Once the rhetoric dies down from the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act, both parties should take a fresh look at the act and reach a compromise. There are many provisions in the act that are welcome to all of us, including keeping adult children up to age 26 on a parent’s policy, no disqualification for pre-existing conditions and prohibiting insurance companies from automatically dropping coverage. However, there are also some very costly provisions.
Both sides have taken an all-or-nothing approach. My strong recommendation is that the Congress should pass a bill which embraces the provisions of the act desired by most Americans while eliminating the more costly provisions.
The act, however, does not address one of the most expensive practices in medicine today. I would recommend that both parties figure a way to direct patients from hospital emergency rooms (currently used for primary care) to doctors’ offices. The habitual use of emergency rooms and urgent-care facilities in lieu of visits to a doctor does nothing more than skyrocket health-care costs.
If no congressional action is taken, the Supreme Court ruling will do no more than galvanize the right and the left. The election in November will be a replay of what took place in Wisconsin, but on a national level. There is a huge schism between the right and the left, and without a compromise, those in the middle must fend for themselves.
Government grows, freedom suffers
E. Thomas Dowd rightly decries the threats he received for voicing his opinions (“Retired professor laments loss of freedom,” July 4). But he follows with a facile dismissal of valid concerns of a significant portion of the citizenry: the explosive growth of government power at all levels and a correlated loss of personal freedoms.
“Abuse of power is not the issue it used to be,” said Dowd. That assertion strains credulity given government’s actions since 2001. In the early 20th century, the federal government spent around 3 percent of GDP. It now spends close to 40 percent. This explosive growth occurred by fits and starts, with each crisis in the 20th century.
As Rahm Emanuel said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” A short list of responses includes taxpayer-funded bailouts of politically connected, private-sector businesses; an $800 billion payback to the Democrat voting base; execution of American citizens by executive office decision without a trial; the nationalization of the student loan industry; partisan passage of highly unpopular health insurance reform; and the establishment of a consumer credit watchdog without congressional oversight.
The above are the fruits of government without the checks and balances Dowd feels are a hindrance to getting things done. It’s time government stopped “getting things done.”
Ties that define
As an 84-year-old who grew up in a Democratic town and Democratic family, I must say that Mary Caruso’s July 4 letter, “Not a socialist, communist or evil,” missed the point.
Contrary to her accusations, letter writer Michael Anderson (“Obligation to question,” June 29) was not calling the president socialist or communist. What he did was challenge the president’s socialist-leaning associations, those he hired and brought into the White House and with whom he sat on a board.
On this issue, Anderson is correct. As my wise, deceased father, a life-long Democrat, always said, “You are known by the company you keep.”