The Scoop

In the News

June 18, 2009

An Open Letter to Obama on Health Care

To: The President and Congress of the United States
From: Edwin Feulner, Ph.D., President, The Heritage Foundation

Health care reform has been a central goal of The Heritage Foundation since our creation more than three decades ago, so we welcomed President Barack Obama’s call for a common effort to find the right solution to this public policy challenge. We believe that putting families, not the government, in control of the system is the key to success. We want to strengthen our health system based on that principle.

The trouble has been that, no sooner does the President call for “everybody to pitch in” and engage in the debate, than he vilifies any one who criticizes his plans. Denigrating different views does nothing to improve the tone of the debate here in Washington, let alone achieve real reform.

Having a civil national debate will produce more lasting change; accusing opponents of engaging in “scare tactics and fear-mongering” will not.

And make no mistake: there are legitimate concerns with what the White House has proposed. Americans need to understand the implications of all of the competing proposals, whether from the White House, from Capitol Hill, from industries, from think tanks or from interest groups.

In his speech to the American Medical Association, the President said, “When you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They’re not telling the truth.” Truth, however, is not a commodity over which the President has a monopoly. We not only believe that we are alerting the nation to potentially catastrophic consequences when we point out pitfalls in his plans, we think that some proposals being made by the White House are advertised on false premises.

Here are a few examples:

  • If you like your health care package you can keep it: This assertion is difficult to square with the facts. The President says that a “public option”—a government plan—would just be one of many health care plans that Americans could select. In fact, a public plan will lead many employers to drop private health coverage for their workers and dump them into the public plan—just as many employers in the 1990s pushed their workers into cheaper managed care plans. According to independent analyses, as many as 119 million Americans could end up in a public plan. This is hardly letting people keep what they have. And many in Congress are eager to expand a public plan, with tight rules on what your doctor can do and how much he or she will be paid. Congress can do that because it will be both the “umpire” who sets the rules and the “team owner” of the public plan. There will be no “level-playing field.” We believe a public option will toll a death knell for private plans.
  • The end goal is not a single payer system: This is another Washington euphemism that confuses people. Let us all be clear: The “single payer” here is Uncle Sam, using taxpayers’ money, and not just paying the bills but calling the shots and deciding what care every American will get—or not get. The inclusion of a public option is nothing more than a Trojan horse. The architects of the President’s proposals, and the sponsors of his proposals on Capitol Hill, know that once a government plan is in place, private insurance companies will be eventually run out of business. The government already owns a major bank and auto company; we shouldn’t hand over the medical industry as well.
  • The proposals are deficit-neutral: The President also asserts that a government system will be fully financed. This is a stunning untruth. Analysts, including the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office–Congress’s own watchdog–have issued preliminary estimates that the cost could be high as $2 trillion over 10 years, with most of that borrowed money. Even squeezing Medicare payments and adding new tax revenue will not pay for the massive burden this plan would put on American families. And current congressional proposals would still leave millions without insurance. Washington always says that new costs will be paid by savings elsewhere, but these phantom savings never materialize. These new costs will be borne by American families.
  • The quality of your health care will get better: One need only look at current government health programs to test this premise. Medicare has huge gaps in coverage. Medicaid’s quality is notoriously bad. They both offer substandard care compared to most private insurance plans. These persistent deficiencies are routinely overlooked in discussions of a government health plan. Rather than fixing Medicare and Medicaid, what the government proposes is to make these programs the foundations of a universal plan.

But we know opposing bad ideas is not enough. We need to fix the gaps in our health care system and lower costs for Americans. The system we need must not just protect union bosses, bureaucrats and select cartels, it must empower American families. The nation needs health care reform, not health care micromanaged by the government.

We are happy the President has joined a cause we have championed since our inception. He has recently been asking audiences across the nation “Where’s the alternative?” We at The Heritage Foundation are ready to discuss our alternative plans and help craft a bipartisan solution to America’s health care problems. That is what the country needs and what the President says he wants.

Specifically, a plan that would reform health care will need to:

  • Give families control of their health care: We need to let families—not the government—control decisions so they can choose the coverage they want. For this to happen private health insurance needs to be portable—that is, owned by Americans so they can take their package from job to job. The health care system we have today was conceived in the era of World War II, when many Americans worked for the same company all their lives. As we know, that is not the case today. The President has acknowledged this. But we do not need a public plan, or mandates on businesses, to have portability. We need changes in rules and the removal of tax penalties to allow families real choice and ownership.
  • Reform the tax system: For portability to become reality, we need to reform the tax system. Right now, families can get a tax break for their insurance only if they hand over control of their insurance to their boss, and leave their plan behind if they change jobs. That needs to change. We need to provide the same tax relief to families wherever they choose to get their plan. In that world of empowered families, plans would have to compete to satisfy them, not compete to cut costs for employers.
  • Bring on competition: Americans will get quality health care only with the mechanism that has given us quality in all other aspects of life: competition. The way to get quality care in America is to have insurers compete to satisfy families in an insurance market, one that provides transparent information, ease of delivery and quick results, and which is fair to families and their doctors. Members of Congress pick and choose plans in such a market. The rest of America should also have that right.
  • Recognize that states know better than Washington: The challenges of organizing and delivering health care vary greatly across the nation. Rural Mississippi is not the same as Midtown Manhattan. States have always been smarter than Washington at figuring out how to get the job done. To the extent that government must play a role, the states should take the lead in devising the best way to reach our national goals. The last thing we need is one-size-fits-all health care. Congress needs to let states find the best way to achieve value for money in widening coverage while bringing down costs.

A reckless, expensive and one-sided rush toward “reform” would not only be damaging to our public discourse, but it could fundamentally change our society in ways that have far-reaching consequences.

Rather than bringing in the failed central-planning approach to health care, with the government controlling who gets what, let’s ensure access to affordable health care for all Americans. Let’s use the tried and tested approach of the empowered consumer in a truly competitive market.

These are some of our remedies to our nation’s health care system. There are other free market ideas that also warrant consideration. We call on the President and Congress to widen the conversation. Let the debate truly begin.

