Independence mayor is doing commendable work
president and CEO, Independence Chamber of Commerce
president, Independence Council for Economic Development
To the editor:
Having been a resident of Independence for the past 12 years, I’ve seen a positive change in this community that I believe is due to the efforts of Mayor Eileen Weir. Serving as mayor is a thankless job, and it requires that tough decisions get made. Sometimes those decisions aren’t always going to be popular, but you have to do what you believe is right and is in the best long-term interests of the community. I’ve seen firsthand the passion that Mayor Weir has for making Independence a better place to live, her efforts to raise the quality of life for all residents and to enhance our profile in the region. I have no doubt that her work as mayor of our city will pay long-term dividends for Independence.
We get things done by working cooperatively, developing a plan, and then executing that plan. Those who want to criticize and complain but don’t bring solutions only cause us to step backwards as a community. I believe Mayor Weir has a solid plan for the future of Independence and I want to express my public support for the work she is doing as our mayor.
Flawed math, reasoning in health plan criticism
To the editor:
In the April 9 edition of The Examiner there was an op-ed from the Chicago Tribune headlined ‘Medicare for all?’ Increased costs and dicey politics. To begin with, the headline itself is a bit misleading. In addition, the two “major problems” that the article points out are not really problems at all.
The first problem mentioned is money. It is true that the Mercatus Center’s report estimated that Bernie Sanders program would boost federal spending by $32 trillion over a decade. What the report did not report is that, as a nation, we already spend more than that. In other words, yes the single-payer program would mean that the government would spend more than it currently does, but as a nation we would actually spend less.
The second problem is that it would mean higher taxes. Again, this would be true as taxes would have to be raised as the government would take over the financing of nearly all of our nation’s health-care costs. However the per-capita cost would be reduced and the additional taxes necessary to fund the program would be less for 95 percent of us than what we are paying in insurance premiums, not to mention copays, deductibles and other out-of-pocket health-care expenses. And yes, we would no longer have to deal with the health-care insurance industry in fighting to have our health care paid for.
The “problems” that this op-ed points out just illustrate how the for-profit health-care industries use fear to sway public opinion. We do not need to fear losing the for-profit insurance industry if our tax dollars pay for our health-care needs. The vast majority will pay less in additional taxes than we currently pay in premiums and receive much better financial protection.
Don’t listen to the moneyed special-interest groups, for their goal is to maintain their money-making system.
A new bill has been introduced this Congressional session. It is HR1384. Do some research and learn how it would save our nation trillions of dollars over the course of a decade. Or go to www.pnhp.org to learn more.