A+ A A-

Before, you could choose insurance with features you wanted

To The Daily Sun,
I'm sorry that Nancy Parsons (see her letter of November 6) needed surgery recently, I'm happy it was successful. And, I'm happy that insurance paid most of her medical bills.
In her letter Ms. Parsons charges, without evidence, that insurance companies do horrible things, like "dropping people who are very ill". So, why didn't the insurance company just cancel Ms. Parsons' policy rather than pay over $180,000 for her medical bills?
According to the New Hampshire Insurance Department, it is illegal for an insurance company to cancel a policy if the premiums are paid.
In addition, ensuring that commitments are fulfilled is a legitimate government function, e.g., via insurance regulators, politicians, and courts. If insurance companies act as many radical leftists charge, it would indicate a major failure of government.
Almost everyone knows people for whom insurance paid enormous medical bills. Insurance companies must deal fairly with people and fulfill their obligations or they will lose business and face regulator actions.
Ms. Parsons likes Obamacare, the "solution" to mostly imaginary problems that the radical leftists have imposed on the American people. Obamacare requirements force cancellation of millions of health insurance policies that responsible people bought to protect themselves and their families. (There will be many times more cancellations next year.)
For example, some cancer patients report that the policies that are paying their medical bills have been cancelled. Replacement policies are often not affordable and/or don't allow access to their health care providers. These patients face heart-wrenching choices.
Before Obamacare, people could choose the insurance with the features they desired.
Obamacare's "experts" created four almost identical policies for us to choose from. These policies are much more expensive than current policies, may not be accepted by current doctors and hospitals, and all require coverage that many people don't want or need, e.g., 60-year-old couples must buy policies covering birth control and maternity costs.
The radical leftists didn't impose Obamacare on us just to insure a few more people. Obamacare's purpose is to grow government and to control people.
Higher health care expenses harm middle income Americans by straining already tight budgets and/or making previously independent people become dependent on government, e.g., for help paying insurance premiums that were forced high to provide unnecessary and mostly undesired insurance coverage.
I am happy that Ms. Parsons received the care she needed and that her insurance honored its commitments. But, I wish her experience would make her wake up to the greatness of our health care system, the benefits of the free market, the responsibilities of regulators, and of the harm that Obamacare inflicts on our country and the American people.
Don Ewing
Meredith

Last Updated on Thursday, 14 November 2013 11:01

Hits: 183

HB-110 sounds reasonable but it is not; ask your reps to vote 'no'

To The Daily Sun,

When I first read about the farm animal bill (HB-110) I couldn't understand how anyone could oppose it. The bill requires anyone who records farm animal cruelty to report it and turn over videotapes or photographs documenting the abuse within 24 hours. Since I can't stand to see cruel treatment toward any animal or human, I thought this bill was a great idea.

I was confused when I read that the Humane Society of the U.S. and the N.H. ACLU were opposed to the bill. Why would these organizations be against legislation requiring witnesses of animal cruelty to report it to officials within 24 hours?

I learned that undercover investigators from animal protection groups go to farms to videotape animal cruelty. Some of them stay at the farms for two to three months, taping and recording, never for just a day or two. The reason for this is, documentation of an isolated incident of cruelty can be dismissed as just that, an isolated incident. Investigators must prove a pattern of abuse in order to build a case that will stand up in court. It would be very difficult to establish a pattern of abuse in just 24 hours, and this is where the brilliant and insidious nature of this bill starts to become clear: it would thwart attempts to establish a pattern of abuse, thus preventing prosecutors from successfully winning a court case against farm animal abusers.
This bill has been passed by the N.H. Committee on Environment and Agriculture, and will then be voted on by the House of Representatives in the second week of January. Please contact your reps and ask them to vote against HB-110. You can find your representatives and their contact information here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/

Louisa Dell'Amico

Northfield

Last Updated on Thursday, 14 November 2013 10:57

Hits: 224

Modern governments have obligations that can never be paid off

To The Daily Sun,

Many who think they know about money, business and debt often contend that "the federal government should be run like a business or a balanced family budget." This belief is not only simplistic and uninformed, but also wrong. Many of these self-described "experts" even go so far as to want to bring back the gold standard.

Do you know any business or family that is still paying for the Civil War, World War II or every other war in the past 150 years? How about a business or family that operates its own navy, coast guard, disease research or air traffic control?

Anyone familiar with economics and credit should know that federal debt is an economic positive that establishes government credit and gives value to the U.S. dollar while maintaining our standing in the world. It's ironic that those in Congress who talk about the evils of debt are doing their best to destroy the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government. They desire to take away the taxing ability of the executive branch and the regulatory power of the Federal Reserve.

When Alexander Hamilton, our first Secretary of the Treasury, assumed all the war debts of the original (13 bankrupt) states after the Revolutionary War, this established our credit in the eyes of the world. The new government showed it was able to pay its bills through taxation and established one, strong currency where before every state printed its own money. This gave the federal government the ability to establish a central money supply giving investors faith in government bonds. Ironically, Thomas Jefferson and those who later started the original Democratic Party were against Hamilton's plan and wanted the states to maintain control over the financial system.