Tags: ,

  • Bookmark and Share
Comments Author: Rob Bluey
  • kathy craig
    Thanks for the letter. It clarified many points for me. I am hopeful that sanity will prevail...and that the "public option" and the funding of abortions will be stricken from any bill that is passed.
  • 1carolejacoby2
    Sadly, President Obama has lied to us about everything, time and time again. I have lost all confidence in his ability to ever tell the truth about anything and the same feelings about our Congress. Corruption has taken over our Government. We must vow to get these people out of Office as soon as election times roll around. Government has destroyed everything they touch and now they want to control our Health? Only a fool, is my most humble opinion, would ever trust the US Governement for anything, let alone our health insurance.
  • richfull
    I agree that we need health care reform, but not the way our Government wants it. It is beyond my imagination how our government can force anyone to go by their plan. Imagine having to pay a fine, that's what I call it, for not having insurance. Up to $3,800.00, how can they do that. You know what I think? It is time to have Obama impeached, get Pelosi out of office, and many others in Cingress who believes in Obama's cause, before the Country does really get into financial ruin. It is already heading that way because if what I call two 'no win' wars going on. The way I see those wars, is to do what Glenn Beck says, get in there, get the job done and bring our men and women home. He says, and I agree 100%, war is not a game. A lot of people do not like what Glenn Beck is doing, but I do. He is trying his best to get the American people to get together and fight for the Constitution, the corruption in D.C. Look at the czars he has. Get them out of there! They are radicals, many agree with President Chevas of Argentina. Obama is trying to turn this Country into a socialist nation. That's what Chevas did in Argentina. Can you imagine that? A Country ruled by something on the lines of Hitler or Stalin?
    Enough said. I am stunned by the way Obama is doing his job. If someone asked me to rate his job approval, I'd say "0".

    Richard Fuller
  • mjbell1
    Congress needs to stop the bill and investigate the issues fully, not ram them down our throats.
    Look at the state of the VA Veteran's Administration health care for an example of goverment run health programs. Time for truth to be a major consideration, it seems to be ignored up to this point in time.
  • chetty2555
    I think the President is tyring to help us with health care reform look i work full time i pay my taxes i had heart failure back in 2005 i used to have a little money in the bank now i can;t save anything cause i always have to have stress test and heart catherizations done all the timemy biggest problem is 2 things 1 co-pays my doctor is 20 a visit my heart doctor is 30 a visit and any other doctor is 30 avisit and the same with most test the there is the emergency room 125 co-pay if they admit you they wave the 125 then charge you 200 i can never save anything cause by the time i finnally pay it off car insurance is due number 2 is prescriptions i like the plan the have in England no matter what you get wheather its a 1 month or a 3 month supply tts always the same price the are to many people in the drug companies pockets for us to ever get prescription changed to a flat rate i like to go on a nice vacation somewhere but that will never happen cause with all my co-pays and doctors visits and tests i'll never have any money see the way i figure if i had money my arteries would be open but since i don't they remain blocked they just monitor you thats why i'm the presidents play it can only get better for me anything is better than what i'm paying now. we vote for every thing why not let the american people vote for the Presidents health care reform instead of the senators we are the ones paying the taxes we should be the ones to say yes or no.
  • carolclyde
    Keep the GOVERNMENT out of the Healthcare Plan. Obviously it isn't good enough for them so why is it good enough for us SENIOR CITIZENS who paid into Social Security for a long time before retiring. The GOVERNMENT did not take care of the money that us retired now paid into . We feel disappointed in Government and their way of thinking. It seems what is good for them sure is not good for us either. Kind of funny don't you think?
  • nitahollander
    It's time that the people of this great country are heard, and that you remember that you would not be in office if we did no have the freedom of choice, and true democracy. This country does not want to move backwards, nor do we want to lose what we have. We do not NOT WANT government controlled socialized Medicine. Rather than "preach to us", listen to what we are asking for, what we need. It's time to turn what is happening around; past time. You need to listen to all Americans, and listen to our response to the negatives of health reform. Don't preach to us, don't deny us the right to freedom of speech, to open debate of his major issue. We are informed Americans,and we must be Heard!
  • Barrett Giorgis
    Switching from the national income tax to The Fair Tax would automatically solve the tax inequity problem of the current healthcare system.
  • rex fetherolf
    at what point are the american people going to be permitted to decide what is best for them. i feel i am in the process of losing control of eveything i have worked for and my childrens future looks even worse.this is becoming a joke. i am not at all supportive of any of this government cotrolled country.where does the middle class fit into this or is the plan to do away with the middle class. why does our opinion not matter anymore? come on people,go out, work and earn it.do not just sit and depend on these people to destroy eveything this country was built on
  • ednagingerich
    Pres Obama said we 'need change'!

    We sure got it! The Stimulus pkg, that no one had time to read, sure didn't work, and Pres Obama just left all the 'PORK' spending in. I don't see where he was concerned about the faulty economy, and all of us losing our jobs by not even knowing what was in the pkg. Just giving the ropes to his liberals was a total disaster.

    Cap and Trade is a more added costly expense

    TARP didn't work! and Now ObamaHealthCare, absolutely NOT! After everything is all done, the illigal immigrants will have health care, and still some of the American Citizens will go without health insurance.
    Edna Gingerich
  • carlydia
    President Obama:

    I watch the news almost everyday and am scared to death about what is happening with regard to the health care issue. I tell you what scares me, the fact that I will not have a choice about the care that my loved ones (my Mom) and I will receive. She is 77 and I am 58. Up until now, we have had choices and options with regard to the care that we receive. What I am hearing now is that those options will be gone. The government will decide whether we are eligible for certain meds or procedures. That is not reassuring. I hear that private insurance companies will not be able to compete with government and will go out of business. I am also hearing that very few have read the new health care regulations.

