TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Letters To The Editor

ADVERTISEMENT

The Tampa Tribune

Published: October 13, 2007

Start Sharing The Cost

Regarding 'Children's Health Insurance Bill Justified President's Veto' (Our Opinion, Oct. 4):
Democrats and Republicans alike pay the same taxes, and the tobacco tax may not be a long-term solution for paying for this program, which means we, as Republicans and Democrats, could all pay.

Should we, as a nation, share in the health care of our children? Yes. Should we, as a nation, pay for stupidity? No.

I am currently working in Hong Kong, and to see how parents raise their children here is just amazing - almost all are at their healthy weight. In America, between school lunches, quick suppers and McDonald's, we have millions of children at risk because of stupidity.

For American taxpayers to reach into their wallets and pay for stupidity, I say no; to provide health care for children who are ill through no fault of their own, absolutely. We as Americans should share that cost in building a strong, healthy nation for our future.

RICHARD MILLER

Tampa

Try Switching Places

During the Republican debate the other night, Sen. John McCain said the president was right to veto a children's health expansion bill. He said, 'We've got to get wasteful spending under control.'

He is right. I suggest we start with the free health insurance every member of Congress has. They, unlike the children this bill was written for, can well afford to buy their own insurance.

I suggest that for a three-month period on a rotating schedule, each member of Congress should live on nothing more than the minimum wage for their families.

Maybe, just maybe, these suggestions will bring them back to representing the people of this country for a change and not the ones who lobby them for favors and new laws.

STEPHEN KAYE

Lutz

Care Is Not A Right

Jason Newell's Oct. 9 letter was a sure-fire way to get my blood going. Speaking like a true liberal, Newell whines that the government should step in and 'lessen the burden on so many families like mine' by providing insurance for his children.

Hard to miss at the beginning of the letter was that Newell has four young children and that 'medical insurance is beyond what I can afford.'

First, there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees Americans health insurance coverage, a job, a home or any material asset.

What it does promise is the right to a pursuit of happiness. I believe Newell should have limited his pursuit of happiness in fathering children he cannot afford without the help of more responsible taxpayers. Oh, and he covered all the liberal bases by bringing up 'the horrible Iraq debacle' in a letter about children's health insurance.

Good grief, are these people going to be in charge of our country in 2009?

MARK NEWMAN

Lutz

A 'Feel Good' Policy

Regarding the letters from Christopher Wheldon and Robert Fleming (Oct. 5):

The SCHIP plan and the 'European utopian health care system' are both scams in liberal disguise. They are another rash of feel-good policies being force-fed us by the biased media and politicians in this country. Anyone who does their own unbiased research into the failed, pitiful, government-controlled health care systems around the world - Canada, France, Great Britain, Cuba, etc. - knows what a true quagmire they are in reality. I don't wish to see my loved ones shuffled around like a deck of cards for months or even years when they need to be attended to in a timely manner.

The SCHIP program is another boondoggle to gut us with even more taxes 'for the greater good' as the liberals love to say.

Why is there no mention of the parents of these children being responsible for their health care? They need schooling in the difference between important necessities and frivolous personal indulgences for themselves and their children. Health insurance should come before designer shoes and clothes, addictions, iPods and cosmetic enhancements. In other words, living within their means with health care in the forefront.

Taxpayers should not be saddled with more taxes so as to enable these parents to continue to make irresponsible, immature decisions pertaining to their children's lives, as well as their own. That's the unvarnished, politically incorrect truth.

GARY KEELER

Plant City

Majority Will Benefit

Ask a candidate - especially a Republican - why socialized medicine is bad for the overwhelming majority of us who earn less than $50,000 a year. We all know why it's bad for insurance and health care companies because they lose huge profits and grandiose salaries that they make on the health problems and accidental injuries of fellow citizens.

When 'socialized' is mentioned to a Republican politician, they go ballistic and stutter and blabber like the word in itself is a disease. But they can't really come up with why it's bad for the majority other than it's socialized!

If it's good for the majority, why is it bad?

JOHN CULKIN

St. Petersburg

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT