Help me understand why GOP wants to cut Medicaid

My wife and I, political independents most of our lives, have a question that is baffling us. Would some Republican reader of this paper explain why his/her party wants to eliminate providing health care for as many Americans as possible?

Back when Obama came up with a health plan for Americans, the ACA, the Republican party immediately began working to overturn the legislation, and, if not that, to weaken it, frequently challenging it in courts. When Trump came along in 2017, he promised a bigger and better health care plan, but it didn’t happen.

I’ve read that anywhere from 22 million to 28 million people now use some form of the ACA. One of the biggest causes of bankruptcy is a lack of health insurance, some serious disease or physical accident happening to a member of a family that didn’t have health insurance, couldn’t pay for the needed treatment, and thus had to declare bankruptcy. Many people who don’t have insurance because of their financial status simply don’t see doctors because they can’t pay for their services, and thus die of a treatable situation.

Why wouldn’t a goal of our country be to provide health care for all, like most of the first-world, developed countries do?

And yet, now we read of a new bill coming from the new administration that might eliminate health care from 7 million to 16 million citizens stemming from Medicaid — 300,000 in Colorado in the next 10 years. Ten states already refuse to expand Medicaid.

Please, can you explain why your party wouldn’t be working to help all citizens of this country receive health care?

— Dale LaGow, Boulder

County should reverse course on foster care

I’m concerned that the privatization of foster care is turning highly vulnerable children into profit-making commodities. Any reduction in oversight by those not able to profit from minimal care policies is a risk we shouldn’t be taking. Even one child subjected to abuse is one child too many. Reverse course on this awful decision.

— Jane Imber, Boulder

Separate disapproval from irresponsible labeling

I’d like to respond to the recent letter, “Trump is right to say he is not a king,” where the author wrote, “Donald Trump is not a king. He is a dictator.”

While I respect the right to express strong political opinions, labeling someone a “dictator” in a functioning constitutional democracy is not only inaccurate but potentially harmful. These kinds of extreme words escalate tension and erode the public’s ability to have reasoned dialogue. They contribute to polarization and may even encourage hostility or violence within our communities.

A dictator, by definition, rules without checks, cancels elections, suppresses all dissent and controls the media. While many may disagree with Donald Trump’s rhetoric or policies, it’s important to separate strong disapproval from irresponsible labeling. We still have elections, a free press and functioning courts — none of which exist under true dictatorships.

Language matters. When we casually use terms like “dictator” to describe political leaders we disagree with, we risk normalizing dangerous rhetoric and weakening the gravity of real authoritarianism. That applies not just to the right, but to all sides of the political spectrum.

We need less heat and more light. Let’s challenge ideas and hold leaders accountable, but let’s also speak carefully, knowing that words have power — not only to persuade but to divide.

— Sarah Mastous, Lafayette