Health-care benefits

Comment: Off

Charles Krauthammer railed against “Obamacare’s war on jobs” [op-ed, Feb. 14], but his theatrical angst over workers who might choose part-time employment down the road in order to retain subsidized health coverage reveals a hidden strength of the Affordable Care Act.

Working people who come to the conclusion that they are better off with health-care coverage and a part-time job will be making an empowered decision on behalf of all workers. Such a decision means more shared jobs, less competition for employment and upward pressure on wages. That might well mean that employers must pay more to fill necessary jobs, perhaps ending three decades of stagnating wages and leading to a more equitable distribution of economic surplus.

Somehow, Mr. Krauthammer has concluded that the broad social benefits from the act are a bad thing. Nevertheless, I thank him for clarifying the point.

Jeff Epton, Washington

Regarding Greg Christopulos’s Feb. 13 letter “Limits to an employer’s reach”:

I don’t see the connection between birth control pills for women and a kosher sandwich. A better parallel would be that men don’t want to pay for women’s birth control, yet they think nothing of having women pay for their Viagra.

I propose that birth control pills and Viagra be tied together in health-care plans. Health-care plans that do not pay for birth control pills should not pay for Viagra or any like substitute.

To paraphrase Florynce Kennedy, “If men got pregnant, birth control would be a sacrament.”

Pamela Burridge, Harrisburg, Pa.



About the Author