Now and again
I am shocked to read that big insurance/trial lawyers are scaring seniors about current health-care/insurance proposals. How much will they spend to defeat critical cost-cutting measures? I suppose whatever it takes.
A basic national insurance plan for those who cannot afford insurance will cut long-term costs by minimizing emergency-room use, lost work days, increased payroll taxes and preventative care for them and their families, for which we all pay.
Don’t think of it as a free ride for them. We all pay for it anyway. That’s what insurance is — a pool of contributors who collectively cover the worst cases (should they be mine, yours or theirs) whether they contribute (pay premiums) or not.
Higher rates to cover insurance-company profits and higher still legal fees to cover potential litigation both tend to defeat our common purpose. The threat of malpractice lawsuits for insured physicians is what drives up your premiums and forces doctors to prescribe every possible lab test, CAT scan or biopsy. He wants you to be healthy but is covering his rear end because you have insurance. He doesn’t care whether you or your employer pays the premium, so long as it is paid. It’s relatively cheap to you and he gets his fee at the going rate.
Get the facts. Don’t be persuaded by self-serving scare campaigns. We need the public option for the small, less-affluent class so we can cut the overall cost of our entire insurance pool — yours and mine.
Your grandchildren will thank you later.
Look who’s talking
Kim Legendre, the Florida Gulf Coast University student who won an award for her “leftist abuse” submission to a conservative Web site, complained that she objects to “... just extending the government’s hand in our freedoms.”
I find it ironic that the conservative movement has no problems extending the government’s hand by campaigning to take away a women’s freedom in her right to choose.
The conservative movement had no problems extending the government’s hand when they took away the freedom to be married from gay couples in California even though California had passed a law allowing this freedom.
The conservative movement is now actively campaigning to extend the government’s hand to take away that same freedom for gay couples in Maine — another state that currently allows gay marriage.
Maybe Legendre should look at who is really taking away our freedoms.
In a letter to the Daily News, Dale Danford applauded the peaceful opening of the new Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Naples.
I agree with him, since violence of any nature as a protest against abortion would be a contradiction to the violence being perpetrated on the developing babies.
Danford’s letter trots out the usual arguments supporting the pro-abortion position, namely: “The gender” issue; a woman’s right to have “control over her own body”; and a woman’s right to “personal choice” to decide for herself if she wishes to proceed with or terminate her pregnancy (kind of like her right to decide what color car she desires).
There is also the “psychological” issue, in which he cites the very reliable and oft-quoted source of most studies to convince us that most women not only do not have any psychological damage from abortion but that they would do it again.
However, nowhere in Danford’s letter does he address the central issue of abortion, which is the right to terminate a life. Nowhere does Danford cite studies, or even “most studies,” of experts in embryology proving, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the embryo is not a distinct living and whole human being.
This, and not “a woman’s right to choose,” is the central issue that needs to be discussed and Danford doesn’t mention it. Maybe he just doesn’t understand the issue.
SEAN C. JAMES