    I voted for you President Obama and put my trust in you. Why can't this be put on hold until
    we the people feel comfortable with an explanation of what is to happen to us? I don't feel that is too much to ask.
  • williamgpoulos
    This is well thought out letter, but too little too late. In order to have a constructive debate, the Heritage Foundation needs to put forth a specific proposal in the form of an executive summary that is understandable by most Americans that could then be made visible through the media. Then courageous politicians could get behind this proposal and overcome the current bill or watered down versions of it. Calling for a true debate in the absence of such a specific proposal, I am afraid, is not going to carry the day.
  • Farleyagain
    Mr. Bluey,
    What I find most odious about health insurance plans is that they make the insurance company the doctor's client because they pay the majority of the bill. I want a major medical policy at a reasonable cost that leaves me in the driver's seat until the costs for my medical care are beyond my ability to pay - the way my automobile insurance works. At that point, I will be forced to take the "best practices" treatment unless I can convince the insurance company and doctor to do it my way. Make no mistake, the person paying the bills is the boss and I want to be that person as much as possible.
  • Libby
    Many of the common sense solutions suggested here are included in a bill that was proposed by Senator Tom Coburn (OK) back in May. It seems to put more of the control in the hands of families and individuals, encourage competition among health insurance companies, encourage more individual financial responsibility for healthcare costs, transparency in medical costs, and gives power to the states rather than the federal government to address their own unique healthcare issues. His bill is available on his website. Why are we not hearing more about these kinds of solutions???
  • BCB
    When the President says there are 47 million Americans w/out health insurance, he is lying. The #'s I have seen are as follows: approx 22 million illegal aliens, approx 10 million Americans already eligible for Medicaid and Schip who have not signed up, 5 million young people who can afford health insurance and who don't want it. That leaves approx 10 million Americans who want health insurance and can't afford it. It makes no sense to to completely change our health system for such a small # of Americans. There are more reasonable and effective alternatives for these poeple than to put the whole healthcare system in the hands of the Federal Govt. Note that the illegal aliens are NOT Americans. Also, if we extend healthcare to the illegal aliens, I am sure that w/in a few years the # of illegal aliens in this country will have doubled. Why not come to America and get free healthcare? The # of new illegals that will flock to this country will swamp the healthcare system, dramatically increase costs and cause American's access to healthcare to be rationed.
  • karengirod
    Oh, it saddens me to see where the country is going and as oh so quick a pace.
    My husband is a physican of infectious dieases and medicare does not work. Doctors have to just through so many hoops that they don't have to do for private ins. co. and my husband collects around 30% of his medicare billing.
    The government really needs to stay out of these issues. The public school (government) has really gone down hill. We homeschool our kids all the way through and have one in Vanderbilt and one at Chapman and they are so much more mature and well rounded than their peers.
    I really feel the government is so much for run on the foundation of greed and control instead of for the good of the Great country of the USA. It is very sad. Maybe we should go back to the days when the representatives just went to Washington to vote on issues and then returned home to their regular jobs. No more lifers and make a mandatory limit of the numbers of term one can serve in the house and senate.
    Medicare is deep in the hole, our budget is also very deep in the hole and sinking--so why are they ordering new jets for people to commute in? I thought we were all sacrificing.
    What makes anyone in their right mind think the government can manage health care. I do not believe that was why the government was established.
    If people do not like this country they should just move to France, UK or somewhere similar. Leave this country as it has truely been blessed by God and set up totally unique from anyother place on earth.
  • sueackerman
    Obama says that savings from reducing the fraudulent claims on Medicare will provide much of the funding for his healthcare plan. Why aren't they already reducing those claims? Everything is in place to control fraud but they aren't doing it.

    All other countries negotiate pricing with the drug companies. The United States does not. If Obama were sincere about reform we would pay the same pricing for drugs as Canada ... 67% of the cost in the USA.

    Diabetic care is extremely expensive with a vial of insulin costing $80-$160 each. There is no generic. The FDA has not written the rules for the manufacture of generic insulin. Why not?

    These are savings already within the power of the government. We don't need sweeping reform to accomplish these. If Obama wants to really do something for Americans, especially the hard-working families ... go ahead ... get started ... he already has this power!
  • servantofgod4
    We do not need any more government in ANY aspect of our lives. I agree with buying our own insurance for your healthcare. We don't have the money to pay for it, and the more people get dependant on the government the less they can think for themselves. America start praying and lets get back to the way our forefathers intended this country to be...FREE! Get involved and pass the word.
  • PhxProtester
    We need to remind everyone to be civil. The MSM will pick out those who are shouting and try to discredit our grassroots movement. We want our Country back and do not want Socialized medicine. It hasnt and doesnt work anywhere else in the world. What the Govt is trying to shove our way we do not want. We want PRIVATE CHOICE

    Keep it up. Keep going to the Townhalls and voice your displeasure with the Govt
    We have only 3 more weeks to keep the pressure on our reps in DC. After all they work for us and are ACCOUNTABLE to us
  • hugh_mac
    "We want our Country back and do not want Socialized medicine. It hasnt and doesnt work anywhere else in the world"

    People in the UK would find your position incomprehensible. To say our health care system 'doesn't work' is just nonsense. I wonder in what way you think it doesn't work? We hear that some campaigners in the US have been showing adverts on TV that have British people lamenting the state of our health service, but yesterday two of these people were quoted saying they had been duped into appearing on these adverts and that what was shown didn't reflect their views fairly. A British conservative member of the European Parliament appeared recently on US TV saying that no-one in their right mind would have the British system, but yesterday he was completely repudiated by his own party leader who described him as 'eccentric' and not representative of the British Conservative Party's views. They support our national health service. So it appears that lies are being told about the British system to discredit it in the US as part of a propaganda campaign.

    We hear that you are told the British system involves people waiting 6 months, 12 months even 18 months for a vital operation. This is just not true, and these stories are based on a report from 15 years ago. Now the situation is much, much better and people needing an appointment with a cancer specialist (for example) don't have to wait more than a week or two - less if it's really urgent. as I said in an earlier post, my mother's life was saved, aged 84, when she needed urgent major heart surgery. There was no question of her not getting immediate intensive care in a specialist cardiac hospital, without her having to worry about how to pay for it.

    And in our what you call 'socialized' system, people are free to have private health insurance and private care in private hospitals if they wish to. The main thing is that no-one who is poor or has fallen on hard times has to worry about being able to afford care. This is true, by the way, in most European countries. Of course you will find people with scare stories who have been failed by the system in some way - out of nearly 60 million people, that is bound to happen - but the vast majority of British people are more than happy with the system, even if they always pressurise the government to make it better.
  • hugh_mac
    "No the Canadian system and the British system are NOT far better... Read the stuff from the REAL people - go to UK/Canada newspapers, blogs, and see what they are REALLY doing there -not what some fool here says about their system."

    OK , here's something from a REAL person who lives in the UK. We've been reading about the anti British health system stuff in American media and frankly most people here are appalled at the distortions and lies that seem to characterise the debate. Coming across this blog and responses, I'm distressed enough to think I should let you know my experience of our national health service.

    My elderly mother, now 89, was diagnosed with an aortic aneurism about 10 years ago. She lives in a small rural village some 40 miles from the city. As a result of the diagnosis she received regular checkups with a specialist at her nearest teaching hospital in the city - one of the biggest and newest in the country - and the service provided her with transport to and from the hospital. Monitoring the aneurism the specialist warned that it was slowly developing and advised on warning signs. Eventually, about 5 years ago, she woke up with severe pain, called her local doctor and was rushed immediately to the city hospital by ambulance. The whole process took about an hour and a half. They operated immediately, repaired the valve, and she was in intensive care for 4 days. After recovery she was in better health than ever, even at 84. About a year ago she had a minor heart attack and again was rushed to hospital, this time to a more local, smaller hospital about 10 miles away. Since then she has regular visits by a specialist cardiac nurse based at that hospital. She is superbly looked after.

    My mother lives alone on a small state pension of about $170 per week. There is no way she could afford private health insurance. She has had terrific care free of charge. There is no question of someone of her age being refused the best treatment for even serious problems.

    I myself have had inflamatory bowel disease for many years. Living in a different city, I have an annual checkup at a university teaching hospital where I am looked after by a highly qualified consultant in his field. When I attend the hospital I never have to wait more than 10 minutes before I am seen. Because of the cancer risk with a complaint such as mine I get an annual colonoscopy as well. The hospital I attend has one of the country's main cancer research and treatment centres attached to it, a new state of the art building. All of my treatment is free on the NHS.

