DEAR EDITOR:

One of the most contentious subjects, somewhat aligned with politics, is the term “social safety nets.” Whether the term is a proper definition of the various assistance programs is arguable, but for now, we will stick with it and apply the acronym, SSN.

Currently, there are over 80 federally and state-funded SSNs. Such funding is taxpayer money, thus the division of support.

No industrious individual wants a portion of their hard-earned money going to someone else — someone they don’t know, someone who they may see does not deserve it, someone who they feel is abusing the intent of the program. Such antagonism usually isn’t with the program itself; it is with the abuse.

Some time back, I attended a presentation on our workers’ compensation law. The audience was packed mostly by employers, those who pay into the system. The panel included those who manage the law. After hearing all the negative comments, suggesting it was a bad law, I commented that the law itself, its intent was honorable, much needed, but it was the abuse of the law that was causing such contempt. Such abuse was spawned, supported by those outside of the beneficiary, outside of the department itself.

As noted above, it isn’t the SSN that is the problem; it is the abuse of the system that creates antagonism.

What’s the solution? Depending on what side of the political fence you are on, there are two ways to address the dilemma: one is to govern properly, directly address the abuse by effectively managing the program. A simpler, much easier solution is to do away with the program itself.

It is this “do away” approach that appears to be the choice of the current administration: easier, quicker, on to the next SSN. But such action has its “now what?” results.

For example:

Medicare and Medicaid proposed cuts, which are facts, not assumptions, will lead to loss of health care coverage for roughly 15 million U.S. citizens.

Provider shortage, fewer services accepting the SSN payment system.

ER overwhelmed. As more people lose insurance, ER reliance for primary care increases, straining these facilities, increasing the costs for other patients.

All the above results of the proposed cuts will cost those not directly affected a noticeable increase, along with a reduction in services in their coverage.

This is just one example of how the “do away with” method doesn’t work, just creates added problems that will need to be addressed down the road.

This “do away with” method reminds me of the old idiom, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater,” mistakenly discarding something valuable (the “baby”) when trying to get rid of something undesirable.

JOHN P. LESEGANICH

Canfield