Resident unhappy with road’s name
Last year, because of the rerouting of Ind. 60 near the Hamburg exit, our street was left without a name. That would be the section that runs from the Hamburg exit on Interstate 65 south to Hamburg Pike.
I contacted Roberta Bagshaw, executive director of the county’s Plan Commission, who told me that no one would be allowed to submit a new-name suggestion, because we as residents are not wise enough to make that choice.
She said she would choose a name, and that would be the end of the discussion.
So what did she do? She chose some stupid name that no one on our street likes: Appleleaf Lane. She also was courteous enough to notify us of the name change, weeks after the name was changed.
We currently have one sign at the north end of our street — and the name is spelled wrong. The intersection with Greenwood Road? The old Ind. 60 sign is still there. The intersection with Karie Drive? No sign was ever erected. The intersection with U.S. 31 at Hamburg Pike? Yesterday someone decided to erect a sign there, with “Appleleaf” misspelled, and they left off “Lane” for some lame reason.
So, here we are with a street with a stupid name, stupid signs that tell no one anything, drivers who can’t find our street, and people who live on a street with a name that even the people in charge have a hard time spelling correctly.
I’d like to suggest:
• The Indiana Department of Transportation should erect, at the intersection of U.S. 31, Hamburg Pike, and Appleleaf Lane, signs with arrows that point to Appleleaf Lane and Hamburg Pike, and signs with north-pointing arrows that tell unknowing drivers that Ind. 60 is straight ahead. This should keep heavy truck and tourist traffic headed in the right direction.
• The signs at each end of Appleleaf Lane should be corrected so that they both say Appleleaf Lane.
• The sign at Greenwood Road should be changed to the new, correct, stupid Appleleaf Lane.
• A sign should be erected at the intersection of Karie Drive.
• Signs should be erected at each end of Appleleaf Lane telling heavy trucks to stay off the road. No sense wearing out a perfectly good highway.
One of Bagshaw’s statements to me at the time I talked with her about the street name was that any name other than the one she chose would be confusing to police, fire and emergency personnel, but so far all we have seen is state- and locally sponsored confusion.
— Chuck Croucher, Clarksville
(Editor’s note, in a recent article, Bagshaw said the Plan Commission selects street names, rather than her personally).
The facts on universal health care
Why AARP is doing a disservice to our senior citizens like myself by promoting the health reform now on the table is beyond me. It’s a well-published fact the bill(s) intend to cut Medicare by $500 billion or more.
That can only mean less medical care for our senior citizens. So herein contains facts with no spin. This is just an effort to provide you with solid, irrefutable common sense information — facts.
One of the biggest items being omitted is how do the current number of GP’s (doctors) and NP’s (nurse practitioners) intend to handle adding up to one-sixth (50 million) of the population?
They can’t.
Indeed I asked this very question to a doctor who just happened to support our president. I asked if it could be accomplished without rationing. His answer that shocked me was, “No and there should be rationing.”
He’s a great doctor, and while I don’t feel he represents all doctors, at least he’s honest. Health care will be rationed — a whole lot more than it is now. Indeed, the absolute authority in this area, the AAFP (American Academy of Family Physicians) paints an even gloomier projection, what with 78 million baby boomers (age 65) becoming eligible for Medicare beginning in 2011. This while those going into preventative care or family practice has declined by 53.7 percent since 1997 and continues to decline.
Rationing for everybody and, especially seniors in particular, will be grossly rationed, hence truly affecting our health care in a negative way.
In addition, I’m amazed to hear AARP knows of ways to cut costs in Medicare when Washington has been trying for at least two decades. My question is why haven’t they spoken up before? What will be the real effect if costs are cut in Medicare?
Yes, that’s obvious, too — less health care for us.
Space is limited, so I’ll just talk about cost. In the 1990s, I attended a meeting for Medicaid in Kansas. A supervisor asked why the state couldn’t enroll automatically everyone qualifying for Medicaid. An accountant said, “We would have to double the taxes on everybody in Kansas.”
In 1966, Medicare was projected to cost $12 billion by 1990. It cost $108 billion, or nine times, that estimate.
Prorating that against the Congressional Budget Office’s projected $1 trillion cost for health reform, it means in 10 years it would cost $3.5 trillion. This does not include paying for TARP, the stimulus and cap-and-trade, if it’s enacted.
Hopefully this is helpful in your decision making process.
— John Krueger, Clarksville
