Let me get this straight. Rich Lowry (“GOP needs better arguments for health plan”, March 18) is taking Republicans to task for letting on that they would “be fine with fewer people having insurance”? Twenty-four million people are slated to lose coverage and he sees the problem as bad PR? Only after admonishing Republicans to “adjust their rhetoric” does he mention adjusting their plan and, apparently, even then not for humanitarian reasons, but only to claw together the necessary votes.

After all, he notes, “health insurance isn’t a panacea … all sorts of factors” like “geography can have more of an impact on care than whether someone is insured.” That is no surprise (most working people do know health care is complicated, because it is a complicated and costly part of our own lives), but unless Republicans are prepared to move us all to Arizona, Congress can do little about geography, but much about insurance coverage.

The overall cost of care for our population is not going to change; instead, Trumpcare will just shift more of the burden to individuals, to hospitals (who are mandated to provide care regardless), and to state and local governments, who will end up reimbursing the hospitals in order to keep them afloat.

If, as Lowry asserts, “Trump’s promises about universal coverage aren’t achievable,” then why repeal the ACA at all, only to replace it with something worse, that is less affordable to older Americans and low-wage workers?

Sorry, Mr. Lowry; better spin won’t solve this one.

Seri Lowell, Buckfield