Letter - Obamacare costs are excessive
To the editor:
After reading Dennis Dalman's column Friday about ObamaCare, I didn't know if I should be angry or just laugh at his lack of knowledge on the topic.
I will try and avoid Mr. Dalman's practice of name-calling when things aren't going my way.
The Republicans did have an alternative to the massive legislation known as Obamacare. If a person paid attention to both sides of the debate, one would know that. A lot of it was patterned after the plan offered by the wonderful Cleveland Clinic.
It involved tort reform to try and bring malpractice insurance, one of the highest parts of medical costs, under control and the cost of dealing with lawsuits, many of them frivolous. It also dealt with the ability to obtain or transfer coverage if one had a pre-existing condition.
Sen Reed never let their idea reach the Senate floor.
Here are some facts: Dem. Sen. Max Baukus, who voted for the bill, has called it a train wreck. That's after he followed Speaker Pelosi's advice: We must pass this bill to see what's in it. Really?
People are being laid off or having their hours reduced to less than 30 per week so companies can avoid the excessive costs of ObamaCare. James Hoffa and the labor unions just came out and expressed their displeasure with the law.
The latest estimate for the cost of ObamaCare just increased by $456 billion!
Howard Dean, a leading Democrat, wrote in the Wall Street Journal this week that the law involves a lot of rationing. Not a death panel, but if what a person can receive for care is rationed, their life can be shortened.
Since I'm at my word limit, I'll have to leave out more facts, but it's out there if a person does the research. Try it, Dennis!