Letters to the Editor

Hope justices hear merits of case

I have a suggestion for the pundits: Please spare us your insights into how the conservative vs. liberal members of the Supreme Court will "vote" on the health-reform law ("Health-bill issue: Is it all or nothing?" Thursday). I am more than hopeful that they will hear the merits of the case and respond according to their consciences and not according to their bent. There is too much at stake here for anyone to have a preconceived point of view.

We have heard a great deal lately of how legislators in Washington, voting Democrat vs. Republican rather than as thoughtful servants of the people, can hinder life for the little folks. The idea is the same with the court. Give us the facts, and we will pray that decisions are made in the best interests of the country.

Frances Murray, Brookhaven

No speculation about Thomas

There is much speculation on how the individual Supreme Court justices will rule on health-care reform, with one obvious exception. Virtually 100 percent of the analysts and pundits agree that Clarence Thomas will rule against the law. I am wondering if that is because he's a strict constructionist or because his household derives significant income from his wife's lobbying against the very act on which he is expected to render an "impartial" judgment? In other words, is it because he's already been bought?

D.J. McElroy, Yardley

Who pays for health care?

If the government can't require that you carry health insurance now - it doesn't have to be government-issued - what happens tomorrow or in 10 years when you need medical or surgical care? Should you expect to get a free ride on treatment of your pneumonia, fractured wrist, food poisoning, diabetes, cataracts, cancer, cat-bite infection, heart attack, kidney failure, or splitting headache from high-blood pressure? The care and procedures vary, but everyone will need care at some point. Who is going to pay?

Should travelers on commercial airlines be permitted to opt out of paying security-related fees that are included in airfares? Should they be able to refuse security protection, even when other passengers have paid the security fee? Or opt out of paying the part of each federal highway toll allocated to roadway or bridge repair?

Jonathan B. Rosefsky, M.D., Wynnewood, doctorjb.rosefsky@att.net

The law is constitutional

The health-care laws are no more unconstitutional than such everyday requirements as being fined for not wearing your seat belt. Does this protect me, the person who chooses to wear one? No. It does, however, protect someone who lacks the sense to see the harm in not wearing one, as well as that careless person's children. What's most ironic about the court challenge is that it is brought by people who can afford and always will have health insurance. Is there anyone who doesn't have insurance fighting for repeal?

The nonsense that first we'll be forced to buy health care and then specific GM cars makes me nauseous. The same political pontiffs who predict constitutional doom have not come up with an alternative. Market-driven pricing? Has there not been a free market so far? Yet the only direction my price has gone is up, from $100 per month to $750. My deductible has gone from zero to $3,000 annually. No product has ever had that type of annual rate increase.

Ed Truncale, Erial, etruncale@comcast.net

Congress can regulate commerce

Is the humongous health-care industry not commerce? Of course it is. Then Congress can regulate it. Period. If citizens want to change the "mandate," they must persuade Congress to change its law - or elect a new Congress. How do we allow five black-robed political ideologues to overturn our Constitution? After all, isn't this the same gang that revised the Constitution to say that corporations are people and unlimited money is free speech?

Richard Keen, West Chester, richkeen@comcast.com

Invading privacy of patients

I find it ironic that Scott Holleran ("History shows path to this 'abomination'," Monday) screams about the health-care law requiring everyone to buy insurance as an abominable invasion of government control, while Republicans seem quite happy to mandate physical invasion of women's bodies with ultrasound laws. Talk about the government taking away of individual choice, even in the most private matters between a woman and her doctor.

Carol LeFevre, Gwynedd