They should have worked to improve the ACA

As a health professional I respectfully take issue with the inaccurate portrayal of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid as “broken” and “historically failed” in the Feb. 19 Forum article by U.S. Reps. Keith Rothfus, Mike Kelly and Bill Shuster (“Relief From Obamacare: A Better System Ahead”).

Contrary to their claims, the ACA and accompanying Medicaid expansion have proved quite successful in improving health care in the United States. Four years after full implementation of the ACA, the percentage of citizens without health insurance is at historic lows (less than 9 percent), the most significant reductions being seen in those states electing to expand Medicaid coverage as part of the ACA. The rate of increase in Medicare expenditures has significantly decreased.

In states expanding Medicaid coverage, hospital charity care and bad debt have dropped $2.8 million and $300,000, respectively, but no such change was seen in states failing to expand Medicaid.

Health outcomes have improved, with hospital-acquired infections dropping 17 percent, and 30-day Medicare hospital readmission falling 1.3 percent. A 2014 study in the Annals of Internal Medicine demonstrated a 3 percent reduction in mortality in the state of Massachusetts following implementation of that state’s health care system, which served as the model for the ACA — the most dramatic reductions being seen in those counties with the lowest socioeconomic standing.

If these representatives had spent more time over the last four years focusing on ways to improve the ACA (such as reasonable tort reform for medical malpractice and government negotiations for improved Medicare drug prices) instead of voting more than 50 times to repeal the act without proposing a reasonable alternative, we might be enjoying much better health care services in our country today. SCOTT VAN ZANT Forest Hills

After President Donald Trump’s only stand-alone press conference to date, we are left with still more absurd charges from his own lips and tweets (“the fake news media is the enemy of the people”). This was just one of many inane comments made during and after his press outing –– an outing that came off more as a campaign event –– in the course of his hour and 15 minutes on stage. This goes way beyond the well-known antipathy that many new administrations often have to news coverage of their activities and policies.

The tipoff here is his use of the words “media the enemy.” Anyone with an ounce of logic would have to understand that the “media” –– which of course is plural for “medium” –– is not a monolithic entity that has a single conspiratorial bias, but rather highly competitive elements, such as the print press, television reportage, magazine columns, books, etc. Indeed, since Mr. Trump built most of his early career by allowing coverage of himself and even catering to it –– as long as, presumably, it was what he considered positive — it is only fair to call attention to his newfound attitude to it.

A real conspiracy would need to be a cartel whose sole purpose was the banding together to deny further free coverage of him. Which, of course, would never happen, because various elements of the media fully recognize their sole mission and purpose, which Thomas Jefferson explicitly denoted as a check on unwarranted congressional and executive powers. JIM HOHMAN

Shadyside

Remember the phrase “What if they gave a war, and nobody came?” I’m from that generation that remembers it so well. What if Donald Trump gave a news conference and nobody came? The reporters would be spared the insults hurled at them and their respective news outlets. The public wouldn’t be subjected to a barrage of lies (aka “alternative facts”), fake news (according to him) and the bombastic image of a big crybaby who attacks anyone who challenges his “authority.”

Imagine: Mr. Trump comes to the podium full of contempt and hatred, ready to blast the press and prepared not to answer any questions honestly. Nobody is there. Nobody showed up. The reporters and the majority of Americans have had enough of his lessthan-presidential behavior.

I look forward to this day, even though it probably will never happen. I just don’t understand why those educated reporters allow themselves to be insulted, humiliated and offended by someone who has no idea how to be an effective leader, has no manners whatsoever and thinks he was elected “King” instead of POTUS. JOAN HUBER

Moon