Young won’t join
Regarding “Obamacare: state of chaos” (Our Views, Nov. 16): I believe the younger people will never be on board to help pay for the older, sicker and poorer people. The reason is this: They are already paying heavily into the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security, which by many accounts is scheduled to go broke in 2033. Most of them know this and are not happy with it but it is forced upon them. Also, this generation of younger folks is still reeling from the great recession as well and struggling to get by. To think that they will buy into paying more for their health care on an altruistic basis is at best delusional.
Your opinion concerning Obamacare being in chaos missed several important points. First, President Obama should not have said we could keep our current health care plans and doctors without knowing for sure that was true. Secondly, what consulting team didn’t foresee this happening? How could they not know in advance that millions of individual policyholders would lose their coverage? The third and biggest problem is that by trying to provide affordable care to 30 million to 40 million people, Obamacare has caused individual policyholders like me to pay up to 50 percent more for insurance. I agree there are many flaws with insurance that need reform, but this is a poor alternative. I can pretty much assure all those Democrats who forced this debacle on millions of insurance consumers that it won’t be forgotten next November.
Saturday, I received a homeowners’ insurance cancellation notice from Armed Forces Insurance informing me that after 39-plus years of coverage with only one claim my policy wouldn’t be renewed. The only reason given was “to remain a viable insurance company.” Given the many broken promises of the current government administration with Obamacare and other disasters, I wonder what’s next.
Will my life insurance carriers inform me that as I am now older than when the policies were written that they will be canceled also? What can one really count on anymore?
Safety vs. speed
Regarding “Put brakes on rising speed limits” (Our Views, Nov.14): The editorial contains numerous unsubstantiated comments, such as higher limits “encourage faster driving, making roads more dangerous and inefficient,” and that the roads are “already plagued by aggressive driving.” And who says “increasing the limit will result in speeders taking even greater license and put officers in more danger”?
If drivers are ignoring the “move over” law or driving aggressively, enforce those laws; don’t combine them with the unrelated speed issue. Why the knee-jerk reaction to blame speed for all traffic issues? Interstate highways and today’s modern vehicles were designed to safely travel at speeds well above the present limits.
If you are really concerned about highway safety, urge the passing of the proposed “Slower Traffic Keep Right” legislation. Failure to keep right has a negative effect on traffic safety, traffic congestion, emergency response, aggressive driving, air pollution, fuel consumption, direct and indirect medical costs and much more. And please don’t say that will promote speeding. It’s not a speed issue, but a safety issue.
A. J. Brent
Attorney Mark O’Mara thinks the parents of children who cyber bully other kids should be held criminally responsible for the actions of their kids. That would be good if we lived in a society where parents were allowed to discipline their kids.
Years ago the liberals decided that parents should not be permitted to punish their kids for bad behavior.
This is the result. The government has taken the responsibility for child raising and is doing a very bad job just as they did with health insurance and most other things they try to control. Now, when the village has failed to raise the children, they seek to place the responsibility back on the parents but without restoring the power to enforce that responsibility.
Return to sender
On Monday I received 31 catalogs in the mail; Tuesday, 24; Wednesday, 21; Thursday, 15; and Friday, 27. Most of them were from stores I had never heard of, let alone where I shop. I needed a St. Bernard to come to my aid in order to carry them to my kitchen.
Although I fully support the post office and buy sheets of Forever postage stamps, I think that they could reduce the back injuries and hernias suffered by their carriers by allowing us to put “refused” on these unrequested catalogs and mail them back at that company’s expense. It’s fine to recycle 100 glossy catalogs each week, but it’s really far better to give them back than to receive.
Elaine Fantle Shimberg
Food for thought
Regarding “Food Stamp Cuts” (Your Views, Nov. 14): The last paragraph — “Well done, Republicans! Keep it up, and there will be less people on food stamps because they’ll be dead” — smacks of partisan politics. Those truly in need absolutely should receive food stamps; however, there is rampant fraud in the program. If the letter writer wants to see what real starvation looks like she should look at videos of starving children in Africa. They are skin over bones with protruding abdomens, a sign of starvation. Truly heart-rending. We do not have that in this wonderful (not perfect) country, thank God! Also, people in need are helped by private donations, i.e., churches, synagogues, Metropolitan Ministries, Salvation Army and many other organizations.