The Free Press, Mankato, MN

July 25, 2013

DeKruif examples skewed ACA view

---- — In opposing the Affordable Care Act, Al DeKruif says in his letter published July 13, a 63-year-old couple with income of $62,000 will pay annual insurance premiums of $5,892. But with income of $63,000, their annual premiums jump to $20,000-plus.

Seems scary, doesn’t it? But is DeKruif engaging in political trickery?

Bottom line: This couple is better off with the ACA than without it. DeKruif says nothing about their costs without the ACA, and without benefits like ending rejections due to pre-existing conditions. With the ACA, they pay less in premiums with income under $62,000 and are not worse off than they were before the ACA with income over $63,000.

If DeKruif’s example was a 45-year-old couple, the premiums would be $5,892 annually at $62,000 income, and $9,984 at $63,000, an increase of only $4,092 rather than the $14,000-plus for the 63 year olds. He’s just selecting an extreme example to make the ACA look bad.

In two years, the $63,000 63-year-olds would get Medicare, paying nowhere near $20,000-plus for insurance. But DeKruif never mentions this.

For incomes from $63,000 to $99,000,000, the 63-year-old couple would pay exactly the same monthly premiums adding up to $20,412 annually. From this whole range, why did DeKruif select $63,000? Gradually diminishing subsidies must reach some end point where people are expected to have enough income to pay for their insurance without subsidies. With the endpoint set at $62,000, DeKruif pounces on $63,000.

If the endpoint were $63,000, he would pounce on $64,000, anything to distract people from the bottom line mentioned above.

Message: Try the calculator and don’t ever vote for DeKruif.

Ron Yezzi


Naming pig after

bacon insensitive

StrokeStyle/$ID/Japanese DotsRobb Murray is clearly a kind person, who surely understands that compassion is limitless and will hopefully come to agree that one kind action doesn’t entitle someone to behave callously (“Murray: I’ve had it with PETA,” July 14).

Why should the veterinarian who adopted a lame pig only to name him “Chris P. Bacon” be excused for his insensitive behavior? If someone saved another person from a car accident, it wouldn’t make it all right for them to call that person by a racial epithet.

Doing a good deed doesn’t earn one a free pass to be cruel or inconsiderate. We should all expect people to exhibit basic common decency. Choosing not to harm an animal doesn’t make you a savior any more than choosing not to beat a child makes you a hero.

The veterinarian who chose to care for the disabled pig obviously realizes that pigs are smart, social beings who feel pain, sadness, joy, and love just as people do. Surely he can extend his compassion a bit further by acknowledging that his new companion is a sentient being, not a slab of meat. Doing so will set an example for others to view animals as individuals, not objects.

Heather Moore

PETA Foundation

Norfolk, Va.

Liberalism killed

city of Detroit

StrokeStyle/$ID/Japanese DotsWhen I heard the City of Detroit had filed for bankruptcy it reminded me of Ron Yezzi’s July 7 Your View in which he suggested Al DeKruif might deserve a “spanking” for suggesting Minnesota’s high taxes will drive business and the rich away.

Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor in the Clinton Administration, recently opined the reason for Detroit’s bankruptcy was because the rich had left the city, leaving the poor behind. Mr. Reich did not say so, but the way I see it the most likely reason for that might be excessively high taxes.

Stephen Henderson of the Detroit Free Press recently wrote: Detroiters “pay more kinds of taxes, at higher rates, than any other citizens in Michigan....The cities tax structure is, by sheer numbers, among it’s most glaring problems.”

In the ‘50’s Detroit’s population was about 2 million. At that time it had the highest standard of living in the United States. Some called Detroit the “Paris of the west.” Detroit has been almost exclusively under Democrat control since the early ‘60’s. Detroit’s population today is about 700,000.

It seems the opinions of Reich and Henderson support DeKruif’s hypothesis. In my opinion liberalism defeated Detroit.

If we do not learn from history, history will repeat itself — it’s just a matter of time!

Bob Jentges

North Mankato