The Washington Post - 05.08.2019

A16 EZ RE THE WASHINGTON POST.MONDAY, AUGUST 5 , 2019

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

[email protected]

TAKING EXCEPTION

W

E KNOW by now not to waste time calling

on President Trump to do the right thing.

He sows division and bigotry rather than

promoting unity and understanding.

Whatever he promises, in the crunch he capitulates

to the gun lobby.

But on a weekend of horrifying and hate­fueled

violence, we also know that it doesn't have to be this

way. Mass shootings need not be routine, as most

every other country demonstrates. Leadership need

not be negative and supine.

Here is what a presidential president might say:

My fellow Americans,

These are dark days and nights of August. A

weekend — a time for Americans to gather at the

beach, the mall, a music festival — has brought us

horror. Let u s resolve to transform our great anguish

into action, permanent and effective action. This

horror will no longer be normal in our country.

To day, I am calling on Congress to return to

Washington for an immediate joint session, to give

up their district politicking and take action to

combat gun violence. Enact a ban on sales of

military-style assault rifles, as well as high-capacity

magazines. This weaponry was made for war; its

purpose is to kill as many people as possible as

quickly as possible. It doesn’t belong on our streets.

Make background checks mandatory. And for

those who have other ideas, such as federal licensing

and buy-backs, come forward, and we will work on

them. I have instructed my a dministration to under-

take a major scientific research effort on gun

violence that will help us chart more answers in the

long term. We must free ourselves of a special

interest lobby. I will personally campaign for the

solutions as hard as I can and invite those from both

parties to join me.

I am also sick about the rivers of hate speech and

fear coursing through our society. It i s time to assert,

in the boldest way we can: In America, there is no

room for racism, no tolerance for hatred, no silence

in the face of those who incite racial violence and

preach manifestos of supremacy. We welcome and

value all Americans, no matter where they or their

ancestors came from.

As difficult as it will be, we must confront this

dark sickness on the digital pathways, on the

cultural playgrounds and in the classrooms. This is

not only a job for government. It i s a mission for all of

us, but I am asking law enforcement to boost its

attention to combating domestic terrorism.

We can bring change while respecting our funda-

mental values. We will not trample on free speech,

free assembly or the constitutional right to bear

arms. But rights have always come with responsibili-

ties, and I think it is time we seize that responsibility

and act as though our rights depended upon it.

Let u s give our word to the victims — to the dozens

killed and wounded this weekend, and the hundreds

and thousands in recent years — that we will not rest

without results.

Thank you, and let’s get to work.

No, it is not hopeless

A presidential president could do something about mass shootings. Here’s how.

Regarding the July 27 editorial “Brain trauma on

the ‘friendly island’ ”:

After much speculation and little cooperation,

the U.S. government failed to explain to Congress

or the public “what happened” to its diplomats.

The medical journal JAMA’s w ork did not establish

brain damage. Rather, it refers to “brain differenc-

es,” possibly attributable to common preexisting

conditions, according to U.S., Cuban and interna-

tional experts. The only way to clarify the

diplomats’ health status is through transparent,

scientific discussion. Still unanswered is the

Cuban medical team’s invitation to continue the

scientific dialogue, extended during the only

bilateral meeting held on the matter September

2018 in Washington.

Specialized agencies, including the FBI and

Cuban criminal investigational counterparts, have

agreed there is no evidence of any attack or act

against diplomats in Havana. There is no reason to

shut down the consular services, paralyze bilateral

cooperation, e xpel C uban d iplomats, i ssue deceitful

travel alerts or other unfair measures. Such

measures come with a high humanitarian cost for

Cubans and affect Americans as well.

Cuba asks the U.S. government to stop using this

issue as a pretext to impose more unilateral

coercive measures against Cuba’s integrity, econo-

my and people. Cuba will remain a safe country for

U. S. and any other country’s diplomats, its own

citizens, foreign residents and millions of travelers.

José R. Cabañas , Washington

The writer is the Cuban ambassador

to the United States.

