To the editor:
A front-page story in Monday’s Review-Journal tells of a woman who quit her job because the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies allow her to do so (“Some welcoming freedom to quit under health law”). Polly Lower was very unhappy in her job, but her insurance was keeping her in place. Insurance should not be tied to one’s job. Although some complain about the ACA, it is possible that businesses will eventually be freed of the insurance burden through a ‘Medicare for all’ plan, where everyone pays for their own insurance.
For now, the ACA appears to be providing needed relief for the job market: for every person who leaves a job, there are plenty of unemployed to take the position. Thus, we should see a drop in unemployment. These new employees will contribute to the ACA and add to the economy, since they will have money to spend. The unemployment numbers should shrink. Ms. Lower admits that it has been harder to make ends meet, so even she might decide to rejoin the workforce after some time off.
Let’s give the ACA a chance to work its way through the economy. Who knows, it might also end up being a net plus for the economy, while cutting costs for health insurance and giving citizens more freedom to choose.
To the editor:
In response to Richard Strickland’s letter on Monday (“R-J has duty to support Obamacare”), I applaud the Review-Journal for exposing the Affordable Care Act as the sham that it really is. If the ACA was such a great idea, why was it mandated instead of instituted as a voluntary measure? The only reason it cleared the Supreme Court was because the individual mandate was deemed a tax.
Though many will have better health care coverage due to the ACA, millions more will lose their old coverage while being forced to pay between 20 and 100 percent more than they did for their previous plans. Many will also be forced to find new doctors, as we learn that President Barack Obama’s “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” statement was a blatant lie.
Millions more will either lose their jobs or be cut back to part-time status, as larger companies do all they can to keep their profit margin while still complying with the law. And if the immigration reform bill passes, many of those granted amnesty will be able to work 40 hours or more per week, and the employers won’t have to pay ACA benefits for them. This will put millions more Americans out of work, joining the 20 million-plus who are already unemployed or underemployed.
Mr. Strickland might be a fan of the ACA, but most of us hard-working Americans who are footing the bill want the law repealed. There has to be a better way than “you have to pass it to see what’s in it,” which is better used to describe a stool sample. Come to think of it, they both smell the same.
No dads, no guidance
To the editor:
The full-page article on Chicago gang violence completely omits the underlying cause of the problem (“Anti-gang push curbs Chicago crime,” Feb. 9 Review-Journal). Almost 80 percent of the children born in Chicago are in fatherless homes. With no guidance in values, it’s no wonder that so many of these kids turn to gangs, which to them are a substitute for family.
This condition has been created by a welfare state that provides a financial incentive to have more out-of-wedlock children. It would be cruel to just cut off the children now dependent on welfare, but future growth of this wasted welfare money and the gang generation can be achieved by attrition.
To correct this problem, I propose the Parental Responsibility Child Care Act: legislation that cuts off welfare for children born 10 months or later after its passage will allow even currently pregnant women to be covered. When the law takes effect, the number of fatherless children will significantly decrease, and with it future gang involvement.
I am a refugee from Chicago, having lived there for 70 years. I saw the changes in Chicago from a safe city when I was a youngster to a city having areas in which I would no longer dare to travel. What a sad decline.
ROBERT D. KRAFT