Everyone should be made to view the man-on-the-street interviews featured on Jimmy Kimmel’s talk show.
It is astonishing that not one of the persons recently interviewed knew that the Affordable Care Act is also known as Obamacare. They are one and the same thing.
All but one person interviewed said that the Affordable Care Act was better than Obamacare. One person said that Obamacare was socialism. Another said it would lead to gun control. Still another said it would force people and doctors to make unacceptable medical choices.
The Affordable Care Act was more affordable than Obamacare, according to another person. Another thought Obamacare should allow parents to carry their children on their medical insurance until they were 26 years of age and make companies with 50 or more employees provide medical insurance for their workers.
Obamacare forced individuals to buy health insurance, stated one interviewee. Obviously, none of these people had spent even a moment’s time to find out what provisions the Affordable Care Act contained. In fact, those interviewed wound up unknowingly and wholeheartedly endorsing Obamacare.
The extreme right-wing of the Republican Party has worked hard to slant the public’s perception of the Affordable Care Act by pushing the term “Obamacare.” If you remain uninformed, you really do allow yourself to be fooled all of the time.
It has been reported that the Koch brothers have spent millions of dollars to fund the anti-Obamacare commercials that have been running on television. They should be ashamed.
The tea party looks on these men as patriots. Thinking, informed Americans can and should call them what they really are: scoundrels.
Bob and Carol Belfance
Make parties pay to run Congress
In a just society, the salaries of members of the House and Senate would have stopped with the government shutdown.
If legislators deserve to be paid for their current efforts, the funds should come from their respective parties. Isn’t it apparent to all that they are working for their parties and not the people?
The attempted refusal to allow the World War II vets access to memorials is disturbing and inexcusable. Republicans have sent separate bills to the Senate to fund the national parks, Veteran Affairs and the military. The Senate passed the one for the military, but refused to pass the others, and President Obama has threatened to veto them.
President Obama has ordered changes to the health-care law without congressional approval. The law should not be changed to benefit some and not others.
Large businesses are now exempt from the mandate to provide health insurance to their employees until 2015. Yet individuals are still required to purchase insurance.
Companies are laying people off or reducing hours to avoid the law’s requirements. Many are dropping insurance coverage, forcing people to try to get their own, which many cannot afford.
Congress should approve bills to fund segments of the government while the other issues are being resolved. How much more dysfunctional can our government become?
Don’t trivialize health-care debate
Calling the Affordable Care Act “Obamacare” makes as much sense as calling Social Security the “Roosevelt Security Act” or Medicare “Johnsoncare.” All suggest a certain presidential whimsy rather than serious legislative action to address real problems.
Social Security was a monumental piece of legislation to reduce high levels of poverty among the elderly, even though many opposed its passage in the 1930s.
Medicare was passed in the 1960s to enable the elderly to have access to basic medical care. Again, many were initially opposed. Most reasonable people recognize that these policies, while still presenting challenges in controlling costs, have been successful in making life better for most Americans.
Likewise, the Affordable Care Act was set up to address major deficiencies in the medical safety net, problems such as 30 million to 50 million people with no medical insurance, lack of coverage for pre-existing conditions (or cost-prohibitive coverage) and coverage limits inadequate to cover the cost of significant, but treatable, medical conditions.
People certainly can have major disagreements about the wisdom of some of these policies and the mechanisms used to implement them, but personalizing this battle by using the term Obamacare trivializes the real problems the Affordable Care Act was designed to address.
It politicizes the debate more than is necessary. This makes rational debate and discussion of how to improve the Affordable Care Act more difficult.
Our country needs serious, thoughtful efforts to implement and improve the health-care law. Language does matter. Use of the more political term makes such efforts more difficult.
iPads don’t make textbook memories
The article about Hoban freshmen and sophomores receiving an iPad instead of textbooks was an eye-opener for this old(er) lady. (“Hoban subs iPads for textbooks,” Oct. 4.
My first thoughts were how wonderful to have all that learning and ease of access; how great not to have to lug a heavy backpack; how forgetting to bring in your homework was a bygone memory.
Then, nostalgia set it. What was better than the smell, the feel and the anticipation of a new textbook? They heralded our advancement through our educational system, our school spirit and our place in the world.
Who can forget the fashioning of a brown paper cover for those new books, to protect them from scratches and other ills?