Updated: August 12, 2012 6:14AM
Health care act
has already been of
benefit to workers
Please accept this note in response to The Honorable Randy Hultgren’s letter on Barack Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act in the July 5 Beacon-News.
As a small businessman in Batavia I disagree with the Rep. Hultgren’s summary of the Affordable Health Care Act. Already the act has improved benefits for my employees and customers by allowing dependents under the age of 26 staying on a parent’s insurance policy, and preventing insurance companies from denying coverage due to a pre-existing health condition, or canceling coverage because the insured became sick.
In the future this act will assist me in continuing good health care coverage for my employees through the use of the mandated “exchange” that will give me the buying power of a large group to purchase a policy for my small group.
For almost 80 years, virtually every presidential administration has attempted a health care reform to aid working people and the disadvantaged. The subject act is virtually identical to what Randy Hultgren’s colleague Mitt Romney worked to create and pass in Massachusetts that is working wonderfully for the citizens of that state.
When I listen to the ongoing Republican refrain I suspect they either have become so consumed in their efforts to make every multi-millionaire a billionaire, they have lost all concern for working Americans, or they just can’t accept the fact that a black president did something they could not do in 80 years.
As our great president requested, we all need to work hard to improve this imperfect start into an improved health care program to assist working Americans as workers in every other advanced nation have benefited from for many decades. Hultgren failed to explain his plan to help 54 million Americans who are presently uninsured, become insured and start to straighten out the disastrous health care system in America. Hultgren and all senators and representatives need to spend more time fixing problems and less time arguing with history.
Stanley A. Oke
Revolution is not
a conservative move
That was a challenging Beacon News advertising insertion recently, credited to the Wallbuilders, whom I had to look up online.
The insert, two full pages, was a very selective reading of American history. It ignored the contributions of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jeferson — the two doubting Thomases — to whom we owe a great deal. Paine named the United Sates of America, and Jefferson did too many good things to list here, but he used a Bible that he had edited radically.
As I read the Wallbuilders, they are trying to capture the American revolution for modern conservatism. This is difficult, because revolution is not a conservative action.
The early American conservatives supported the King who had been appointed, they thought, by God. Further, they tended to avoid social disruption as bad for business. So conservatives in our 13 colonies moved to Canada.
It is also very difficult to turn back the clock, which seems to be the agenda of the wall people. I note that they favor Israel, which has come to grief by attempting to resurrect a long gone civilization. Conservatives should build upon the good things that our ancestors have done — not try to re-create their mistakes.
go to the woodshed
Awwww nuts, why does this have to happen? I came across a YouTube video today that tells of U.S. Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., who thinks America needs Muslims and that U.S. public schools should be modeled after Islamic madrassas, “where the foundation is the Quran.”
The reason I say “nuts!” is because my response to another letter was published in last Thursday’s Beacon. This article would have been perfect fodder to include in it. Why? Because, unlike the other letter I was responding to, this article gives a crystal clear view of what our Founders were really arguing against when they wrote the First Amendment: Congress getting involved with religion, and potentially writing laws in support of any one of them to the exclusion of all the others.
I wonder if this U.S. representative will be taken out to the woodshed for so defying the Constitution? I doubt it, unless We, the People do it ourselves via the ballot box.