Regarding Clarence Page’s insightful commentary on Democrats widening their “big tent” (“It’s time for Democrats to widen their ‘big tent,'” Aug. 10), while I have never been a conspiracist, it strikes me that the nationwide Democratic socialist political candidates may actually be Republican Party plants.
A Gallup Poll released last year found that 66% of Democrats had a positive view of socialism. Yet, last year an NBC poll found that only18% of Americans viewed socialism positively.
Even if the GOP is not using Democratic socialist candidates as plants, reasonable-thinking Democrats know that socialism has no place in the party. Unless they have lost interest in winning the midterms, Democratic leadership needs to stop brushing off socialist candidates as a harmless threat.
— Terry Takash, Western Springs
Media on democratic socialists
Why are the Tribune and the rest of the responsible news media burying the lead in their coverage of the Wisconsin Democratic primary for governor? Democratic socialist Francesca Hong lost in a landslide to David Crowley and the other moderate candidates for the nomination. About 61% of primary voters split their votes among a slew of moderate candidates. In a deeply divided electorate where the news media typically proclaim 55% of the vote to be a landslide, there’s no doubt there was a landslide against Hong with the more moderate candidates collectively garnering 61% of the primary votes.
It’s interesting how even mainstream media outlets are sensationalizing and overrating the so-called democratic socialist candidates while accepting as “normal” far-right radical, white supremacist and morally corrupt GOP candidates.
There’s a frightening imbalance in how the mainstream media report on these candidates, which tends to take it pretty easy on the latter.
— Dan Lauber, River Forest
‘Medicare for All’ is a folly
Regarding the opinions expressed in support for “Medicare for All,” particularly from the leftist democratic socialists, indeed the opposite will occur: Medicare for none.
For example, Australia utilizes a dual public-private universal system called Medicare, whereas, the United States relies primarily on a multipayer private insurance system supplemented by public programs like Medicare (for seniors) and Medicaid (for low-income individuals).
U.S. citizens and those who are lawfully present in the United States are eligible to enroll in the Affordable Care Act’s marketplace for healthcare, including screenings.
Australians, in a nation of 28 million people, face significant wait times for specialist appointments and specific diagnostic scans or elective surgeries, ranging from weeks to a year.
By contrast, with the U.S. Medicare system, established in 1965 to protect seniors age 65 and older, response times for appointments, tests and procedures are relatively quick, with numerous clinical choices.
Expanding Medicare to all 342 million Americans would swamp demand for medical services. That’s the way to go if you do not mind waiting a year to get an MRI or see a specialist.
More Top Picks Best Smoking Tubes
The U.S. already faces a projected shortage of primary care physicians and specialists, which will worsen wait times for appointments, tests and treatments; compress doctor-patient visit lengths; and create havoc on hospital capacity.
“Medicare for All” would also require major tax changes to replace the current system of employer-sponsored and private premiums and Medicare Advantage, which now allow for relatively quick access, the envy of the world.
— David N. Simon, Chicago
GOP’s effect on national debt
Letter writer Larry Craig left out the policies of the two political parties in his letter published on Aug. 11 (“We can’t ignore national debt”).
The Republican Party has ignored the national debt every time Republican presidents have signed bills that have cut taxes on the wealthy. President Donald Trump has signed legislation increasing the debt during both of his administrations. The national debt grew by roughly 40% during his first term.
This is the Republican economic policy. President Ronald Reagan called it supply-side economics; he said the benefits of this policy would trickle down. Republican strategist Grover Norquist said he wanted to see federal government reduced to a size in which it could be drowned in a bathtub. Republicans as a party are committed to make that happen.
The Democratic Party believes government should focus on the greater good for the country and its people. The last three Democratic presidents inherited terrible economic conditions and had to spend to rescue the country from soaring joblessness, the housing crisis and the pandemic, respectively. They did not focus on tax cuts for those who didn’t need them.
The Republican Party is focused on making sure the federal government does not function by starving it of revenue. The Democratic Party is focused on making sure the federal government addresses the needs of the country and its people, as only the federal government can do.
— Darlene Ruffin, Chicago
RSV, flu vaccines needed
This week, the president issued an executive order decreasing the number of vaccines recommended, without any medical input or apparently any medical data. The American Academy of Pediatrics’ recent news alert for its healthcare providers noted how more children were hospitalized with influenza in the last season than in the last 16 years. It states that “the cumulative hospitalization rate for influenza among children 0 to 17 years of age was the second highest for children since the 2009-2010 season and the highest for children 5-17 years.”
Also, Infectious Disease Advisor on Aug. 10 reported, “Hospitalization rates related to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) remain higher in American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) children compared with their peers in the general US population, according to study findings.”
The RSV and influenza vaccines are two of the pediatric vaccines that the administration wants removed from the list of recommendations. Removing them from the list means that insurance companies ultimately may not pay for these two vaccines that are obviously still needed, in view of the data above. The flu and RSV are not always benign infections. Nearly 300 children died from influenza in the 2024-25 influenza season. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website itself estimates that before the introduction of RSV vaccine, 50,000 to 80,000 children younger than 5 years old were hospitalized with RSV.
In a move that I suspect is trying to support parent choice, the administration is decreasing the choices parents should be able to make to protect their children. If a parent or guardian does not want to vaccinate their children, they can decline. Why take the choice to vaccinate away from the parents who want to provide these and other vaccines for their children? And why take the stance that these vaccines are not needed, when they obviously are?
— Icy Cade-Bell, Tinley Park
Debate over school choice
Gov. JB Pritzker has questioned whether a federal school-choice program would genuinely help working families or whether it would primarily redirect educational funding toward private-school tuition.
When children are experiencing poor educational outcomes, at what point does opposition to an alternative become an obstacle to giving families another opportunity? That is the question Illinois taxpayers and parents should consider.
The issue should not be whether a politician is a Democrat or Republican, nor whether a proposal is labeled “public” or “private.” The more important question is: What works for the child?
— Rudy U. Martinka, Elmhurst
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].