Give It Up for MassHealth
My letter is in part a response to those who advocate for single payer health care and claim that, like health reform in Massachusetts, congressional health reform is a sham. First, I too agree that single payer is the way to go. It is just apparent on every level that a for-profit insurance industry is concerned with profits and not health care.
That said, I am very fortunate to live in Massachusetts, where someone as poor as me can get complete medical coverage. When I first heard Massachusetts was going to require everyone to have health insurance I laughed and thought, Good luck with that! About two years ago I slipped on ice and broke a rib. I went to the hospital, where they gave me X-rays and pain killers. When I said I couldn't afford to pay for the treatment, they sent me to their offices, where I applied for MassHealth.
I am fortunate because a few months ago I discovered I have a potentially fatal illness. Had I not had MassHealth, I would not have been able to afford the tests that were taken, never mind treatments which are almost $3,500 a month. I am responding very well to the treatments, but without HealthNet I would not have had a chance of getting treated. If recent health care reform is as effective in providing 30,000,000 people with care as it has been for me, what a blessing that will be. Ironically, if I had made enough money to afford health insurance, I would be denied coverage on the basis that this is a 10-year-old preexisting condition.
Jahfree Harp
Greenfield
Painting Targets on Us
Anyone who has flown lately, or even visited an airport, can’t help but be impressed by the scale of the security measures that have been implemented in the wake of 9/11 and other attacks around the world. The long lines of inconvenienced travelers holding their shoes and trying to hold up their belt-less pants, spending more hours pre- and post-flight than in the air, herded by scores of uniformed Transportation Security Administration officers, are a sight to see.
The results are less impressive, however, as reflected in failed tests by impartial journalists and actual explosives attacks foiled only by faulty technology and inept terrorists. It seems inevitable that billions of dollars of increasingly sophisticated technology, thousands more law enforcement and intelligence personnel, and longer and more inconvenient delays for travelers will follow.
That may help, but so long as anti-Muslim U.S. foreign policy persists, the number of terrorists and the level of their determination is likely to grow commensurately, and the safety of travelers and other Americans will remain uncertain. While our government rails and fights against undemocratic regimes that promote Islamist agendas in predominantly Muslim countries, it supports undemocratic anti-Islamist regimes and actions in many others. Neither Saddam Hussein nor the so-called revolutionary regime in Iran can be defended. But the hypocrisy of our efforts to suppress democratic Islamist forces in Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Gaza and elsewhere is not lost on orthodox Muslims around the world, even if most Americans remain oblivious to it, and that is what fuels a fervent brand of terrorism that all our technology and self-sacrifice might not be adequate to stifle.
Paul Cherulnik
via email
Don’t Defend Comcast
I am responding to Mark Corner’s letter (Dec. 31, 2009) in which he defended the cable giant Comcast and claimed that if he were not happy with Comcast he would get his high-speed Internet service from another company. I wonder how Professor Corner will find a new cable company if/when he drops Comcast. Ninety-seven percent of Americans have a meager “choice” of one or two companies (usually Comcast and the phone company) for high-speed Internet service. Wireless devices are not real competition for home high-speed Internet and cable—most of us still work at a computer and watch TV on a screen bigger than two inches.
Professor Corner writes that he is not worried about the cable giant’s domination, but he should be—especially about Comcast’s control over programming. If the proposed Comcast/NBC merger is allowed, Comcast/NBC would control one out of five TV viewing hours. In spite of record profits ($6.7 billion in 2008), Comcast raised its basic cable rates nearly 50 percent in many markets over the past five years while maintaining one of the worst customer service records. Comcast is anti-union, and in 2008, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts was voted one of America’s Highest Paid, Worst Performing CEOs with a whopping $40.8 million paycheck in 2008. Comcast has unfairly rejected political ads critical of its allies, and it is the only company that has been officially sanctioned for illegally blocking Internet content. If that’s not enough reason to keep Comcast’s power in check, I don’t know what is.
Josh Silver
Free Press
Florence
