Righteous anger over GOP bill

Re “Medicaid ‘blood money,’ ” Opinion, June 27

Jonah Goldberg may protest this “dumb political moment,” but his uncritical repetition of misleading Republican talking points contributes to the problem.

He passes off at face value the claim that tax credits would assist those who would lose Medicaid coverage under the Republican proposals. Seriously? How could low income individuals use tax credits to pay the $16,000 needed to buy a policy for a family of four in the United States?

Goldberg promotes the tale that President Obama “lied” to the country when he stated that individuals could keep their coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The reality is that a provision of the law ensuring standard benefits prevented a small percentage of those with individual plans from renewing their policies, while most Americans were able to keep their plans.

Democrats’ alarms about the effects of millions losing their insurance appear much more factual than Goldberg’s warmed over polemics from the 2016 campaign trail. Daniel J. Stone, MD Beverly Hills

As Goldberg notes, Republicans and Democrats hurl abuse at each other, charging each other with malfeasance and worse. The truth is, no politician ever seeks to cause harm by introducing a piece of legislation. The intent is always, so we are often assured, to support a worthy cause.

But, as Goldberg points out, facing in one direction inevitably causes the back to turn toward another. The supporting argument for such extreme rhetoric is that it is often necessary to speak in extremes to get a point across. The result is a bounce-back of equally extreme rhetoric that clouds the real issue and virtually precludes any rational discussion of important issues.

A return to rational discourse might lead to reasonable compromises. That the two parties refuse to agree on anything simply because the opposition has a different name is unspeakably absurd. R. William Schoettler Studio City

It is by no means hyperbole to suggest either that the Senate Republicans’ healthcare bill is an abomination or that a “yes” vote amounts to “homicide” (an act that takes the lives of human beings).

According to a 2009 pre-Affordable Care Act Harvard medical study, published at a time when 47 million Americans were uninsured, 45,000 Americans then died each year for lack of coverage. That’s an avoidable number of deaths that were no doubt proportionately reduced by expanding coverage.

By adding 22 million to the existing 28 million uninsured, passing the Senate healthcare bill could amount to a death sentence for more than 45,000 Americans per year. The massive tax cut for the wealthy secured by gutting Medicaid is indeed “blood money.” Ernest A. Canning Thousand Oaks