Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Positive move

April 6, 2011

Advertisement

To the editor:

On the anniversary of the new health care law being passed, my congressperson, Lynn Jenkins, said, “Simply put, Obamacare destroys jobs, increases taxes, expands government control and increases the cost of health care for all Americans.”

Really? In the last week, projections of lifetime medical expenses for retirees have gone down for the first time. Fidelity lowered the cost from a quarter of a million to $230,000, a slight decrease, but one that bucks the 6 percent average increase annually since 2002. The reason, Fidelity reports, is due to Obama’s health care overhaul, closing the doughnut hole and factors in premiums, co-payments and deductibles relative to the overhaul.

Late last week the Labor Department reported an unemployment rate of 8.8 percent and the creation of over 200,000 new private sector jobs. Both statistics reflect an improving trend.

Opposition is mixed, with some disappointed it did not go further, like me, a supporter of universal care as proposed in HR 676. The changes allowing uninsured children to stay on their parents’ policies until 26 and prohibiting children under 19 being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions would have helped our family with health care costs.

Doubtless, it is a confusing program and needs some revision, but overall it appears to be helping a lot of Americans with improved health care. Perhaps Rep. Jenkins should take a less partisan view on this subject and do more to accentuate the positive in the reform.

Comments

cato_the_elder 3 years, 4 months ago

Well, "Ace," here's what you want to inflict on the rest of us:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12964360

Thanks a bunch, pal.

0

Kirk Larson 3 years, 4 months ago

When reporters talk to people from Britain and Canada about their health care they always have things to complain about, but when they are asked if they would like to have a system like the Americans have they say absolutely not.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 4 months ago

Perhaps you'd like to provide support for such as broad statement. That's not consistent with the comments I've read on this subject. A large number of Brits and Canadians are sick and tired of what's been done to them by socialized medicine.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 4 months ago

Cappy, here's what you said: "When reporters talk to people from Britain and Canada about their health care they always have things to complain about, but when they are asked if they would like to have a system like the Americans have they say absolutely not."

None of the sources you cited supports your statement. While claims are made that a certain number of people are satisfied with the delivery of health care in their countries, even in the few cherry-picked comments from a few people talking about Canadian health care what you've cited is devoid of anyone saying "absolutely not" to our system.

In fact, the following quote appears in the first article you cited: “'In no country is the majority of adults satisfied,' says Cathy Schoen, a vice president at the Commonwealth Fund (search), a nonprofit group that conducted surveys of some 7,000 patients in the five countries."

Pretty weak in my book. While the Brits who were the subject of the article I cited are clearly very unhappy and frustrated and have every right to be, the point is that a strong majority of Americans don't want that for America. If you don't think that socialized medicine operates just as the article describes, you're naive.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

3 years, 4 months ago

Why have so many companies and unions sought and received waivers from participation in the new health care program if it is so wonderful?

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

  1. He didn't say it was "so wonderful" - he said that it has some positive features, but is confusing and needs revision.

  2. I believe the waivers are only allowed if the companies, etc. show that they will enact health insurance coverage equally good to the government's program - so, either way people will be covered. Without the program, I doubt very much if the companies would have provided that.

0

Ceallach 3 years, 4 months ago

Why, why, why are waivers even possible? When the lawmakers voted to make themselves exempt from the plan, before they passed it, that should have been a clue. Universal care? What a joke!

0

Abdu Omar 3 years, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

JHOK32 3 years, 4 months ago

There are a lot of very good people out there that have no health insurance thanks to the scandalist people who destroyed our economy with their insatiable greed. I did not fully understand what components were responsible for this horrendous mess but the new flick "Inside Job" does a great job of explaining it.

0

rtwngr 3 years, 4 months ago

Obamacare has not even been implemented. All of the items listed in this inane letter have nothing to do with the healthcare bill that was passed.

0

George Lippencott 3 years, 4 months ago

Well at least one portions of Obama care already implemented (26 years olds) has contributed to the significant increase in my premiums (admitted by government entity that provides it).

The $600 Billion cut in Medicare (if it happens) will most certainly lead to higher costs or less service for the wife and me. Given the budget situation, the $300 Billion to 1 trillion cost of Obama Care will certainly lead to tax increases for the wife and me.

In return, what do we get? An expansion of Medicaid that will cost me more here in Kansas and a subsidized entitlement for millions who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. All kinds of regulations that so far as they have been revealed do not seem to improve medical care one iota. Neat!! Bring it on!!!

0

George Lippencott 3 years, 4 months ago

As long as the bill is shared and not levied on a small percentage because they are perceived to have more.

As to the generalization that we all partied -perhaps you have a basis for that. One of the problems with statistics is that they hide detail. Significant gains by the society does not mean those gains were shared. In fact we know they were not.

The top 1 to 3% have seen most of the gains in the last two decades. They are the ones least affected by Obama Care.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.