Letters for the week of April 25
The pot question
Regarding "Should state legalize pot?" [The Beacon, April 18, front page].
Wrong question. The question should be: Should pot remain completely un-regulated, un-taxed and controlled by criminal gangs?
Criminalizing any substance does this.
Rep. Rick Larsen told us, during a recent discussion about health care, that he was voting for the Affordable Care Act because it would lower our health-care costs, improve access to our doctors and provide coverage to those who could not afford it. That isn’t true.
In addition, the latest contraception and coverage purchase mandate fiasco sheds further light on the health-care mess Larsen has helped to create. We remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will rule the act’s coverage purchase mandate unconstitutional, as it should.
Larsen wants to violate our most fundamental religious freedoms by requiring the federal government to compel us to purchase a service not of our choosing.
The Affordable Care Act was originally scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) at $800 billion over 10 years. In order to achieve this number required that $500 billion be taken from Medicare, accounting gimmicks and double counting of certain medical savings assumptions; extended life-care coverage among them.
Recently the CBO re-scored the act and they now estimate it will cost $1.7 trillion over 10 years, more than double the original estimates. Given CBO's track record with other entitlement programs, such as Medicare, which began in 1966 – it now costs 10 times more than what the CBO originally scored it would cost.
The Affordable Care Act is a huge debacle and needs to be repealed.
Then we have Larsen's more recent position in support of the contraception coverage mandate. He said that he believes, "the president has restructured the contraception-coverage requirement in a way that respects religious institutions while maintaining coverage of a critical healthcare service for women.
“Religious employers who object to contraception will not have to pay for contraception coverage or refer employees to providing entities, but women who are employed by these institutions will receive coverage from their insurers."
This coverage mandate also includes abortifacients (abortion inducing drugs), which many oppose for conscience reasons. We asked Larsen who would pay for the insurance premiums in these instances, and he has yet to answer our question.
The answer is, we will. Larsen intends to force us to pay for drugs that kill unborn children. And he has the temerity to say that this respects our religious institutions. How fallacious.
He claims the coverage is for a critical health care service for women. If he were being honest, he would tell us this has nothing to do with women's health, rather he uses it as a political-wedge issue.
We need to stop demonizing those who oppose this latest wrongheaded mandate and get demagoguery out of our public discourse.
Very truly yours,
Terrill and Patricia Cox,