In our age of mutually assured destruction, the last sentence of a May 3 letter stating, “Domestically and internationally, winning is the name of the game,” is nothing short of suicidal. (10A)
The two programs that have done most to enhance the security of our nation are the Marshall Plan and the Peace Corps. For our own survival, we must move beyond our win-lose mentality and search for win-win patterns to structure our relationships.
Not in this foxhole
A May 4 letter writer stated that “it is still a truism that at the end of the day there are no atheists in foxholes.” (12A)
That brings back memories of my late father. Dad was a combat veteran of World War II. He served in New Guinea and the Philippines. He was fond of saying, “There are no atheists in a foxhole,” and then laughing. Why? Because he was an atheist in a foxhole. So much for a truism.
Soon, Kansas City area children will finish school and will be raiding fridges after a long day of play in search of cold beverages to satisfy their parched throats.
I remind you that what they choose matters. As a pediatrician, I chat with many parents who are aware that soda and other sugary drinks such as Kool-Aid are not wise options. However, many are surprised that Gatorade and even 100 percent fruit juice contain nearly as much sugar as an equivalent serving of soda.
Luckily, there are healthier options. Water is far and away the best thing a child (or adult) can drink to relieve thirst. If, like many of my patients, your child finds plain water “too boring,” infuse flavor by adding lemon or lime juice. Adding sliced fruits such as strawberries and oranges also gives water a sweet taste without much sugar. Additionally, 1 percent or skim milk is a good choice that adds often-needed protein to an active child’s diet.
By being conscious of what our kids drink, we take a big step to ensure they are growing up to be healthy while staying hydrated.
Luke Engelman, M.D.
Health care laws
The failure of the health system has been ongoing for at least 40 years. It’s the failure of a market-based system.
Obamacare had nothing to do with its failure. It was only a Band-Aid to the system. And as such, it was highly successful.
It addressed the pre-existing condition problem, extended children’s coverage to 26 years, eliminated the lifetime cap on coverage, saved an estimated $200 billion in additional yearly costs and covered an additional 24 million people.
Rep. Kevin Yoder has previously spewed GOP propaganda to the contrary and did so again Thursday after he voted to repeal it. His statement was full of falsehoods.
Our market-based system of delivering health care is a failure. Compared with other countries’ single-payer systems, it is more expensive and less effective.
Now the House bill ends safeguards on pre-existing conditions, raises costs for everyone (especially the elderly and poor), gives an enormous tax break to the rich, guts Medicaid and more.
Yoder did not have the character to stand up to the GOP and do the right thing.
As is apparent from Rep. Fred Upton’s comments about the Republican health care plan (May 3, 1A, “Influential Republican attacks new health bill”), House Speaker Paul Ryan and President Donald Trump are being disingenuous at best.
Upton asserts the bill “torpedoes” protection for people with pre-existing conditions. Ryan responds with talking points that Obamacare is terrible and that pre-existing conditions are “protected” in the Ryan-Trump plan.
Both cannot be right. Somebody is lying.
Rather than listening to Ryan-Trump’s doubletalk, demand that they answer the question: “Can you guarantee that no one with a pre-existing condition will be worse off — less coverage, higher premiums or both — under Ryan-Trump than under Obamacare?”
When they refuse, as they will, to answer that question with a “yes,” that should tell you all you need to know. Claiming your replacement plan covers pre-existing conditions while failing to disclose that the would-be insured will not be able to afford the required premium is simply dishonest.
Obamacare is far from perfect, but Republicans seem consumed with eradicating anything Obama, without offering a better alternative.
To the extent they have a mandate, it is not to “repeal and replace,” but to “repeal and replace with something better.” This fails.
David P. Troup