to support Medicaid
Dr. Robert Briskin’s letter, “Civil war battle, AHCA will end in bitter defeat,” (May 8), was highly critical of the Republican health care proposal. The editors noted that he is a member of the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy, but failed to mention that the NPCHC also opposes Obamacare.
Neither Obamacare nor the AHCA adequately addresses the NPCHC’s principles, which include government-subsidized healthcare, personal responsibility and tax parity.
An example is the separation of Medicaid recipients from others under age 65. Medicaid provides “free” health care to 70 million with no skin in the game. By contrast, 160 million Americans (including many low-paid) covered by employer-sponsored health insurance pay for 100 percent of their own healthcare costs (health insurance is part of their pay package); they also – through taxes – pay for those on Medicaid. Federal tax support for all Americans under 65 should be harmonized through deductions plus a sliding scale of credits based on income and family composition.
ROBERT SARTORIUS, PALM BEACH GARDENS
why not improve it?
I find it appalling that Obamacare is being repealed and millions of Americans will be left without health insurance. I personally am not on Obamacare, I am on Medicare due to an ongoing battle with cancer for the last 12 years. However, I ache for the people who will be losing their health care. My daughter is on Obamacare because she is a person trying to start a small business in a rural town in California. She refuses any diagnostic tests due to the fact that if she carries the gene I have, it would be considered a preexisting condition. How can we as one of the strongest, richest nations deny our citizens the right to health care? How can we turn away people who need it most? Although Obamacare was not perfect, it was working and it was a beginning. Why not just improve on it? Is there a vendetta against former President Barack Obama and everything he stood for and the good he did in the world? We are not a democracy under this administration, but a dictatorship that only caters to the affluent and big business. If the senate votes for this, constituents like myself will not forget it. It favors insurance companies and profits over people.
ROBYN ADAMS, WELLINGTON
to defend indefensible
Here I was ready to write a letter explaining why the Republicans should not be intimidated by President Donald Trump since his approval rating is between 36-38 percent; the Republican party approval is down seven points since January to 40 percent and Paul Ryan’s approval rating is only 29 percent.
This pales in comparison to the last week of firing James Comey and seeming to admit in an interview that it was because of the Russia/Trump investigation. Monday’s revelation that Trump not only invited the Russian Foreign Minister to the White House Oval Office but Ambassador Kislyak accompanied him, one of the Russian contacts at the heart of investigations with multiple Trump associates. Astonishing in and of itself but having only Russian media from TASS covering this and not one American journalist?
And now, Trump is defending the fact that classified information that he received from one of our allies in the global fight against ISIS was given to a U.S. adversary (Russia) without the permission of that ally. And still, this administration attempts to defend the indefensible. Since the 2016 presidential campaign, the one common denominator attached to the Trump camp has been Russia. Not only have we been and are being cyber-attacked from the outside but our president is attacking our democracy from the inside. Now, more than ever, we need Congress to step up and halt this madness.
MARY ANN D’ANGIO, BOYNTON BEACH