Printed Letters: March 12, 2017
Profit motive of health coverage cheapens life
Are you expendable? Is your life meaningless? Your members of Congress seem to think so if you can’t afford medical insurance. It’s no problem in the extreme case to let you die. Can’t pay your medical bills? No problem, go without insurance and whatever happens to you, well, you should have been able to pay for either the bills or the insurance when due.
The ACA was far from perfect primarily because in a big part of it, the priority was ensuring that those in the insurance business made money, not ensuring proper care for actual people. For those who came up short in ensuring that insurance companies made money, Medicaid was used as a supplement. In some states elected officials decided that they wouldn’t go along with participating in the Medicaid portion of the program. They decided that, indeed, some portion of their population was expendable and not worthy of support. They apparently didn’t deserve it and if, as a consequence, they suffered or died, too bad, they should have been smarter or worked harder, or both.
Your life is only as good as making sure that somebody else profits from it.
The proposal for a “better” replacement for the ACA was touted as better coverage, cheaper, all the protective coverages of the ACA and simpler. What was produced was inferior in all areas. It was designed to ensure continued profitability to investors and eventually less cost to the government. It is a conservative document and, as such, was meant to consider some portion of the public as expendable. Your status as a human being living in the U.S. is based on how much money you have and have saved.
I have had car insurance since I received my driver’s license 64 years ago. It was always mandatory. I have paid in far more than I have cost the company, which was very little. It is based on spreading the risk. You couldn’t opt out.
The same thing could be accomplished with health insurance, but it is easier to just separate out people as expendable because insurance companies, and their health, are far more important than people’s health. Our priorities in the U.S. are strange.
D51’s claim of ‘crumbling schools’ seem dubious
Taxpayers of Mesa County have been hearing for years about the discrepancies in per-student funding between our District 51, and other Districts within Colorado.
Recently, I read yet again about the funding needed for our “crumbling schools,” to the tune of $200 million.
Eric Nilsen, the director of maintenance of District 51 schools says it would cost “more to repair the GJHS than to replace it.”
I have questions. Does the district have a maintenance budget? They must have, because they have a “maintenance director.”
If they have a maintenance director, there must be people there who are called “maintenance people.” Do they get paid on a regular basis? For what? For that matter, what does Nilsen get paid for, if it isn’t to “direct” maintenance?
I expect someone will say that the maintenance budget went for “other things.” If that answer comes, the next question will be: “If that’s the case – who is responsible for misappropriating the maintenance budget?”
I accessed my iPhone a couple days ago to check weather for this area — The Weather Company LLC. The first thing I noticed, sandwiched in between the videos following weather, was an ad for District 51. Seriously? District 51 claims it’s short of funding, can’t do maintenance, yet can advertise on the Weather Channel? Just can’t make this stuff up, folks.
DAVID F. ZULIAN