Re "Court's ruling is bad policy and bad medicine" (Viewpoints, July 1): It's possible we could have more effective political debate if both sides would stick to the issue at hand instead of creating strawman positions and arguing against those. A good example is Ami Bera's rationale for opposing the recent Supreme Court decision by saying that medical decisions should be between a woman and her doctor.
Although it is a persuasive argument, it's also an argument that no one disagrees with. The debate is over whether an employer is obligated to pay for every medical decision or choice an employee and their doctor come up with. Saying that the Supreme Court decision denies basic healthcare to women is like saying I'm being denied access to basic oral hygiene because my company doesn't pay for my toothpaste.
Denial of healthcare is not the issue at hand.
-- Jerry Verseput, Folsom