ABCDE

AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER

S

ENATE INVESTIGATORS released a chilling

report last week on the failure of seemingly

everyone who had responsibility to stop the

sexual abuse of Olympic gymnasts by dis-

graced former team doctor Larry Nassar — and the

buck-passing that occurred after the Indianapolis

Star revealed Dr. Nassar’s horrors. Along with the

report came the release of a bipartisan bill aiming to

prevent such abdication in the future. It should pass

— and quickly.

“Repeatedly, institutions failed to act aggressively

to report wrongdoing to proper law enforcement

agencies,” the report found, and even when law

enforcement heard allegations, “the FBI’s investiga-

tion dragged on and was shuffled between field

offices while Nassar continued to see patients.”

Senate investigators concluded that USA Gymnas-

tics and the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee

“knowingly concealed abuse by Nassar, leading to

the abuse of dozens of additional amateur athletes

during the period beginning the summer of 2015 and

ending in September 2016.” And the report revealed

that the problem does not seem to be limited to

gymnastics. “Even as Nassar’s case captured the

headlines, it was hardly the only case of unchecked

criminal behavior in amateur Olympic sports,” t he

report found. “His case underscored serious allega-

tions of sexual abuse made in USA Ta ekwondo, USA

Swimming, U.S. Figure Skating, and other sports.”

The system requires reform. A bill from

Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Jerry

Moran (R-Kan.) would provide it. The legislation

would explicitly charge the Olympic committee with

responsibility for athlete safety, including through

oversight of sports federations such as USA Gymnas-

tics. No longer could the committee claim it lacked

authority over sports federations to do little as

credible claims of abuse are reported — or to escape

blame for tragedies like the Nassar episode. Neither

the committee nor a sports federation could legally

decline to report allegations of child sexual abuse to

law enforcement. More athletes would be added to

their governing bodies, and an organization policing

abuse in amateur sports would be beefed up.

Olympic committee chief executive Sarah Hirsh-

land praised the bill last week, though she also

warned of “unintended consequences and disrup-

tion for athletes in operational reality” t hat she did

not specify. Lawmakers should hear the Olympic

committee’s concerns but not be diverted from the

central job of better protecting young athletes.

The Olympic committee and everyone else who

failed in the Nassar catastrophe now suffer from a

deep deficit of trust. A strong reform bill might help

restore some faith in these organizations — and in

the spirit of clean competition that amateur athlet-

ics is supposed to promote.

Broken trust

A Senate bill could help restore faith in U.S. Olympic leaders following the horrific gymnastics abuse scandal.

L

AST W EEK’S D emocratic presidential d ebates

underscored health care as a defining policy

division among the candidates. On one side,

many of those who argue for radical change

would tell you, are Democrats who want to preserve a

status quo in which private companies suck profits

out o f sick and vulnerable people. Their alternative is

killing off the insurance companies and providing

universal, h igh-quality, government-controlled care.

The description is simplistic. T he Democratic field

is unanimous in its desire to provide universal

coverage; the candidates just disagree on how to get

there. And, though the Medicare-for-all plan of

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren

(D-Mass.) has become almost synonymous with “sin-

gle-payer,” European-style health care, it is not the

only way to achieve even that goal — just a disruptive,

expensive way.

Enter Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), a backer of

the Medicare-for-all concept who nevertheless re-

leased her o wn take o n what that should mean s hortly

before last week’s debate. Rather than force all

Americans onto the same government-run plan, she

would create a universal version of a system that

resembles the actual, existing Medicare program. In

essence, Ms. Harris would turn insurance companies

into public utilities and allow t hem t o compete with a

government-run service.

Seniors on Medicare are able to choose between

the government-run option or plans administered

by highly regulated private companies. This gives

people choices in benefit design and plan adminis-

tration. Strict regulations mean that profits are not

extortionate and that needed care is not denied.

Regardless of who r uns each plan, t he government is

ultimately responsible for paying the tab. Ms. Har-

ris’s plan would offer this deal to everyone, regard-

less o f age.

Experience with the current Medicare program, in

which about one-third of seniors are enrolled in

regulated private plans, as well as in countries that

have created similar systems, suggests that people

avail themselves of various options when they are

given choices. This feature makes these systems no

less universal, just less coercive.

