Letters to the editor Feb. 17

No way to treat a military family

It’s Thanksgiving time. Imagine receiving notice that your job is being terminated and you’ll have to reapply for something else. Imagine you’re essentially a single parent for the past six months, caring for your small children, the house, the bills, etc. because your husband is deployed in Afghanistan. You have to Skype him for comfort, advice and encouragement.

You love being a nurse. It’s your passion. You stepped up to be a charge nurse last year because the hospital asked you to. Your record is unblemished. You reapply for the entry-level position that you started in seven years ago so you can continue to provide direct patient care.

Christmas comes and coworkers are being notified that they were rehired. You call human resources. They put your supervisor on the line to let you know they decided not to fill the position because they hired traveling nurses instead. They tell you to come pick up your severance package by December 31. Being a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Nurse is over, at least in the Flathead Valley.

This is a harsh way for Kalispell Regional Healthcare, an oversized corporate monopoly, to treat a military family, a single mother in our community whose family is making a significant sacrifice for our country.

By the way, Kalispell Regional Healthcare reposted the position in January knowing that if you take the severance package you’re restricted from reapplying for six months.

It is impossible for Kalispell Regional Healthcare to rebuild trust in the community until they “Above all...do the right thing” for our nurses and our people.

Observations from a former medical community family member and military spouse.

—Nancee Olszewski, Kalispell

Veteran tag donation program

For several years there has been a program in place where Montanans can donate special hunting tags they have drawn to our wounded veterans. The requirements are that the Veteran needed to have a Purple heart and a 70 percent disability rating. These requirements sound reasonable unless you know that the VA may only grant an amputee a 45 percent disability, or a vet who was wounded in combat and has had multiple surgeries over the years for internal injuries might only receive a 50 percent rating. I think that most, if not all, of the people who donate tags would think these Purple Heart recipients would deserve these tags.

This year we finally have a way to change the requirements regarding these donated tags. Rep. Frank Garner, R-Kalispell, has sponsored House Bill 275 which would eliminate the disability requirement for these tags. The veteran would still have to have received a Purple Heart in combat while serving our country, and isn’t that what most of us would feel would be enough? I have been a board member of Montana Wounded Warriors for the last eight years and have taken many of our wounded veterans out on hunting trips and there isn’t one who has received the Purple Heart that I wouldn’t think deserved the opportunity to receive one of the donated tags. The sad thing about the way the program is set up now is that many of the tags aren’t even issued because of the high disability rating requirement.

Montana has always held our veterans in high regard and that is especially true of the northwest part of the state. I would ask that you all contact your state legislators and let them know that you support the changes the passage of HB-275 makes to the tag donation program.

­—Nei Baumann, Columbia Falls

No mention of climate change

The annual State of the Union address can reveal as much about the state of our union by what is unspoken as it does what is said. So it was. After uttering some 5,500 words, President Trump never said “climate change.”

Not once did he say the word “climate.” He did speak of change — once. He said we need “structural change” to end unfair trade practices. In contrast he used the word “border” 18 times.

Meanwhile, while the legitimate crisis of refugees seeking asylum at the U.S. border with Mexico — legally and illegally — stirs up a storm of controversy, the actual storms that are wrecking havoc and tragedy upon millions of Americans goes unrecognized.

“Border” was mentioned 18 times: “illegal (border) crossings” three times; “our border” twice; “border city,” “border agents,” “open borders,” “border protection,” “dangerous border,” “border security,” “border wall,” once each. “Southern border” was mentioned six times.

Climate change? Not once.

It reminded me of the most recent edition of the “Rural Montana” newsletter, mailed to every electric co-op member in the state. It’s always a fun and informative read about our Montana friends and neighbors. I especially enjoy “This Month’s Question,” which is directed to our state’s Congressional leaders, Sens. Steve Daines and Jon Tester, and Rep. Greg Gianforte.

February’s question: “In relation to the energy sector, what do you feel Congress should do in response to climate change, if anything.” How did our representatives score? Based solely upon using the words “climate change” in their answers: Tester: 5, Daine: 0, Gianforte: 0.

Setting aside the quality of the answers, avoiding the words “climate change” says volumes. It appears as though this problem doesn’t exist.

That is a problem, one without acknowledgement ­— or an answer — from Republican leadership.

—Roger Hopkins, Columbia Falls