Letters to the Editor: November 6, 2013

Con­tinu­ing to de­fend tra­di­tion­al mar­riage

Fall is here, with it, re­cent is­sues of the Times bring me news that two loc­al writers have re­spon­ded to my cour­ageous and spir­ited de­fense of tra­di­tion­al mar­riage (Sept. 4).

First, there’s Ed Huber, who in­forms us “it’s a new world” and a “far, far, bet­ter one” that’s “here to stay” be­cause of so-called same-sex mar­riage (Sept. 25 is­sue).


Then there’s Joe Oren­stein, who in his screed (Oct. 16) re­sor­ted to the now very shop­worn ad hom­inem so typ­ic­al of left­ists: yell “big­ot” whenev­er someone dis­agrees with their agenda. Joe, that routine was old when the hula hoop was new and is a play straight from the “civil rights” days of the ‘50s. Can your side ever come up with a ser­i­ous ar­gu­ment in fa­vor of your ideo­lo­gic­al pref­er­ences?

These pen­men clearly have joined the cur­rent parade of ir­re­spons­ib­il­ity stam­ped­ing in sup­port of the latest polit­ic­al fad.

It is also clear both are in need of a his­tory les­son. The “new world” they tout is not so new after all. So-called same-sex mar­riage was avail­able in an­cient Rome and dur­ing the “any­thing goes” days of the French Re­volu­tion, and we all know how those ex­per­i­ments turned out, don’t we?

Need­less to say, I re­main proud to stand foursquare for tra­di­tion­al mar­riage and I’m will­ing to de­fend it via writ­ing with let­ters so bright the blind will be able to read them. So, Ed and Joe, feel free to name-call un­til your hearts are con­tent; my side will win in the long term.

George Tomez­sko

Fox Chase

Thanks to those who at­ten­ded ce­re­mony

On Oct. 20, a me­mori­al ce­re­mony to re­cog­nize the 30th an­niversary of the bomb­ing in Beirut was held at the monu­ment at Colum­bus Boulevard and Dock Street. 

The ce­re­mony was at­ten­ded by fam­il­ies of the fallen, col­or guards from the U.S. Mar­ines and Mar­ine Corps League de­tach­ments from the area as well as sev­er­al Mar­ine mo­tor­cycle clubs and mem­bers of the pub­lic and vis­it­ors from oth­er cit­ies. The guest speak­er was re­tired Mar­ine Corps Lt. Gen. Richard Zin­gler, and a pro­clam­a­tion from the state was presen­ted by state Rep. John Sabat­ina. 

It should be noted that many city, state and fed­er­al of­fi­cials were in­vited as well as loc­al me­dia out­lets, but none had the cour­tesy to at­tend and re­port on this im­port­ant oc­ca­sion hon­or­ing our ser­vice mem­bers who gave their lives for our coun­try. Shame on them, and thanks to those who did at­tend.

Don Cam­pan­ile


Obama­care must go

As I was just about to resign my­self that all hope was lost and Amer­ica as we knew it was gone, I read the let­ters by Richard Iac­on­elli and Di­ane Mc­Dow­ell in the North­east Times. I had some re­newed faith that there are still many of us who are will­ing to op­pose this law that was forced on to the Amer­ic­an people.

First of all, it nev­er had to be this way. A pro­gram could have been set up for those who are un­in­sured while leav­ing the rest of alone. It is tyr­an­nic­al to im­pose a law that forces people to pur­chase goods or ser­vices that they don’t want or need. 

The 10 es­sen­tials of Obama­care in­clude ser­vices such as men­tal health and ma­ter­nity care. I don’t want men­tal health cov­er­age and, as a man, I don’t need ma­ter­nity care. Why shouldn’t people be able to keep what they have as the pres­id­ent had prom­ised or have a plan that cov­ers only the ser­vices they want?  

I’ve seen the new plans. There is noth­ing af­ford­able about them. A bronze plan, which is the cheapest plan avail­able un­der the new law, will have a de­duct­ible of about $6,200 and cost close to $400 a month. It is un­con­scion­able that any state in­sur­ance com­mis­sion would OK a plan where someone would pay $4,800 a year for it and not be able to re­ceive be­ne­fits un­til they spend $6,200 out of pock­et. This law was not needed, as there are already pro­grams in place for those who can’t af­ford cov­er­age. Many people will be over­whelmed with anxi­ety and find them­selves without in­sur­ance come Jan. 1. Oth­ers will have their premi­ums drastic­ally in­creased with less cov­er­age. 

And just wait un­til the em­ploy­er man­date kicks in next year. Look at the dam­age it’s already do­ing. People must let their elec­ted rep­res­ent­at­ives know that they don’t want this. Re­mem­ber, they work for you. The first thing that needs to be done is to stop in­surers from drop­ping plans that people had long be­fore this law was signed and re­in­state those they have already dropped. Many have already been hurt by this law, and something has to be done be­fore many more suf­fer from its im­pact.

Peter Di­Gi­useppe


Give Af­ford­able Care Act a chance

Richard Iac­on­elli writes that the Af­ford­able Care Act (wrongly labeled Obama­care) is com­par­able to pro­hib­i­tion.

How do you com­pare le­gis­la­tion that at­tempts to provide health care to the en­tire na­tion to the ban­ning of al­co­hol­ic bever­ages? What il­leg­al product will this pro­duce? 

Con­ci­erge medi­cine is boot­leg­ging? What’s il­leg­al about pay­ing for your health care without in­sur­ance? 

Will crim­in­als of­fer il­leg­al in­sur­ance? Will there be speak­easies selling in­sur­ance after hours?

The Af­ford­able Care Act may not be per­fect, but it is the first lo­gic­al step to­ward reas­on­ably priced health in­sur­ance for the en­tire na­tion. 

To la­bel it as a crim­in­al act is ir­re­spons­ible.

Joe Oren­stein


You can reach at .

comments powered by Disqus