Times article repeated VA misunderstanding

I read the New York Times article "Women often harassed at VA hospitals" in Sunday's Dispatch and did not get past the first paragraph before I was struck by a statement that continues a misunderstanding among the public. The statement "the most celebrated benefits of military service — health care for life from the Department of Veterans Affairs." This is a false statement.

When the Defense Department says you get health care for life, that is for veterans who retire from the military. That benefit is available at Department of Defense medical facilities, not Veterans Affairs. The VA is a separate Cabinet-level agency with its own criteria for receiving care for which a veteran might or might not qualify (https://explore. va.gov/health-care).

My husband served three years with the Army during the Vietnam War and was honorably discharged, but is not qualified.

Nancy Schmidt, Worthington

Remove health care from market economy

I'd like to comment on Sunday's Two Views columns concerning new looks at socialism, specifically Rep. Brad Wenstrup's contribution ("Government exists to serve people, not oppress them"). His position is to unleash the free market for America's health care because socialism is flawed and ergo social medicine is flawed.

He cited the fact that 40 percent of Medicare recipients use Medicare Advantage, a private insurance option under Medicare, as proof that government Medicare is bad. However, that would mean 60 percent of Medicare recipients have chosen standard government Medicare, meaning most people apparently like the social health-care option over private insurance.

Wenstrup also cited a quote from Denmark's prime minister who said Denmark is a market economy. That is probably true, but Denmark also has free socialized health care, so health care must not be considered part of Denmark's market economy. And that's the point: Health care should not be a for-profit enterprise. America has made health care a major component of our economy and that means there is an inverse relationship between our collective physical health and the financial health of America.

We should emulate Denmark and have a healthy economy not based on a unhealthy citizenry.

William Bruns, Blacklick

Work to rebuild VA, health care system

If you believe that Medicare for all is the solution to ensure that every American has access to affordable, high-quality health care, I can point you to another government-run health-care system that will paint another picture. That system is the Department of Veterans Affairs. As a military veteran myself, I have personally endured the long wait times and the bureaucratic red tape that came with trying to access the benefits I earned serving our county, and that I needed because of my service. I have heard this story over and over from my fellow veterans and know that this problem is widespread.

If our nation cannot keep a promise and provide access to timely and high-quality health care for the men and women who fought for our freedom, it seems unreasonable to believe that the government will be able to do so for every American.

While our health-care system isn’t perfect, throwing out the whole system and starting over is not the answer. We need to focus on building on the successful foundations we have in place, promoting public and private markets working together and increasing choices and competition to drive down costs.

When the VA was denying me treatment I need as a result of my service, I was thankful that I had access to great employer-provided insurance. That may not be an option for the more than 180 million Americans who are currently covered by employer-sponsored insurance if Medicare for all is pursued. To me, that just doesn’t make sense.

If we are serious about fixing our health-care system, we need serious solutions. Medicare-for-allstyle proposals are not the answer.

James Bernholtz, Grove City

Gasoline tax hike, fees unfair, archaic

I respond to the Tuesday Dispatch.com article "Ohio Senate GOP can’t agree on amount of gas-tax increase needed." Under the latest Senate transportationbudget proposal, owners of electric vehicles would pay $175 a year and hybrids $75 per year.

My family owns electric and hybrid vehicles, so we would pay $250 a year for these cars on top of the tax on gas for the hybrid and tax on electricity for the EV that we are already paying. This is still too high.

Electric vehicles are a fledgling market that we should be boosting. Instead, these taxes will crush this market in Ohio. The only other state to enact EV and hybrid taxes this high is Georgia. The year after they passed their tax, sales of EVS fell dramatically.

The Ohio proposal was calculated on the basis of a car that gets 35 mpg. However, our hybrid gets 55 mpg and our EV gets the equivalent of 105 mpg. We do not mind paying our fair share to maintain our roads, but the tax should be fair. We should not be overtaxed.

More important, the world is moving toward electric vehicles. They do not emit carbon pollution that causes climate change or particulate matter that makes people sick. They can be charged at home. And they are easier to maintain as they don't have oil changes.

Half the world's buses will be electric by 2025. Eleven countries are phasing out gas vehicles altogether.

As society switches to electric cars, funding roads with a gasoline tax will become untenable. A better way to fund roads is through a miles-traveled tax, levied annually when license plates are renewed. Under that tax, people would pay for what they use. People who drive more would pay more to keep up the roads, while those who drive less would pay less.

Cathy Cowan Becker, Grove City

Senators play politics at our nation's expense

What a curious time for the Ohio delegation to the U.S. Senate. First, we have Sherrod Brown, who goes on national TV and calls President Donald Trump a traitor. Then we have Sen. Rob Portman who, along with 11 other Republican senators, voted to reject Trump's declaration of a

national emergency to pay for walls on our southern border.

These dissenters say the president has exceeded his constitutional authority, even though he has acted under the authority granted him by the National Emergency Act of 1976 and is supported by the highly respected Attorney General William Barr.

It is not the job of Portman to determine the constitutionality of President Donald Trump's action. It is the job of the U.S. Supreme Court. The sad part is that Portman and his fellow dissenters know this and are using it as an excuse to cover the fact that they're sticking their collective thumbs in the eye of Trump.

By opposing Trump on the border-security issue, these senators are opposing not only our own experts from the Border Patrol, they are joining forces with a Democratic Party poisoned by identity politics and with an administrative state, particularly the FBI and the Justice Department, staffed by unelected bureaucrats who have been trying to undo the results of the 2016 elections via the bogus Mueller investigation.

I have never seen the like of the volume of vituperation and sheer hatred thrown at President Trump by the Democrats and the media, and sadly, conservative Republicans are now faced with the spectacle of 12 Republican senators being portrayed in newspapers all over the country as "defying" their own president on one of his signature issues.

The motivations of this group range from the embarrassing naivete of Lamar Alexander to the spiteful and nasty jealousy of Mitt Romney, similar to that of the late John Mccain.

What's Sen. Portman's excuse?

Terry Mckee, Columbus