Dear Editor,

If readers need yet more proof that Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) places her political ideology ahead of her constituents’ interest, one need look no further than her April 15, comments on the House floor. Speaking in favor of Rep. Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” budget that eviscerates popular programs like Medicare and Medicaid, Foxx said, “This budget strengthens the social safety net and promotes policies that help people recover from poverty and lead self-sufficient lives.”

If the Foxx plan were to become law, those of us 54 and younger would no longer be eligible for Medicare as we know it. Instead, we’d be given a voucher and be required to go out into the market and purchase private insurance. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has already calculated the voucher would fall about $6,000 short, meaning we’d have to make up the difference out-of-pocket. Of course as prices increased, our out-of-pocket expenses would also increase. Does anyone actually believe private insurance companies are going to offer Medicare-equivalent health coverage policies to an aging population? And even if you were able to obtain coverage, get ready for your insurer to deny procedures or make it difficult for you to get the care your premium entitles you to get.

Foxx and Ryan would like for those 55 and older to think they aren’t affected. But that isn’t true either. They both support the total repeal of the Patient Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Doing so would reopen the Medicare “doughnut hole” and force millions of seniors to pay thousands more in prescription drug costs.

In a poor district where many of her constituents rely on Medicaid, the Foxx-supported plan would restructure Medicaid into block grants given to each state. States that can’t meet the needs of their most needy populations would have to find the money elsewhere, reduce eligibility or cut benefits.

Of course, Foxx also supports continuing to give tax breaks to the richest Americans while putting the fiscal burden on the backs of those who can least afford it. If the Bush-era tax cuts she supports, which have now been in effect for 10 years, were going to create a job bonanza as she insists, surely we’d have seen it by now. The reality is that job growth during the Bush years was the lowest of any president since World War II.

Still think Foxx is looking out for your interests?

Ken Lynn

Fleetwood