P/cloudy
74°
P/cloudy
Hi 87° | Lo 65°

Letter: A wise voice

These days have been filled with a tornado of negative and divisive voices spouting and blowing their thoughts and complaints about the emerging Affordable Care Act. There were many hands engaged in crafting this legislation, not the least of which was the broad commercial for profit insurance industry.

Clearly it is not a finished perfect product. Hopefully the future may hold some collaborative effort and move the principle of “affordable health care” a few more steps forward. The best health care system is not alive and living in these United States, as Judith Kumin recently noted (“ ‘Best’ system? Not by a long shot,” Monitor letter, Nov. 18). The talent and skill of health practitioners is not a question. It is the cost and accessibility that are universal issues.

Hear ye Judith, thank you for your voice! Though unlikely in my lifetime, someday health will be accorded its proper position in our democratic fabric and find a compatible balanced relationship with our profit driven insurance industry.

JIM KINHAN

Concord

The greatest aspect of the USA is its heritage of freedom and liberty. Those successful principals are under attack by progressive , liberals & democrats. If one does not like any for-profit venture they have the 100% freedom to NOT buy from that entity but they dont have the right to end that for the rest of us.

Ok, how about a public option for those who want it? You get to keep your private insurance, and anyone who wants to buy into a Medicare type program can also do so. If freedom of choice is so valuable, why was the public option eliminated from the discussion so early on?

The reason why they did not want a public option was that it was even a bigger pathway to single payer. Under a public option the taxpayers would pay more in taxes to fund people. The bottom line is that people MUST pay a significant portion of their healthcare. A person is ultimately responsible for their own life, choices and yes, health!

My understanding is that the public option would not have been publicly funded - it would have been an alternative to buying insurance from the for-profit insurance companies, but would still have required that people buy in through payment of their own premiums. It's simply not the same thing as single payer, because it would not have been "funded by everyone and serving everyone." However, I can see the point that, if it were successful, it might give people confidence that the government could actually manage a single-payer system for everyone.

PS: you do have to admit, however, that congress made a choice to limit people's choices/freedoms in this area, don't you? Somehow, when people's choices are limited in ways that advance the conservative agenda, that's ok, I guess.

Post a Comment

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