Of course, Ms. Harris must answer the same

questions that others must. She claims she can

provide universal, h ighly subsidized government-run

care without raising taxes on the middle class. To do

so, she relies on the math that Mr. Sanders and

Ms. Warren have used to make their plan look

affordable. But independent analysis indicates that

Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren would raise far too little

money to finance their ambitious health-care expan-

sion, which would include dental and vision benefits

and no cost-sharing. Unlike Mr. Sanders and

Ms. Warren, Ms. Harris might require people to pay

premiums, depending on income, which could make

her p lan fiscally s aner. B ut, o n this point, her proposal

is not clear.

Ms. Harris appears to be making a massive bet that

her long phase-in period — 1 0 years — would enable

the government to finally figure out how to drive

down health-care costs, r esulting in a ffordable cover-

age and benefit expansion when it is fully phased-in.

Ye t history suggests little cause for optimism on this

score.

Ms. Harris’s contribution is welcome. It shows

there are ambitious alternatives to so-called

Sanderscare that progressives should be able to

consider equally, if not more, serious about achiev-

ing universal coverage. But Ms. Harris will have to

do more e xplaining before voters can d ecide wheth-

er the numbers behind it are ultimately more

plausible than those underpinning the unrealistic

Sanders-Warren plan.

Ms. Harris’s

ambitious option

Can the Democratic hopeful deliver

on her version of Medicare-for-all?

ABCDE

FREDERICK J. RYAN JR., Publisher and Chief Executive Officer

News pages: Editorial and opinion pages:

MARTIN BARON FRED HIATT

Executive Editor Editorial Page Editor

CAMERON BARR JACKSON DIEHL

Managing Editor Deputy Editorial Page Editor

EMILIO GARCIA-RUIZ RUTH MARCUS

Managing Editor Deputy Editorial Page Editor

TRACY GRANT JO-ANN ARMAO

Managing Editor Associate Editorial Page Editor

SCOTT VANCE

Deputy Managing Editor

BARBARA VOBEJDA

Deputy Managing Editor

Vice Presidents:

JAMES W. COLEY JR. ..................................................................................... Production

L. WAYNE CONNELL..........................................................................Human Resources

KATE M. DAVEY .................................................................................. Revenue Strategy

ELIZABETH H. DIAZ ................................................. Audience Development & Insights

GREGG J. FERNANDES........................................................Customer Care & Logistics

STEPHEN P. GIBSON...................................................................Finance & Operations

SCOT GILLESPIE .......................................................................................... Engineering

KRISTINE CORATTI KELLY...................................................Communications & Events

JOHN B. KENNEDY.................................................................General Counsel & Labor

MIKI TOLIVER KING........................................................................................Marketing

SHAILESH PRAKASH...............................Digital Product Development & Engineering

JOY ROBINS ........................................................................................... Client Solutions

The Washington Post

1301 K St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071 (202) 334-

Havana is safe for your diplomats

ROBIN BUCKSON/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) in Detroit last week.

It i s understandable that President Trump w ould

attack Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) — as long

as one understands that Mr. Trump never attacks a

nobody, only those he considers a threat [“Hogan

urges more support for Baltimore,” Metro, Aug. 2].

Mr. Cummings has been one of the most effective

members of Congress in calling out and acting on

corruption, law breaking and ethics violations in

federal agencies. As the ranking Democrat on the

House Oversight and Reform Committee, he

worked with conservative chairs Darrell Issa (R-

Calif.) and Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) to take action

against a rogues gallery of miscreants, and he is

doing the same as chair now that his party is in the

majority.

We have seen Mr. Trump time and again trot out

his change-the-focus stratagem whenever the spot-

light starts to shine u nfavorably o n him. So he used

his favorite ploy when Mr. Cummings targeted

Mr. Trump’s c ronies a nd family. Let u s not be fooled

by the “hey folks, look over here” r outine.

