Thank you for your reply to my rather long letter of March 29th.
I note, however, that it is almost identical to the letter I was responding to, the one your office sent to another constituent of yours.
In other words, it’s your standard letter on health insurance, completely unresponsive to the points I made.
You acted according to the practices of your profession, which means that a letter only gets an individualized response if the letter writer is in a position to make a donation of five figures or more.
I understand that your office must receive a large volume of mail, making it impossible to answer each letter individually. Nonetheless, as a constituent I find this frustrating, and so I am responding to your response according to the practices of my profession. I have graded your letter and am sending you the mark-up as an enclosure [see below].
In light of the fact that your letter is an essentially unrevised resubmission, I have not gone into as much detail on this version as on the original.
Perhaps in the future when a constituent writes with concerns about health insurance, the “standard letter” that your office sends back will reflect the realities of how markets and health insurance interact.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Karl Seeley
Associate Professor and Department Chair
Department of Economics
Hartwick College
(next health insurance letter here)
 |
| Click to enlarge |
 |
| Click to enlarge |
 |
| Click to enlarge |
No comments:
Post a Comment