Won’t accept King’s

logic on health care

According to Newsday, Rep. Peter King voted for the Republican health care bill, and then excused his vote by saying that he hopes the Senate preserves the Medicaid expansion reimbursement, and if it doesn’t, then the House will get another shot at voting no [“House OKs health care bill,” News, May 5].

That is a reprehensible cop-out. It comes down to voting for something you personally don’t believe in or accept, hoping others will fix it. This is a prime example of party loyalty at the expense of the American people.

Jack Extract, Freeport

 

I read “Tale of two LI GOP pols” [Opinion, May 6] and almost choked on my toast! Let me state upfront that I did not vote for Rep. Peter King, and I am so glad I didn’t!

His statement that he will be working with the Senate to keep the Medicaid expansion reimbursement, after voting for a bill to cut it, would be laughable if it wasn’t so egregious.

advertisement | advertise on newsday

What is even more insulting is that he further states that if the Senate doesn’t protect the Medicaid expansion (which he didn’t), “We can always vote no when it comes back.”

King must think that his constituents are lemmings who will follow him over a cliff, which is where he is “leading” us!

We live in an area where there are record opioid overdoses, and the expansion of Medicaid has greatly helped in providing aid in this area. And King has decided to leave the job of saving lives up to someone else?

Ed Conklin, East Islip

Column lacked factual analysis

Michael Dobie’s column “Too much love for Russia?” [Opinion, May 14] is a repugnant example of what passes today for commentary.

Readers are to believe that Dobie is haunted by an Oval Office photo of President Donald Trump and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

What follows are too many colorful words pulling deep meaning from Trump’s “giddiness” and Kislyak’s “sly” satisfaction. Dobie’s column is devoid of any factual analysis.

I am not a Trump supporter, but this kind of garbage written by a member of Newsday’s editorial board is a disgrace to journalism.

Christine Mullaney, Garden City

advertisement | advertise on newsday

Abandoned cats contribute to problem

The writer of “Feral cats are a threat to humans and birds” [Letters, May 14] says cat fanciers delude themselves about the effectiveness of spay and neuter programs to reduce the feral population.

While these programs do diminish the number of feral cats, the numbers of cats will never decrease as long as people adopt cute, cuddly kittens and abandon them once they grow up.

Tina Marie Soha, New Hyde Park

n

advertisement | advertise on newsday

Feral cats are beautiful animals with no homes. It’s people like the letter writer who cause hatred toward defenseless animals. I’ve saved and helped shelter more than 22 feral cats. My family and friends and I have donated our time, money and love to these helpless animals in our community.

Peter Piciulo, Halesite

Health care cuts would hurt poor women

I’m writing as a woman, a mother of three and grandmother of eight. A woman is never truly free unless she can control when and whether she is to bear children [“Abortion and the health care debate,” Letters, May 16]. At no time during my nearly 75 years, since abortion became legal, has that freedom been so threatened as it is now.

Under the alleged replacement for the Affordable Care Act, such essential gynecological services as maternity care, exams, mammograms, birth control, screenings for cancer and sexually transmitted disease, as well as abortion, are severely threatened. In fact, states might be able to treat these as optional services, which is sadly laughable. It’s nearly predictable which states would opt out of the proposed provisions to deny basic, life-preserving services to women.

It’s unconscionable that a woman in one state could denied essential services on a political whim, while her sister in a neighboring state would not.

The denial of Medicaid money would hurt Planned Parenthood, the only health care provider for many women. This would result in many unwanted pregnancies.

Wealthy women will always have access to reproductive services. It’s poor people who we would control because we can.

Jane Cash, Stony Brook