UNPUBLISHED

What's Wrong With the Obama Health Plan? - Peter & Gail Mott

Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:15:14 -0400

Why would many of us who worked hard to make Barack Obama president now work hard to oppose his health plan?

The explanation is quite simple: There are three possible directions to take with our complex, confusing, expensive, and failed health care non-system in the US – but only one of them is affordable. If our leaders choose one of the other routes they will vastly increase our deficit and we will find ourselves back in the old quagmire of rationing, with the same questions raised: Who will we exclude from receiving medical care? Which elderly citizens should not have major surgery – and at what age? Which should not have unlimited nursing home stays?

The three main options before us are:
• Continuing the current mix of hundreds of private insurance corporation plans and several public programs;
• A single payer system; and
• The Obama compromise – a public/private option.

The Obama plan proposes that everyone should choose among all existing insurers and a competing public plan. The latter would be similar to our current Medicare. The government would help low-income famsilies either to buy private insurance policies or join the public plan. The 50 million uninsured Americans (plus an estimated 40 million under-insured) would have that choice. Everyone would be covered. The insurance companies would love having millions of new customers.

The cost of the Obama plan, however, would be huge. Total health care costs in the US now are nearly twice that of any other industrialized nation per person per year; and our costs are rising at a rate faster than any other country each year. Imagine the total cost if, added to all this, we help pay for those same 90 million under- and un-insured people. What if we add long-term care insurance for nursing home or home care – which most Americans do not have now? On 7/17/09 Congressional Budget Director Elmendorf stated that the proposed Obama plan legislation “significantly expands…health care costs.”

The President’s hope is that a competing “public option,” on the model of expanded Medicare for All, would attract enough customers to force down overall costs. However, if the premiums for the private and public options are equal – and the insurance corporations will push for this – a majority of citizens probably will choose the private route. Then overall costs will go through the roof.

The “single payer” proposal is easiest to understand by looking at the bill now in Congress called HR 676 or “Medicare for All.” Everyone would be covered. We would have free choice of doctor and hospital. All needed services would be covered at no charge, including regular care, preventive care, emergency services and chronic, long-term care. Health care would be planned and organized by regions. The single plan would be paid for by a progressive income tax and an excise tax on corporations. Such single payer public plans have been shown in careful studies to save money over our current health care costs. After a transition period there would be expected savings of $350 billion per year. Administrative costs of the current Medicare program are only 2-3% - compared to those of private insurance corporations that are from 15-30%, largely because of advertising costs, shareholders’ profits, and high pay/benefits for executives.

Why does President Obama – who previously favored single payer – now push for a compromise? Because he wants to win Congressional votes – and the gigantic insurance corporations control many of those votes. Is this anti-democratic? Yes, indeed! But Congress won’t care about that unless there is a groundswell from the grassroots demanding what is best for America.

Seventy per-cent of the public have expressed support for national health insurance. Now that 70% must speak out. The stakes are high: public good vs. corporate profit. Battling the insurance corporations, their lobbyists, and the propaganda which is already spreading - will be tough. But when was democracy ever easy?

Peter and Gail Mott
Pittsford, NY

Citizens Have Responded - Sue Ladwig

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:23:29 -0400

Poll results, including a recent NY Times/CBS Poll repeatedly demonstrate most Americans believe the government could do a better, more socially responsible job of holding down health-care costs compared to the private sector. So why have we yet to receive government protection from private insurance companies with their bottom-line for-profit approach of dropping coverage among sick people?

The health insurance industry and its allies are working hard and paying big money right now to convince you that the creation of a public insurance plan would put a government bureaucrat between you and your doctor. Wendell Potter, a former health-insurance company insider who now wants to undo some of the damage done during his career, testified before the Senate Commerce Committee on June 24 that the insurance industry engages in deceitful public relations campaigns in attempts to influence public opinion. Apparently the editors of the D&C have fallen for this deceit when they suggest our local elected officials have not heard from citizens who believe the health care system needs reform. Representative Slaughter has certainly heard and still does nothing.

