Printed letters, September 22, 2013
USA Today and The Wall Street Journal confirm polling results of 53 percent disapproval of Obamacare, emphasizing The Daily Sentinel’s recent op-ed on the confusing aspects of the law.
Some may think I am one of the “partisan detractors” of this new grand plan for health reform, while conveniently ignoring that it was originally conceived and passed along “partisan” lines in Congress.
It was later deemed constitutional via a legal contortion that changed “mandate” to “tax.” Now it is promoted by a flurry of navigators and a government-sponsored ad campaign (funded by taxpayers). Also:
✓ IRS enforces the tax credits and relies on individual honesty for reported income levels.
✓ Navigators will have personal IDs, which could lead to identity theft.
✓ The Independent Payment Advisory Board, which hopes to reduce cost by authorizing only so-called “evidenced-based” care, will ultimately will lead to rationing of care. (IPAB is derided even by partisan Howard Dean.)
✓ Obamacare will diminish patient care and threaten the traditional doctor-patient relationship.
✓ The Office of Management and Budget predicts premium costs will rise (134 percent in Colorado), as will total government expenditures.
These arguments are not hollow. The president’s promises are hollow:
“If you like your insurance, you can keep it.”
“You can keep your doctor.”
“This will save families $2,500 a year.”
For now, Obamacare is the law of the land. I hope our legislators have the wisdom to repeal, or at the very least, defund it. If they do not, partisan supporters of Obamacare need to bear the full responsibility for the detrimental effects. If Sentinel columnists are going to tout this legislation as the solution, then the paper must acknowledge that it is a failure when it inevitably fails.
Those of us who oppose Obamacare, including Dr. Ben Carson, famed neurosurgeon, are not hyperventilating when we advocate for repeal and for legislating a patient-centered and truly affordable plan.
LARRY D. TICE, MD
Navy Yard shooting show lapse in nation’s security
Bill Grant is so out of touch as to be ludicrous. Getting rid of those two arrogant, power-hungry state senators was not only about gun control, but about freedom. Grant spews his unsubstantiated opinions as if they are facts, such as: “the American people want more gun control.” The recent election sort of disproves that.
Grant should focus on the real problem in all the recent horrible mass shootings, which is mental illness. With the record being reported by the press, how was the Navy shooter able to obtain firearms? We already have laws covering these sorts of things. Someone or some agency is not doing the job of enforcing existing laws.
That’s the trouble with liberals — they want more government control and more loss of Constitutional freedom, without enforcement of existing law. They use every excuse to burden law-abiding citizens with more onerous regulation without addressing the real problem, which is mental illness.
The Navy shooter should have never been allowed to walk freely among law-abiding citizens, let alone been approved to buy weapons and obtain a security clearance. Who’s asleep here?
Constitution citings overused in letters about the recalls
How many times can I use the word “Constitution” in this letter? Or maybe “common sense” or “regulation.” I will use the word “pathetic” just once to describe the latest recall election. So, you have to conduct more background checks, and you can’t buy a hundred-round drum for your AK.
I know plenty of conservatives (at least one is a genuine hunter) who have no problem with either of these. Even street rods have restrictions, but it does not mean one cannot legally own and drive a car (unless, of course, one has been convicted of one of a number of offenses).
I wonder how many of the folks mentioning the Constitution participated in protests against the Iraq war, torture (and its admitted presidential authorization), indefinite detention or the USA Patriot Act.
From a document that calls for a “well regulated militia,” one cannot assume an unregulated citizen.
Background checks should inquire about intent to murder
In the aftermath of the Navy Yard shootings, columnist Bill Grant proposes that Colorado legislators “reconsider common-sense legislation to keep guns out of the hands of individuals bent on murder.”
Unsurprisingly, Grant offers no common-sense specifics. Perhaps one of his common-sense secret ideas was to make murder a common-sense felony. Oops, that’s already taken.
Well, how about adding common-sense questions to the existing common-sense background check form:
“(1) Do you intend to use any of these gun(s) for the purpose of murder, now or in the future?
“(2) If your answer above is “No,” do you promise to contact law enforcement immediately if your intent changes, or if your behavior becomes erratic or uncontrollable due to mysterious voices, unexplained force fields, space aliens, demons, drugs (legal or illegal) or other causes?”