Cancer patients cannot afford consequences of total repeal of the ACA

Cancer patients cannot afford consequences of total repeal of the ACA

Before the Afford- able Care Act, accessing health coverage could be like playing Russian roulette for cancer patients. Insurance companies could cancel patients’ existing coverage when they got sick or deny coverage in the first place because of a pre-existing condition. If you reached a lifetime or annual limit, your care could be cut off.

Yes, the ACA needs improvements. But repealing the law wholesale without a simultaneous and comprehensive replacement plan would be devastating to the millions of cancer patients who rely on it. We simply can’t afford to go back.

One proposal being considered is to keep the ban on pre-existing condition discrimination only if a person has maintained continuous coverage. But if a cancer patient can’t work or loses his or her job and experiences a gap in coverage, that could potentially lock him or her out of the insurance market indefinitely. That’s just like what happened before the ACA. Cancer patients can’t face the possibility of not being able to purchase coverage.

Let’s not play politics with people’s health. I’m asking Congress to compromise on improvements to the existing law. Don’t repeal what’s working and send us back to uncertainty without assurances that your replacement is as good or better than what we have now.

As a cancer survivor of 14 years and a former oncology nurse, I can not reinforce enough how important this issue is.

Donna Detwiler, North Lima

Democrats should work within system for change

It has been rather inspiring to see the passion of Democratic constituents in opposing the immigration freeze hastily and poorly implemented by the president’s executive order. However, that warm feeling of righteous indignation has soured. Pointless name-calling in regards to the current administration, excessive demands for stalling of nominations and the recent, shameful violence from UC Berkeley depict liberals as radicals.

In Congress, Democratic representatives are flooded with phone calls demanding they obstruct all nominations to Trump’s Cabinet. When they meet these demands and boycott meetings, Republican lawmakers simply move on without them. The nominations of Steven Mnuchin for Treasury Secretary, Tom Price for HHS Secretary and now Scott Pruitt for the EPA have all been approved without the Democrats present.

If they continue this precedent with Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court, they will only make a pointless gesture in opposition toward a candidate that should be less galling than unqualified nominees like Betsy DeVos.

The opposition’s rhetoric surrounding Trump’s executive order enacting the immigration freeze has wasted its breath comparing him and his administration to the Third Reich. The larger concern should be his nomination of Stephen Bannon to the National Security Council. That move places emphasis on a political agenda over expertise and experience. It’s this kind of policy that allows poorly executed and brash actions like the immigration freeze to create chaos and confusion for green card and valid visa holders.

Democratic constituents have every cause to be furious, and that energy should be focused on encouraging representatives to engage with the system rather than abstain from it. Despite its ultimate failure, the Democratic representatives’ concerted effort to oppose DeVos is the proper type of action.

Noah Parker Johnson, Boardman

Immigrants must learn the language we speak and accept core beliefs

I am sending this let- ter to The Vindicator to remind the people of Youngstown that there are two sides to every discussion. The media seem to present only one side. I want to let people know that the negative comments regarding Trump’s decision to temporarily stop the migration of refugees from seven countries is a view that many Americans support.

In the past, people who migrated to our country were willing to learn the language we speak and accept our core beliefs. Now many people coming in don’t care to learn our language nor do they want to accept the principles on which our country was founded.

We have been forced to become politically correct to satisfy those entering our country. We can’t use the word Christmas, we can’t say the Pledge of Allegiance, and God forbid, we can’t use the word God.

If our country is so attractive to refugees who come here, then they should be willing to accept our ways. If they don’t, then they should return to the country from where they ran. The refugees that came through Ellis Island were willing to accept our ways and were willing to work for what they received. Now entitlement is what many refugees are looking for since that is what we have provided them. It is time to take our country back and support the principles that have made our country great.

Nancy Epstein, Boardman