As a high school teacher, I know many students who do not have health insurance. Although many people in Vermont think that children are covered in Vermont, this is actually a misconception. Doctor Dynasaur does cover many children, but it is not universal. Many families do not know about Doctor Dynasaur, do not meet income requirements, or are unwilling to pay premiums. Many children, through no fault of their own, are left without insurance, and they suffer the consequences.
One such student, who was having trouble with attendance, had been sick for two months. She hadn’t seen a doctor because of a lack of insurance and was more afraid of costs than the illness.
Her situation is more common than we’d like to think. Ill students are distracted from their studies, and they fall behind in their studies and too often become jaded with school, and sometimes even drop out.
My uncovered students see other peers receiving excellent health coverage, yet they receive none of this. Why does the student sitting next to them deserve to get good healthcare and they do not? It isn’t fair.
And I couldn’t agree more with them. Even small co-pays are often enough to scare young people away from going to a doctor. The current system does cover some underprivileged youth, but it is too complicated for many to access. We need a uniform system where everyone is systematically covered. I am happy to pay my share of taxes to support this system.
Did President Obama misspeak again?
In President Obama’s recent TV interview on his reversal of his position on same-sex marriages, he stated: "When I think about those soldiers, marines and sailors that are out there fighting on my behalf ... ."
Can you imagine Gen. Eisenhower, on "D-Day," stating that the thousands of U.S. troops that fought in the French invasion fought on his behalf? Is President Obama’s statement telling of his arrogance? I’m sure your readers would like to hear opinions on this matter from some medical professionals out there.
Manchester An ‘accessory’ after the fact
Question: Why would Chief Justice Roberts, a dyed in the wool pro-corporate, right-wing reactionary (think Citizens United), do a totally unexpected 180 in the "Obamacare" decision?
Answer Part 1: Because by citing the Tax Clause as opposed to the Commerce Clause in his decision, he gives his right-wing buddies ammunition to defeat Obama. "Look," they’ll scream, "he’s raised taxes on the middle-class!"
Answer Part II: The deception of the new law is that it casts in concrete the privatization of health care for the foreseeable future, forcing citizens to buy a product thrust upon them by a notoriously fee-gouging industry. And the "socialist" single-payer idea, for all intents and purposes is buried under that concrete slab.
For the health care mafia and their insurance henchmen it is close to a $800 billion boondoggle. And Roberts is a black-robed accessory to the crime!