Finally, access to health care for all

Jan 08, 2014


In almost seven years of living in Edmonds, it has taken the hubris of John Pierre’s column last week (“What happens when the Affordable Care Act isn’t affordable?”) to cause me to write in response. I hardly know where to begin.

First of all, the health care situation in this country is complicated and has been historically unfair and inaccessible to millions of our fellow citizens.

While the ACA (which also includes Patient Protection) may not be the perfect answer, it is nevertheless a start and can be tweaked as necessary in the future.  (Personally, I am in favor of a single payer option as well which has not yet been included).

Rather than writing a thoughtful analysis, Mr. Pierre resorts to name calling (“our Marxist leaning government”) and summarily dismisses attempts made by the PPACA to address this issue.

Ironically, Mr. Pierre sees no inconsistency in accepting his Social Security and Medicare payments—programs contributed to and administered by our government and arguably Marxist ideas.

Mr. Pierre refers to the “unfortunate millions” (actually a fraction of our population—2 percent) who may be having changes made to their existing health care policies, but completely neglects to mention the millions of our fellow citizens who are for the first time, finally, able to secure health care.

He completely ignores the fact that the prior system was not working—college kids were kicked off their parent’s policies, pre-existing conditions were excluded, and premiums continued to rise astronomically.

The reality is that uninsured folks were seeking care in emergency rooms, which were ultimately subsidized by the rest of us.  One would think that enlightened self-interest would be in play here—as ER visits decrease, so too will the costs paid by the rest of us.

His stated concern for “the younger generations” is a sham—he is not concerned with them but rather only with his personal pocket book.  But then, what would one reasonably expect from a self-described constant (not even occasional, but constant?) curmudgeon (defined as: a miser, a grasping avaricious man, crusty, ill-tempered, difficult).

What a selfish and negative way to go through life!  I predict our younger generations will actually enjoy proudly living in a country where everyone has meaningful access to health care.

The real “poor people” are not those who are having policies readjusted, but those who have been denied access to health care for years.

Christy Cufley


Comments (3)
Posted by: Nathaniel R Brown | Jan 09, 2014 15:14

THANK you for saying all this - with which I agree wholeheartedly.

I would like to add that Marxism is not a system of government, but a system of understanding economics; perhaps Mr. Pierre could explain just how the Obama administration is Marxist?  (Bailing out Wall Street?  Bailing out the auto companies?  Marx would roll over in his grave!)

I would like to ask as well whether Mr. Pierre has enjoyed any GI benefits over his long life?  Too Marxist, perhaps?

Posted by: john dolan | Jan 18, 2014 10:19

Mr. Brown, Marxism is pure theory. It's closest, milder, real practical application is communism. Socialism is a milder form of communism.

Posted by: Nathaniel R Brown | Jan 20, 2014 16:59

Yes Mr. Keeler - we covered that in the 8th Grade, but it's good of you to remind me,

If you wish to comment, please login.