Jean A. Roll – 6/8/08

This page was last updated on June 8, 2008.

Follow the doctor’s advice; Jean A. Roll; Beaver County Times; June 8, 2008.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“We want to thank Dr. Suzanne Vogel-Scibilia for her letter to the editor about supporting a national health-insurance system (‘Dump ‘mangled care,’’ May 29).

“We are concerned about the future of the younger people.”

[RWC] If the Rolls “are concerned about the future of the younger people,” of which I am one (younger than the Rolls), they’d steer clear of a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly. For more info about my overall view of the issue, please read my Healthcare paper.

As I’ve written previously, every time we turn over a personal responsibility to the government, or push a local government responsibility to the state or feds, we’re selling our liberty one piece at a time. Do the Rolls really want to sell the liberty “of the younger people” for the false promises of a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly?

“We are in our eighties and we pay for health insurance and prescription coverage and it increases every year. Our HMO receives the medical deduction from our Social Security amount, plus a monthly payment directly from us.”

[RWC] Medicare covers the Rolls. When Mrs. Roll wrote that she and her husband “pay for health insurance and prescription coverage,” she was referring to Medicare Parts B and D. For what it’s worth, I pay for my healthcare completely and directly out of my own pocket.

“We hear that the Bush administration prescription plan that is in effect costs the taxpayers billions of dollars, and we are in an alternative plan because it is more expensive than the plan we were advised to keep at the advice of our HMO representative at an informational meeting.”

[RWC] Does Mrs. Roll believe the H.R. 676 drug plan wouldn’t cost “the taxpayers billions of dollars?” Remember, the H.R. 676 plan would have to pay for everyone’s drugs, not just for people 65 and older. Beyond that, I don’t understand the rest of the sentence.

“My husband was blessed to be able to earn a small pension but that is not a given to future retirees.”

[RWC] Some “future retirees” will receive a pension, some will not. That’s always been true.

“Relying on Vogel-Scibilia’s advice we plan to contact our federal representatives and ask them to support H.R. 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act.”

[RWC] That’s too bad. Read my critique of Ms. Vogel-Scibilia’s letter and you find her support of a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly is all about leftism, not healthcare. Not once in her letter did Ms. Vogel-Scibilia present a healthcare-related reason for a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly. There isn’t one, of course, but you’d think a psychiatrist would at least try to come up with a healthcare related reason instead of leftism.