State should follow new rule on health insurance
Regarding "State awaits word on new insurance rule" (July 7). Kentucky should not be allowed to back down from the requirement that insurance plans pay 80 cents of each dollar for actual patient care.
The new rule ensures that money goes to patient care not just to higher-paid insurance executives.
The rule only can be waived if the state demonstrates that it would cause "market destabilization." The commonwealth has not met that standard and Aetna's announcement that it will be leaving the small-business and individual markets in Kentucky does not strengthen its argument.
Never miss a local story.
Aetna has not alleged that the new rule affected its decision. In fact, when the Department of Insurance originally applied to postpone full implementation of the new law, it did not even include Aetna on the list of insurers that would be affected.
So let's not get distracted by questionably relevant statistics and just try to get better health care.
Health law fellow Kentucky Equal Justice Center
8th-graders in charge
America's debt and debt-related problems are not complex. They simply exceed the problem-solving skills of the irresponsible politicians who created them.
Any eighth-grade class can solve those problems with the efficiency of their text messaging.
Take the energy problem as one of many such examples. "Energy independence is a must," say the old incumbents on Capitol Hill. Why then does America continue to pay $600 billion for imported oil each year? Add the cost of the oil-motivated wars in the Middle East and that amount increases to an insane $1.2 trillion. Yet, America has more untapped oil reserves than all the OPEC nations combined.
Like adults, eighth-graders have felt the tyrannical squeeze of shrinking household budgets caused by the high cost of gasoline. They would make short work of the energy problem.
Unlike the incumbents, eighth-graders can still see and feel the difference between simple right and wrong.
Accordingly, a moratorium on all committee activity on Capitol Hill should be declared and needed legislation assigned to eighth-graders. Their pure decisions would do our Founding Fathers proud.
Their purity would also light the way back to prosperity. Jobs would sprout up like weeds in early spring, every citizen would be entitled to free health care, not one more soldier would be killed or maimed in oil wars, grandma's and grandpa's income would never be cut or threatened, a dollar would be worth a dollar, and America would become great again, for all the right reasons.
Thomas misses point
Cal Thomas' July 13 column really disappointed me. How could a knowledgeable person like him so completely miss the point?
President Barack Obama is not trying to pull down the rich, he is trying to increase the spending money available to the 50 percent of the working population who make less then $50,000 a year. Since they are the people who keep the economy running (70 percent of the economy is supported by consumers), how is this a bad thing?
When people have to choose among food, clothing, medicine and shelter, they have no extra money to buy other things, and the economy tanks.
There just are not enough very rich people to buy ordinary items like toasters, for example, to keep the economy moving. How many toasters can even two millionaires buy? But how many does a factory have to sell to stay open?
The rich will not be hurt by a tax increase. After all, the wealthiest survived a 90 percent tax during and just after World War II. In fact, higher taxes kept us from a killing national debt and from falling back into another depression when the war was over (unlike the present situation with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan).
People opposing a tax increase are looking at the wrong end of the stick. It isn't about how much they give to support our wonderful country, it is about how much discretionary income the majority of the working people of this land have left to spend.
Ifs, ands, butts
This is to the people who think their rights are being trampled because they can't smoke in some places or leave their nasty cigarette butts laying around. You have the right to smoke in your own home and your own car till you get sick, if that is what you want. But what makes you think you have the right to pollute other people's air? You do not. And littering is a crime no matter if it is a cigarette butt, or a burger box. This is not legislating morality, as one person said. It is legislating where your rights end and other peoples' begin.
Also, I hope this state will pass Caylee's law to help find missing children.
One more thing: if the Herald-Leader got rid of the horrible colored Friday comics, could we have our free TV guide back?
Lynn Fish Blacketer