Hundreds of pages of Robert Mueller’s report can be summed up in one long sentence: There is reason to believe that President Donald Trump obstructed justice, but his esteemed title allows him to escape indictment, so he requires the unique label of unindictable crook.
Ed Stone, Northbrook
SEND LETTERS TO firstname.lastname@example.org: Please include your neighborhood or hometown and a phone number for verification purposes.
What was redacted?
During the time of the Richard M. Nixon investigation, I was able to buy a pocketbook printing of the secretly recorded White House tapes. The only gaps — incomplete sentences, fragments etc. — occurred where the tape apparently was garbled to the point that it was impossible to determine what was being said.
With the release of the redacted Mueller report in the so-called “age of government transparency,” it is almost impossible not to question what’s in the report that requires this much “editing.”
Did Attorney General William Barr edit the document in a way intended to steer the public to a conclusion that might differ from one reached if the entire document had been made available for scrutiny? For those skeptical of the Trump administration, this action seems to have only added fuel to an already smoldering fire.
Daniel Pupo, Orland Park
Every year, there are somewhere between 643,000 and 1 million bankruptcies as a result of medical debt. Further, there are many who have to mortgage their home to erase such debt.
This is not surprising. According to the book “An American Sickness,” studies have shown that “hospitals charge patients who are uninsured or self-pay pay 2.5 times more than they charge those covered by health insurance and three times more than the amount allowed by Medicare.”
According to CNBC, just 40 percent of Americans have the funds to cover a $1,000 emergency room visit.
The only way to solve such crises is to have all insured.
Comparing Medicare costs with private insurance costs, Medicare comes out on top.
A number of people are suggesting that Medicare for All would be too costly; rather they suggest lowering the age for Medicare to 55. But what is more logical, covering those over 55 or putting us all in the most economical coverage?
Lee Knohl, Evanston