This page was last updated on March 16, 2017.
Many questions abound on GOP health care; James V. Zedak; Beaver County Times; March 12, 2017.
Mr. Zedak has written at least 53 letters since 2004. Previous critiques are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“The Republican-proposed legislation replacing the Affordable Health Care Act [sic] was put together in a guarded secure room by a few select Republicans. The effort was so secretive that other Republican congressmen and women weren’t permitted to preview it, which is proven by the failed efforts of Sen. Rand Paul.”
[RWC] Readers may remember when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told us, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”
As ridiculous as it sounded when Mrs. Pelosi said it, she was correct. That’s because much of the Obamacare bill was the equivalent of “fill in the blank.” That is, much of the Obamacare bill merely specified the actual laws (aka regulations) would be written and enacted later by various government agencies and departments (headed by political appointees) and not subject to approval by Congress. As a result, no one knew the full extent of Obamacare because parts of it literally had not been written yet. You can’t communicate what you don’t know. Again, that was by design.
I found no JZ letters complaining about Mrs. Pelosi’s comment.
The last two sentences in the “But we have to pass the bill …” paragraph read, “Health insurance reform is about jobs. This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon.” I thought Obamacare was about “Patient Protection and Affordable Care.” How will adding “4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon” make care more “Affordable?”
As for the Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) stuff, I have no sources I trust. Though I’ll likely consider the House committee’s final product a stinker for reasons nothing like JZ’s, I can see why in-progress work would be kept “secret.” Debating an under-construction proposal day in a day out does nothing except provide opportunities for politicians to run to the nearest camera and vent about the bill’s latest alleged outrage. In any case, the bill’s content becomes public when it’s presented for consideration by the full House.
“This legislation was brought to light this week and it would seem that President Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan want to fast-track it into law. Why? This legislation has already met opposition from not only fellow congressional members, but also doctor and nurse associations and the AARP, just to name a few.”
[RWC] JZ failed to mention during the run to get it passed, Obamacare “met opposition from” many doctors who were not big on Obamacare. In response, then-President Obama (BHO) demonized doctors by implying they use “the reimbursement system” to guide treatment in their favor, not that of the patient. The objective? To quell physician opposition and pit the rest of us against doctors.
Who cares about AARP? AARP (formerly American Association of Retired Persons) is a lefty advocacy group funded by dues and revenue from selling various types of insurance. I shred AARP membership applications.
“How much will this act cost Americans, how many millions will not be able to be insured, how will it impact senior citizens and the poor and, finally, will those with pre-existing conditions be dumped into a risk pool with exorbitant premiums? Those are just a few questions that demand answers.”
[RWC] As everyone, JZ should ask questions and get them answered.
That said, where was JZ’s curiosity about Obamacare? I found three JZ letters for the period Obamacare was under consideration and none were about Obamacare.
“President Trump during his campaign pledged that a new replacement for the Affordable Health Care Act [sic] would cover all Americans and be reasonable in costs. Is this proposed act President Trump’s answer to his campaign promises?”
[RWC] Republicare/Trumpcare will be no more successful and constitutional than Obamacare. Ignoring the constitutionality issue, plans like these are built based on ideology/politics and that’s a kiss of death.
For example, despite the fact females file more claims in dollars than males, Obamacare requires both sexes pay the same premium. This means males subsidize female healthcare. Regarding auto insurance, men pay higher premiums than women because men file more claims in dollars than women. Aren’t these examples indicative of a war on men? Where’s the outrage?
When it comes to age, however, it’s okay for insurers to discriminate against older policyholders by forcing them to pay more than younger policyholders. Why isn’t that called a war on the elderly?
“As for how this new health care act was put together, it can be said that we no longer have government of, by and for the people. Instead we have government of, by and for a privileged few.”
[RWC] Blah, blah, blah. As JZ knows, the bill’s content becomes public when it’s presented for consideration by the full House.
© 2004-2017 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.