Letters: GOP's uninformed health-care plan

The Sunday editorial " 'Trumpcare' is sickening" clearly and concisely describes the many serious flaws in the Republicans' proposed legislation to replace the Affordable Care Act.

Political analysts for both parties have described point man Paul Ryan's efforts as being focused on getting it done fast rather than getting it done right. Republicans in two key committees voted to approve the bill before they had the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the costs and impacts on affected Americans. The impacts could be devastating.

Republicans used to claim to be the party that stood for superior authority in fiscal responsibility and deliberative lawmaking. How could they not want to know the costs and impacts before they voted to steamroll through this bill? The GOP is no longer the rock-solid party so many Americans had faith in.

|Michael Frank, Doylestown

The American Health Care Act offered by Republicans is neither an act nor a plan ("Republicans act quickly in bid to avoid backlash," Sunday). Rather, it is an attempt to dismantle government-involved health care in the name of fiscal responsibility, while speciously claiming to continue health-care assistance. Most of the medical-provider community and insurers oppose it.

As a former corporate director of compensation and benefits, I find it ironic that a one-payer, universal heath-care system can be quite effective in accomplishing what the Republicans claim to desire. It will wring out the duplicative and wasteful administrative costs of the free marketplace.

Universal health systems typically include emphasis on evidence-based medicine, preventive care, and quality and health outcomes versus fee-for service, as under our current system. A combination of these can improve the efficiency of the medical system, thereby indirectly controlling costs.

Additionally, universal care would mitigate the high cost of care for those uninsured using hospital emergency rooms for their health care and who pay nothing, as required by a 1986 law. It also would provide increased leverage with medical providers to stabilize their costs. And, one-payer, universal health care is health care for all citizens.

|Ken Lefkowitz, Medford, klefkowitz@aol.com

I read the letter "Where are the Trump supporters?" (Sunday) Inquirer and thought, "This is so sadly typical of the snarky, self-possessed, and clueless progressives."

The Trump supporters are probably busy with their normal, everyday lives, respectfully allowing the duly elected leader of our once-great nation to make a bold attempt to steer America out of the fetid swamp that we're in now, thanks to the past eight years.

We are the same folks who stood up and spoke with our votes to effectively not allow the White House to be taken over by a socialistic criminal and her cronies.

Thankfully, we are the same Americans who are not prone to hysterics and to shouting, "The sky is falling!" at every twist and turn of the sorely needed national repair process. God bless America!

|John Wear, New Hope

Until Mayor Kenney and City Council attack the issues that allow disgraced employees and politicians to reap benefits of ongoing pensions and health care, as well as the Deferred Retirement Option Plan, the corruption continues to permeate Philadelphia ("Yet more benefits for former PPA chief," Sunday). Action is long overdue. Their continued reluctance to address these issues tells me they are afraid to ruffle feathers and want to fill their coffers.

|Carol L. Smith, Philadelphia, jabsport@msn.com

The Inquirer is on-target in its editorial "Don't dictate to city schools" (March 9). Pennsylvania House Speaker Mike Turzai should not attempt to dictate the number of charter seats to the Philadelphia School District. But neither should the school district try to dictate the number of charter seats to the citizens of Philadelphia who are demanding them.

Continued charter growth would hamstring the district's ability to reduce a projected $64.5 million deficit in two years. Of course, the district could also start closing and consolidating the many schools that are one-half to two-thirds empty as a result of charter expansion. Operating nearly vacant buildings is an expensive proposition.

The district may well be justified in requesting more revenue from Harrisburg, but not before it has taken all reasonable measures to reduce its operating costs. The citizens of Pennsylvania should not be asked to finance wasteful operating practices.

|Mike Egan, Plymouth Meeting, mchlegan@gmail.com