Readers Write (Nov. 14): Vaping, prescription drugs, senior housing, Teach for America, the Trump presidency

Vapor technology has had an incredible, positive effect on my life. When I was 16, I started smoking. After a few years, I had developed a pack-a-day habit. I always knew the habit was harmful to my health, but it was such a difficult one to break. After this habit continued well into my 20s, I noticed dramatic changes: I got winded after doing minimal physical activity; foods lost their taste, and my blood pressure was through the roof. Doctors I consulted suggested that I take medication to correct my high blood pressure. Instead, I chose to explore other technologies that had helped others give up their smoking habits. I chose vapor. I began vaping when I was 26, after 10 years of smoking cigarettes. I have been vaping for three years now, and I am so pleased that my health is back to normal. Vapor technology is not a tobacco product; it is an innovative technology that has led many people to give up a very harmful habit. Regulations being considered in Washington would have far-reaching, negative effects on the vapor industry. I urge our Minnesota delegation to stand up for healthier options and to represent the small and midsize vapor companies across our state by opposing overregulation of an industry that has the ability to grow and help countless others like me.

U.S. pharma companies such as Pfizer, Merck and Allergan are experiencing a bull rally. The Nasdaq Biotech Index rose 9 percent within a day of Donald Trump's victory because drugmakers expect a friendlier regulatory environment. Large health insurers Cigna, Aetna and Humana saw gains of 8 to 12 percent, despite rising drug costs, given the pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which they are abandoning for lack of profits.

The debate over high drug costs is tilted in favor of hardhearted economics. Pharma executives contend that their drugs save lives, hence are priced in keeping with their value — although they sell same drugs in other countries at much lower prices. In 2013, the National Health Interview Survey (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) published a brief titled "Strategies Used by Adults to Reduce the Prescription Drug Costs" that highlighted:

• Eighteen percent of the $263 billion spent on retail prescription drugs in the U.S. in 2012 was paid out of pocket.

• To save money, almost 8 percent of U.S. adults did not take their medication as prescribed; 15.1 percent asked a doctor for a lower-cost medication; 1.6 percent bought prescription drugs from another country, and 4.2 percent used alternative therapies.

• Adults aged 18 to 64 (8.5 percent) were nearly twice as likely as adults 65 and older (4.4 percent) to have not taken their medication as prescribed to save money.

• Among adults 18 to 64, those who were uninsured (14 percent) were more likely than those with Medicaid (10.4 percent) or private coverage (6.1 percent) to have not taken their medication as prescribed to save money.

• The poorest adults — those with incomes below the federal poverty level — were the most likely to not take medication as prescribed to save money.

As drug prices get out of control, these statistics will get worse. The dissatisfied majority that voted for change comprises the poorest as well as the most entitled, as in any society. The new administration had better take a humanistic view rather than burden the masses with health care that heals very few.

Despite all the news about the presidential election, I am writing in response to the Nov. 5 article on the possibility for increased senior housing in Jordan ("School site could make the grade"). Affordable housing is hard to find, but harder for the elderly population. With all of the income requirements for medical assistance, finding affordable senior housing can be difficult. In most cases, the elderly person doesn't make enough money to afford the rent along with basic needs, but earns too much to qualify for assistance.

I think using an old school building is a great idea. The senior population is not going to decrease in size, and the need for housing is increasing. If there is no appropriate housing, seniors are forced to live in institutions or in communities that may not be close to their families and friends. An issue with senior housing always seems to be finding the property to build. Yes, there are health and safety concerns and costs, but since this building is already in existence, a barrier has been eliminated.

Collaborating with other organizations and businesses to be located in the same building would decrease the costs the seniors would need to pay and would bring socialization to their lives. Working in elder care, I think it is important that cities start looking at the needs for the upcoming elderly population before it is too late.

As the director of Teach for America-Twin Cities, I would like to add some important background to the shared decision not to renew our contract with the University of Minnesota and to reiterate our commitment to students in the Twin Cities ("U drops Teach for America partnership," Nov. 8).

We are grateful to our partners at the U for the high-quality alternative teacher licensure program we created together to serve our corps members. Our teachers complete the same coursework as teachers in the traditional program while simultaneously teaching in high-need schools across the Twin Cities.

The model was attractive to potential educators, but many declined acceptance due to cost. More than one-third of our corps members come from low-income backgrounds, and all are motivated to teach students in high-poverty neighborhoods. The high tuition at the U, and the proposed 40 percent increase for 2017, put teaching here out of reach for too many candidates who share life experiences with the students we seek to serve.

Teachers currently enrolled in our program with the U will finish their licensure program as planned. We expect to work with local and state partners to develop a more affordable pathway — that will sustain our focus on recruiting a racially and socioeconomically diverse teaching force for our highest need schools — in 2017 and beyond.

We remain deeply committed to working alongside educators and parents in the Twin Cities to reach the day that all children have access to an excellent education.

I invite anyone who believes that he or she will be better off under Donald Trump's presidency than they are now to sit down and make a list of objective things about where they stand right now. Do you have a job? Are you covered by health insurance? Do you have a home? Do you have any savings? How old is the vehicle you drive? How much debt do you have? Those sorts of things. Then take that list, seal it in an envelope, and don't open it again until November 2019, one year before the next presidential election. But before you open it, sit down and make another list just like the first one so that you can objectively compare the two.

Then you can decide if you really are better off.