Comments sought on Managed Retreat

Maui residents have seen how Climate Change and Sea Level Rise have and are affecting Maui’s valuable shorelines.

To those who call the shoreline home and/or have experienced accelerated changes to our valued beaches, your perspective and input matters.

One of the many plans to deal with climate change impacts along the coast is referred to as a Managed Retreat.

The term might oversimplify a much more complex situation. Can we move out of the way of Mother Nature? And if not, how can Maui County adapt to the changes?

Community input is being sought regarding Managed Retreat as part of the Kahana Sunset Managed Retreat Plan.

Ke Kai Planning invites the community to comment on what and how they feel Managed Retreat can be accomplished.

All comments are welcome to Dawn Hegger-Nordblom, Ke Kai Planning LLC, kekaiplanning@icloud.com.

Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

DAWN HEGGER-NORDBLOM, Ke Kai Planning LLC, Lahaina

Good Fix bringing a lifesaving event to Maui

The Greater Good Charities is bringing the Good Fix to Central Maui and will be providing FREE spay/neuter for dogs and cats in our community.

Sign up TODAY for the waitlist for pre-registration and next steps. The clinic will be held from July 19 through July 22 at Hawaii Animal Rescue Foundation in Waihe’e. Register now to secure an appointment. Walk-ins are available.

We want to thank the Greater Good Charities, Maui Humane Society and their amazing sponsors for making this lifesaving event possible.

Click here to sign up: https://www.gfxclinic.org/homepage.

MICHAEL WILLINSKY, Save Maui Cats Inc., Lahaina

Affirmative Action has outlived its purpose

The purpose of Affirmative Action in the United States was to create government programs to overcome the effects of past societal discrimination by allocating jobs and resources to members of specific groups, such as minorities and women.

There is no question that past societal discrimination occurred in the United States, and perhaps the only appropriate remedy {at the time} was Affirmative Action.

However, I believe this policy has outlived its purpose. Anywhere you look in the United States, minorities are well-represented. Besides, there is a limit to punishing people for the sins of their forefathers.

It is unfair to award preference based on race when all other qualifications are equal. This not only undermines the means to determine the best candidates, but it also serves to de-legitimize the accomplishments of someone who was given preference based on race. Those opposed to Affirmative Action look to Section One of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

I believe the minorities of this country have been given enough time to allow for the “cream to rise to the top” and now must take their equal position along side of the majority.

The time is long overdue to stop rewarding underachieving individuals because of their race and start rewarding overachieving individuals because of their accomplishments.

To do otherwise would mean denying the very principles set forth in the 14th Amendment.

JOE BIALEK, Cleveland, Ohio

Medicare for all means tax increases and long waits

This month, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., launched his latest bid to ban private health insurance and force all Americans into a government-run health plan. The Vermont socialist gets points for consistency. He’s introduced legislation that would establish “Medicare for All” in the last four sessions of Congress and has been stumping for single-payer health care for his entire political career.

But passion is not a substitute for wisdom. And Medicare for All is deeply unwise. It would extract hefty taxes from Americans and force them to endure long waits and rationed care in return. Medicare for All is a bit of a misnomer. The bills would effectively nationalize health insurance. The feds would have a monopoly on paying for health care in this country, with the exception of things like cosmetic surgery. Primary care, surgery, vision, dental, prescription drugs, mental health, substance abuse, long-term care, reproductive care — all would be under the purview of the federal government.

According to testimony last year by Charles Blahous of George Mason University, the program would cost between $32.6 trillion and $38.8 trillion over ten years. Sen. Sanders and his supporters argue that that’s a good deal. But adding upwards of $3 trillion a year to the federal budget would require huge tax increases.

American households would experience an average decline of $5,671 in annual disposable income. For nearly two-thirds of households, the new taxes would exceed the savings associated with no longer paying premiums and out-of-pocket expenses under their current insurance plans.

The only households that would benefit are those without any workers — mostly fully retired households. Are young workers excited by the prospect of transferring yet more of their income to their elders?

Those higher taxes wouldn’t buy much in the way of care. Just look at how patients in government-run systems abroad are faring in England and Canada.

Canada’s single-payer system is struggling to meet the needs of its citizens. British Columbia’s health minister recently announced that thousands of patients awaiting radiation treatment for breast or prostate cancer would be eligible to cross the border to clinics in Bellingham, Wash., to receive the care they need.

Medicare for All may be a potent rallying cry for Sen. Sanders and his fellow progressives. But it would leave most Americans with less money and worse care.

Let’s not go down this road. Once single-payer is implemented, there is no off ramp.

SALLY C. PIPES, President and CEO, Pacific Research Institute