Majority still supports reform
Editor, The Times:
There are few certainties in life — in the U.S. in particular — but they include death, taxes and that our health-care system is seriously ill. The Times’ editorial encouraging that health-care reform be put on hold is exactly what we don’t need now [“Health-care reform should be set aside,” Opinion, Feb. 24].
President Barack Obama was elected partly because he was one of the few candidates willing to tackle health-care reform in a serious manner. Your conclusion that the people don’t want it rings hollow. An article in The Times on the same day as the editorial shows that 81 percent [of Americans back new insurance “exchanges”] and 72 percent of back [a requirement that businesses offer health insurance for their full-time employees] included in the Senate health-care bill.
If health-care reform is put on hold now, it could easily be another decade or more — that is how long it has been since the last serious attempt under former President Clinton — before we have leaders with the tenacity to tackle such a huge problem.
Sure, there are problems in the House and Senate versions already passed, but every small step could help some of those suffering under our current inadequate system. We need to keep pressure on our dysfunctional Congress and encourage it to do what is best for the country and not what is best for the individual politician.
— Raymond S. Wilson, Bellevue
Forcing legislation is condescending, elitist
The editorial “Health-care reform should be set aside” was surprisingly refreshing. It was pleasantly unexpected to see such deference to the will of the people instead of the usual “Those ignorant voters will get health care whether they want it or not” and condescending elitism so prevalent in certain political corners.
The assessment that “maybe they should want it but they have other priorities now” was both pragmatic and uniquely American. I also enjoyed the pungent quip that only a “political infant” believes that “a big new federal program will cut spending and rein in waste and fraud.”
— Howard Mannella, Issaquah
Stop delaying, time for reform is now
I’m afraid The Times just put out the most irresponsible and cowardly editorial I’ve seen in years. According to it, we should halt health-care reform because the Democrats lost in Massachusetts, which — in the newspaper’s interpretation — translates to: “Americans don’t want it.”
The editorial also says we should halt health-care reform because The Times thinks it’s not all it should be at this point in time. You have got to be kidding! The rest of the newspaper staff must be cringing under their desks in embarrassment. Shall we now put reform off for another 30 years?
The state of the reform so far may not be all The Times wants it to be, but hey, the negotiations are still on the table last time I looked. It is not the time to throw in the towel and revisit this in the future. We know darn well that to put it off now would mean at least another decade before it is revisited.
We have been that irresponsible for far too long. The time is now. We have come too far and made too much progress to give it all up now. Stand up and be brave, this is not the time to hide our heads in the sand!
— Jeanne Amundsen, Edmonds
Instead of taking step back, add public option
On one hand, I believe reform that moves us in the desired direction and makes room for future enhancements is better than no reform at all. On the other hand, there are elements of reform now missing that are essential. The public option is one such element.
I find it curious that the “Cornhusker Kickback” which benefits Nebraska at the expense of taxpayers from other states was canceled, yet the Joe Lieberman concession — which eliminates the public option — was not. The public option will be an extremely important cost-control element for any health care reform.
I submit that the Lieberman concession must be canceled as well. But where is the political will to make this happen? Starting over at this point will do nothing but delay reform for another generation. This is unacceptable. A reform bill with a few warts is better than no bill at all.
— Phil Hooks, Seattle
Simplification will avoid damaging current system
For months the press has nicknamed health-care reform “Obamacare” but the Obama administration has never offered even an outline of a plan.
Now with the Obama administration’s plan revealed, we find it a polished-up Senate plan, but so vague the Congressional Budget Office was not able to score the costs. Isn’t this just like putting lipstick on a pig?
Financial reviews of all the proposed plans estimate their true cost at or above the government estimates, which would be in line with every other government program that we financially endure in the U.S. today.
We see the financial future of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid heading over the cliff into bankruptcy. I say let’s not screw up our current health-care insurance and health-care system and risk bankruptcy there too!
If Congress simply mandates cross-state purchasing of health insurance, pre-existing condition pools and some minor limits to medical-liability payouts, premiums would decrease and care would increase. There would be no need for this superstructure of government health bureaucracies and all the costs that go with the scenario.
Remember, politicos said these bills would reduce costs. However, across the country, we are all seeing huge insurance premium increases so the insurance companies can be ready to deal with the proposed government regulations already passed in Congress.
— Jim Henderson, Walla Walla