I am replying to Ron Runtes letter regarding “Obama care” (Campbell River Mirror, Oct. 4). I’d like to address the points as they were raised.
First of all, it is not a proposal, but a law, duly passed by both the house of representatives and the Senate, signed by the president and declared constitutional by the conservative U.S. Supreme Court. As well, a presidential election was fought and won on the issue. Surely if it was such a badly flawed law then somewhere it would have been defeated. The law can be repealed by the Republicans, only if they gain control of the Senate next year and keep control of the House. Again if the law is so flawed then they should let it roll out and use the backlash to win the election.
Next, the cost. The registration for the programme has just begun and early estimates in New York State, for example, is that the cost for a premium has fallen from $550 to less than $200. The reason that large companies and members of congress are exempt is that they have their own plan. People who have their plans already in place don’t need to do anything, but have the option to enhance their plans through the State and Federal Health Insurance exchanges. The law is primarily for those 35 million Americans who have no healthcare because of pre-existing conditions or lifetime caps in coverage. It is yet to be determined as to the size of programme bureaucracy or the cost, but savings have already been made in detecting medicare fraud and medicaid part D because of the sections of the law already in place.
Lastly, I’d like to comment on his assertion that a majority of Republican members favour a one year delay. They are afraid that if the healthcare act were to be fully implemented, it would be as popular as social security. If the speaker of the house, John Boehner, would allow a vote by all members of the House, the result would be an end to the shutdown without changing the Affordable Care Act, even though the Republicans are the majority.
Again it is not a plan as asserted by the author, but a law. I can’t comment on his “red scare” comment because the fifties use of the term was regarding communism, not the right wing.