Daines needs to stop talking for all Montanans - letter by Elizabeth Marum

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

-------------------------

I know I've been publishing a lot of things about the criticism of Steve Daines, but a lot of things are being published that criticize him. So many of them are unblinking, unthinking regurgitations of Leftist talking points. I just can't let those remain unchallenged.

Especially ones like this. It's one thing to level legitimate criticisms of Steve Daines' political philosophy or policy, it's something else to make untrue, off-topic, or irrelevant claims about him. 

But worse, the letter is not about Steve Daines per se, it is about her. Her pleasure, her happiness, her needs. ACA has made her happy, so any opposition to ACA is opposition to her happiness.

Lastly, the title to the letter, provided by the Chronicle, is not accurate, since Ms. Marum made no such statement.

Read on:

-------------------------------

I'm weary of Congressman Daines' repetition that Montanans don't like the new heath care law. (She might be weary, but Daines' claim is accurate. Which means that Daines' opposition to ACA is proper, and he is justified in working to repeal this unpopular and messed up legislation.) 

I couldn't be happier that we have a law assuring access to affordable healthcare, encouraging wellness through preventive medicine and permitting lower premiums for people making less than 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. (Good for her. I'm glad a government program has given her happiness. It's all about her, of course. She's happy, so Daines is wrong and we should not repeal the law. Based only on her happiness.)

My 23-year-old son has health insurance, now! He was eligible for coverage under my company's insurance, but it would have cost me $670/month for medical and another $90 for dental. Under the new law, his health insurance is $27 and dental is $26! For one-fourteenth the cost of my company's plan, he has the same coverage as I do with the same insurance companies. I am very pleased. (So she is happy that someone else is paying for most of the cost of her son's healthcare. She's pleased that we're all suckers, forced to fund her son's health. Two success stories, both of which benefit her little world, is all that is needed to justify imposing ACA on all the rest of us. Amazing.)

We had a question during the signup. I logged onto the Montana Health Answers website (www.montanahealthanswers.com ), asked the question, and received a response within 12 hours. My son signed up for insurance and we thought everything was good to go. In mid-January, I got a follow-up call from the person that handled my question to make sure we had the information we needed and that sign-up went smoothly. They helped me with the final details, payment process and begin-date of his policy. At a time when customer service suffers, this was extraordinary and unexpected. Who can argue against affordable coverage and great service? This is a pleasant change! (Again, her personal anecdote is apparently all the evidence anyone needs to be in support of ACA. She had a wonderful experience, so none of bad experiences of millions of other people come to bear on whether we should support the law. None of the manifold failures of the healthcare.gov website are relevant. All that matters is that Ms. Marum is happy.

And by the way, we are not customers. We are conscriptees. We are forced to participate, or pay a fine. The relationship between a service provider and a customer is a voluntary one. ACA is not voluntary.)

We all need the peace of mind (From her happy experience she now tells us what we all need.)

that going to the doctor will not bankrupt us (medical debt is the main cause of bankruptcy in the U.S.), (Medical debt in 1981 caused 8% of bankruptcies. That has now changed to being one of the major causes. What is different? Well, much more involvement by government in the healthcare industry is one thing. And now ACA increases that involvement even more. So if medical bankruptcies do not decline, can we say that government involvement in healthcare is a bad thing?)

and that as customers (Ahem. We are not customers.)

we have some measure of protection. (See, this is how it is for the Left. They pick out some isolated factoid ["some measure of protection"] and begin their cacophony. Then they build a constitutional right upon it, which then requires government intervention, and then a government program. The Left cannot imagine a situation where people choose for themselves when, where, and how much of something they wish to obtain on their own terms. The Left always wants to fix what they decide is broken, and it always means that everyone else must conform. This is the mind of the totalitarian.) 

This law can be improved and costs could be reduced even further, but this is a decent starting point. (But in the same breath the Left proclaims the Republicans have voted 40 times to repeal or change the law. So which is it? Can the law be changed, or are the Republicans eeeevil for trying to change the law? 

And remember, the ACA is healthcare "reform." It was supposed to fix what is broken. Why is it that a "reform" must be "reformed?" It's always this way with the Left. They will never admit that their legislative forays into the private sector have failed, despite mountains of contrary evidence. We can never get rid of any of these failed programs, because people will starve, seniors will be kicked out into the streets, and the children, oh my, the children! What will happen to them? 

So instead we have endless "reforms" of the reforms in order to fix the problems created by the programs that were supposed to fix the problems. More and more government. More and more control. More and more taxes and spending and laws and regulations. This is the legacy of the Leftist, manifesting as creeping tyranny.) 

I appreciate the Affordable Care Act and I'm glad it's there for my family. (Because again, it's all about her. Nothing else matters. No criticism, no failure, no tragedy associated with the legislation matters. Because she got hers.)

Elizabeth Marum

Belgrade