Skip to content

LTE – Janet Scepurek – 9-17-2014

To The Editor:

I found Leaker’s joke about Obamacare in poor taste, because it struck a raw nerve with me.  I just got done making life-and-death decisions for both a human being and a Labrador retriever.  In both cases, it did not matter what treatments we opted for, because the result was the same no matter how much we spent — death.

 The crux of the so-called joke is that whoever is paying the bills gets to make the decisions.  The U.S. Government wants to decide what it will pay for, but a person always has the option to PAY THEIR OWN BILL.  (A person could also decline their monthly Social Security check, but I have never heard of anyone doing that.) When I take my dog to the vet, I take my checkbook and pay whatever they ask.  For the people in my family, I thank God for health insurance, and I am so glad to have the third party payer — the insurance company — to negotiate the charges down, and often it is a very large percentage the provider must write off (and I think that is why they charge so much because they know it will be chopped).  I truly cannot imagine what it must be like for people who have no insurance, to have no one to help them, and have to be responsible for 100% of the bills.  The reason there are so many personal bankruptcies is because of exhorbitant medical bills.

I find it terribly ironic that the people who bash Obamacare the most are the ones who are currently receiving U.S. Government healthcare in the form of Medicare.  Yes, those who have coverage apparently feel that other people do not deserve coverage.  The “haves” do not want to share with the “have-nots”. That is very hypocritical, and maybe they should practice what they preach, walk a mile in the other person’s shoes, try going without health coverage for 6 months, or longer, and see how they like it.

I wonder how many of these people who bash Obamacare have actually read the book on Obamacare cover to cover.  I have.  It explains that the purpose of Obamacare is to extend coverage to more people.  Yes, it will cost a lot of money, and there are going to be glitches in any new program.  It is disrespectful to complain about Obama, because at least he is attempting to address a very complex problem, for which there are no simple answers.  I say we should give the President credit for at least trying, while his opponents pride themselves on making things as difficult as possible for him.

The employer-based system is not working as it had in the past for two obvious reasons: (1) fewer people have employers, and (2) fewer employers offer health coverage because it is so expensive.

I like the idea that kids can stay on their parents’ insurance until their 26th birthday, especially since so many college graduates can’t find decent jobs with health insurance.

Maybe people should quit bashing Obamacare and worry instead about some bigger problems this country faces, such as the threats to our way of life, both from terrorists and/or financial disasters.

I just finished watching the DVD “The Hunt for Osama bin Laden,” which explains the reason that he was not apprehended years earlier was because the freedoms we enjoy in this country prohibited the CIA from disclosing confidential information to the FBI.

I just finished watching a DVD called “The Untouchables” which discussed why no Wall Street executives were ever convicted of fraud for the financial meltdown of 2008-09; again, it was because of the way our justice system works, it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I quit watching traditional television during the 2008 election because all that mudslinging is a waste of my time.  I detest watching whatever some TV news director chose for me, and instead I will choose what I want to read in a newspaper or online.

Janet Scepurek