    I have no doubt that in a large health service such as ours in the UK, mistakes will be made, and there will be examples of poor treatment or service. Health professionals are human, and money is not unlimited. However, our NHS is a matter of national pride for most, and anyone trying to turn it over to a completely commercial service would find they had a revolution on their hands. Of course, anyone who wants to can take out private insurance in this country. There are commercially run hospitals for them should they want them. But the elderly and the poor have no worries about getting good treatment when they need it. That is just a fact. We simply don't have to deal with concerns about being able to afford health care if circumstances, unemployment or whatever, place in a difficult finacial position.

    I hope this helps. It's dismaying to see our health service being defamed in the way it has been recently in the U.S.
  • Matt
    Dr. Feulner - thank you for writing this - it is a great overview. I have been urging everyone I know to visit the Heritage Foundation's website (as I am a member). Please keep up the good work.

    Matt
  • cgstacy
    I do believe that healthcare is a very personal decision. This should be decided by the person and the family members. Most Americans are happy with their current healthcare including me. I am a retired teacher and even though healthcare is expensive I would rather keep my current care than have that control by the government. I have my best interest at heart and I know myself better than they could ever know me. The government needs to look at what is wrong with healthcare and fix only those areas.
    Too much is happening too fast. If this is so important and so complicated how do they suppose to come up with all answers and solutions in a few months. Also, not many seem to have read the bill including the President. How does that look. It lends itself to distrust. The President is trying to take over too many private sectors and he doesn't seem to be listening to the people that he is pledged to serve. Who is he looking out for anyway?
  • rjj4413
    if some gov. rep tries to tell me what to do ,I'LL HUNT HIM OR HER DOWN AND LET SMITH AND WESSON DO THE TALKING FOR ME PERIOD
  • luannbrown
    I agree! I did read a few weeks back about a proposal for insurance companies. Good health gets lower premiums. If you take care of yourself you can benefit from lower insurance premiums.. Also like Matt pointed out, we should be allowed to choose what coverage we want and need. Not coverages we will never need or use.
  • amynuckols
    I'm affraid to say that us, americans have become lazy in our thinking. We don't want to use our God given minds for solutions. I find it hard to believe that after watching our government control so much of our lives, that we are willing to give them complete control of all our freedoms. I blame our government run schools, our government, and of course ourselves. This is the greatest country in the world. Americans, stand up and fight what you know, use your facts to solve these problems.
  • laurie7077
    I agree with the Heritage Foundation's idea of portability of insurance plans with indivduals. In addition, we should be allowed to have tax free health savings accounts no matter what insurance plan we pick. This would allow everyone to save for future medical expenses and deductibles.

    Also,letting indivduals purchase their insurance and pick deductibles, etc, will encourage the consumer to not waste money on duplicate or needless tests. It puts the price/value decision in the consumer's hands, rather than in some government panel's.

    There does probably need to be some regulation regarding indivduals being covered even with pre-existing conditions. The government may also have to give some tax credits to help lower income families afford premiums. But these things can be done without wrecking the private system that provides the best care in the world.

    Come on Obama, we can solve the health care issue without going completely public. This is America and we don't want to wait 6 months for treatment for cancer, or have stories of a pregnant women calling for an appointment and being told it will be 10 months! Socialized medicine hasn't worked ANYWHERE in the World, so let's fix the broken parts, but keep the government out of running health care!

    One last comment, has congress lost their minds to include coverage for all the illegal immigrants? Are you ready for millions more? That's part of the reason we are in this mess to begin with! If we would secure our borders and control the amount of legal immigrants coming into our country each year, health care insurance premiums may not even be an issue in the first place!
  • jonistack
    Does anyone else feel that Obama is just pushing through any half-baked plan with Congress and that the media helps divert attention by playing up incidents like the Gates/Police incident - the old if you can't dazzle them with brilliance just baffle them with bs?
    The voters cannot focus on any One plan or issue without some nonsense that has no bearing whatsoever on our lives is thrown into the spotlight, to divert attention.

    I believe it's 15% of the population that has no or inadequate health insurance, so under Obama's plan we wreak havoc on the health insurance of 85% of the population. Wouldn't it be better to subsidize or allow small businesses to group together for lower medical insurance rates than to ruin a system that by the large part works?

    Also no where in the the health plan does it verbalize or note that the health care system is for LEGAL American Citizens will this be another plan where we pay for the illegals in this country. How many of these "unisured people" are actually illegals in this country.

    Congress panders to the illegals as a huge voting block, maybe if deportation was implemented as is stated in our laws the pandering would stop and we could get some solid beneficial plans to help legal Americans.
  • DrBB
    You are right, about 15% of the population are uninsured, apprx 47 mil. If you subtract from that people who can qualify for medicaid but don't, people have can get insurance through their employer but choose not to, and illegal aliens; you are down to about 15 million people.

    So why ruin the entire system for this small group.

    Another point, this health care reform is not about money. No matter what it costs in debt or taxes isn't the point. The root of the problem is a shortage of providers (physicians, nurses etc). There is a not enough providers for the current insured popluation. So why does the government think there will be when we add another 47 million people seeking care. The average wait times to see a primary care physician are long (not anything like Canada which I've heard can be 2-5 yrs). With a government run plan the wait will be even longer. And what happens when you don't have enough people providing a service you offer? Rationing occurs. There is no other alternative.
    It will be even worse because we will lose more providers. Do you really think doctors are going to work any harder for less money and more restriction on their practice? They will also be taxed more to pay for the uninsured. So lets get this clear: the government will impose more tax burden on the doctor, force them to work harder and longer, pay them less for their services, restrict them on how they can practice and still leave them exposed to frivolous lawsuits because of lack of tort reform. This is a recipe for disaster. There will be a mass exodus of doctors who will either retire early or find something else to do.

    All for the this small group of uninsured people.
  • Oviedo
    I understand that in pages 425 through 430 of the House Version of the Healthcare Reform Bill that there is an "end-of-life" provision for senior citizens which will require mandatory counseling for all seniors at a minimum rate of every 5 years and more if the senior is sick or in a nursng home.

    Is this true?
  • Kerry
    Does this mean when I turn 65 I have to give private information about my Private estate plans, investments, wills, trusts, powers of attorney etc. to some quasi government agency official? Will that person be from a law office and try to sell me his/her company's services to draft those documents? Will that person "advise" me on what to do with my money when I die? WOW that sounds like a service everyone should want for themselves and their parents and grandparents.

    If this is "manditory" what happens if I refuse this "service". Sounds like providing me this "service" could be likened to a bull "servicing" a cow, doesn't it?

