I won’t miss Obamacare, if struck down in court: Readers sound off

Letter to the editor:

I won’t miss the Affordable Care Act, if it’s struck down in court. President Barack Obama lied. Health care is not a right, and now we don’t even have health care. I, personally, can’t get medication and I must do without, so why should I feel sorry for the big crybabies who may have to be in the same situation? The “Unaffordable Care Act” won’t be missed in my household because we already don’t have access to affordable health care. Neither the Democrats or Republicans will do anything about it, they only care about the rich.

Susan LaBarge; House Springs, Mo.

Talker:Obamacare is under threat, lives are at stake

Letter to the editor:

The antics to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act have been a demonstration of the definition of insanity. 

Republicans have spent so much time trying to repeal Obamacare, with a tiring amount of attempts, during President Barack Obama’s tenure, and yet they never came up with a plan to replace it! How ridiculous is this? It is obvious that terminating the ACA after its implementation for nearly a decade would result in millions of Americans losing health care and utter chaos. 

Talker:The Trump administration's latest attack on health care hurts all Americans

Here’s a thought for Republicans: Come up with a plan first to replace Obamacare, and then repeal.

Ron Humphreys; Milwaukee, Wis.

Split electoral votes between candidates

Letter to the editor:

My primary issue with the Electoral College is the fact that the winner of the popular vote in each state is awarded all of the electoral votes, no matter how close the popular vote was. 

In this past election, in some states, the winning popular vote margin was measured very closely. And I had a real problem with awarding 100% of the electoral votes in those states to just one candidate — to me, that just wasn’t right or fair.

Related:The Electoral College is undemocratic? Of course. That's why it works.

I could support continuing the Electoral College if the electoral votes in each state were split between the candidates based on their relative share of the actual popular vote in that state. I think this would be a reasonable compromise between those who argue that eliminating the Electoral College would give all the voting power to the larger urban areas and those who argue that the current state of affairs gives all the power to the rural smaller states. 

Charlotte McRanie; Black Mountain, N.C.

Letter to the editor:

Jon Gabriel did a really poor job of giving his opinion on why the Electoral College works in his column “The Electoral College is undemocratic? Of course. That’s why it works.” 

The Electoral College wasn’t created to protect the rural from the urban, as he says. It was created for a few reasons, but today, the rural farmer vote in Wisconsin is worth more than the rural farmer vote in many other states. This is not protecting the rural vs. urban vote.

Related:Elizabeth Warren is wrong: Why we need the unpopular Electoral College

If a candidate were to win the 11 states with the most electoral votes by one vote each, they would win the presidency. If the remaining 39 states all voted for the other candidate, it would mean a person was elected by a small percentage of the overall population. The Electoral College made sense in the early days of the United States, but with technology it has been obsolete for close to 100 years. Either way, voters will be overlooked. It makes more sense to have a true democracy and use the popular vote for the presidency. 

Douglas A. Morgan; Eugene, Ore.

Facebook shouldn’t censor nationalism

Letter to the editor:

I find white nationalism abhorrent, but offensive statements are made every day everywhere. People have different opinions, and some people do go out of their way to get under the skin of others and worse. With Facebook banning explicit praise, support or representation of white nationalism and white separatism on Facebook and Instagram, the social media giant is helping raise an entire generation of people who have no idea how to foster civility and how to discuss a troubling issue without resorting to screaming or swinging. Or people who, when they don’t like or believe in something, don’t know how to turn it off or try to understand the motivations behind something.

Talker:Jussie Smollett case underscores why many don't report violence against them

Only by understanding all sides can one fully understand a problem. Many of us don’t want to hear much of what is in the public domain, but I wonder, when we begin censorship of any kind, who will censor the censor? 

Gerald Hoffman; New Smyrna Beach, Fla.

Trump is right on Golan Heights

Letter to the editor:

President Donald Trump is correct in recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Syrian forces often shelled Israeli communities from the Heights before 1967. Then, Israel gained control of the area during a war instigated by Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Today, Iran is building a military presence in Syria, which would put Israeli population centers in jeopardy if the Heights were returned to Syria.

Column:I was almost a terrorist. Here's how I went from wanting to bomb a mosque to converting to Islam.

Likewise, the move of our embassy to Jerusalem was appropriate. When Jordan illegally occupied eastern Jerusalem, synagogues were destroyed and cemeteries were desecrated. Under Israeli control, holy sites of all religions are protected. Israel even allows Muslim religious authorities to administer the mosques on Judaism’s holiest site, the Temple Mount. Unfortunately, the Palestinians could potentially store weapons in those mosques and use the weapons to harass Jews worshiping at the Western Wall. Palestinians don’t deserve to govern in any part of Jerusalem.

Toby F. Block; Atlanta

Dispel rumors, release Mueller’s full report

Letter to the editor:

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s complete report needs to be released to the public immediately. If we are ever going to have closure as a nation, both for those who support President Donald Trump and those who oppose him, we must have complete transparency. The longer the delay in releasing it, the more credence is given to conspiracy and cover-up stories.

Talker:What will life be like for Trump, Democrats in post-Mueller report world?

Those of us who lived through President John F. Kennedy’s assassination and President Richard Nixon’s Watergate hearings know how the lack of transparency led to distrust of our government. We do not need to repeat those episodes. The House of Representatives voted unanimously to release Mueller’s report, and Trump once said that he was OK with releasing it. Attorney General William Barr is already perceived by some as someone who has a conflict of interest, so we do not need his determination on what can and cannot be shared with the public.

The best way to dispel the darkness associated with this report is to let light shine on it. Let the American people who paid for this report see it.

Donald Enss; Murfreesboro, Tenn.

To join the conversations about topics on USA TODAY, email letters@usatoday.com, comment on Facebook, or use #tellusatoday on Twitter.