Las Vegas Sun

March 28, 2024

Letter to the editor:

The health care debate continues

There has been a lot of discussion about Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act. Here are more of the letters we received about the recent ruling:

Ruling reminiscent of Earl Warren

June 28 felt like a flashback. That flashback is a reference to Chief Justice Earl Warren and Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963 and Miranda v. Arizona in 1966.

Warren was a conservative Republican. He was nominated and sent to the court by President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican. It has been said Eisenhower was a little ticked off when the Warren court decided Brown v. Board of Education. By our standards today, the court went “left.” The court went left for about three decades until Chief Justice William Rehnquist took over and went to the right.

Chief Justice John Roberts is, like Warren, a conservative. He was put there by President George W. Bush to keep the court going right, just like President Eisenhower. Now there’s a case that is right up there with Brown v. Board of Education. The Affordable Care Act is now the law of the land, thanks to a conservative.

People have said this was the case of the century. It’s too early to say that. As of right now, it is the case of the decade. All Americans can now not worry about their medical future.

William Mark Clarke, Henderson

• • •

Fixing an inefficient system

Boo hoo. Republicans cry “foul” after one of their own, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, voted in favor of the Affordable Care Act. Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, came to Las Vegas trumpeting a perceived injustice heaped upon Americans by the court. Where were the Republicans when then-Gov. Mitt Romney enacted Romneycare (essentially the same plan, but with even more penalties for non-compliance)? They were nowhere to be seen or heard.

Early in the George W. Bush administration, it was clear that health care costs were spiraling out of control, yet no controls were enacted while the Republicans held a congressional majority. Over eight years the administration lost jobs while the middle class lost income. Despite spiraling health care costs, job and income losses, Republicans failed to act appropriately.

America’s per capita health care costs are nearly double other industrialized countries. Why? Health insurance companies are exempt from antitrust laws. They can pick and choose with impunity. When was the last time a major health insurer reported a loss? They insure the healthy at the expense of taxpayers who pick up the huge tab for the uninsured via public assistance.

Although there are other factors driving costs up, Obamacare, warts and all, has begun to seriously address this and other problems within our inefficient health care system. It’s time to invest in our health care future, if for no other reason than to keep productive those individuals who taxpayers spent thousands of dollars each to raise and educate.

Richard Rychtarik, Las Vegas

• • •

Roberts is an American hero

Chief John Justice Roberts refused to go down in history as an ideologue. Make no mistake; he is a conservative, but he’s not a zealot. He listened to his conscience and then did his job to ensure the rights of more than 30 million Americans. Some die-hard ideologues are now referring to him as a traitor. I beg to differ: The Supreme Court is not supposed to take political sides on issues. Justice Roberts is an American hero to millions.

Roger Warrick, Las Vegas

• • •

Romney’s opinion hard to pin down

As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney signed a law that killed jobs and was really bad policy.

As governor, Romney worked with the Massachusetts Legislature to enact a mandatory individual purchase of health insurance. That’s the basis of Obamacare, which Romney called “a job killer” and “bad policy.”

If that is true, why did he sign such a law? None of what he is now saying has happened in Massachusetts, and Romneycare has been popular.

Romney says it was good for Massachusetts but is not suitable as national model, which contradicts what he previously said. In 2009, Romney criticized Obama for not adopting his plan.

Republicans say Romney did that when he was “a Massachusetts moderate.” But his position was in line with the alternative Republicans offered to President Bill Clinton’s plans. Supporters included several key Republicans.

The idea is to make sure that young, healthy adults don’t skip getting health insurance and stick insured people/taxpayers with their medical bills if something bad happens.

Ray A. Cohn, Las Vegas

• • •

Nevadans could suffer under plan

I congratulate the liberal left on their pyrrhic victory in the “Obamacare” case before the Supreme Court. But before you get all giddy about your “victory,” please read page 55 of the decision. That part of the decision clearly indicates that each state has the right to participate in the expansion of Medicaid and faces no consequences if the state chooses not to participate.

Let’s look at Nevada. If Nevada chooses to expand its Medicaid rolls, we will increase our deficit by hundreds of millions of dollars per year when fully implemented because the federal government will only cover part of the increase. Such a decision will mean massive tax increases and/or massive layoffs in the public-sector unions. If the teachers union believed the last round of layoffs were rough, a tsunami of layoffs would be just around the bend if “Obamacare” were to be fully implemented in Nevada. The citizens of this state will never go for it and will hold those putting this in place accountable.

If Nevada does not implement the expansion of Medicaid, this will leave a large group of Nevadans in no man’s land. They will be subject to the “tax,” as they are not eligible for the Medicaid expansion. In addition, by forcing younger Nevadans into the insurance pool, the rates may go down for other policy holders due to the infusion of the healthiest of society into the actuarial table. Thus, insurance rates for the “richest” among us may go down. Reverse distribution of wealth!

Joseph Schillmoeller, Las Vegas

• • •

Something went wrong with court

Chief Justice John Roberts decided to break ranks with the conservative side of the court and rule with the liberals. Theories abound why Roberts voted to bend the rules, and in essence rewrite the law to include a tax, when great lengths were taken by Congress and the Obama administration to avoid that interpretation and impose a penalty in the mandate instead.

Nevertheless, the court has spoken, as wrong as this decision was. The next outcome is unclear: Will this ruling bring the nation to the tipping point of throwing out President Barack Obama with “Obamacare,” or will the Democrats outnumber the Republicans and give Obama four more years? Only time will tell. No matter what the outcome is something went terribly wrong at the Supreme Court.

Regardless of the sides being taken in this debate, reforms are required. When the dust has settled it is hoped that these changes remain:

• No pre-existing condition restrictions.

• Children remain until age 26 on parents’ policy.

• No lifetime limitations on reimbursements.

• No policy terminations except for fraud.

• Open competition across state lines for policies.

• Leave Medicare untouched.

With regard to other aspects of Obamacare, repeal and reform.

Bob Jack, North Las Vegas

• • •

Supreme Court did GOP a favor

There has been a great deal of speculation as to why Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts approved the Affordable Care Act. But I think people overlooked the fact that it was greatly pro-Republican.

If the act had been overturned, the Democrats would have had a great election issue running against the right-wing court and blaming the Republicans for all the ills of health care.

By approving the act, Roberts has strengthened the pro-business aspects of the Constitution’s commerce clause. By imposing limits on Medicaid, he has followed the Republican line of reducing coverage for poor people.

Also, by defining required payment as a tax, he gives further ammunition to the Republicans and their no-tax cry.

In addition, approval of the act strengthens the outcry of Republicans against “Obamacare,” who are fully expecting a Republican victory in November to result in a complete repeal of the act if/when they take over.

Harold Wasserman, North Las Vegas

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy