Maine needs universal family care
When my son was 20, he was diagnosed with Klinefelter’s syndrome, a disorder without a cure. Some of the effects he experiences are a weakened immune system, bipolar disorder, autism, attention deficit disorder, diabetes and anxiety. He wants to work, but he is restricted in what he can do because of his immune system — he gets ill if he’s around people too much.
My parents helped me provide care for my son when he was younger, but they are now unable to help. My son was approved for low-income housing and lives in an apartment 2 miles from my house. His doctors call me regarding his appointments, and I have to make sure he takes his medicine. I take him shopping and do his laundry. He did not develop into a lazy welfare case. He just requires assistance because of his condition. He didn’t cause these illnesses.
My son is now 40. It is very hard for me to care for him, as I have a lot of the same illnesses. I can’t sleep because I worry about his future care and accessing services for myself and my family. Who will help care for him when I am unable to do so?
Universal family care would assist me in caring for my son while maintaining independent living with dignity and reduce my concerns for his future. I know that my family is not the only one in this situation, and this is why it’s so important that we support Rep. Drew Gattine’s universal family care bill, LD 1612.
Valerie Walker
Frankfort
AHCA guts Medicaid
I am concerned about cuts the American Health Care Act would make to Medicaid. Medicaid, also known as MaineCare, is a lifeline for millions of Americans. It provides long-term services and supports to people of all ages living with disabilities and to middle and low-income seniors. If the American Health Care Act passes and Medicaid is slashed as proposed, the results will be devastating.
In 2017, 268,000 Mainers received health coverage and long-term services and supports through Medicaid. The American Health Care Act propose a capped financing structure, which would affect vulnerable individuals through a “per capita cap.” This spending limit would give Maine a fixed dollar amount per enrolled beneficiary and would lead to cuts in program eligibility and services. Health care costs would shift to state taxpayers and families, including caregivers.
Maine is home to approximately 178,000 caregivers, whose unpaid caregiving is valued at $2.3 billion annually — a huge savings to Maine. Medicaid supports family caregivers and their loved ones because it pays for many services and community programs that help Mainers age at home rather than in more costly institutional settings. These services include respite programs that helps caregivers take a much-needed break. Cutting Medicaid would jeopardize respite as well as other vital programs. We simply cannot expect family caregivers to bear more of a financial or emotional burden than they already do.
As the nation’s oldest state, Maine’s care needs will only increase. We cannot turn our backs on our most at-risk population.
Jackie Katz
Volunteer Advisory Council
AARP Maine
Brunswick
Implement ranked-choice voting
It is clear to me that the ranked-choice voting law approved by 52 percent of Maine voters is deemed by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court as unconstitutional. It is also clear to me that this opinion applies only to voting for general elections for state government positions. The plurality provision does not apply to congressional offices.
The argument put forth by the Maine secretary of state and others that having two ballots, one for state and one for federal positions, will be confusing to voters has not proven true in Portland. In speaking with a number of Portland residents, who have to use ranked-choice voting for mayor requiring a majority of voters, while other city government positions are decided by a plurality of voters, they have not found having two ballots to be confusing at all. This argument should not be a reason to repeal ranked-choice voting totally.
It is also clear to me that Republican and Democratic state party officials will vote to repeal the ranked-choice voting law as they are threatened by this law and do not feel that they need to respect the wishes of the general public — only to protect their turfs. Let’s at least keep in place the option of implementing ranked-choice voting as it applies to congressional positions. This is not unconstitutional and should be approved to partially honor the wishes of the people who approved ranked-choice voting.
Jill Martel
Dedham