Digital Access

Digital Access
Access saukvalley.com from all your digital devices and receive breaking news and updates from around the area.

Home Delivery

Home Delivery
Local news, prep sports, Chicago sports, local and regional entertainment, business, home and lifestyle, food, classified and more! News you use every day! Daily, Daily including the e-Edition or e-Edition only.

Text Alerts

Text Alerts
Choose your news! Select the text alerts you want to receive: breaking news, prep sports scores, school closings, weather, and more. Text alerts are a free service from SaukValley.com, but text rates may apply.

Email Newsletters

Email Newsletters
We'll deliver news & updates to your inbox. Sign up for free e-newsletters today.
Letters to the Editor

Most vital fact, consumer cost, was omitted

I generally try not to “shoot the messenger,” complain about the treatment and the lack of reliable and/or a sound perspective in political reporting. But David Giuliani’s Nov. 21 article “Would Bustos have voted for Obamacare?” is seriously flawed, biased. The most vital facts are kept from the public. It misinforms.

To begin with, the question is academic. The incumbent, U.S. Rep. Cheri Bustos, had not been elected when the Affordable Care Act was introduced. Then-Congressman Bobby Schillings was, and he voted against it. Sen. Dick Durbin, Bustos’ mentor, voted for it. 

She simply sidestepped the question. She chose not to answer it. The issue was in the arrogance of the non-response.

Almost the entire story is about the “improvements in our health care system” with no rebuttal on each point from the challenger, Bobby Schilling. Another large part of the story attempts to justify Bustos’ turncoat votes against the administration, when it is simply running for cover. There is no integrity in that vote.

What I consider lacking in this story, which is of supreme importance, is the background information. The 17th Congressional District was redistricted, gerrymandered for the Democrats. Schilling lost and Obama carried it by 56.6 percent by manipulating the vote in the process.

It is unforgivable to “skew” the story by reporting that the penalty for non-insurance is $95 without stating the tax (yes, “tax,” the Supreme Court ruled that it was a tax, and it is being collected by IRS) is more than that paltry sum; three or four times more.

The “fix” is nothing more than further obfuscation. More games. This administration is all about politics. The most vital fact, what it will cost the consumer, is kept secret. The public will not know until after the election.

Note to readers: The penalty and tax are the same thing. Its amount depends on a person’s income and family size. The base tax penalty in 2014 is $95 for a single, childless person whose income is less than $19,500.

Loading more