Empty promises from political candidates

I just saw a political ad on TV for Josh Green. He is promising the local people to build 10,000-plus homes for them.

My question is, why has this not been done before this, and how does Mr. Green think that he can do this now? I feel more empty promises from the mouths of people running for office. I sure hope the local people don’t really believe him.

Politicians always say the right things when running for office. Promises, promises…

ROBERT POTTER, Napili

Hawaii needs Ranked Choice Voting

Two months ago, Governor Ige signed Senate Bill 2162, which implements Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) beginning next year for filling county council vacancies plus for special federal elections. This extremely limited bill will hopefully soon be amended to add ALL elections in Hawaii.

I, plus the Green Party of Hawaii, have been advocating RCV (Instant Runoff Voting-IRV) for 30 years, for all races. We have proposed this progressive change for years at the Legislature, yet were ignored and it constantly failed. This year, we testified that this bill is lacking, yet it is planting a seed.

In nonpartisan races, RCV would/could eliminate the need for “primaries,” where voters whittle down the candidates to limit them to then have only two candidates to choose from in November. Why do this; limiting voters in the general election to choose only one of two individuals? Having RCV may invite more candidates to seek elective office, which gives voters more of a choice, plus more than likely no representative would go unopposed when seeking re-election or voters only having one candidate for an office.

Maine in 2020 chose the POTUS plus their U.S. Senator utilizing RCV! RCV has been used effectively for many years in more than 50 jurisdictions throughout the United States, with every year more places instituting RCV, including around the world. It has never been removed after voters experienced RCV.

How many times has one not voted for their preferred candidate for fear that someone they definitely do not support would win? With RCV, one chooses the candidate they would most rather have for the specific position. If their preferred candidate does not receive the most votes, who would be a second choice for the voter? One could choose a third choice and so on. The candidate with the fewest votes is removed, and those voters who chose that individual then have their second choice receive their vote. This process continues until a candidate receives 50 percent plus one, and they are then elected. The person who is eventual declared the winner would be one who is preferred by more of a cross section of voters.

Less voters would “lose”; that is, in the current system where one wins and one loses, the voters who picked the losing candidate have “lost.” However, there is a better chance that more of a cross section of voters would have chosen the winning candidate. That person has had a better chance of being more of a consensus choice of the voters. If you go to a restaurant and the dish you wanted is sold out, you then choose your second choice. Simple! RCV is even used to choose the best movie at the Academy Awards.

The time to institute RCV in Hawaii for all races, plus put an end to the concepts of “spoiler” and “voting for the lesser of two evils” is long overdue.

I am seeking the Hawaii State House of Representatives seat for the 13th District in our State Legislature; you may check me out on social media, including my website, https://friendsofnikhilananda.com/, plus Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

NIKHILANANDA, Huelo

Healthcare providers need more support

(Fifteen legislators, including West Maui Rep. Angus McKelvey and Sen. Roz Baker, signed on to this letter addressing the increasing challenges faced by healthcare providers specifically relating to mental health.)

Families across Hawaii are currently facing historic challenges that impact their mental health: from the pandemic, to climate change, to economic uncertainty. As a result, our behavioral health care system is under increasing stress. Our state is taking action — we’ve made investments in mental health programs and made culturally competent care a priority in our communities. But we can’t do it alone — health plans and insurers need to step up.

For years, we have been troubled by reports of a worsening mental health crisis that’s been aggravated by systemic lack of investment. In recent days, 50 clinicians who serve over 260,000 patients across Hawaii went on strike at Kaiser Permanente. These psychologists, therapists and social workers say that they have been unable to treat their patients with the frequency those patients need and are entitled to. Patients are forced to wait up to 60 days to access initial behavioral health appointments, and follow up care can take just as long. Clinicians say that their colleagues have been quitting Kaiser in record numbers because too few providers are being asked to care for too many patients. The National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) recently cited Kaiser for violating national timely access standards for mental health care and placed Kaiser under a corrective action plan.

According to NCQA, Kaiser has understaffed its mental health services for years, has failed to take effective measures to correct the problems, and has allowed the problems to worsen during the pandemic. Today, Kaiser is the only health plan in Hawaii that’s been placed under corrective action by NCQA.

This must change — now. Kaiser enrollees deserve to receive medically-necessary mental health services. Timely care is required by state and federal law. It is also essential for protecting the wellbeing of individual patients, our communities and our state. We applaud the striking clinicians at Kaiser for standing up for their patients. We call on Kaiser Permanente to resolve the strike in and to match the state’s commitment to investing in timely, accessible mental health care. Finally, we call on state and federal regulators, and other public officials to vigorously enforce all laws protecting patient rights.