To The Daily Sun,
This is in response to Kent Warner's letter in the September 4th Sun:
We "right-wing nuts" understand something that you do not, particularly in regards to Obamacare: You do not help the "have-nots" by turning "haves" into "have-nots". You assume the "haves" are greedy unfeeling monsters when in reality many of the "haves" do far more to help the "have-nots" than either you or the government. You seem more than willing to spend other people's money to fix a problem created by yet others (more often than not the government) in order to assuage some deep seated guilt that you appear to harbor. (That's the problem with "empathy politics", something from which you seem to suffer.)
The Obamacare bill was a poor piece of legislation that ignored the hundreds of unintended consequences. Those consequences are now being felt as the various parts of Obamacare are being implemented.
The president promised we'd be able to keep our doctors and our health insurance plans if we wanted to. But it turns out he was wrong. The promise was made that it would bring down the cost of health insurance and provide health insurance to 30 million people that do not have it. Again, neither is true. If you haven't noticed, health care premiums have been skyrocketing. Many health insurance plans will go out of existence because they do not meet the draconian requirements of Obamacare. Some surviving plans shed previously covered family members. (This is something UPS has just informed its union employees about. If an employee's spouse can get coverage through their own workplace, then the spouse will be dropped from the employee's health insurance plan.)
Many of the young adults expected to help carry a big part of the load of the costs of Obamacare won't sign up for health insurance because it's a lot cheaper for them to pay the fine. (A majority of the present 30 million Americans without health insurance coverage are made up of those very same young adults. They don't get health insurance for one of two reasons: they believe they don't need it yet because they are young and "invincible", or they have more important things on which to spend their money, at least in their eyes.)
How anyone could have believed Obamacare would lower costs is beyond me. Anytime another level of bureaucracy is added it means that yet another "someone" has to handle the existing paperwork, make decisions, or approve decisions made by others. That added someone ALWAYS adds costs to whatever is being provided and increases the amount of time it takes to deal with it. How is this supposed to help anyone? The answer: It doesn't.
Kent, you seem to believe that by repealing Obamacare we will have people dying in the streets, that they will have no access to health care. Nothing could be further from the truth. As it is now, NO ONE can be denied health care regardless of their ability to pay. That is the law and it has been for decades. Obamacare provides no more access to health care than the present system.
While Obamacare sounded great on the face of it, it is turning out to be far more damaging to our health care system than if nothing had been done. While the existing system has problems, you don't solve those problems by making the health care system more expensive, less responsive, and of lower quality than exists now.
Better to scrap Obamacare in its entirety and start with a clean sheet of paper. Do not base it upon something we already know doesn't work, like single payer. (Single payer tends to work well in the very beginning, but deteriorates quickly with increasing bureaucratic bloat.) There are a number of other plans out there that are more likely to succeed than the nightmare that is Obamacare. It's best we consider them rather than staying with something that promises nothing but increasingly poor and more expensive care. Do we really want to lower the quality and accessibility of our health care to the lowest common denominator, something that benefits no one?
Dale Channing Eddy