Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.


Need about $6,000 to make our MA after-prom party a success

To The Daily Sun,

Moultonborough Academy's prom committee is reaching out to community businesses and individuals in hopes of funding a safe after-prom alternative. We are hoping to join the movement to provide a sensible and enjoyable alcohol and drug-free celebration following our prom. This is an ambitious project, but the statistics relating to teen alcohol related deaths underscore the importance of this endeavor.

Moultonborough Academy will hold an after-prom party on Saturday May 20. It will begin after prom and conclude at 6 a.m. This is an event that provides a fun, safe location to celebrate for all students who attend prom (approx. 100). We are hoping to have a magician, hypnotist, movies, bouncy houses, inflatable jousting, a Velcro wall, dodgeball tournament as well as many other fun activities. To provide the best event that we can and ensure all students can attend, we need significant funds. We are hoping you will consider a donation.

In our estimation we will need approximately $6,000 to make the event a success. Our classmates mean a lot to us and we truly want to keep each and every one of us safe. No donation is too small. In addition to monetary donations we are also seeking donated items for raffle prizes.

We will gladly advertise any business that contributes to our After-Prom Party.

Donations can be mailed or dropped off at: Moultonborough Academy, Attn: After Prom Party, 25 Blake Road, Moultonborough, NH 03254.

Lindsay Bliznik

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 219

Should healthy & wealthy Americans partially subsidize the cost of other's treatment?

To The Daily Sun,

President Trump recently said, "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated." While our numerous health care problems are complicated (and we all knew that), the issue of health insurance is relatively straightforward.

Traditionally, an insurer, in exchange for money (the premium) contracts with the insured to pay money (up to a maximum limit) if certain foreseeable, but unlikely, events occur during the policy period. Thus, virtually everyone insures their home (you can't get a mortgage without it) and their cars (most states mandate at least third-party liability coverage).

Normally, the insured bad event doesn't happen; the insurer keeps the premium and the insured renews the policy. If your house burns down, or you crash the car, the insurance company will pay (usually), but at renewal time, the premium will likely increase or, if the insurer deems you too great a risk, it will refuse to renew the policy (good luck finding a replacement). This is the way medical insurance worked until the ACA (Obamacare). A young healthy person could buy an individual annual policy, with a million-dollar limit, for a very reasonable premium. An older person with minor health issues could buy a policy, but it would cost more. A person with a debilitating disease couldn't buy a policy at all.

If a person with health insurance got seriously ill, the insurer would pay medical bills during the policy year (up to the maximum limit), but the next year's premium could skyrocket or the insurer could deny coverage entirely. This left the sick person with the following stark options: (1) delay seeking treatment until the condition was acute (federal law requires hospitals to treat everyone, but also allows the hospital to sue the patient for reimbursement); (2) pay for care until bankrupt (unless he/she is rich); (3) die; or (4) all of the above.

Fortunately, most Americans don't face this problem because they get their medical coverage from either: (1) a large private employer (as long as they keep their job) who has negotiated a favorable group contract with an insurer; or (2) the federal government (Medicare, Medicaid, Tri-Care for vets). Unfortunately, in 2015 (according to the Kaiser Foundation), around 22 million Americans relied upon the non-group market and another 29 million had no insurance at all.

Disciples of Ayn Rand (Speaker Paul Ryan, most famously) believe philosophically that it is better for the 50 million at risk Americans to go bankrupt or die than to have their health care subsidized by the healthy and wealthy. President Obama (and the Democrats) believed otherwise and thus the ACA was born.

The ACA forbids insurance companies from: (1) denying health insurance to people with pre-existing medical conditions; (2) charging them more for insurance; and (3) limiting the dollar amount of coverage available to treat their conditions. This, of course, makes a total mockery of insurance principles. What if property insurers were obligated to sell you a policy after your house burned down, at the same rate charged every other homeowner, and pay whatever the damage was. Would anyone in their right mind buy a policy before the fire? I wouldn't. So, our health insurance companies have the option to either: (1) raise everybody's premiums to cover the obligation to insure sick people who never had insurance before; or (2) not offer individual policies at all. Not surprisingly, insurers have done both.

The ACA offers both a stick and a carrot to entice younger, healthier, Americans to buy health insurance. First, it contains the "individual mandate" (first proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989), requiring all Americans to either have health insurance or pay a tax penalty. Second, it provides premium subsidies to less affluent Americans (and Medicaid expansion for the poorest who don't earn enough to buy insurance), both of which are financed by new taxes on the wealthiest Americans (primarily, those making more than $250,000 per year).

To date, the ACA's carrot and stick have not enticed enough healthy Americans to buy insurance on the exchanges and therefore premiums are rising to cover the costs attributable to insuring sicker people. There are three potential solutions: (1) repeal the ACA and go back to the old system of allowing non-affluent Americans to remain chronically ill, go bankrupt and/or die; (2) "fix" the ACA by raising the tax penalties for non-compliance and increasing the premium subsidizes (i.e. more taxes on the rich); or (3) pass Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for All" plan.

The Republicans' American Health Care Act (Trumpcare; sorry: Ryancare) is a total fraud. It doesn't repeal the ACA's rules regarding covering Americans with pre-existing medical conditions (permitting Trump to tweet that no one will lose coverage); but it does repeal the individual mandate and the trillion (roughly) dollars in new taxes on the rich earmarked for premium subsidies and Medicaid expansion. As a result, fewer healthy Americans will buy policies on the exchanges and insurance companies will either raise premiums through the roof or withdraw from the individual market (the more likely scenario).

So, whether Trumpcare passes or the Obamacare remains the law (Trump signed an executive order forbidding the IRS and federal agencies from fully enforcing the ACA), affordable health insurance for sick Americans is likely doomed. Insurance companies cannot, and will not, pay more out in benefits then they take in in premiums. Each political party will blame the other for the resulting mess.

In the end, it comes down to a simple philosophical question: should sick Americans bear fully the adverse consequences of their conditions or should the healthy and wealthy partially subsidize the medical costs of their treatment? The answer is up to each and every voter.

Stanley Wallerstein

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 269