Your editorial Monday about the Affordable Care Act shows your true bias and total disregard for trying to help the average American. With your example of the 50-year-old preschool teacher making $30,000 a year, the editorial writer failed to mention all the variables that go along with the ACA.
For instance, did your writer say that if the teacher had a pre-existing condition that she would be able to get coverage for now and couldn't before? Did your writer explain how the preschool teacher's actual cost would be offset by her income? No.
I think this paper, or any other news source, should state the facts as they are and not partial facts that are detrimental to the American people just to promote a political point of view. Or does this paper believe that the drug industry making $270 billion in annual sales last year has the consumers' best interest in mind? Or does this writer believe that it is worth it for the House, with its arrogant disregard for taxpayers' money, to spend more than $60 million trying to repeal the ACA, the law of the land?
Maybe this writer still believes what the losing presidential candidate Mitt Romney said in his quest for the White House when he stated that he would repeal Obamacare and replace it with ... Obamacare.