P/sunny
75°
P/sunny
Hi 87° | Lo 62°

Letter: New and disappointed

I recently moved from southern Arizona to southern New Hampshire. I was excited to make this move because I thought the New Hampshire Legislature was more supportive of its constituents than Arizona’s.

I have been following the actions of the House and Senate over the last few months and was disappointed to read last week that they voted against expanding Medicaid, leaving many New Hampshire families, people with disabilities, people with mental health needs, and the elderly without affordable and reliable health care.

For me it’s a no-brainer. Providing affordable and reliable health care saves money for everyone in the long run because people remain healthy and medical debt remains low.

Imagine my surprise to learn that Arizona voted to expand Medicaid while New Hampshire did not. Perhaps before ending the legislative session our representatives should vote to change the slogan of the state to “New Hampshire – Live Free of Health Care and Die Early.”

EVE BLOCK

Concord

Free healthcare is not the answer. Affordable healthcare for all is the answer. If you would like to talk about abusing the system how about the data that shows that the US government is currently spending $180 billion a year to subsidize American Corporations. Talk about a welfare system being abused. Furthermore, corporations like Walmart, Target, Bed Bath and Beyond, and Kmart (to name a few) keep the majority of their employees just under fulltime status so they do not have to offer healthcare benefits. If people stopped being so greedy I believe there could be a way for all of us to have access to affordable healthcare. My ideas are not progressive ideas as many choose to call them, they are humanist ideas. I believe that all human beings are of value and should be offered the same opportunities.

Eve, welcome to NH. To put things in perspective for you I offer this analogy - If Obama were to propose a law banning the amputation of ones right arm, there would be a rush to have them removed before the law passed. Seldom do we allow reason into arguments, get used to it, been here since 1963 and I still am constantly amazed.

Recent studies prove the premise to be incorrect: Oregon Study: Medicaid 'Had No Significant Effect' On Health Outcomes vs. Being Uninsured.........Earlier this month, The New England Journal of Medicine published results of the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment, which followed over 10,000 Oregonians on Medicaid, and found that Medicaid did not improve enrollees’ health, relative to being uninsured. It’s a game-changing event, because it upends the progressive narrative that states are obligated to expand Medicaid, no matter the cost, because the program will save hundreds of thousands of lives.

You are correct Sail. That study also showed that folks who have access to medical care do not necessarily stop using ER and start living healthy lifestyles. The few times I have been in the ER I have seen many folks in there with their kids who have ear infections, sore throats and colds. Why are they not at the Dr's office instead? The study found that free health care often times leads to convience. If your not paying for it, use the ER.

Are you serious, people prefer going to the ER. What person would want to sit around waiting for hours and hours if they had a choice? I have had the misfortune of having to sit in the ER on weekends even thou I have great insurance and a family Dr. Weekends and after hours that is where you are sent. A recent visit took 3 hours of waiting, a CAT scan then a script for pain medication until I could see my Dr on monday. Total cost billed to my ins. was $4876.00, without ins. the bill would have been about 30% higher. People do not go to the ER because they want to, they go because they have no other choice. Not many family practices accept patients without ins, and others only accept limited numbers of medicaid patients. Frankly, if you think the ER is convenient, just how do you define inconvenient?

Eve, All levels of health care, for everyone, would nice but expensive beyond belief. I would like to see it However, where would the resources, to fully fund your vision - come from?

I think that the ultimate dream of progressives is for the government to confiscate weekly paychecks and give everyone a stipend depending on some emotional criteria, therfore leveling the playing field of the "haves" and "have nots" as they call them. Everyone would live in a Chocolate Factory of services, health care, clothes, etc.

Itsa, I agree with your projection with one addition; the "leadership" of the soc/left would increase their wealth/influence and enter what we the elite. (despite their cries that elites are "bad" before any such change in gov't).

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.