    Do I have to let them in my house when they come? Do I have to answer their questions?What about the 5th ammendment? Is that out now too? Is this like the Internal Revenue Service where the service is manditory?
  • naplesboy
    When will Heritage Foundation or someonw prepare a "white paper" on socialized medecine in other countries...how does it work? how is it paid for? is it fiscally sound?, etc. The American people desperately need this information so they can be well informed about what Obama and the Democrats are trying to shove down our throats.
  • Kerry
    They are trying to "fix" a "broken health care system" and as far as I know they have never really said specifically what is broken. Costs go up? If that is the problem, specifically, how will this fix it?

    Maybe it is because there are more ways to heal sicknesses than ever before and they are finding more cures all the time.

    Maybe the problem is insurance costs. There are too many state laws that don't allow people to form groups for insurance purposes. An individual can't get a policy with other members of a group he/she belongs to. States don't allow people to group across state lines. Maybe it is the insurance regulations that protect the insurance companies and therefore prevent larger pools of people in a group for larger economies of scale.

    I would think if you want to solve a problem, first you need to specifically identify what you need to "fix" then look for solutions. The entire system is not broken, therefore the entire system doesn't need fixed. If you have a flat tire on your car, you don't replace the whole car -unless you are the federal government working with other peoples money!

    Identify the specific problems and offer specific solutions. One might be tort reform, one might be in allowing groups and crossing state lines for various groups. One might be allow people to buy drugs from Canada if they are manufactured in the US. One might be to control TV advertising of drugs like was done with Liquor and cigeretts. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water in an attempt to become king and control everything.
  • freedomwriter
    Well stated Kerry.

    I agree with your point the media and politiciains like to use the phrase the 'health care system is broken'. No it's not. Some aspects of it can be improved, just like any enterprise.

    You can't force excellence and you can't force fair prices; it has to be an outgrowth of supply and demand and customer choice. We need a more vigorous consumer movement in this country where the consumer is informed on price and quality. Then watch the excellence curve go up and the prices moderate. Price controls never work.

    Obama's approach is grandiose; a power grab to take control of something that should be in the private industry domain. We can not let the committee approved bill get passed. It would be a disaster. Talk about red tape; the government dictating to doctors on what treatments are effective. Wait just one minute. I thought we lived in America; the land of the free? What is this? Government telling doctors how to practice? The Government setting rules for who can receive what care and whether or not it will be paid or not?

    I don't want an America that looks like Canada or England, or Russia. I want my America back.

    Freedomwriter
  • Tom
    Why not require all families to have health ins. the same wayyou must have ins. on your vehicle. The ins co. can develope different packages based on a families needs. The families can choose their own package from competing ins. companies.
  • DONNA SEITZ
    I don't want government healthcare. Since when did they become dr's. They say it's worked for other countries but don't know who they are! I would like to know what I can do to let people know more. am i aloud to hand papers out regarding healthcare reform when I'm walking down the street? If Sarah Palin is going ro do something please let her know I will help in any way I can. Please HELP ME TO HELP EVERYONE ELSE
  • Jean Groen
    I went to a health meeting in Las Vegas in the 70's and the speaker said "as long as there are third party payers, we will never gt a handle on health care costs"...and he was right! If people had to pay for their own care, they wouldn't waste it (such as going to the ER instead of the doctor's office as many people do)
    There should be an Urgent Care next to the ER and people should have to be funneled thru there before they can go to ER.
    The Democrats are talking about the elderly "duty to die" again. I'm 76 and I'm healthy, but if I need a doctor, I don't want any politician telling me I'm to old to have care....them thar's fighting words! And yet the Ted Kennedy's of the world can have any health care he wants 'cuz he's a congressman. They need to have to live with the same system they force on the rest of us!
  • Farleyagain
    I worked for a company helping to build hospitals until late last year and guess what? Many new large hospitals are building urgent care facilities next door to keep their ERs available for true emergencies. Great plan!
  • Aarch6
    The way I see it, there are two issues:

    First, a "public option" might be best viewed through the lens of "public schools." While free, basic education to every child who legally resides in the United States has solved a mountain of ills, it has become the "elephant in the living room" that no one wants to discuss nor can get rid of. Special interests and left-wing dogma have seeped in an made it more and more expensive while bringing the standards of education down. As soon as a parent uses his or her freedom of choice and takes the child out of the degenerating public schools, "the elephant in the living room" jumps to her feet and demands that the child stays and sets up a structure to ensure the child must either be "educated" to the same standards or that the child's choices (home school, private schools, charter schools, etc.) are given an environment where their foundations are constantly undermined. President B.H. Obama may be saying that nothing will be done to harm the current choices that most Americans have but how long will that last as the new bureaucracy's appetite grows and grows to need more and more money and people enrolled to survive.

    Second also viewed through "public schools," look at how they are funded. For every child who is taken out of public schools, his or her parents are still responsible to pay their taxes to fund the schools they've left. Where I live in Ohio, this is done through property taxes. According to our State's Supreme Court, it's also unconstitutional ( http://www.schoolfunding.info/states/oh/lit_oh.... ) but we still fund our schools the same way. The people of this State vote with their feet and wallets, deciding to live where the schools are best. Also, the funds those schools need to survive tends to be lower per student than it is for the schools in our larger and poorer cities, at the same time offering more assets and better education. Although the funding our our health care won't be through a tax on our property, a tax to fund the "public option" will be taken from every Americans' earnings indefinitely. While the "public option," health coverage will be sold to us as being paid for by those who "choose" that method, the balance will be paid for through a tax on everyone else. The supporters of the option keep quoting an increasing 40-million plus number of folks, living in the United States (regardless of legal status) who don't have coverage (BTW, that's +/- 15%, meaning that about 85% are covered. What are they supposedly doing wrong?). A good share of those people don't have adequate income to pay for the "public option" and thus will be paid for by the rest of the taxpayers. As it is with the schools in the poorest of our communities, the cost for health care will be many times greater than it is for the balance of the country.

    I also have to wonder if anything will actually change. Now a small percentage of Americans (and residents of our country) go to the Emergency Room of various hospitals to get regular care. Each time that happens, several thousand dollars are spent by taxpayers. That tends to be about 50 to 100 times more than it would cost to see a doctor in his or her office. That's 50 to 100 people who could have been treated at the corner doctor's office. If 10-people in one hospital do this in one week, that's 500 to 1,000 people who could have been treated in a private doctor's office for the same amount. If there are just 10 such hospitals in each of our 50-States which have that happen, 250,000 to 500,000 people who could have been funded for basic treatment may not have found what they needed since the money was gone. Now, if "only" $3,000 was spent for that emergency room visit, verses about $50 for an office visit, that means $1,500,000,000 was spent by the current system's taxpayers over, 25,000,000. That could have been a savings of $1,475,000,000. Over a whole year, $76,700,000,000 could have been saved. However we would be replacing one government system with another. When it comes to Medicare (for instance), many doctors have to limit the number of those patients they take on since the government currently finds ways to limit the amount of money or coverage for which they will pay. As the "public option" becomes common, will the doctors be forced to follow the same path? Also, with the refusal of the same government to limit law suits against doctors, will they just be afraid to treat anyone who comes in the front door seeing a healthy, successful doctor's practice as a potential lottery win. This will leave the current regular care, Emergency Room patient on the same path, charging the government many, many times more for basic care than it could have cost before.

