Coronavirus is magnifying flaws in the for-profit insurance model

Coronavirus care

I wonder how many potential transmitters of the coronavirus will opt out of testing and treatment when they become symptomatic. Sky-high health insurance deductibles may turn out to be this deadly virus’ best friend.

Now, in times of crisis, there is talk of the federal government (taxpayers) having to step in and save the day because the for-profit insurance model has been further exposed as a fraud feeding off Americans’ irrational fear of democratic socialism.

So will health insurance companies reimburse taxpayers who’ve already paid their premiums? If not, corporate socialism wins again.

Lou Meyers, Durham

Umstead Park

We citizens are being asked to make a compromise about the future of the “RDU Forest” next to Umstead State Park. Let Wake Stone destroy Odd Fellows, where the Boy Scouts have camped for decades. Let developers destroy Lake Crabtree County Park. And in return, people who like forests and outdoor recreation will get a 10-year lease on the so-called “286” tract next to RDU. The leased lands would be used for mountain bike trails, at least for a few years until another compromise needs to be made to fund the airport.

Seems reasonable right? A win-win? No, actually, this is the most absurd and abusive deal possible for those of us who actually care about keeping some green space in the Triangle.

We’ve already compromised, we’ve already lost so much forest to development. Even worse: the way the RDU Airport Authority

is claiming it can’t sell the land to add to Umstead State Park. It turns out that the FAA just allowed the Indianapolis Airport to sell almost 2,000 acres to make a park up there.

Ron Sutherland, Durham

Candidate money

Regarding “Mike Bloomberg,” (March 4 Forum):

This Forum writer suggests that Mike Bloomberg was trying to “buy” the nomination with his own money. The other candidates are bought by wealthy donors and companies and associations. Those candidates are then beholden to the donors who wish to influence policy and ask for favors. Subsequently, these policies and favors are are allowed in the dark of the night, with no scrutiny by the public and voters.

Is this better than one man subsidizing his own campaign?

Donna Corbett, Sanford

Biden’s running mate

As a Democrat I approve of Joe Biden, but in December he said he’d consider a Republican running mate. The Republican Party has demonstrated beyond refutation that a true democracy is not its goal. Nor is promoting the common good. Power is their goal.

FDR’s New Deal for an impoverished nation was opposed by the Republican Party, as was the Affordable Care Act for millions of uninsured Americans. Even now this administration is asking the Supreme Court to declare it unconstitutional.

Even some prominent conservatives have left the Republican Party or spoken out. I would ask Biden to please give up the idea that he can work across the aisle. Republicans have long-since told us who they are. Believe them. They cannot be trusted. And if Biden were to die in office?

John D. Divers, Raleigh

Socialism

Regarding “Democratic socialism is nothing radical,” (March 2 Opinion):

It’s scary that op-ed writer Joseph E. Kennedy has the platform to influence young minds with this fantasy-world approach. I am not denying that the problems he describes exist. What is not real world is his refusal to discuss any way to pay for all these handouts from government.

I recently read a piece in City Journal magazine, a publication of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a free market think tank. It said Bernie Sanders’ socialism offers the illusion of a safe life guaranteed by a benevolent state — “the allure of transferring personal responsibility to a public nurse” — but that in reality it does not work.

The N&O op-ed ended by saying: “As they say in sports, go big or go home.” The latter awaits Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Douglas B. Aitken, Clayton

Fear-mongering

Regarding “’Miracle on Ice’ forgotten, socialism makes comeback,” (March 1 Opinion):

Conflating socialism with communism is an erroneous jump that recurs throughout Marc Thiessen’s op-ed piece. He consistently conflates Bernie Sanders’ “socialism” with “communism,” using unsupported opinion and innuendo.

I would also point out that Sanders is a self-avowed “democratic socialist,” which is not the same as a “socialist.”

Thiessen’s op-ed struck me as a flagrant attempt to bring back the fear mongering and red-baiting of the ‘50s and ‘60s. I was alive during that period. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now. His op-ed was based on flawed logic and clever misdirection.

Douglas Holzworth, Raleigh