CarriageTowneNews.com, Kingston, NH

September 5, 2013

Response to Sue Carroll


Carriage Towne News

---- — Response to Sue Carroll

In the August 21st edition of this paper, Sue Carroll from Atkinson has elected to continue the discussion regarding Obamacare and Medicaid Expansion and in doing so she doubles down on her use of hyperbole, “facts” taken out of context, and unwarranted conjecture regarding the intent of those with whom she disagrees. Here is my response:

Ms. Carroll repeats her complaint about Obamacare’s requirement that insurance policies contain coverage for contraception, stating that this requirement forces Christians to subsidize abortions. She fails to note that in 2000, NH implemented exactly such a requirement for insurance coverage in a law enacted by the Republican-controlled legislature. At the time, not one entity, including the Catholic Diocese, raised objections. In 2012, former Speaker Bill O’Brien was caught befuddled and completely unaware of the law when asked about it after he used a press conference to slam the President on this point. Just another example of something they were for before they were against it.

Ms. Carroll asserts that “conservatives” are more generous to charities than “the left”. She cites no sources for this claim, perhaps because this is merely speculation. Studies by the Chronicle of Philanthropy have shown that religious giving represents a higher percentage of charitable donations in so-called “red” states, with secular giving being much higher in “blue” states. Utah is shown to be the most charitable state in these studies. NH was rated dead last because of low levels of religious charity, but our secular giving was on par with the rest of the country. However, there is no data I could find that can substantiate a claim that the “right” gives more than the “left”.

Ms. Carroll goes on to play fast and loose with Congressional Budget Office data about program costs and the number of people potentially losing employer insurance (who may get cheaper coverage and/or subsidies via exchanges). Interestingly, she also ignores the fact that the same CBO, in response to a request from Speaker Boehner for an analysis, informed him that repeal of Obamacare would add $109 billion to the deficit.

Lastly, Ms. Carroll trots out a favorite and shop-worn Glenn Beck canard (Cloward/Piven strategy) and writes, apparently with a straight face, that President Obama wants to bankrupt the country. Even if you don’t like the President or don’t like his policies, please help me understand what benefit he might derive from doing this?

Such overtly hyper-partisan rhetoric strains her credibility perhaps more than any factual counter argument that can be made, and there are many. Once again, all she can do is rant about the evils she perceives in Obamacare and offers absolutely no alternatives, in spite of my encouragement for her to do so. Maybe she can’t come up with options because the sources she relies upon for her argument don’t have any either.

Andrew Weir

Hampstead