Why does Sheriff Wilson oppose proposal that's good for DN?
Sheriff Dean Wilson recently traveled to Siskiyou County to declare his opposition to Klamath dam removal.
Pacific Power, though, officially notified me in its last bill that "the CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission) affirmed the company's analysis that the KHSA (Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement) would expose customers to less cost and risk than relicensing and continuing to operate the dams."
So removing the dams would benefit ratepayers as well as the river, the fish, the tribe and commercial and sports fishers.
I have two simple questions for Sheriff Wilson: Are you working for
the people of Del Norte County or Klamath Basin potato farmers and a
giant corporation owned by the world's second-richest man? Are you
sheriff of Del Norte County or an itinerant would-be politician?
I also have a question for Roger Gitlin, who is involved with the
same Tea Party chapter founded by Sheriff Wilson: What is you position
on the Klamath dams, Mr. Gitlin?
Board members should explain why they support regionalization
I recently attended a town hall meeting in which three local doctors
and a former Palmdale, Calif., hospital board member presented their
views opposing the proposed "regionalization" of Sutter Coast Hospital.
The empty seat at the table was reserved for Sutter Coast Hospital
CEO Eugene Suksi, in case he changed his mind at the last minute from
the previous week's declining of an invitation to present the Sutter
Board's side of the decision to close local decision-making at our
The subsequent transfer of decision making to a geographically
distant board, with absolutely no guarantee of having a single voice
representing Del Norte County and environs, is sadly in need of a voice
explaining the need for such action.
This letter appeals to the nine Sutter Coast Hospital Board members
who voted to turn over their duties/powers to a board in a distant
galaxy. I mention no names here in order to spare them the embarrassment
and humiliation they must feel for leaving their neighbors and friends
in the lurch. It seems to me that they have a responsibility to us all
to clearly and unambiguously present their reasons why they do not see
this as a move by corporate power brokers to glad-hand them into the
position and hunker down under pressure.
Come on board members, be up front with your convictions!
Dale L. Bohling
Regionalization could improve quality of services in long run
I was born in Seaside Hospital here in Crescent City in the 1970s.
Grew up here, moved away, obtained a graduate level education in health
care, obtained health care through a huge Health Maintenance
Organization (HMO) and got along just fine with the HMO system.
I'm not saying HMO is the best but when compared to the Preferred
Provider Organization (PPO) that most government workers in Crescent
City have as their only health insurance option ...
When I first read about Sutter Coast Hospital's pending
"regionalization," I was actually happy to see it. I feel that in the
long run regionalization would improve not only the quality of staff and
services provided but also give the people living in the area more and
cheaper options for heath insurance/health care services.
Sutter-Health Net Plan is an HMO comparable to Kaiser here in
California. For government workers and union representatives it may be
worth exploring what options regionalization would mean to us in regards
to our health insurance and the possibility of being able to obtain an
HMO as opposed to a PPO.
One must wonder, with whom/where did this business come from of
Sutter Coast, once regionalized, becoming a "critical access" facility.
Sutter and local stakeholders have publicly denied critical access
even being on the table in the scheme of regionalization. The people of
the community should do their homework, attend the meetings and publicly
provide verifiable evidence before condoning or condemning