Opinion: Cutting Medicaid means it’s back to the ER for poor Americans who get sick

To the editor: It’s difficult to believe that congressional Republicans hope to pass a healthcare bill that deprives people of basic coverage. The mean-spirited plan they’re supporting is advantageous to the wealthy and to insurance companies but strips away coverage for millions of needy Americans. (“GOP’s Obamacare repeal bills threaten huge disruptions across the healthcare system,” June 25)

When people lack coverage, they don’t often seek care until they’re very ill. Many wind up in the emergency room, where their care is paid for people who have insurance. Wouldn’t it be more cost-effective to provide basic coverage to everyone so people can receive care sooner rather than later?

There’s a separate article in the same paper that says PresidentTrump may not be so toxic to Republicans in 2018 after all. Hopefully, voters will look at the candidates, their voting records and their compassion and integrity.

Sharon Westafer, Long Beach

..

To the editor: There is a distinction between speculation and news. The print headline “Obamacare repeal bills augur huge disruptions” ignores this distinction. News is reporting what has happened; predicting the future is very difficult and is not news.

This story also shows the bias of The Times. I don’t recall any of the following speculative headlines in the run up to Obamacare: “Obama promise you can keep your care not possible under proposed law,” or, “Health savings of $2,000 per year not possible,” or, “Middle-class families buying individual policies could pay hundreds more per month.”

Time and again you do a disservice to readers by allowing your biases onto the news sections of your paper.

Steve Murray, Huntington Beach

..

To the editor: Those 150 million Americans who receive their health insurance through their employer, people over 65 who are on Medicare and self-employed individuals who do not need or qualify for subsidies through Obamacare might think this debate about medical coverage applies only to “other people.” They should think again.

If Medicaid coverage is reduced, the families who are sick and poor will go to the emergency room. So if you have a heart attack or are in an accident and need immediate care, you may have to wait longer simply because the ER will be more crowded.

If a perfectly healthy man or woman who believes they do not need insurance and therefore doesn’t buy because of the lack of a mandate gets severely hurt and winds up in the ER, who will pay? The insured will through higher premiums.

Marsha Noble, Carlsbad

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook