Letter: Disagrees with Hanson
Randy Hanson’s 3/22/12, opinion column titled “There’s a lot to like about the Affordable Care Act,” is a hodgepodge of recycled liberal disinformation, mixed in with his delight in already receiving benefits, and his “hope” in getting more benefits in the future.
Hanson quipped: “I didn’t pay for a flu shot this year, and I’m pretty sure I wasn’t charged for a physical.” Someone paid for that flu shot. And someone will have to pick up the tab for the physical, as well as the costs for the Obamacare bureaucracies.
Again Hanson: “For me the Affordable Care Act offers a glimmer of hope of retiring before I’m eligible for Medicare…” I’m sure those just entering the workforce will be pleased to know that they will be working longer, and harder, and for less take-home, all to help subsidize Randy Hanson’s early retirement.
Hanson’s accusation that: “Calling the Affordable Care Act socialism is disingenuous” is proved wrong by history and his own arguments. His explanation of how the federal mandates are implemented through the private sector is a description of classic fascism, fascism being a sect within socialism. Hanson is the one being disingenuous, or is willfully uninformed regarding the nature and evils of socialism.
Hanson concludes that “the strongest argument for Obamacare” is “from an ethical standpoint….” And that “it’s the right thing to do.” No it’s not. Feeding a cancer is the worst thing to do. The cancer here is the ever growing intrusion by governments into our healthcare system. The ever rising costs, restrictions, and limits on coverage are consequences of those intrusions. Removing the cancer is the right thing to do.
Gerry Lancette, Hudson
Letter: Appreciated Hanson’s view
I would like to applaud Randy Hanson on last week’s article, “There’s a lot to like about the Affordable Care Act”. While he does not specifically state the root cause of this country’s debate over the health care issue, I would like to suggest that it is a dilemma; a choice between providing a service for profit in our capitalistic society, verses the moral concept of taking care of our society in a humane, Christian manner.
I would just like to make it clear that I am an independent voter before I state my arguments. I would agree with him that the Republicans have seemed to hitch their wagon to dismantling the present system. A person can turn on any political news coverage and witness the derogatory “Obamacare” remarks from every conservative candidate. This baffles me in that, where most Republicans profess to be Christians, how can they not support a mandate such as universal healthcare with the teachings from the bible. By one person’s count, the bible states to, “take care of the poor, downtrodden and the widow” one hundred and sixty two times. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ said, “See that no one lacks anything”. You can’t argue with God, and you can’t cherry pick (as Republicans point out that some liberals so often do) from the bible.
I will agree that the Republicans have made some clear points about reform to embetter the current law. However, this is not the basis of their argument, and that is, that they are opposed to having the government tell you that you have to have health care. This idea is so ludicrous that it is preposterous. Really? People don’t want health care? Again, herein lies the moral vs. “money” argument, (Jesus also said that you can’t serve God and money) and if the Republicans want to tout a universal health care plan, then why don’t they just say so? They have no moral standing in deeming some people unworthy of healthcare; that’s as anti-Christian as you can get. Their arguments should be easily shot down (and possibly ended) by the Democrats with this rebuttal, but, alas they are not, as I’m afraid once again the Democrats have displayed cowardice when it comes to raising the name of Jesus or the bible in any argument.
Finally, if you read Ed Lotterman in the St. Paul Pioneer Press business section, you know that he had a superb article last week about our current health care system and how it models (with a few exceptions) that of Sweden’s law. They not only cover everyone, but they saved 18% on national coverage when they went to this system. Every other developed nation in the world has universal healthcare. Healthcare is first and foremost a moral issue, there is no excuse not to provide universal coverage.
Kyle Amundson, Hudson