Skip to Navigation Skip to Main Content
AP

Letters to the editor, May 20

Profile image for Denton Record-Chronicle Readers
Denton Record-Chronicle Readers

Promise betrayed

The health care bill passed by the House of Representatives is a betrayal of President Trump's promise of health coverage for everyone.

It allows states to waive coverage for essential health benefits (such as hospitalization, maternity care and mental health), allows discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions like cancer or asthma (the high-risk pools won't have nearly enough money to help), allows employers to hollow out health benefits for their employees, defunds Planned Parenthood's care for women, removes funding for special education, cuts Medicaid spending by approximately $880 billion and causes more than 24 million people to lose their health coverage.

This is not being done to improve health care, but to provide the richest Americans with a $1 trillion tax cut. It is taking from millions of poor and middle class people to give to a few rich people.

Let's hope that this legislation does not become law.

Bob Michaelsen,
Denton

Invalid conclusion

Because I voted against the tax freeze, I took immediate interest in your May 7 editorial, "Prop 1 passage sends message."

The editorial went well beyond "the message" to the difficulty and unlikelihood of meaningful tax reform in Texas.

It was only when I got to the second to the last sentence (of the editorial) did you write "The passage of Proposition 1 sends the message that voters believe government at all levels has grown too big and needs to be put on a diet."

Huh? Where did that come from? How does that statement relate to a proposition limiting a specific group's tax liability?

Also, your "message" diagnosis is hard to understand considering the number of voters with whom I spoke as they arrived at early voting locations and Denia Recreation Center on election day. Few were reluctant to express their opinions about the tax freeze.

None of the voters (whether for or against) with whom I visited said a word about or alluded to the need of governments at any level to reduce their budgets or services.

Quite the contrary, some spoke of streets still needing repairs, others of concerns about reducing children's library programs and hours and services at senior and recreation centers. Concerns about size of government were never mentioned.

Perhaps a more substantive discussion of the message from the passage of Proposition 1 would be a worthy one, but the lesson or conclusion of excessive government just isn't justifiable or valid.

Judy Giese,
Denton