Support for bills H.118 and S.61

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Mike Fisher, Vermont's health care advocate, recently wrote that low-income seniors and people with a disability on Medicare are struggling with the high costs of the program. He is encouraging the legislature and the Scott administration to support H.118 and S.61, twin bills expanding eligibility for the state's Medicare Savings Program.

Mr. Fisher wrote, "Wages and social security have not kept up with the cost of basic needs like food, shelter, transportation, and health care. But it is especially hard for Vermonters who have been at an economic disadvantage for much of their lives."

Disabled workers and women customarily have lower earnings, which results in less social security benefits to start with. Medicare's monthly premium this year is up to $174.70. For people living close to the poverty level, this is a significant amount to have taken out of their monthly Social Security benefit. Medicare deductibles and co-pays add to the hardship. Medicare savings programs help pay for certain Medicare premiums, deductibles, coinsurance, and the 20 percent co-pay. We can alleviate this burden by expanding eligibility for this vital program, as other northeastern states have done.

Please, contact your Representative and Senator and ask them to support H.118 and S.61. Increasing eligibility for this program would also lessen the lure of Medicare Advantage (MA), the commercial insurance version of Medicare. While the low premiums for MA induce many low income people, they end up being worse off. There is a reason that so many commentators call the program Medicare (Dis)Advantage.

Charlie Murphy Bennington, Jan. 31

Let's talk about NIMBY-ism

With the State of Vermont's recent Supreme Court victory, a juvenile detention facility in the rural hinterlands of Newbury now seems inevitable. And - of course - the media is abuzz with officious citizens, and even state officials, scolding Newbury for its supposed "NIMBY-ism."

But let's talk about NIMBY-ism ("Not in my backyard") for a moment. We can all agree that there are unpleasant land uses that are necessary for any functioning society, and that many communities would prefer not to host these unpopular uses. We need dumps. We need junkyards. We need utilities and electrical grid facilities. We need detention facilities. But, the role of local government, through land use planning laws, is to ensure the appropriate siting of such projects in a manner that protects the public health, safety and well-being of the community.

You do not place an adult bookstore next door to an elementary school. You do not place a glue factory next door to a hospice care center. You do not run high-voltage power lines through the heart of a vibrant downtown. You do not put a facility with a high level of infrastructure and service needs in a remote location on a primitive dirt road.

That is not NIMBY-ism. Those are basic parameters of sound land use planning to ensure that a community is not a disordered hodge-podge of incompatible uses, detracting from the quality of life and economic value of adjoining properties and creating unsustainable costs to the taxpayers. The term "NIMBY," is too often used as an ad hominem slur directed against those who question or have legitimate concerns about development projects.

It is offensively reductive. The Newbury facility is not being proposed in any of the planned growth areas of the town - they want to put it in the backwoods of the Conservation District. Clearly, the State of Vermont does not believe it needs to be held to rational land use standards. Those who fling NIMBY accusations around are betraying a profound lack of understanding about the purpose and role of land use planning and zoning regulations in communities.

Susan Culp Newbury