Hitting us all too hard
President Donald Trump’s decision to end federal subsidies being paid to insurance companies is further proof that he is against everything that the Obama Administration accomplished. From his undwindling efforts to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, to his constant blame on President Barack Obama for any problem that arises, his disagreement with the previous administration is obvious. This unnecessary decision will surely negatively affect insurers from the Rio Grande Valley. Insurance companies already were hiking their premiums for next year. What will it cost us now? Thousands of people in the Valley could be left uninsured. Hopefully Congress continues to put a stop to these nonsense decisions.
Vanessa Rodriguez , Peñitas
The Monitor’s editorial cartoon last Friday showing “Ever Since The Trump Election- Every Day is Friday the 13th” is so very true!
The daily chaos within this administration is ludicrous!
Mary Martinez , McAllen
The current Texas state reimbursement rates for children’s therapy have affected so many therapist’s in the fields of speech, occupational and physical therapy. These changes have led many to venture into other careers. Every therapist has sacrificed their time and money to obtain an associate degree, bachelor’s degree, or master’s degree to work in order to treat children with disabilities. With the implemented cuts, not only will children with disabilities suffer, but the financial stability of the therapists will suffer, as well.
This will cause many to double their debt by returning to school or seeking other employment opportunities. A person with a bachelor’s degree earning a little over minimum wage for the same services rendered as before would earn four times more and was able to sustain solely their monthly household expenses. Now it will be impossible to stabilize that home. Many are working limited part-time hours with no guaranteed schedule. For this reason, the State of Texas should abolish Medicaid cuts made to the therapy clinics for the survival of the profession and to better treat young children with disabilities in the state.
Debbie Saavedra, Edinburg
LNG debate continues
Which is safer LNG or pumping gas?
According to Breakingenergy.com: “Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is often regarded as extremely dangerous and toxic with container ships called floating bombs. But is this perception accurate? The historical reality is that LNG has the best safety record of all common fuel types and is completely non-toxic. Of course, natural gas vapors are flammable and present safety hazards that must be managed, but these hazards are substantially less than for gasoline, diesel and other liquid fuels.”
While Ned Sheats and I have been debating LNG in various letters to the editor, he has compared LNG to the Arkema plant near Houston, and most recently to nuclear plants. These are not comparable installation. I am neither for, nor against, the proposed LNG export facility in the Brownsville Port, I just think comparisons should be legitimate ones. We can compare the LNG plant to a refinery or a local gas station. I believe there is more danger at your local gas station than at an LNG plant.
Individuals are pumping gas/diesel with their engine running every day. All stations display warnings to turn off engine — warnings that most consumers ignore. While a diesel engine can safely be fueled with the engine running, diesel engines should be off in areas where gas, propane, or LNG are fueling a vehicle.
Mr. Sheats suggested to Google “LNG Explosions,” but when I include the word “risk” in the search, the results are very interesting.
The Japanese nuclear incident was inevitable as the plant was built on a geological fault line, which again is a poor comparison. I say, if one is planning to compare two things, there should be a comparison that demonstrates similar dangers and safety features, etc.
Auston Cron, Alamo