Fixing health care
Fixing health care
In response to Vicki Acklin's letter “Rep. Murphy's insanity” (Aug. 23 and TribLIVE.com): The Supreme Court ruled that the president's signature legislative accomplishment isn't a health-care bill, but a tax bill — and it's a trillion-dollar tax bill that our local families, businesses and region can't afford. But don't take my word for it. With 1,400 waivers, dozens of delays and seven repeal or defund bills already signed into law, the White House agrees that this 2,900-page monstrosity is “a huge train wreck coming down,” in the words of the bill's author, Democrat Sen. Max Baucus.
Instead of working with Congress to stop this economic disaster, the White House has spent the last three years in denial or promoting gimmicks to mask the true problems of the law. But good ads can't sell a bad product, which is why the American people don't want to buy this lemon.
We can do better by repealing and defunding this law, then moving meaningful health-care reforms advanced by the Republican leadership, allowing you to shop across state lines, making insurance portable between jobs and ending junk lawsuits that take an estimated $247 billion out of the system to pay for defensive-medicine costs.
Instead of taxing health care, let's fix it so you can get the care you need, from a doctor you choose, at a price you can afford.
Upper St. Clair
The writer, a Republican, represents Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.