Letters to the Editor

Positive step

March 18, 2011


To the editor:

The Affordable Health Care Act will:

• prohibit denial of health insurance to persons with pre-existing conditions.

• eliminate lifetime and annual limits on essential benefits.

• cap annual out-of-pocket expenses, including deductibles and co-pays.

• prohibit insurance companies from rescinding coverage for persons who have major illnesses.

• ensure health plans provide certain preventive services at no cost to consumers.

• provide refundable and advanceable credits to make premiums affordable.

• create nonprofit, member-run health insurance cooperatives to provide affordable, quality health insurance.

The law is not perfect, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.


paulyouk 3 years, 1 month ago

Privatized health care costs more:

The waste of redundant inefficient private bureaucracy combined with the absurd salaries made by insurance company CEOs and corporate execs are two important reasons for this. Could you imagine if there was a proposed nationalized alternative that included paying the people at the top 10-30 million dollars in salary, with umpteen million more in benefits and ownership privileges (stocks in the private sector)? The health-care haters would riot, even as they have no problem with a wasteful broken private system creating this same irrationality.

Extremely top heavy salaries are a huge social burden and an economic risk. Even within companies, they pose a great moral hazard. In such situations, the individual with the power in the situation will often be incentivized to act in a way that benefits the self, even to the detriment of the company.

You make some good points Clark, but unfortunately I think our governmental structure is ultimately too strongly influenced by the same corporate and private interests they are feigning to reform in order for such laws to be effective.


Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

Our country spends more money on military and homeland defense than the rest of the world, COMBINED! Krom forbid we actually reign in the Military-Industrial Complex, cut the defense budget and pay for people's health care.

We are the richest country in the world. There's no excuse for citizens suffering because they can't afford to see a doctor, or going bankrupt because they have an accident or illness.


devobrun 3 years, 1 month ago

Mr. Coan's first 6 bullet points all cost money. The increased care provided by each of the actions will cost money. You cannot deny that increased care to more people will cost money. Then he gives a last bullet point

"create nonprofit, member-run health insurance cooperatives to provide affordable, quality health insurance."

He dares to use affordable in the sentence. If by affordable he means affordable to the individual, then yes. If he means affordable to society, then no.

If health care becomes non-profit, then tax revenues will decrease. If care increases and the government pays for it, where will it get the money?

Finally he says that the law is not perfect. No, Clark, the law is unattainable. It won't happen because it will immediately prove quite underfunded. It won't work and it will hardly get started. The next few years will be a dismantling of the law as costs become clear and revenues continue to drop.


Flap Doodle 3 years, 1 month ago

Yes, there is private health insurance in Canada. For example: "...Under the Canada Health Act, all necessary drug therapy administered within a Canadian hospital setting is insured and publicly funded. Outside of the hospital setting, provincial and territorial governments are responsible for the administration of their own publicly-funded prescription drug benefit programs. Most Canadians have access to insurance coverage for prescription medicines through public and/or private insurance plans. The federal, provincial and territorial governments offer varying levels of coverage, with different eligibility requirements, premiums and deductibles. The publicly-funded drug programs generally provide insurance coverage for those most in need, based on age, income, and medical condition...." Notice the "...private insurance plans..." clause. Also the "...generally provide..." weasel words. Also that there are still eligibility requirements, premiums and deductables.


pizzapete 3 years, 1 month ago

I wish we could do away with insurance for health care all together. Do people in Canada need to buy health insurance? Basic things like health care and education should be provided for.


Flap Doodle 3 years, 1 month ago

Here's a real positive step: "ASBURY PARK, N.J. (AP) - A central New Jersey elementary school that was renamed in honor of President Barack Obama last year will soon be closed..."|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|t


cato_the_elder 3 years, 1 month ago

If you're 35 years old, and you still feel invincible, contemplate waiting two years for a knee replacement a few decades hence when you may need it. That time will come more quickly than you realize, and Obamacare has been very intentionally designed to be the first step down that road.

As the letter writer states, Obamacare is only a step - and quite clearly a step in the wrong direction.


usnsnp 3 years, 1 month ago

Of course, you prefer some accountant at a insurance company deciding your medical decisions. You prefer administrative costs of 30% to 40% of private insurance. You prefer large numbers of people in the United States not being able to aquire health insurance, or being under insured. You prefer insurance companys trying to raise cost by over 50% in some cases. If you have adequate health insurance at a resionable cost, count yourself luckey, but how long is it going to last if you loose your job, or the insurance company determines that you medical problem is from a past problem and will not cover your present medical problem. Or are you saying that is a person is not lucky enough to have a good paying job they should not have medical insurance.


Brock Masters 3 years, 1 month ago

Not to mention that the federal government doesn't have the authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance by individuals. And before those that support the law get their panties in a bunch, I realize that not everyone believes this so we'll have to wait until the SCOTUS rules on it.

Also, our former governor admitted that they were counting dollars twice and the savings are not really there.


Liberty_One 3 years, 1 month ago

All of these things have costs. There is no free lunch. What this act does is FORCE these things on the public including the higher costs instead of giving people a CHOICE. The people live in la-la land that only see one side of the equation.


ksrush 3 years, 1 month ago

You forgot to mention

Break the country in the process


Commenting has been disabled for this item.