Opinion mixed with facts by Samuel Strait – October 12, 2023 It seems a bit of innocuous business performed a couple weeks ago at the September 26th meeting of the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors has raised the conscious level of a portion of the community to the point that a dozen or so members of the public felt the need to actually participate in the public's discourse. In what was a typical sparsely attended meeting, at least by the public, as an item that normally would have received hardly any notice from a Consent Agenda that is routinely passed by a 5-0 vote got pulled for a bit of scrutiny. It, the item, was called out for additional discussion by 5th district's Supervisor, Dean Wilson and was subsequently pulled kicking and screaming from the Agenda for a bit of that public discussion. Supervisor Dean Wilson, 5th District While this is a relatively out of character move by the BOS and is often nothing more than a bit of additional theater, it is something that should happen on a more regular basis for many of the items "rubber stamped" by the Board with little or no discussion or attention to the potential negative outcomes for the community when passed. In any event, the item, a bridge program which would enable, pay particular attention to the word "enable" to be discussed later, low income, uninsured residents of the County to received a Covid 19 vaccination at public expense. After all we should be accurate when talking about anything that is labeled "free" by government, because it is only "free" to the recipient, where others ultimately "pay the bill". The item, championed by Supervisor Valerie Starkey, subsequently failed to receive a "second" and passed into BOS history as as one of the few programs in recent memory that did not become another entitlement funded by the taxpayer, or create yet another dependent, dysfunctional class of local citizens. Whew, dodged a bullet there. I am quite sure it must have been a blow to Ms. Starkey's brand of "bleeding heart liberalism", but hey, government was never meant to fix the whole world's supply of problems, Right? At that point, I really did not give much thought to any developments over the issue until a routine physical at a local doctor's office found the decision by the Board to be a topic of conversation. My first thought to the doctor's concern was that he shouldn't fear, that government always seems to have plenty of built in redundancy. Likely some other government program would swoop in to cover the vacancy. And, as far as Supervisor Wilson's personal take on the subject, there were after all three other supervisors present, and we still, at least to my knowledge, are a "Representative Republic, not a Democracy"; hence, we are bound by the decisions of our elected, good or bad, until the next election. Yet the issue did not die. At the recent October 10th BOS meeting, suddenly people who had never involved themselves beyond hopefully voting, appeared to whine and complain about what they viewed as a tragic moment of government malfeasance, comparable to one of America's greatest tragedies. Thirty minutes of calls for the item to be revisited by the Board. Claims of "no choice" for the unfortunate and numerous other woeful outcomes amid hand wringing and claims of future catastrophe. Ultimately, it was patiently explained to the public, that the Board had made a decision that could only be revisited at a future Board meeting under "special circumstances. Not a happy group left the chambers as civic duty performed, no successful resolution to pleas, and disgruntle citizens were left plotting future action. Now the circumstances are set, and the education part begins. This is not the place to discuss the relative benefits or issues with the Covid 19 shots, but it is the place to discuss "lack of choice" claims and what government offered "free" programs do to members of this community. First and foremost, the fact that the BOS failed to authorize the bridge program for "free Covid shots" most certainly does not eliminate "choice" for 2200 local citizens in this County. If. and it does not appear that the entire 2200 low income residents even wants the shots, those that still "do" want the shots have a variety of "choices" which would enable them to receive "The Shot". The "bridge program" is but one option. Not all choices are "free", but there are a number of other ways of receiving a "shot" for free. Other options require a certain amount of functionality in the uninsured, low income individual which the "bridge" form of dependency and dysfunction does not. To begin with, no one has been excluded from receiving a "free" Covid shot. It is just no longer a choice from the "Bridge Program". The residents who may have been able to access the "bridge" program do in fact have plenty of options which will result in a Covid 19 shot, should they choose to proceed. The issue that presents itself going forward, is that not all choices are "free". We are operating under the illusion that a $100 to $130 expense is a truly insurmountable cost to low income, uninsured individuals. Remember, they do have some form of income. Most people that are actually functional, wish to have a Covid shot, where it is a priority, and they have income should be able to either fund basic health insurance or the shot. Those are but a few of the many "choices to be made. Having a continuous dependence on government programs for "free" stuff breeds dysfunctional citizens. Not only does it effect the recipient, but it is not free. Until those in government understand that this Country was never meant to breed dependence, hand out "free" stuff, nor solve everyone's problems, government leadership will continue to fail being beneficial to its citizens. The more dependence the government ferments, the less functional members of society exist to support that government. Ultimately that government fails. History has repeatedly shown this to be a fact. Supervisor Starkey's activism has no place in a government leadership role. She is merely a representative of her constituency and as their leader should act as such. While she alone has not assumed the entire mantle, it is a failure found with few exceptions in this entire Board. As much as the compulsion to do "good" exists in many of us, it has a bad habit of doing the opposite. The "bridge" program may appear to solve an identifiable problem, yet in its place it creates a greater problem, that of low income, uninsured residents who are unable to solve very basic problems in their lives. This, in fact, is a much greater problem going forward for the individual than a free Covid shot.