    As a solution, one option would be for the government to take their hands out all-together (or at least 95%) and have local communities look to the existing insurance companies and offer the same coverage that 85% of Americans currently use and encourage their clients to search out local doctors to whom they can set up a long-term relationship. This could reduce the cost to the taxpayers and re-encourage the establishment of local doctors' offices. When the families move up in their economic status, and they pay for their own insurance, they can choose to keep the same doctor or move to another doctor who's in their new company's insurance program.

    Those who fall through the cracks (have pre-existing conditions and can't afford care or are here illegally), the government can step in to help. They can then ensure that they get the care they need and in the case of illegal immigrants, they can do their duty and move them into the process of citizenship, incarceration or deportation.
  • Gregory Newell
    I agree with your views completely. I'm a RN & fear for my livelihood under a gov't run system. I fear I'll be looking for a new career to care for my family.
  • Steve Preston
    I agree with the idea that people should be able to buy health insurance like they buy auto insurance- on the open market, and buy the coverage they need. It is unfair for health insurance premiums not to be taxed if under an employer plan, but taxed if paid for by an individual on the open market. Give everyone a tax deduction for health insurance premiums.

    Obama and the congress are not making their decisions rashly, or short sightedly. They know exactly what they are doing- get more control over what we are "allowed" to have. Lobbyists with the most money (follow the money) must "convince" (pay) the most influential "representatives" in congress. Term limits anyone?

    The country has a monetary credit crisis and this congress (both parties) is throwing fuel on that fire. We can't wait until 2012; focus on 2010- replace congress.

    If anyone thinks this country is too big to fail they are very near learning they are wrong. We are quickly turning into a banana republic with all the government corruption money can buy.
  • Kathleen Davis
    I am a RN and have worked at a Naval Hospital for the past year. I had a job at the local community hospital doing basically the same job. Believe me--you DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT want the government running your health care. They try to micro manage everything, and there is so much repitition it's ridiculous. They have made an easy job very difficult, almost impossible. It is ORGANIZED CHAOS. I don't know where Obama is getting his facts saying that nurses are behind his plan. I think the ONLY way to reform health care is to absolutely keep gov't out of it. Free market competition, personal responsibility, being able to take your plan across state lines and no discrimination for pre-existing conditions are some starters. We the people can figure this out ourselves. We don't need the gov't "taking care of us". Just look at Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and of course don't forget Education. S/S, Medicaid & Medicare are all broke and we graduate kids that can't read or do math and know nothing about history. What the Congress is trying to do is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. PRAY, pray very hard. America is starting to wake up. We have alot to do in a very short period of time. I hope everyone votes to replace all of Congress. We need honest, God fearing leaders who will do the right thing-- return us to a small, very small federal government and return the power to us, the people. No more Czars. I want the Fair Tax, get rid of the IRS, an audit of the Federal Reserve, term limits, no life appointments for Supreme Court Judges, investigation of ACORN, and quite a few congressmen & senators put in jail.
  • mckeejr
    These are good proposals and your analysis of the Obama/Congressional plans is right on. But I would like to add some areas of concern and comments. I worry about the treatment of the most vulnerable people in our society, the elderly and infants. My wife and I are caretakers of a sweet lady in her mid-eighties. She needs a g-tube and would probably be considered a burden on the system in Obama Land. Additionally, one of the solutions is to reduce government control and introduce competition. Many people are now trying to compare prices and get the best deal. And there are some doctors who no longer take insurance and charge far less for exams and procedures than the standard. Finally, let’s stop squealing about the uninsured. Many of them are young and do not want to have expensive coverage. They do fine and down the road when they feel they need coverage, they can add it. A friend went thirty years without coverage while I always had a BC/BS major medical plan. Neither one of us was seriously ill during those years, but he saved tens of thousands of dollars and I didn't. Even catastrophic care is not an option if the gov is picking our pockets for "full and fair" coverage. We actually have a great system now. The uninsured can get care at the County Health Department and are not refused at the ER. And there is a free clinic in most cities helping the truely needy as there is in our locale. My wife and I are in our 60' and have been through many medical experiences including cancer. This private system works better than any where else in the world.
  • Al Robinson
    These ideas do not fully address some of the basic problems we have. Why do we only have 500,000 doctors and one million lawyers? The doctor to patient ratio is approximetly 500 : 1 causing doctors to have little time to get to know patients. Too little time to look at things like drug interactions. Why does the AMA get to set the limit of how many enrollments there are in medical school? The FAA doesn't dictate the number of pilots we have. It would be cheaper for the government to allow medical school students to deduct the cost on their taxes over a ten year period. Tort reform should be a top priority. Additionally, we need to establish a reasonable list of what is considered malpractice. Competition begins with more doctors. On a percapita basis, we have no more doctors than we did 75 years ago. The AMA is at the center of this problem. Just like the UAW is at the center of the auto industry problem.
  • Ray Witkowski
    Add tort reform to the 'NEEDS' list. This should also include all medical personnel (nurses, techs, etc) that have direct contact with patients. Medical mal-practice insurance is too expensive because jury awards do not have a cap.

    MY ASIDE:- This president is a smooth talking, arrogant,hypocritical Marxist! As one who is a super senior ( 80+ years old) I have seen good presidents and not-so-good presidents and I hope the 20, 30 and 40 somethings who elected this man will suffer outrageously when this presidents chickens finally come home to roost.

    A stimulus package that is NOT front loaded but back loaded to have it's full effect in 2011 and 2012!! Guess what is happening then!!! A presidential election!!! Good Grief Charley Brown!! What a coincidence!

    I am about to disown my kids and grandkids. They get most of their education from the back of a milk carton and the comic strips. And I am leaving my country to them!!. Gotta go, I'm having a heart attack!
  • Farleyagain
    Ray -
    I too am a senior and appalled at one of my children's politics, but I definitely don't want them to have to live with the results of this administration's foolishness. I'm working hard to help them see the truth - for their sake and for my grandchildren. Our parents sacrificed too much -- much too much -- for us to allow this to sunset our freedoms.
  • Jen Brandner
    This is just another example of Big Government taking my hard-earned money and giving it to someone else. I already have a good insurance plan through the company I work for. The taxes I pay will be increased to fund a government run health plan, so I will soon be paying my own health care premiums plus a portion of someone else's premium. But Obama's not going to gouge my income tax directly; no sir, he'll just pay for this pet project with the money he'll make from his cap and trade taxes.
  • Harriett Robinson
    President Obama, Let's fix what we already have - not totally destroy it, with a corrupt, inefficient, unaffordable, bureaucratic, system that is being proposed. You and your family and the rest of the bureaucrats will never be subject to what the masses will be MADE to accept - where is the fairness in that! We wanted a President, not a dictator. The world has enough dictators. STOP trying to take over all aspects of our lives - and in the process destroy this country. If you do not know how to be President - ask the Heritage Foundation, you can only succeed if you ask for their help. NO GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE PLAN !!!!!
  • Willa
    People aren't being informed of the truth about Obama's government takeover of our healthcare. This is because of the left-wing dominant media, which unfortunately is where most people get their information on news and politics.

