ACA deserves support
I read, with interest, Robert W. Lee's letter “ ACA ramifications I ” criticizing Dan Rooney for upholding the law of the land, the Affordable Care Act. I suppose that Mr. Lee has health-care coverage, but over 30 million Americans, including Steeler supporters and fans, don't. This is our national disgrace.
The ACA is far from perfect, but is a start, and should be everyone's agenda. Ask people who have sons or daughters out of college, under age 26, unemployed and with serious health conditions. Ask people who lost their coverage and people who have pre-existing health conditions, who until now were not able to get coverage. Ask my distant cousin, who lost her husband too young to cancer because they did not have the money to pay out-of-pocket and he could not get insurance. The only way to fix our national disgrace is for us to work together to get health care for all.
Massachusetts has a program that was he prototype for the ACA; 97 percent of the people there now have health insurance. Mr. Lee, perhaps you could work to help the whole country get to that level. You would have quite a legacy if you could accomplish that.
Sister Mary Traupman
The writer, a member of the Congregation of the Sisters of Divine Providence, is an attorney with the Downtown law firm John W. Giltinan, Esq., P.C. who concentrates on elder law and guardianships.
Show commenting policy
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 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.