Businesses and families cannot print money. That is the responsibility of the Federal Reserve through the Treasury. When President Lincoln was faced with the staggering costs of the Civil War, he ordered the Treasury Department to print as much money as was needed to pay the bills. People should realize that the nation can never go bankrupt as long as it can print money and purchase its own bonds, which the Federal Reserve does through "quantitative easing".

The misinformed who contend we should go back to the gold standard and tie the dollar's value to physical gold in government possession are totally misguided. Every billionaire in the world would want to redeem his dollars for gold bullion, causing a world-wide financial disaster where all governments would lose credit worthiness.

Citizens must realize that a modern government has past, current and future obligations that can never be paid off. Unlike business, that is the nature of government. Business exists to make a profit while government exists for the common good. Compensating immediate relatives of fallen soldiers going back to the Civil War, as well as victims of future disasters in all 50 States, can only be the responsibility of the federal government.

Nick Vazzana
Sandwich

Last Updated on Thursday, 14 November 2013 10:53

Hits: 167

Leading GOP presidential candidates are lower than whale waste

To The Daily Sun,

I would first like to inform The Daily Sun that the purpose of my last letter was not about (i f Bush lies,does that mean its okay for Obama to lie also?). I hope this will answer your question. The letter using this headline was addressed to Mr. Siden, and he wanted L.J. to prove that Earle's LIES are LIES, while offering no proof, only opinions of others, that he's telling the truth.That is like, "What do you call a person who carries a sack of quarters"? Which has many answers.

The purpose of my letter was to acknowledge the leading GOP candidates were lower than whale waste, as is the credibility of Mr. Earle. That was the part of my last letter that didn't get mentioned. I hope the CBS report on Benghazi helped answer some of the questions Earle has on the Benghazi scandal.

Henry Osmer

Hill

Last Updated on Thursday, 14 November 2013 10:51

Hits: 165

Young will be susidizing the old, who have 4 times the wealth

To The Daily Sun,

Nancy Parsons needs another Obamacare lesson. It seems her mind overloads easily, so I will deliver the instruction in segments maybe even she can grasp. Honestly, I think Nancy has the capacity to learn new things. I am going to keep shoving it down her throat until she gets it. The same method Obama uses with people — she seems to like that approach.
Today's lesson Nancy: How the young fare under Obamacare.
I assume Nancy must be particularly interested because the young represent the future of our country. Nancy professes her concern for people. So lets find out if Nancy has emotional feelings for the YOUNG people who are getting their chestnuts blackened under the Unaffordable care act...
A few general facts:
1. The young, identified as the 18 to 40 age group represent the LEAST wealthy quintile of people in all of America. Any person concerned with income INEQUALITY would be doing their best to help this age group before all others.
2. We have managed to saddle our YOUNG with a bone crushing, record setting, TRILLION dollars in college debt. Universities REFUSE to control costs or become more efficient in the delivery of their product because these places are controlled by labor unions. Unions see improved education efficiency as a reason to cut labor, that cuts professor ranks. Democrats decided it is far better to placate labor unions and screw the YOUNG to the rafters with life crippling debt. Student loan defaults are now at record highs, and the job market for the young under Obama is more than DISMAL.
3. The age 18 to 36 group is the lowest user of health care and the least costly to insure. Their insurance rates have reflected this. Under Obamacare, the average 27 year old will experience a 90 percent INCREASE in health insurance costs under Obamacare. These are astronomical price increases. Some young person should cut the word AFFORDABLE out of plywood and tell Obama to stick it where the sun don't shine.
4. The new law limits insurers from charging the old and sick more than THREE TIMES what it charges the youngest and healthiest customers. The old, use SIX times the health care than the young, but will be charged 50 percent less while the young will be FAR OVERCHARGED for the amount of health care they consume (which is little). The POOREST quintile of America, the YOUNG will be SUBSIDIZING the old, who have three to four times the wealth. Obamacare puts a GUN to the head of the poorest among us (the young) to pay the health costs of those with far more money. Nancy Parsons LOVES IT. Why? Because she only takes instructions from OBAMA. She has lost the ability to think critically and independently for herself. This is no accident, the objective of donkeyism is to accomplish exactly that ending. A brain dead voter who only takes instruction from government central, high command out of DEPENDENCE.
5. Wealth inequality doesn't just happen randomly or because the rich are more successful. It happens because DEMOCRATS keep as many people POOR as long as possible with their policies for THEIR DEPENDENT VOTE. Obamacare is just the latest rendition of how this happens. Social Security with its miniscule 3 percent or less return on assets is another way. It is TOTAL FRAUD and invisible, that is why Democrats like it. Tens of millions of beneficiaries are ripped off for trillions by Social Security and they do not even know it. Why? Brain DEAD.
Tony Boutin
Gilford

Last Updated on Thursday, 14 November 2013 10:46

Hits: 159

 
The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Login or Register

LOG IN