Let’s face it; insurance is a gamble. The insurance company is betting that you stay healthy, don’t have any accidents, or your house doesn’t experience any damage. By purchasing the insurance you’re betting that you get sick, have an accident, or suffer damage to your house.
I agree that my parents should have had the option to keep me on their insurance until I got out of college. I can agree with that part of the Affordable Care Act, but that doesn’t necessitate navigators, involving the IRS, and taking funds from Medicare.
What does the ACA do for the persistent homeless street people who don’t pay income taxes? Are we going to stop them and ask them if they have insurance and fine them if they don’t?
Instead of passing a large comprehensive health care law that no one had time to read before it was passed, why didn’t the Senate and the House just pass smaller bills that would have fixed specific problems? The answer of course is that Democrats had a majority in both the House and Senate and could do whatever they wanted. Well now they don’t and they are crying because someone with common sense is trying to fix the problem they created by passing a law they didn’t read.
End flood subsidies
Regarding the article, “Rates will clobber homeowners in flood-prone areas” (front page, Oct. 1): As a taxpayer I do not believe the U.S. government should use our tax money to subsidize insurance premiums for people who live on waterfront property.
Many of the small beach-front homes built in the 1970s have been torn down and replaced by wealthy people who build huge, elegant homes costing a million-plus dollars.
The original homes owned by the original owners that survived are now worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
These people choose to live there with all the risks associated with the waterfront. At one time I lived in a location where I paid flood insurance, but I chose to move. It is not the responsibility of the taxpayers to subsidize wealthy people’s insurance premiums.
Crist deserves backing
The Democrats should look no further than Charlie Crist for governor. He is just exactly what they need, and no other Democrat in or out of office would be better. Nan Rich has sponsored several gun-control bills during her term in office, for which the NRA will savage her. Charlie Crist is the right balance of gun control and gun rights the Democrats need to win the governor’s office. Too many have forgotten that Charlie Crist, when he was attorney general, nominated Marion P. Hammer, the head of the NRA in Florida, to be inducted into The Florida Women Hall of Fame, which sealed her induction into the organization of the most famous women in Florida history.
Charlie Crist will do what no other Democrat can do. He can get votes from gun owners, perhaps even NRA members and perhaps enough votes to swing the election to Democrats even on the cabinet level. Let’s hope Democrats have enough sense to pick a winner this time.
Arthur C. Hayhoe
The writer is executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Inc.
Regarding the editorial cartoon showing the “Pope Francis Mobile” (Views, Sept. 30):
Great cartoon, for it depicts the two major themes that Jesus and the church that He founded strive to promote. The first theme is “doctrinal” and the second is “pastoral.”
The doctrinal side promotes the beliefs, teachings or instructions, which are the foundation of the Catholic church, which sometimes are “No, No, No,” but also many times are “Yes, Yes, Yes.” Both “no” or “yes” hopefully builds the church’s body to be loving and forgiving. The liberal media traditionally wants to attack the “no” side of the church’s doctrines.
The pastoral side relates to the spiritual care or guidance of people who are or could be members of the church.
Yes, Pope Francis is Catholic, and he is imitating very well his boss: Jesus Christ!
Texting law redundant
Roman philosopher Tacitus said, “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” This isn’t to say that texting while driving shouldn’t be addressed, but it was addressed already using two existing laws, and they had some teeth, unlike this one.
The two statutes on the books, laws against careless driving and reckless driving, carry substantially greater penalties than the texting statute does. So why not just add texting violations to the two existing statutes?
The rush to sponsor feel-good, redundant legislation like this overshadowed the common-sense solution: just add an amendment to the existing laws. Everybody wins as a much-needed piece of legislation gets passed, violations have some severe consequences, lives are saved, and police and the courts have something to enforce. But wait, what’s in it for the grandstanding pol? The look-at-me do-gooder who will save the world by adding law on top of redundant, unnecessary law? Not much.
Somewhere Tacitus is shaking his head in disbelief.
Steffan F. Cress