Learnard flat wrong on fed’s healthcare

Tue, 07/07/2009 - 2:54pm
By: Letters to the ...

Everyone has the right form an opinion and to voice that opinion as they see fit. None have the right to state facts that are false and misleading regardless of the reason.

The current opinion page article by Ms. Kimberly Learnard begins with statements concerning politicians “enjoying taxpayer-funded healthcare.”

She states that politicians’ healthcare is fully paid for by the taxpayer. These statements are flat wrong.

With Ms. Learnard’s educational résumé, it’s difficult to believe these statements are made in ignorance.

Senators and representatives have the option of enrolling in the same healthcare insurance program available to all federal workers. It is not free.

The federal employee health benefit program offers a number of options available to federal employees to provide for individual needs and the degree of desired coverage. Cost to the employee is based on their choice.

The same holds true for elected politicians.

All available plans are provided by private insurance companies, none of which are government-operated or -controlled. Full information is available from publications and the Internet.

The federal government pays part of the insurance costs, as do many employers. Coverage is not free to anyone.

If one is looking for fully funded coverage by the employer, they should study a few select corporations and union contract employees such as those at GM or Chrysler.

Making false or misleading statements alleging that elected politicians receive healthcare insurance paid for by taxpayers is inexcusable and highly suspect of liberal bias.

If Mrs. Learnard is a staff writer as indicated on The Citizen’s website, it is even more necessary to ensure accuracy in reporting.

Although posted on the opinion page, it is written as fact and not simply opinion. I believe the editor has total responsibility to assure accuracy in the staff writer’s statement.

Opinion is one thing; making false statements as fact is another and is unacceptable.

I hold The Citizen in much higher regard than to see articles of this nature appear in the paper.

Donald Clack

Fayetteville, Ga.

[Editor’s note: Ms. Learnard is not a staff writer, nor does she receive any compensation from The Citizen. The misunderstanding arises from the website post of the opinion column, which indeed does list her under “Staff Blogs.” That is a software artifact that will be corrected within a month.]

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by Bonkers on Tue, 07/07/2009 - 6:43pm.

Although I have no objection to the government paying about 75% of their employees insurance, the other 25 or so percent is also paid by the government in the form of salary from income taxes!

In other words, taxes pays all of the insurance costs.
Just as it does for Police, Firemen, and other tax funded employees.

To say that the part paid out of salary comes from a different source than the part paid by the government is not true.

What the insurance is that is paid paid by the government--not from the salary---is actually more salary.

One can say that if there was no deduction from salaries then the person would draw a bigger check. That is not true since the budgets would then have to be increased by the amount of difference.

Which could happen, but unlikely.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.