    Once they realize what a disaster Obama's healthcare plan is to their own and their families' well-being, they'll be outraged to find that they were scammed by the old "bait and switch" scheme. Even some college educated people I know don't see Obama's plan for the boondoggle that it is.

    That's why Obama tells people not to listen to Rush Limbaugh - he's afraid that the truth will get out and taxpayers will find out how much government run healthcare really costs them in money and loss of freedom to choose their own doctor, hospital or treatment.
  • patrick henry
    We will need to enact Paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Independence if government deathcare is pushed through, as well as tax and trade..
  • Barry Farrar
    Where does AARP stand on this Diasterous proposed Medical Insurance Plan? I just received an e-mail from them containing the following message: "President Obama announced a proposal to cut the Part D coverage gap (known as the doughnut hole) in half, so that Medicare beneficiaries would only pay 50% of the cost of brand name medications instead of the full 100% they pay now." This is the only positive thing I've seen about his plan.
    I have been able to avoid the doughnut hole payment problem by using all genericIs, 9 of them.
    Is AARP backing Obama's new plan?
  • James Kinnu
    I agree that a government run health care system will be a disaster, even if it is advertised as a "competittive" plan to the private industry. It will become the plan of the nation by default. If the President is sincere about getting all the citizens health care why doesn't he convene a Special Study Commission like the "Grace Commission" on improving government was but for our health system. Members should include the medical insurance industry, the American Medical Association, several large Employer Associationsrepresenting industry, and some knowlegible family representatives. The President should give them some ground rules - we want competition in the industry; we want the choice for coverage to be made by the individual family; we want the choice of doctors to be made by the individual or the individual and the insurance carrier in combination; we want the tort laws of the nation revised so that doctors do not have to practice "defensive" medicine to avoid frivolous law suits. Get all the major "think" tanks in DC and the major insurance companies to make presentations to the Commission on there recommendations and then let the Commission develop a set of recommendations for legistlation and have the Commission present it to the Congress with the understanding that all legal citizens of the US (including members of Congress) will be subject to the proposed legistlation. I think we would then get a good piece of legistlation that the whole nation would be happy with.
  • A.B.Morse
    The issue my family has is the state legislation governing health insurance. As a group plan, there can be no 'cafeteria' in benefits. I am 60yrs old, yet my policy - which is private pay at $1200.00 month, not through an employer - includes many benefits we will never need (pregnancy as an example). On the other hand, trying to get an underwritten plan is near impossible with pre-existing conditions, one member of my family is prescribed an (1) antidepressant. No psych episodes, hospitalizations, arrests, etc. Just one prescription, one person. Denied. My family is locked in to this group plan because my husband owns a small business, but Maryland just passed legislation that there can no longer be group policies written with only one person signing up and the others opting out. We have been grandfathered in, so we are in a corner, subject to whatever rate increase the company decides.

    We also are part owners of a medium sized corporation with 99% female staff, mostly single moms. Our attempts to obtain health coverage has been frustrating at best. Meeting participation guidelines and average age determinations has the price so high there is no way feasible. The state of Maryland will not allow similar businesses to form an association to benefit from large group rates....and people wonder WHY many citizens do not have health insurance? More government controls...no thank you.
  • mckeejr
    See how the gov regulators have hamstrung the system in MD. If it were truely competitive, you could get bids on the plan YOU want and then choose what is best.
  • Joyce Richardson
    I agree that there must be debate on the health care issue, but in that debate I hope that the concerns of those who will be affected most, the American individual/family, will be considered and listened to at least as much as the bureaucrats/politicians in Washington. I do not wish to have the government dictating what kind of care I may receive, if any, and I strongly disapprove of the huge price tag which accompanies such a plan. If we can't pay for it, then forget it!! I firmly believe that we are being lied to by President Obama, who seems to be turning into a car salesman (oh, I forgot, he now controls GM). I want to decide what treatment I need and what doctor I wish to see to in order to receive that treatment, I do not want to be dumped into a public option plan. The whole concept of every American having health insurance is nice; however, there are those who will not participate, for whatever reason. And nobody who shows up at a hospital ER in genuine distress will be refused treatment. Competition works - government intervention can only hinder. The present medical system is already inundated with government regulations to the point where more time is spent on paperwork and busywork than actual patient care. And I think that we're at a point where more and more qualified people will wonder "why bother to become a doctor", spending years of their lives in study, not to mention the expense, just to be told what they may or may not treat by a government agency or insurance company. All one has to do is look at government-controlled Medicare and Medicaid, both loaded with fraud and abuse, to question the wisdom of centralized (socialized) medicine.
  • Jean Groen
    Please give us the address to ABC so we can flood them with protests!
  • Doni Daley
    I have worked in Healthcare for over 30 years. I do not want government takeover of health care financing. The VA system, a government health system, has proved just how the quality of our nation's healthcare will decline if the government has sole control. The VA has exposed over 10,000 veterans to blood-borne disease including HIV, Hepatitis B & C by shoddy and improper sterilization technique for cleaning colonoscopes. How can this happen? Is the VA not subject to the same Quality Measures as Medicare and other insurance companies? Or, as a government entity to themselves, are they ABOVE the law????
  • joanieky
    I feel like our healthcare needs to be left along.The President or the Governors should stay out of our healthcare.If they want to do something let them bring the cost down without them regulating it for us and taking it over in order to tell us when we need to have the doctoring or whatever.They already have enough fingers in our lives without them taking this over too.I think they need to put their attention on our economy and trying to get it back up for us,like our jobs back up and running,the price of our fuel back down,the security where it belongs,getting the illegals out of our country so we won't have to keep on supporting them.I think they have enough on their plates without adding more to it like our healthcare.
  • wrobleski
    I totally agree with this letter & do not understand why they want to rush a health care reform bill through that is not balanced & well-thought out. Moreover, why can't this be a Bi-partisan effort within which, the best & the brightest ideas are incorporated in this bill?
  • Dennis Deegan
    The reason we can not have a balanced and well-thought out process is because we have an adversarial form of government; each party has different ultimate agendas and they are diametrically opposed to one another.