Susan Ladwig
Henrietta, NY

THINK About Health Care Reform - Corinne Sutter-Brown

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:26:21 -0400

The current debate about health care reform seems to go on endlessly. On the one hand, health care costs too much and on the other hand, too many people have no or inadequate coverage. Then the arguments begin. Some don't want to pay for anyone but themselves. Some blame individuals for supposedly needing health care due to their own bad habits. Maybe they think individuals can control whether they get injured, grow old, or come into this world with less than perfect genes. Often, those making these arguments have yet to experience illness, injury or aging themselves. Others think the market can provide "efficient" answers to all of our needs. They ignore the fact that the health care market is dysfunctional and sometimes the most expensive sort of care is paid for by the insured through various methods of cost shifting. Add to that the obscene profit margins of private insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Consider the ripple effect of all this: those who have insurance pay ever higher copayments and premiums, while services are denied through micromanagement aimed at making money, not keeping people well.

Now consider this “radical” idea: health care is a basic human right, not a market commodity. Then everyone would have access to the care they need, health care would not be rationed based on ability to pay and doctors would make decisions based on medical need. We, the people, who live in a democracy created by the people for the people, can take all that money away from the private insurance and pharmaceutical companies, all that money we currently pay into the health care "system" and put it into one, single pot, from which all our health care would be paid. Doctors and hospitals providing their services as they do now, not as government employees -- would get paid for taking care of people, without worrying whether they will get paid and without huge billing and collections departments. Why not? Can you imagine police and fire departments only responding to those who can afford to pay them? Are you willing to give up public schools, making education available only to those who can afford to pay for it?

There is a place for the market in our economy, but allowing health care to be bought and sold like cars, oil, corn and hogs doesn’t make sense. For health care to be accessible only by those who can afford it undermines our society, our economy and our lives. The Congressional Budget Office, over several decades, has analyzed the costs of a single-payer system (“Medicare for All”) for this country and it has shown that without a doubt we would pay much less for much more health care under such a system.

Ignore for a moment all the propaganda and scare tactics. Think about it. One of the things about a healthy democracy is recognizing we are all in this together. When your neighbor goes bankrupt due to medical bills not paid by her "good insurance," when the houses in your neighborhood lose value because of medical bankruptcies, when you lose your job because your employer is driven to the brink by the cost of health insurance for his employees, we all lose. Read HR 676, a bill now in Congress, that spells out how we can get to a single-payer system without the sky falling. It is possible. Just think about it.

Corinne Sutter-Brown
Rochester, NY

Letter to the Editor - Sue Ladwig

Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:43:49 -0400

To The Editor:
What if the headline in last Sunday’s D&C (July 5) read:
60 People died yesterday because they lacked access to health care
Perhaps we could grasp the urgent need for reform. If we saw this same factually accurate headline repeated today, tomorrow, and every day, we would demand an end to this daily national tragedy. Instead, we read about lack of consensus and local business leaders presuming to speak for the “public interest” murmuring vague warnings about some sort of slippery slope given any government role in health care.
If 60 people died every day at the hands of terrorists, you can bet that no one would worry about the perils of government involvement to protect US citizens. Why are we so afraid of government protection against private profit-making insurance companies when it comes to our health? Instead of saying that a national program is not politically possible, the President and Congress need to say, "It is not only politically possible and feasible, but it's the only practical way real health care reform will ever happen."
Susan Ladwig
Henrietta, NY

Letter to the Editor - Lisabeth Frarey

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:43:46 -0400

To the Editor:

Only in America can our political “representatives,” such as Senator Schumer, be more concerned with providing a level playing field for health insurance companies than the 48 million uninsured, and remain in office. We publicly fund 60% of US health care through Medicare, Medicaid, public employee programs, and tax subsidies, yet expanding that coverage to all is not “uniquely American,” according to the President. Never mind that a majority of Americans are asking for a major overhaul of our system, and 65% want “a program such as Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers.”

Build on the employer-based system that works? Tell that to the Kodak retirees, teachers being laid off by RCSD, workers at Hickey-Freeman, and those already downsized. Don’t forget employers and individuals facing double-digit premium increases again.

Until we accept that it is of value to us as a country to have healthy residents, and institute a national system such as Medicare For All, we will continue the shameful practice of not taking care of our own.

Lisabeth Frarey
Rochester, NY