Letters: Social safety net and our freedom
Lane Filler's column about the pitfalls of Obamacare was an eye-opener and right on the mark ["Our social safety net is anti-freedom," News, Sept. 25]!
Rather than requiring health insurance for those who don't have coverage, would it not be more beneficial to provide full-time jobs and better education to the needy? That would eliminate higher taxes on the middle class, which invariably winds up paying for more than its fair share. This slowly reduces our society to the very rich and the very poor. If we no longer had a vibrant and productive middle class, we would become a Third World country.
Full-time jobs would provide benefits, including health insurance. Better education, focusing on striving for a higher lifestyle, would make more sense than the ridiculous, meaningless school testing that is now the norm. What tools are we giving our children to go out into the world and become better people?
Pat King, Merrick
I was appalled by this column. To claim that running a business or driving a car is anything like raising a family -- or simply wanting to not to be homeless and hungry -- is frightening. I agree that businesses across the country are cutting back hours and health coverage. They have been doing it for years. The only difference now is that they are blaming Obamacare. A new excuse doesn't explain a long, continuing pattern.
People do not pay taxes only so that their children can go to school, or so that the police and fire department will come to their homes when called. People pay taxes because they are part of a community that has chosen, through our elected representatives, to provide for itself.
To claim that it takes away one's freedom to provide education, health care and food to those less fortunate is to claim that society is evil.
Peter Nagy, Bellport