Letters to the Editor for Monday, December 7, 2009

A one-sided health care discussion
On Dec. 4, a panel discussion hosted by our local area Chamber of Commerce under the auspices of the so-called Campaign for Responsible Health Reform (organized by the U.S. Chamber to help protect the interests of the insurance industry) gave their rationale for opposing current Health Care Reform legislation now being debated in the U.S. Senate. Essentially, the few in attendance were treated to a rehashing of the myths, half truths and lies perpetuated by the insurance giants who want to protect their profits without regard to what is truly best for our citizens.

Newly elected Lynchburg Delegate Scott Garrett, as one of the participants, once again demonstrated why he was the wrong choice to represent our community. A purely political animal who can’t help taking every opportunity to toe the party line was there front and center continuing his twisting of facts we saw so blatantly demonstrated in his recent campaign performance.

The statements by two business owners as reported in Saturday’s News & Advance would be laughable if they weren’t so inaccurate. Actually, some of it would be frightening if they actually believed what they were saying.

Tulane Patterson’s comment regarding people not being motivated to work if they could get health care coverage through the government is particularly egregious and not supported by facts or studies of any kind of which I am aware. Is it possible only a limited percentage of the area’s unemployed have the appropriate skills and training to qualify for the position openings his company can’t currently fill? Is it possible his company doesn’t want to pay enough to attract the level of worker the responsibilities require? Unfortunately, such arguments simply reiterate the elitist views of the far rightists we have been hearing for decades.

Mr. Patterson’s comment regarding seniors not receiving health care if this legislation passes is of particular concern, especially since it is entirely untrue. This follows the party line being used to scare seniors into opposing the legislation. AARP has been carefully monitoring the health care reform debate and specifically states that seniors would not lose coverage under the proposed plan.

One of the more laughable contentions is that of Thomas Johnson, who said the provision to require businesses to provide health care insurance to their employees would cause many to re-think plans to hire people. Excuse me, Mr. Johnson, but if you want to support an employer-based insurance system, there needs to be some assurance that all employers be required to offer coverage, or suffer a penalty.

How long will it take us to really get it; that we have been hoodwinked by big business and their cronies in government to go along with a huge scam that has been our health care system for decades. After all these years, we have an opportunity to change some, if not all, of a severely broken system. To have that denied to us would be a tragedy of unimaginable consequence.
L.H. SYMONDS
Lynchburg