Health care a moral issue

Health care a moral issue

EDITOR:

Recently, I attended a showing of Michael Moore’s movie “Sicko,” learning up close and personal how devastating a catastrophic illness or accident can be, not only physically, but financially. Nobody plans to get sick, so why do health insurance companies act as though we did it on purpose? Not long ago, I had to use our family insurance plan when I had a brief illness. It cost over $10,000, of which we had to pay around $2,000 out of pocket. Immediately afterwards, we learned our premium increased, as well as our deductible (coincidence?). We pay our premiums through payroll deductions, in order to avoid the high costs of health care. Why should we pay even more now because we had to use our insurance?

Lately, it seems we hear a different number almost daily for statistics of uninsured Americans; the truth is, no one should have to shoulder the burden of paying for health care. If even one person is without health insurance, cannot pay for an illness, goes without treatment, suffers the loss or foreclosure of property due to astronomical health care costs, is denied life-saving treatment or a procedure due to inability to pay for a catastrophic illness or accident, that is one too many.

At the “Sicko” showing, we also had a speaker, Rev. Linda Hanna Walling. She pointed out that the health insurance issue is above all a moral issue. So many of the opposition are faithful churchgoers and even purport to care deeply for their fellow human beings. How can they deny coverage for these fellow Americans who have no health insurance? How can they not listen to the story of the Good Samaritan, and see the similarities of the ones who passed by the beaten man in themselves?

ANN KURZ

Canfield

Issue 3 helps Youngstown

EDITOR:

I am writing this to voice my concern about Youngstown City Council’s decision to unanimously oppose Issue 3 solely due to the fact that Youngstown, the eighth largest city in Ohio, was not chosen as a site for a casino. This is no reason to dismiss the issue.

The four locations have the largest populations and this issue depends on Ohioans staying in Ohio to play the slots and table games rather than going out of state. This means the four highest population densities would get priority over the rest of the state. Youngstown is not being left out.

Just because a casino is not being built here does not mean the area will not reap the benefits. There will still be a large sum of revenue coming to the area, especially to Youngstown. The counties and schools will also benefit. How can tax dollars to schools be a bad thing? People in our region will still be able to get a job at the Cleveland casino.

The Mahoning Valley will benefit from the casinos, even if one is not being built Youngstown. Don’t push aside this issue simply because of location of the casinos. The Valley will still benefit. Issue 3 is good for the whole state of Ohio, not just the four cities on the ballot.

RAY DERR

Masury

Gambling’s hidden cost

EDITOR:

After reading the article in “How We See It” on the editorial page about Issue 3, I was inclined to write. My father was a gambler and took every dime we had to feed his addiction. This left us with barely enough to eat, or a place to live. It was a terrible life, no one can imagine unless they’ve been there.

I know people who take lots of money that should go for bills and things and spend it on the lottery hoping to hit the big one. All they need is another place to gamble.

The article stated “the house never loses.” I can add to that “except the house the gambler lives in.” Vote no on Issue 3.

BETTY FORD

Youngstown