When you drill down to examine what is really in the American Health Care Act, the statement made by Representative Valadao could not be further from the truth.

The AHCA allows states to opt out of coverage for many essential services, including access to such   services as maternity care.   It allows insurance companies to charge seniors premiums that are 5 times higher than for younger people.  Under the AHCA the sickest people and those with pre-existing conditions can be charged higher premiums through high risk pools.  Representative Valadao may justify his vote by co-sponsoring an amendment that adds $8 billion to the $130 billion already in the high risk pool fund.  But care for this population is extremely expensive and considering the fact that an estimated 130 million Americans fall into the category of high risk (more than 290,000 including over 52,000 children in his district alone) the $8 billion added by his amendment is not adequate.

Neither will the AHCA stabilize the health care system. Trumpcare devastates funding for Medicaid/MediCal, and undercuts the fiscal solvency of Medicare by decreasing a payroll tax (on the wealthiest workers) that provides revenue for Medicare. 

So, the AHCA destabilized the system with cuts to Medicaid and Medicare, provides access to fewer essential services and raises rates for seniors and for the sickest people with pre-existing conditions. Does this sound like the stable health care system with access to high quality affordable care as promised by Representative Valadao?  

The majority in the medical community would likely not agree with Valadao’s press release either. In fact, Blue Shield of California, AARP and dozens of other groups are united in their opposition to the American Health Care Act.

Jacqueline Lowe

Hanford

Is Valadao truly representing his constituents?

For several weeks, Congressman David Valadao has rejected his constituents' requests for town hall meetings, preferring to arrange individual appointments at his office and carefully moderated telephone conferences, abdicating his responsibility to gather information in a public forum from the people he represents.

If not his constituents' concerns, then, what does inform the congressman's vote?

Did $40,000 from the telecommunications industry result in the congressman's support for a bill to make it easier for internet service providers to sell a person's private browsing history to advertisers?  Does that benefit his 700,000 constituents – or ATT and Comcast?

Insurance and pharmaceutical companies contributed in excess of $150,000 to the congressman's 2016 campaign.  On Thursday, he voted to strip over 60,000 of his constituents--including an estimated 14,000 children--of their health care. 

The Republican party gave approximately $50,000 to Congressman Valadao's campaign; predictably, he has voted for the Trump Agenda 100 percent of the time, including a law allowing employers to give comp time instead of paying for overtime work.

Perhaps those people in District 21 who voted overwhelming against Trump for president believed that Republican Congressman Valadao could still honestly consider their interests when he cast his votes in Congress.  Apparently, we were wrong.

Diane Cross

More concerns about Valadao from letter writer

David Valadao dodges tough questions concerning Planned Parenthood with the argument that because there are no Planned Parenthood facilities in his (our) district it’s not an issue for him.  That’s great that it’s not an issue for him, but it is an issue for thousands of people in his district.

Let us pretend that an unnamed national fast food chain had an ingredient in its fries that started giving people an aggressive form of cancer. Let’s assume it’s not 100 percent proven, but scientist are 90 percent sure this food chain’s fries are the cause. 

Now let’s say Congress is voting on whether or not to ban this ingredient.  Can we assume that Valadao would “sit this one out” if the restaurant chain happened to have zero locations within his district?  I mean there are many restaurants that people go to, but are out of the arbitrary congressional lines of their districts to dine.

Sadly, this also applies to young women in crisis that must add to their burden with a trip out of town to get the help they need.  Why would something as important as family planning, sex education, preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies, and general health care for women “not be an issue” for our representative? 

It seems like a pretty lousy way of looking out for the needs of those in your district.  Although an estimated 1 in 5 women in this country visit a Planned Parenthood Center at least once in their lifetime, I can only assume no one in Valadao’s life necessitated the use of this vital resource.  Fortunate for him, unfortunate for us.

Bryan Dean,

Hanford, CA