- Connect
- Login
- Print Subscription
|
Welcome,
| |
| |
- Most Commented
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Most Emailed
- Popular
- Popular
« Opinion
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
- Requires free registration.
Comments
Ann, I agree with you about health care being a moral issue. I have to admit that I am totally flummoxed by the insurance industry in all arenas and how it works. Regarding your situation where your health insurance cost was increased because it had to be used doesn't make any sense to me. That's crazy. I had a similar situation with homeowner's insurance years ago. I just called and questioned whether or not damage to my home was covered under my insurance and was immediately dropped two weeks later. The answer had been that most likely the event that I had described wasn't covered. No one came out from the insurance company to review the situation. It was a simple telephone conversation where I had called and asked if this was covered under my policy. They replied no and I was fine with that. Two weeks later I got the letter that in one month my insurance was being cancelled. Luckily another insurance company happily insured my home and has for many years since. But it's just crazy how it works. I really need to study how the insurance industry works because I'm not very clear on it.
Kellie....The way health insurance companies operate is to look at their bottom line and maximize their profits. A health insurance company will maximize their profits by denying their policy holder treatment.
If you have comcast cable the movie "Sicko" is offered on-demand by Showtime. A real eye opener.
Cambridge,
Thank you for the suggestion. I will definitely watch the movie. It sounds interesting.
Kellie
Health Care a moral issue? LMAO at that coming from a abortion supporting party of liberal democrats.
First, health care is NOT a moral issue. That's a figment of your imagination and a talking point of the DNC. Second, access to affordable health care is needed, portability of plans, competition across state lines, pre-existing conditions problems, and TORT REFORM, all need to be fixed and/or improved. The method and deception used by this administration to ram this plan through Congress is pathetic. By their own admission, the Congressional Budget Office, and the latest footnotes on page 3 of the Senate Bill only further illustrates the hugh financial problems with this proposal. The public is being played for suckers, and the fantasy story the Obama pulled off on everyone last November about no additonal taxes is again.....just another lie from the empty suit.
clarkkent....You made a list of some of the things you feel should be addressed to improve our nations health care. Who do you propose should oversee these changes? The insurance companies? Who pays for your health care?
What's moral about national health insurance? What moral about capitalist liar Michael Moore? Are you people so naive to believe communist health care is superior to America's? He's a documentry film producer and the "hospitals" he filmed were scenes he created to hoodwink all you useful idiots.
CamBilge, you just described national health insurance, A socialist government will maximize it's profit by denying it's citizens treatment. Take a pill old man, we're not going to waste any more money on a hip replacement. Got breast cancer woman, die the British women do because the meds you require are too expensive.
Who makes the decision who get what treatment depending on you age, etc. The government. The same government which gave us the efficiency of the post office and the compassion of the IRS!
Grow up, all you illogical, naive, socialist, truth fearing children.
Do you want to talk profit? The collected $3.4T in taxes and spent $3.7T.
I stand corrected: the government collected $2.4T in taxes for 2007.