DEAR EDITOR:

I watched Sen. John Barrasso on a Sunday news interview, claim ACA premiums for Americans will skyrocket if his party OKs continuing payment of that program. I don’t think he framed his argument correctly, thus creating the false impression that what ACA recipients will pay are unacceptable increases resulting from the program. The premium he’s worrying about is the portion paid by government funding, yes, all of us, that might endanger billionaire tax cuts. The portion paid by individuals using ACA will increase by a much more manageable amount that is the users responsibility. The amount charged by insurers is what they feel they can profit by, not negotiable by you and me, nor affordable for many. Sounds like government work when it’s not shut down for 45 days of paid vacation for the Speakers House, eh?

An important function of government is to help citizens with unavoidable problems outside their capabilities to manage alone, e.g. highways, water supplies, national defense, law enforcement, access to food and medical care, etc. The ACA debate revolves around the apportionment of shared expense for healthcare being born by the individual or divided among all taxpayers from whom the government derives its revenue. It seems to me the Administration’s promise of lower taxes for their incredibly wealthy donors (and extortion of businesses and institutions) outweighs its concern for millions of taxpayers unable to obtain affordable, often life-enabling, healthcare. You could see this as a waste of your money only if such costs are pocket change should you contract or develop a serious health threat.

Meanwhile, Trump and his lockstep party, pay more to a foreign government than they would spend to operate ACA another year, while the DC braintrust figures how to insure without bankrupting individuals. Besides supporting Argentina (harming U.S. beef producers) and financing his masked police force to the tune of $75 billion of your tax dollars, Trump The Magnificent is trying to impress regular Joes and Janes that a $2,000 return of your money paid to the higher cost of tariffs is generous. It won’t pay standard health care for any member of your family, let alone anyone with a lifetime ailment or life threatening crisis. And, will restore funding for medical research that might cure cancer or other relentless diseases if his ring is kissed by the researchers.

I didn’t, and won’t, vote for this junk, did you?

JIM CARTWRIGHT

Canfield