Review policies of the animal shelter
There is something wrong with the way the Hayward animal shelter is run. Its procedures are painful to witness.
On Aug. 6, we picked up a lost dog, a well-kept Pomeranian. We tried to find his owners and, after failing to do so, took him to the shelter as a place to be protected and saved. We asked about the procedures and were told they would allow a number of days for the owners to claim it (I believe it was 10) then he would be indefinitely held for adoption.
We wanted to be kept informed but were told we needed to call to find out if his owner had claimed him. We called that Friday and found out that no owner had shown up, and we started looking for people to adopt him. We went to the so-called shelter Aug. 17 to take his picture for an advertisement. Upon arrival we were told he had been killed because he did not pass a "food test."
How could this be called a shelter when something so terminal can be done without any notification or warning to us at all? What kind of shelter is this when the emotional connections are so ignored?
We feel betrayed by this service and expect a review of shelter procedures.
The soonest possible termination date of the animal should be made known to the rescuer immediately so it can be prevented when possible -- especially when an owner might still be looking for the animal and the rescuer had shown concern.
Hayward residents need to have trust and confidence in the procedures and protocols of the local animal shelter for the program to benefit the community.
Shouldn't support federal intrusion
I continue to be amazed by the number of writers to the editorial page who praise the merits of Obamacare, yet by their own words are clueless about what it means to personal choice, the costs of administration and the intrusion by the federal government into our lives.
This law just is another battle in the war between those who advocate for the collective good at the expense of losing individual rights. We, as a nation, cannot seem to find a balance between the two.
Republicans have been accused of not having a plan and just saying no. The no is the intrusion into our personal lives by the federal government. Republicans have put forth many plans that do not involve the federal government; however, because they only control the one branch of government, none of their plans can move forward.
Advocates of Obamacare believe it is the only program that can solve health care issues.
There are many ideas out there that can be implemented without any federal government involvement and still get the majority of all Americans insured.
Philip R. La Scola
Obamacare simply doesn't pass muster
The Constitution does not authorize a national health care law. Obamacare violates the letter and the spirit of the Constitution in many ways.
The general welfare clause does not grant Congress the power to spend any money. This clause is Article 8 Clause 1, and it authorizes Congress to collect various forms of taxes for the purpose of paying debts for the common defense of the country and for the remaining 17 clauses of Article 1 Section 8.
None of the remaining clauses authorize Congress to give money to individuals in the form of entitlements such as Obamacare. Since the power is not granted to the federal government, it must remain with the states just as the 10th Amendment declares.
Obamacare violates the 10th Amendment by taxing one group of individuals and giving that money to another group. By ignoring the 10th Amendment, the Supreme Court has allowed the federal government to become out of control and expand its power far beyond what the framers ever envisioned in their wildest nightmare.
California tort limit is outdated
A 1975 California statute, known as the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, sets unfair tort limitations that cap the amount medical malpractice victims can receive on noneconomic damages to $250,000, which has disregarded any adjustments for annual inflation for more than 38 years since the law's enactment.
Due to MICRA's immutable tort limit, the financial culpability of doctors has remained fixed, if not diminished over decades, on how much a doctor owes through malpractice insurance for jury-determined negligence toward a harmed patient, regardless if the severity spans from induced paralysis to death.
While opponents claim malpractice insurance companies are nonprofit entities, these insurance companies' combined loss ratio -- estimated claims payouts divided by the premium earned -- have dramatically fallen to a low five-year average ratio of 26.47 percent and, thus, provided higher profits at the expense of "capping" victim compensation.
This outdated tort limit has undermined malpractice victims' abilities to pursue civil cases that normally require months to establish and years to settle and ultimately squandered victims' prospects for restitution concerning deprived opportunities in their afflicted lives.