Letters to the Editor

Your views in 250 words or less

Tag: SCOTUS

July
2nd

HEALTH: Surprise; that mandate really is a tax

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts did us a great favor by finding that the only constitutional basis for the mandate is a tax, which is what the Obama administration has denied from the beginning.

After the victory lap dust settles, the Democrats will own an albatross reform loaded with government-controlled benefits that will ultimately be paid with increased taxes and fewer choices. Obamacare was sold with: “nobody under $250,000 per year will see a tax increase” and “you’ll get to keep your plan,” and an insurance mandate on those who can’t or won’t pay will help fund the whole

Read more »

June
28th

HEALTH: Take care with Medicaid expansion

The Supreme Court upheld the health care law. States will begin implementation. States will also decide whether to expand state Medicaid rolls.

The ruling permits states to opt out of that expansion without losing all federal Medicaid supplemental funding. Some states will decide whether to expand solely on ideological grounds with conservatives opposing and liberals supporting.

The decision must instead be made by each state based on its ability to raise revenues to support expansion according to its taxpayers’ ability to pay that revenue. Further, that ability-to-afford decision must consider the future when federal funding of Medicaid expansion declines.

States

Read more »

June
28th

HEALTH: Only hope is to vote Democrats out

With the Supreme Court upholding Obamacare as constitutional, you can bet there is more to come. To say I was shocked by the decision is putting it mildly. I wondered why Chief Justice John Roberts had an easy confirmation. The progressives knew he was a liberal in conservative dressing.

This terrible decision will embolden this administration to take control of all aspects of our lives. They already are telling us what to eat, how much we should weigh, what kind of light bulbs to use and what kind of car to drive. The only hope I see is if the

Read more »

June
19th

POLITICS: Monied interests given a megaphone

Re: “Voters should beware of super PAC money” (letter, 6-16).

The writer had some good comments about super PACs but didn’t go far enough. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision allows unlimited campaign spending by groups with huge resources.

The ruling equated political spending with free speech and gave these groups the same free speech rights as individual citizens. In doing so it may have honored pure free speech principles but, I think, did a great disservice to our democracy.

In a political system where each citizen is free to speak his opinion, the court has given a

Read more »

April
6th

HEALTH CARE: Most of us want law repealed

Re: “Impartiality of Supreme Court smothered by politics” (TNT, 4-5).

When I read this commentary by Maureen Dowd (while waiting in an office for an appointment), it reminded me why I haven’t subscribed to a newspaper for three decades. Dowd is just one of the “talking heads” who is tunnel-visioned and repeats what most of the news media and TV commenters say.

To them, anything that deviates from their liberal, politically correct view is politics of the wrong sort. If she were to take the blinders off, she would realize that most of what is going on in Washington,

Read more »

April
4th

HEALTH CARE: Insurers fear cut in profits

Why does the medical insurance industry so adamantly oppose the Affordable Care Act? After all, the act would require 22 million currently uninsured Americans to purchase medical insurance. You’d think that the industry (a legal cartel) would welcome 22 million new paid customers for their very profitable insurance enterprise.

The answer lies not in the one provision of the ACA that is the center of public attention (mandatory insurance coverage), but in another provision that is, conveniently, escaping much attention. That other provision would require the medical insurance cartel to spend “no less than 80 percent of medical insurance premium

Read more »

Feb.
28th

PACS: Do zillionaires get to call the shots now?

As a Republican turned Democrat I’ve been aware of the high cost of campaigns but state and national politicians had to adhere to strict campaign donation limits from individuals and organizations.

The Citizens United Supreme Court decision last year changed all that. Now companies are people, and unlimited campaign donations are “free speech.” Google the names of the supporters of Republican presidential candidates: Mitt Romney (Frank VanderSloot), Rick Santorum (Foster “aspirin between the knees” Friess and William Dore), Newt Gingrich (Sheldon Adelson, the anti-union casino owner) and Ron Paul (Libertarian Peter Thiel).

All of these men are hiding under the

Read more »

Feb.
21st

PACS: Look what Supreme Court hath wrought

Re: “Myths only serve to add confusion over super PACs” (Robert J. Samuelson column, 2-21).

I find it very interesting that in a column about super PACs, Samuelson fails to mention the U.S. Supreme Court decision that brought them about. In 2010′s Citizens United v. FEC decision, the court determined that corporations are essentially people, and the super PAC was “born.” This followed the Buckley v. Valeo ruling that defined money as speech, and thus could not be limited.

These two court decisions combined to break the back of the campaign finance reform laws that were achieved amidst the

Read more »