LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

By NEMS Daily Journal

Insurance costs go up after health care law
Bobby Harrison’s column of Feb. 2 made me seethe with anger.
He wrote that “thanks to the Affordable Care Act, Billie and Joe are going to be able to save that $200 per month.” Meanwhile, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, my health insurance premiums for 2011 are increasing a few pennies shy of $1,500 – or approximately $125 per month.
I am self-employed and am not a member of a group insurance policy (as, say, a reporter for the Daily Journal may be). I have two sons.
In 2009, I paid just under $6,000 for my health insurance policy to cover myself and one son. In 2009, my youngest son lived with his mother and was on her insurance.
In 2010, my youngest son came to live with me, I added him to the policy, and I paid just over $7,000 for a policy covering me (age 52) and two boys (age 19 and 18).
In November 2010 (conveniently, the week after the election), I received notice from my insurance company that my policy will cost me almost $8,600. The increase in my insurance premium may cause me to have to drop the insurance (which, of course, is exactly what Obama and the Democrats have wanted all along – a single payer system with everyone dependent upon the federal government for health care).
The only thing that has changed from 2010 to 2011 is the passage of the Affordable Care Act.
Remember, the Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover Billie and Joe’s kids until the kids are 26 years old. It prohibits insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. But nothing is free. All the goodies offered in the Affordable Care Act will be paid by someone.
So the $200 per month being “saved” by Billie and Joe is being shifted to me as an increased cost to me – and to people similarly situated with me. And that makes me angry. And I get angry when people such as Harrison try to sing undeserved and misleading praises to Obamacare.
David Robinson
Oxford


Pit bulls are unfairly maligned as a breed
It’s people like Tim Wildmon who give pit bulldogs a bad name. It’s not the breed of dog that is mean, it’s the people who train them to be mean. It is how they are raised. Any dog can be mean if they are raised that way.
Wildmon wrote in his column (Feb. 6) about the videos on YouTube showing how mean and vicious they are, but he failed to mention about all the videos showing how loving, friendly and protective they are toward their owners. I have watched numerous videos of how sweet, loving, playful and protective they can be. They are protective of their owners and for that people like him call them mean and vicious animals.
People and newspapers like yours are the reason these animals don’t have a chance in the world because all you give them is bad publicity. These are beautiful, loving animals.
No one ever says or writes an article on Rottweilers, which are mean also, and I know this for a fact because I knew someone who has two Rottweilers and when they are around, you can’t even touch him or they will try to tear your head off. Thankfully, they are on leashes. These same dogs got loose and killed an innocent little puppy and literally ripped this puppy’s stomach out and on top of that there was a Labrador retriever with them that was just as mean, but yet they don’t get the bad publicity like the pit bulls do. No one ever says anything about these breeds of dogs. Like I already said in this letter, it is how they are raised.
People like Wildmon make me mad because he obviously knows nothing about this breed of animals. He needs to do more research before he goes condemning these animals. He will find there is good in this kind of dog called pit bulldog and not all is bad.
Debra Hodge
Saltillo


No legislated mascot, but bring back Col. Reb
The Mississippi Legislature recently failed to pass a bill to bring back Col. Reb as a mascot at Ole Miss. This is good. State politics should not be involved in choosing a mascot for any school. This should be decided by the students, faculty and alumni.
Even a few will probably view the black bear as being a sign of racial intent. And Col. Reb was replaced because of the views of a few. Slavery is past history and should be viewed as such.
Col. Reb was chosen as a mascot not because he represented slavery, but because he represented a traditional Southern gentleman. If Col. Reb was viewed as such an unpopular mascot, how do you explain the growing number of non-white students at Ole Miss? How do you explain the high national ranking of football recruiting classes over the years?
We don’t need the Legislature’s help, but let’s bring back Col. Reb as a symbol of what true Southern gentlemen are. And to the few narrow-minded who would not attend Ole Miss or send their children there because of Col. Reb being a mascot, I say “great.” I hope you can get as good an education somewhere else. Hotty totty, Colonel.
Earnest “Dee” Streit
Saltillo