Text Size:
A|
A|
A
Email
PrintPaying for health care is the crisis, not Social Security
As I write our check this month to pay for our family health coverage, I cannot help being amazed that our president has deemed Social Security in "crisis" while we continue to pay monthly premiums of more than $1,300 to cover our family. This is due to the fact that my husband was forced some years ago to become self-employed and we pay for coverage on our own.
Make no mistake -- this can happen to anyone. If you are "outsourced," "downsized" or otherwise displaced, you may be forced to buy your coverage once your COBRA coverage runs out. This is if you can afford it.
This payment is forcing us to make serious financial sacrifices, especially if there is another huge hike in premiums next year.
What can the president and Congress do for us and the millions who are uninsured or paying huge monthly premiums? Overhaul the entire health-care system at once. Force drug companies to price their drugs fairly for everyone. Address HMOs that have enormous amounts of cash stashed away but call themselves "nonprofit" organizations and then penalize hard-working people by charging them thousands per month for coverage.
President Bush's pet issue of tort reform is valid, but it is only one small piece of the puzzle.
The real crisis in America is in our health-care system. I challenge President Bush and Congress to address this issue now, not in 20 years.
LAURA LOWE
Oakmont
GOP mind-set
Letter writer Gary Young's comments would be merely amusing were they not indicative of the new "Republican" mind-set ("About the 'Little Folks,' " Feb. 18). This mind-set involves presumption, name calling and oversimplification. The Republicans are still holding to their claimed party ideals while failing to recognize where this administration is coming up short in upholding these very ideals.
Perhaps Mr. Young would do better by being a little more critical of his own party's falterings (there are plenty to choose from), rather than rehash the same tired, contradictory and ignorant talking points. If the Democrats are amoral intellectual elitists, then the Republicans must be self-righteous lock-steppers who can't see the forest for the trees.
TANYA BENNITT
South Side
Agenda of meanness
Republican letter writer Gary Young gave his version of what Democrats represent ("About the 'Little Folks,' " Feb. 18). Well, this Democrat is going to tell you what Republicans represent. They are bought and paid for by corporate America and the elitist rich, whom Bush refers to as his base.
While they want government out of their religion, they want their brand of religion in our government. Republicans reject scientific evidence that doesn't support the agenda of their extremist supporters. Republicans are anti-family since they are against the very things that promote families' welfare, like health care, child care, minimum wage, unions, overtime pay, extended unemployment benefits, clean environments and full access to juries for awards.
The Republicans want to make abortion illegal, but they support nothing that would decrease unwanted pregnancies. This is reflected in the increase in abortions under President Bush. The Republicans support lies that took us into an unjustified war resulting in almost 1,500 American deaths. The Republicans support a huge deficit to fund this war and the tax cut for the rich, while supporting severe cuts in the domestic budget on the backs of the least among us. The Republicans support two ideas -- dismantle the domestic programs that have helped millions for more than 50 years and reward corporate America.
Their mean-spiritedness and their hypocrisy are staggering. Also, the Dixiecrats were not true Democrats, but a breakaway party that supported Strom Thurmond. Some say these racist Dixiecrats should now be known as Southern Republicans, supported by people like Trent Lott.
The Democrats have a long, proud history of helping the average American and creating the middle class. The Republicans control everything now. When Americans wake up someday to find that this country no longer resembles the great country it once was, they will realize the mistake they made by allowing this to happen.
LINDA MURTHA
North Huntingdon
Why so much?
In response to "Drug Costs Rattle Congress" (Feb 10): As far as I am concerned, the problem is not that the Medicare drug program is going to cost $300 billion-plus more than first estimated. The real problem is why it will cost that much to begin with. The main economic pitfall of the program (no price negotiation with drug companies) doesn't make any sense to me, and shouldn't make sense to the people who allowed it to happen.
I shop at stores like Wal-Mart because that is where I get the best price. It can give me the best price because it buys from suppliers at deep discounts. It receives those discounts because it purchases in huge quantities. I do understand that supplying toilet paper is somewhat different from providing life-saving drugs, but the same concepts can be applied to both situations.
If a company is the only one producing an important drug, that company is simply in a better position to negotiate. That is an enviable position to be in, but it doesn't follow that every company pumping out its version of Viagra should be in the same position. Companies that produce similar drugs should be pitted against each other, rather than against us.
But I guess that would leave them with less money for more important projects like that $40 million inauguration party last month.
MARC BROOKS
Highland Park
Editor's note: The writer is a student in the health law program at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.
Our forum ignored
While dutifully informing Pittsburgh readers of the exclusive meeting among corporate and political elites in Davos, Switzerland ("Economic Forum Ends With Notes of Optimism," Jan. 31), the Post-Gazette irresponsibly chose to ignore the simultaneous alternative gathering in Porto Alegre, Brazil.
At this World Social Forum, more than 150,000 people from 135 countries met to challenge the elite's plan for dominating the world's people and their resources. As a participant in the World Social Forum, I heard testimony from individuals representing Africa, Asia and Latin America describing the devastating consequences to ecosystems and cultures resulting from transnational capitalism's drive for greater profits and control. The forum was also rich in creative solutions that addressed issues of inequality and sustainability, while avoiding ripping apart the fabric of life and hope so intrinsic to neo-liberalism.
Unless the PG's idea of "fair and balanced" has embraced the Fox News definition, I'd suggest that your editors strive to present perspectives other than those of Microsoft and Citibank.
ALBERT PETRARCA
Highland Park
Our own enemy
Regarding the Feb. 20 editorial "Plame Game": I don't understand why Robert Novak would write and publish a column exposing the identity of a covert American CIA operative, endangering that operative and anyone who was working with her. At first blush it seems to be an act of treason. Then after considering all the facts it becomes much more than a single act of treason. It becomes a treasonous conspiracy involving some of the highest levels of the U.S. government. Why would journalists who never published anything be prosecuted while Novak skates away unscathed?
The extent to which this administration is willing to penalize anyone who dares to disagree with it is alarming. It appears that the United States of America is becoming the very thing that we say we are fighting against.
MARK COHEN
Squirrel Hill
Do some trial assessments based on lot size
When inventor Charles B. Darrow of Germantown, Pa., marketed his game of Monopoly in 1934, his evaluation of the game board properties approximated real-life: Those in the same neighborhood were similarly priced. A player landing on Baltic Avenue paid less rent than one who landed on Pennsylvania Avenue.
In real life, as in the game, the more improvements that are made to the property, the higher the penalty to be paid. That is wrong!
Residential taxes should be based on neighborhood land values and lot sizes. Equal-size lots would mean equal tax assessments, no matter the size or worth of the residences on the lots.
Assessing a residence's worth, as is currently practiced, is highly subjective, time-consuming and costly. The method stated above would be less subjective and less costly by being more efficient. Lot sizes and assessments are already on the Allegheny County computers.
County tax officials could try out the plan stated above in a volunteer community on a nonbinding basis, evaluate the results and keep refining the plan until the fairest plan emerges, then try it on an expanded basis, publish the results and, if successful, have residential property owners vote on the plan in a referendum.
JAMES GARDEN JR.
Jefferson Hills
