To the editor: The linchpin of our health insurance dilemma is the mandate. With everyone “in the pool,” the risk is spread around. (“On Obamacare, Paul Ryan has no idea what he's talking about,” March 14)
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and President Trump say their proposal to replace the Affordable Care Act offers more choice. What they neglect to tell the American public is that unless you are careful, you will buy a cheaper policy until suddenly you need coverage for something you didn’t buy.
Health is fleeting, even for the young. The reason we buy health insurance is to be prepared for the unknown. What good is insurance if it does not prevent you from declaring bankruptcy or losing your home? Trumpcare is a cruel joke, and the president needs to realize that nobody is laughing.
Diane Welch, Cypress
To the editor: As an emergency physician, I get nearly apoplectic when supporters of repealing the Affordable Care Act glibly pronounce that all those people who will lose insurance are still going to be covered after all.
The refrain goes something like this: “They can always go to the ER — they’re covered there.”
Really? The uninsured have no coverage at any ER. While the law requires that everyone presenting to an ER must be seen and stabilized, it makes no provision for hospitals or doctors to be paid for that care.
Similarly, when did episodic care in an ER ever replace regular care by a general practitioner?
Jonathan Lawrence, MD, San Juan Capistrano
To the editor: I love columnist David Lazarus, but he missed a very important aspect of the GOP healthcare legislation.
I think that Republicans do believe in personal freedom in some instances and that they are ideologically opposed to the Affordable Care Act’s individual insurance mandate. But much more important to them is the tax cut that their plan will be giving to the rich.
They seem not to care if people lose their coverage. After all, these individuals probably were not covered before the Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010, and the rich were doing just fine. If they can cut taxes for wealthy donors, they have a greater chance to stay in office.
This is not the ethical or moral choice, but it is logical.
Stephanie McIntyre, Simi Valley