Medicare for all is the solution for health care costs
While agreeing with many of the positive attributes of the Affordable Care Act, as discussed by Richard Cullison recently, the law is not the answer to our health- care system catastrophe.
Why? Despite the name of the act, health care will remain unaffordable for most, and 30 million will not be eligible for coverage. The biggest flaw is the act has no provisions to reduce cost of care or the increase in that cost. We lost Twinkies because of the cost, and our police and firefighters are suing governments to keep up with the outrageous premium increases from private health care insurance companies.
There is a better answer. Medicare for all, from life to death, could save us $400 billion per year. A huge figure but true. The fiscal cliff could be avoided without needing to cut money for education, security or the military.
Never miss a local story.
We need to stop spending twice as much per capita for health care as other industrialized countries, or we will continue to fall behind.
Dr. Ewell Scott
Obamacare best for Ky.
Re: "Obamacare will help make state, nation healthier, fairer." I was glad to see the Nov. 16 op-ed by Richard Cullison of Legal Aid of the Bluegrass. The issue has been so politicized for so long that I am heartened that we can finally look at the facts.
As Cullison points out, the facts show that not only is the program doing good things for Kentuckians but it also has the potential to do so much more. Kentucky has the ability to expand Medicaid to cover upwards of 400,000 Kentuckians, the majority of whom are working in places like construction, restaurants and retail stores. In fact, Kentucky stands to gain more than any other state because of how many of our uninsured could get covered.
This would not only bring needed money into the commonwealth and create more jobs but also improve the health of our state. No matter whom we voted for, now that the election is over it is time to stop the politics and do what is best for Kentucky.
Poor business model
I'm not very happy with the way the Herald-Leader presented its digital subscription. Sending a letter dated Nov. 14, informing us that the next billing statement our bill would be increased an additional 60 cents a week, with no mention of an opt-out.
I had already expressed my disinterest in this service several months ago via a phone solicitation. Plus, I wasn't able to access the firstname.lastname@example.org listed in your letter. I had to go to the Q & A format that was mentioned in your "Herald-Leader+" article in Monday's paper before I found the opt-out option.
I consider this a very poor way of doing business.
Give credit where due
"Your call is very important to us," repeated the recording over and over during my 15 minutes on hold while waiting to talk to a customer service representative at the Herald-Leader. I wonder, if my call is so important, why wasn't it taken sooner?
I called to complain that the electronic edition of that day's newspaper was absent and viewers instead saw the previous day's version, for the second time this week. This comes as the newspaper announces that it will begin charging for all electronic content.
The obvious question then is, will custumers like me who pay for online content (the daily e-Edition) be given refunds when it is not right? I get credit when my paper isn't delivered so I expect to get the same when the e-Edition is wrong.
Of course, to get the answer to that question I was instructed to dial another number. Apparently my service representative could not service this question.
For Pulaski libraries
I am a Pulaski County citizen and I do not support the petition that will destroy our library. I love to read and have been a patron of the beautiful Somerset branch since 2008.
I fully support the library and the wonderful impact that it has had on our community. The petition does not represent me or my family. I request that the petitioner cease with the petition immediately.
Samantha Frost Phipps
Church forgot mission
What a wonderful column Paul Prather wrote for the Nov. 24 edition. It is not only the white evangelicals who have turned from what Jesus actually taught; it is also elements of my own church, which is Catholic.
Many members of our clergy and upper-level hierarchy have been focusing on contraception and gay marriage as if they were the heart and soul of our faith. Jesus did not send us out to preach against these two matters — he sent us out to feed the hungry, to comfort the afflicted, to visit the imprisoned and to care for each other and, especially, our children.
He said nothing about contraception, which had existed in some form for at least 2,000 years before his time. Marriage was mentioned as a religious sacrament, which each faith has the right to uphold, and not as a secular union, which nations and states have the right to regulate. Marriage outside one's particular faith does not threaten marriage as a sacrament.
Contraception can be used properly to bring about great good: Access to it reduces the rate of abortions; it can prevent the transmission of AIDS and STDs, and it can help families as they lovingly work within their particular situation. The way of charity and faith would be to accept the good aspects of contraception, guiding the faithful in its best uses and applications.
The world is full of problems and disasters which demand our full strength and commitment, and we need to get back our true mission.
Laurel County lessons
Here's what we know about Laurel County. Democrats can't go to heaven, and stupid people can teach school.