Courageous vote
To the editor:
A big thank you goes to Rep. Tom Perriello, whose recent vote in favor of health care reform could lead to improved lives for millions of Americans.
The government’s long failure to provide affordable health care to all its citizens should be viewed as a national disgrace. Years ago, while traveling with students, I was asked by a teacher in Prague, “Is it true that in your country people who don’t have money for medical treatment might not get it?” When I answered “yes,” she said sadly, “How can that be in the United States? I had thought it was just an anti-American lie.”
The bill passed by the House of Representatives is not perfect, but it represents a commitment to providing “national security” of a kind different from — but no less important than — military preparedness. It is strange that many of those who question the expense of health reform seem never to question military and defense expenditures.
May the Senate demonstrate its leadership by approving what is long overdue in our great country!
BILL TRAKAS
Danville
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Randall sounding just like President George Bush you must have been sleep these last 8 years look at the bills that were passed and don’t forget the Democrats just won these power seat a year or little more ago but before that all wasn’t good it was the GOP way or the Highway and the funny thing is they were not only laughing al the way to the Banks but when they rammed their bills through also.Memory losses do happen.
IF we survive all this crapola, we might have the last laugh. But what Obamasama is proposing for this country, will change the country as wel know it. Mandates are never good. They get shoved down states throats, and then state taxes must go up. All the demorats know is tax and spend, tax and spend. And common sense says you can’t spend your want out of debt. Cuts must be made. Of course no one wants to have their pet projects cut. But they should just grin and bear it. Responsibility is a hard item to shoulder, but it is worth its weight in gold.
If you can’t cut the same as the increase, from somewhere in the Federal budget, then that increase should be dead in the water.
Otherwise, we have a sky rocketing deficit (remember a 4-fold increse in less than a year!) that won’t even slow down (at least not enough to measure). So dry up that red ink pen, and sharpen up thoso scissors!
JP - On a seperate thought, why do you think the public option, as advertised, will help people who can’t afford insurance? Every story that’s been out about the “public option” points out that the government insurance policy will be more expensive than a private insurance policy. Sooooo, if a person can’t afford a private policy, how is it that they can afford a more expensive government option?
Besides, this may all be moot soon anyway. I saw a report on CNN the other night where a constitutional lawyer offered the opinion that this bill, or any health care bill which requires the citizenry to purchase insurance may very well be unconstitutional on that issue. If this bill passes with that requirement, and then it is ruled as unconstitutional, the Congress could certainly come back with a bill that doesn’t require participation. But, how stupid would that be? The Democrats themselves know that without this mandate of everybody being required to buy insurance, what’s the point. Take away that requirement and the whole house of cards collapses in Obama’s lap. Bottom line—- we might have the last laugh after all.
JP - It’s your opinion they are bad amendments, and you have the right to your opinion. Just like the Democrats defeated these amendments because they were proposed by Republicans and, for better or worse, the Democrats are in the majority.
But, if you don’t even know what the amendments involved, can you really be so sure they were bad?
One proposal would have prevented the inclusion of illegal aliens for any of this health care support. That makes sense because these people are illegal and have no business being here in the first place.
One proposal would allow people to purchase insurance policies across state lines. This is something a lot of citizens and insurance companies want.
One proposal would have instituted tort reform by requiring the loser to pay for frivolous lawsuits and preventing plaintiffs from “jurisdictional shopping” of their lawsuits.
So JP, what is it about these or any of the Republican proposals that you disagree with. Or, as with the Democrats on Capitol Hill, are you just opposed to these ideas because they are Republican ideas.
Rockit. As you mentioned, the bills submitted by the GOP were bad bills, likely submitted so they would not be considered so the Democrats could call the GOP obstructionists and the GOP could accuse the Democrats of not listening to them. It’s politics and we, as taxpayers, get screwed.
And, when someone doesn’t have health insurance and ends up in the hospital, someone pays - that is the taxpayers who have insurance. Like with auto insurance - our premiums are increased because of uninsured motorists - the same happens with our policies because of uninsured individuals who go to the hospital. To not have health insurance is unconscionable, unless one can’t afford it, and that is where the public option comes in.
‘Nuff said. Peace.
What about the people who don’t qualify for free or reduced insurance, but don’t make enough to pay for it because their bills take up all their income? Healty people, who are caught in the middle, but who spend all their money to support families. Taxpayers. How do they benefit?
JP - Ideas similar to the tax credit issue were offered as amendments to the Health Care Bill that passed the house; but, as you are well aware, all 39 proposed amendments by Republicans were voted down by the majority. Not, mind you, because they were all bad ideas but rather so that the Democrats could continue the charade of saying “well, gee, the Republicans are just obstructionists, they don’t offer any ideas!“
As to the direct payments for services idea, I haven’t heard any one make that specific suggestion yet. But, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not an idea worth discussion.
And remember, not all tax payers WANT health insurance. This proposed reform mandates that those who don’t want to purchase health insurance must do so or face civil and/or criminal penalties. So, how exactly, does this so called health reform help those tax payers?
USABorn. Not all tax payers have health insurance, so the health reform helps those who pay taxes as well. It also assures those of us who are taxpayers that we will not lose our homes and worldly possession if we are stickened with cancer or other catastrophic illness.
Rockit. If this is such a good idea, why haven’t the Republicans suggested it?
‘Nuff said. Peace.
I thought Health care reform was as much about making it afforable which in turn would reduce the number of people without Insurance because they could afford it I don’t see any cost savings just more give aways that yes someone is going to pay for. This vote helps the non taxpayers it appears. Where is the help for us that pay taxes?
As far as bad debts to hospitals or doctors, that is easily fixable with either a full retail-value tax credit OR a direct payment plan for the services provided. Sort of a medicaid on steroids approach.
For example, a patient who doesn’t have insurance and obviously can’t pay for their services comes into the Emergency Room or a doctor’s office. Their treatment costs $5,000. The ER/Doctor has the option of writing off that 5K from their taxable income; or, they can be paid directly from medicaid. This pays for services actually needed and rendered. Isn’t this cheaper to the tax payer than purchasing insurance for coverage that MAY NOT be required at all?
Advertisement