 2391.

Pacific focusing on prestige, not students

In regards to the "Pacific University campaign aims to raise 80 million" article (see page A8 in this paper), I felt the need to discuss the cutting of the history department at Pacific University.

When two of the senior history professors retire, Pacific has elected to not hire more, thus effectively — over time — having the history department disappear. History is a vital piece of learning; why is the school so easily allowing this to disappear? I have no rhyme or reasoning behind this decision as of yet.

Pacific has many options for things that can be fixed and repaired, especially in regards to the gym facilities on campus. As a student that uses the gym on a daily basis, the size of the gym is quite ridiculous. Yet no money seems to be going toward a project that would benefit the entire student population. With a bigger, more robust gym facility, more students could actually use it. We only have six treadmills for about 2,000 students, yet we are going to receive more endowments. Why is this not a priority?

Overall, Pacific University seems to be focusing on things that will only enhance its prestige instead of things that will benefit more students. And I'm really frustrated by this.

Jessica Cain

Forest Grove

Media shouldn't identify shooter after tragedies

With media becoming such an influential piece of our society, it has developed a huge impact on major events and what people know and think about them. This effect that media has on our society can be very positive in some cases, but in the worst cases, it has a greatly negative effect: the biggest example being mass shootings.

Publicizing the stories about of these terrible events may be intending to be informative and to just help the public know what is happening in their society, but the ultimate result in my mind is very different. Lately, whenever there is a mass shooting, the first thing we see about in the news is who the shooter was. His/her entire life story is presented and their families explain how they cannot believe the shooter could do this or how they would have never expected it.

All of the attention is focused towards the shooter and why he/she may have committed this act of terror. These killers are being glorified and they are receiving an excess amount of attention for their crimes. In my opinion, this must be changed.

When mass shootings happen, the killer's name should not be revealed because it gives them immense attention, and that is exactly what they want. The stories should continue to be published, and the public should still be informed, but the killer should be kept to a simple name and not glorified or given the popularity they crave.

Josh Harris

Forest Grove

Contract Publishing

Go to top
Template by JoomlaShine