Letters to the Editor – Jan. 25, 2011

Mandatory health insurance only unconstitutional for some

U of A students were going through fee payment at the exact moment Congressman Don Young voted that the new health care bill is unconstitutional because of the mandatory purchase of insurance stipulation. Yet, students were being forced to purchase health insurance at the same instant!

Our governor and Senator Murkowski are united firmly with Young, insisting that mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional, knowing full well that our state adamantly maintains the opposite policy!

Unconstitutional is one of those terms that means for everybody, not for just some. It is right up there in the universally wrong category like crimes against humanity.

Yet there are two universally wrong things about our setup in Alaska.  There are so many Cadillac health plans, that, according to Lisa Murkowski, Medicare patients can’t even go to the doctor for routine check- ups. Doctors prefer the privileged patients, who, secondly, don’t have to pay taxes on these life essential services like everyone else is required to. (I guess this shouldn’t be so surprising in a place where all state employees are also exempt from paying social security taxes).

U of A employees, like many others here, have a mandatory Cadillac plan. One would think that a true fiscal conservative would start by eliminating unconstitutional mandatory plans at home first.

Most Cadillac plan recipients would prefer to just be paid the money for these benefits in their salary if they were going to taxed on it, (like last year’s health care bill will require). If they could get a decent basic hospitalization plan, many would fend for themselves for the rest. Then the preferred patient who doesn’t care how much anything costs would vanish, resulting in the Medicare patient problem vanishing. Lowered medical costs would naturally follow, too.

Our elected republicans maintain the absurd, “unconstitutional, but just for some” axiom, because it really just benefits the privileged ones that they are actually representing.

Sincerely misrepresented,

Randell  L  Clark

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Randell L Clark says:

    “Unconstitutional, but just for some”, was the subject title of this letter. That may not have been the best choice;
    perhaps “Mandatory health insurance only unconstitutional for some”, would have been better. But without a subject heading or title, who would bother to read it at all. Thanks Sun Star

  2. Web Editor says:

    Hi Randell,

    I’ll go ahead and add the title to your letter online. Thanks for the information.

  3. Randell L Clark says:

    Much better, thanks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *