HEALTH CARE
Deal shouldn’t reject Medicaid expansion
Gov. Nathan Deal’s rejection of Medicaid expansion ignores economic and moral realities. He cites costs but does not consider the burden on our health care system from uninsured patients. The true cost of rejection to Georgians will be greater than the cost to the state government. In addition to the costs to our hospitals (and emergency rooms), there are the loss of preventive care and the effect on productivity in the workplace. It is cheaper to prevent illness than to cure it. If it also means that prenatal care will not be available, this decision is criminal.
The potential economic effect on poor people is worse than a tax increase targeting only them. How can the governor do this to them, while at the same time opposing “taxes? The effect is worse than a new tax.
JACK LAWING, ATLANTA
STATE ECONOMY
Georgia is getting left farther behind
So, Gov. Nathan Deal doesn’t understand how other states can expand their Medicaid program. Really?
Maybe it’s because those states put a high priority on having healthy citizens in a system that is more efficient and reduces uncompensated care. These states probably put a high priority on education and transportation as well — and maybe they think having healthy, well-educated citizens who can easily get to their jobs might attract businesses to their states. Maybe it would bother the leaders of those states to be at the bottom of the list on every measure of progress businesses might look at.
Maybe those leaders think it’s worth raising taxes to have their states move forward. Georgia is getting left farther and farther behind — and I guess that’s okay with Deal and other Georgia leaders.
CAROLYN FARLEY, ATLANTA
ELECTION 2012
Romney should retool pro-business message
One of the pronounced advantages of Mitt Romney as a candidate is his ability to address problems (given his business background). One dimension of that capability is the Bain Capital experience. Colleagues in the firm reveal the focus was to make money for the investors. They cringe at any discussion about saving or destroying companies, as that was not the orientation.
What should be of concern to voters is the lack of intelligent design of how the candidate could have diverted attention from that subject. An extremely simple explanation would have been to seek acknowledgment that, “Whether it was by business, political or even religious activity, I recognized my concern was to serve those for whom I was responsible. It may have been investors or congregants. Now I seek to serve the interest of the voters of this great nation. You will be my investors and shareholders.” Why haven’t Romney’s advisers suggested such a pronouncement? Are they only interested in the preferred shareholders? Are they not capable of addressing our real world?
STANLEY HARRIS JR., SAVANNAH