Alan Larsen , Arlington

The targets are not so random

Regarding the Aug. 1 front-page article “Demo-

crats pull no punches”:

I was struck by the number of political time

travelers who participated in the Democratic de-

bates. The most graphic examples of the onstage

time traveler were those who attacked former vice

president Joe Biden for his role in passage of the

1994 crime bill. The time-traveler approach allows

its practitioners to use knowledge of how some-

thing that was done 25 years ago turned out to

condemn the action. The presumption is that

Mr. Biden (and the 94 other senators who voted for

the bill) should have known better in 1994. G ive me

a break. Mr. Biden has his faults, but attempting to

beat him up for actions that were totally in the

Democratic mainstream a t the t ime he t ook them is

beyond a cheap shot.

Paul A. Krumhaus , Annandale

Regarding Karen Tumulty’s Aug. 2 op-ed ,

“Warren won both nights of the debate”:

As a founder of the Democratic Headquarters

Building on the House side of the Capitol in 1983

with Democratic National Committee Chairman

Charles T. Manatt, I find the televised Democratic

debates process to be harmful to Democratic Party

interests. It is not so much discussing who was the

winner(s), as pages of The Post have been so

focused on, it is about the loser, and that is the

Democratic Party approaching the all-important

2020 election. Remember during the 2016 GOP

cavalcade, then-CBS Chairman Les Moonves said

he didn’t know whether Donald Trump would be

good for our country, “but it’s damn good for CBS.”

These debates are very damaging to our primary

candidate selection process, while the networks get

free content in the deal.

Dan Flanagan , Annapolis

I was very disappointed in the two nights of

the Democratic debate on CNN. The debate format

was ill-conceived — one minute is not enough time

to address serious issues. Sound bites are not good

vehicles for explaining complex policies. Further,

the moderators distorted the focus of the debate by

encouraging the candidates to attack one another

instead of articulating their positions on major

issues. CNN deprived the viewers and the candi-

dates of a meaningful political debate.

I hope that this experience will serve as “lessons

learned” f or future political debates.

Zoltan Bagdy , Germantown

Progressives and moderates are quarreling

over the legacy of former president Barack Obama

[“Democratic rivals look past Trump at a new

target: Obama,” f ront page, Aug. 2]. That’s fair, but

we should draw a line between the person and his

policies.

As the nation’s first black president, Mr. Obama

faced the severest racial profiling. He had to walk a

fine line, picking his fights carefully to minimize

white backlash. One might fault him for all sorts of

actions and inactions, but I don’t. He saved the

economy. He gave us the Affordable Care Act. He

made us proud to be Americans.

James Henle , Northampton, Mass.

Debating the Democratic debates

In t he July 23 news article “New f ederally f unded

clinics are promoting abstinence,” Obria Group

chief executive Kathleen Eaton Bravo claimed that

many women “want the opportunity to visit a

professional, comprehensive health care facility —

not an abortion clinic — for their h ealth care needs.

Obria gives women that choice.”

In reality, the Trump administration has award-

ed funding for t he Title X family planning program,

created s pecifically to equalize access to contracep-

tion, to an organization that explicitly opposes

Food and Drug Administration-approved contra-

ception. Obria has misleadingly rebranded itself as

“the fresh new face of comprehensive care.” Pa-

tients who believe they will receive counseling and

contraceptive care that meets their health needs

may instead b e coerced into c are they d on’t a ctually

want, such as abstinence and the rhythm meth-

od. By funding Obria, the administration has

exposed its endgame: to control the health care

people can receive by drastically limiting their

reproductive and sexual health care choices. Fund-

ing for organizations such as Obria is a dangerous

departure from what defines the Title X pro-

gram. Obria offers only limited information and

services that do not meet the national standards

and are not health care. It’s coercive. And it’s tragic

that this might now become some patients’ only

choice.

Clare Coleman , Washington

The writer is president and chief executive

of the National Family Planning

& Reproductive Health Association.

Coercive care shouldn’t be funded

EDITORIALS

Tom Tole s

is away.

 Letters can be sent to [email protected].

Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should

include the writer's address and day and evening

telephone numbers. Letters are subject to editing and

abridgment. Please do not send letters as attachments.

Because of the volume of material we receive, we are

unable to acknowledge submissions; writers whose

letters are under consideration for publication will be

contacted.