    The only way we can approach anything near a balanced process is if enough people like you and me put pressure on our representatives to represent what we believe in rather than what the congressional aids conjur up while doing their research about things they know nothing about, like health care.
  • Paul Schnake
    This is also a bad idea. What needs to be done is to revert our total health care laws to a law similiar to that which was in effect in the 1950's. The patient and the doctor controlled everything and if there ever was a dispute the patient of his designate controlled any decision concerning health care or the lack thereof. There were not laws keeping doctors from using so called experimental procedures if both the doctor and the patient we in agreement. The government should not be involved. The insurance comanies should not be involved except to offer coverage at a cost for that coverage. Businesses should not be involved except to offer health care as an employee benefit. What records to be maintained should be between the doctor and the patient and no one else.
  • Matt O'Rourke
    I like the idea of no involvement by insurance companies with a doctors office. I would like coverage for only unexpected events (i.e. sudden illness, post-car accident treatment, etc.) Then either I or my authorized representative can file the claim. If this were the only coverage I had, my premiums would drop significantly. Also, This way doctors will be able to cut costs on administration for filing claims and it will be up to the patient to get that taken care of. Also, doctors would probably have to further lower costs, because fewer people would show up if they had to pay $100 for an office visit, other doctors near by would lower their rates to say $50 cash.

    For expected treatment, why not budget accordingly? I know I'm going to go to the dentist every six months, so why not put that into my budget rather than pay a premium that is inflated to a price above 2 yearly visits. If you know you need to take lipitor, budget accordingly.

    This is only simple and fair.
  • Farleyagain
    Matt - if only . . . I have been searching for a decent major medical policy for months. They are almost as expensive (just a few dollars difference) as the full coverage plans. I'm with you, however, let's take back our health authority and begin paying our way by usage! The tax break would be great, too. As as person over 50 I do qualify for a fairly reasonable HSA plan recommended by AARP, but younger folks are on their own.
  • Matt O'Rourke
    There is one thing that I would add.

    You need to deregulate what is mandatory for insurance coverage. As a Massachusetts resident, I have coverage for fertility treatment. I don't need it, I don't want it, and nobody needs it to live. In fact, many have moral issues with IVF. Why on earth do I have to pay for insurance for this? Yet I get absolutely no coverage for my glasses which I genuinely do need and is for a condition I have no control over. Why can't I go out and by a plan that suits my needs at a price I like? We need more freedom and less regulation to enable more individual insurance
  • Dennis Deegan
    Matt:

    Precisely why the private insurance approach is the preferred. The one size fits all mind-set of a government run plan goes against what America stands for; freedom of choice. I understand the Massachusetts plan is running over budget; so much for a better idea. Some companies offer x amount of benefit dollars and you are allowed to choose whether you want vision, dental, life insurance, etc. You won't get flexibility in a government run plan.

    We need more personal responsibility for our health care spending. For example, why not give employees some incentive to use their health care dollars wisely. Be good stewards of the health care dollar. At my company, if I participate in the individual health risk assessment I get a $75.00 credit on my monthly employee contribution to my health insurance. My wife gets a $50.00 gift card if she participates. We both do the HRA. We both get a report card about our health and where we could improve; i.e. blood pressure, cholesterol, weight, etc. I also get points on a web site if I log in my walking steps each day. My point is we need to engage people in a vested interested in their health care dollar.

    Government is not the answer. Personal responsibility, plus consumer involvement in the marketplace. We should know comparative prices for medical procedures. We should have transparency with regard to the quality of a doctors procedures; i.e. mortality rate. If we chose a better doctor or hospital, don't you think the one we did not choose would start to see how they can improve their outcomes. Health care is the only commodity we use without knowing the actual price; and we decide to go to a place based upon general reputation rather than specific outcome information.

    Knowledge is power. Empower people to choose wisely. Competition in the market is what leads to excellence. Government and excellence do not sit at the same table.

    We need a strong movement toward rugged individualism and common sense. Government has no clue what common sense means. We must advocate for it with all our strength or not complain when government takes over everything we do.

    Keep involved.

    Dennis
  • Dennis Deegan
    I am opposed to a government 'take-over' of health care for three key reasons. 1) Government can not run anything effciently; it is excessively bureaucratic, overly complicated, and burdensome to interact with. Just look at Social Security and Medicare to see the governments track record. Both programs are economically unsustainable in their present form. Do we need another government fiasco that will also be unsustainable? 2) Government control of health care will lead to new and creative income taxes and fees for the American people to pay. Theresult will be a lower standard of living. The government will conjure up a fantasy plan to fund health care, but these are 'pie in the sky' schemes that will not materialize. 3) Government run health care will lead to a deterioration of the quality of Medicine as we have come to know it. Government guidelines will dictate who can have what procedure performed and ultimately rationing of health care will result. Do we really want our marching orders to come from the government regarding how medicine should be practiced and who can have access to it? People will die while they are waiting for their surgery to be scheduled or their treatment to begin. Canadians are dying while they are waiting for disagnostic tests?

    The push by the Democrats to control health care is purely a power grab for control, the size of which this country has never seen. It feels more and more like "Big Brother" wants to run every aspect of my life. Is this what our forefathers had in mind? We must reverse this trend toward exponential government intrusion into our every day lives. Whatever happened to government, of the people for the people and by the people? It seems we have lost control of our government. I do not feel my views are represented. Though I attempt to communicate with my representatives, there is no real dialog. The question becomes, whose interests are being served by those in power.
  • Nancy
    Dennis, I agree with you. This has nothing to do with "health care", it has everything to do with CONTROL. I feel like you do, they are out of control!
  • Frank
    Ridiculous... You really think that Obama wakes up every day and says "I really want to CONTROL the healthcare industry today"? Seriously, are you joking?
  • DT
    I will give you this, Obama does not wake up every day with wanton desire to control the health care, automotive or financial industries. He just wishes said industries would behave the way that HE wants them to to achieve HIS goals. Fair enough.

    The problem is that the Messiah is willing to compromise our founding principles to do so. And to hell with the unintended consequences.

    For example, he doesn't want to raise taxes on middle income earners. But you better believe that if the choice is between Jamiqua and DeJesus getting "free" healthcare or raising taxes, he'll raise those taxes. He doesn't want to run GM, but if GM won't manufacture little green Obamamobiles or take care of the UAW, he'll make sure they do.

    B. Hussein may not WANT to take control, but he places more importance on HIS values than America's founding principles, which were all based on the concept of negative freedom.

    All you liberals that yearn for big government to tell us "selfish" and "greedy" producers what we can and can't do just don't think things through. Today, public sentiment may -- or may not, we shall see -- be on your side. But what happens when a new president, hostile to your ideals, takes power? Do you want him or her to have the same omnipotent powers the blessed Messiah has grabbed?

    Don't you remember the lib argument during W's tenure? "Bush is illegally taking away our civil liberties!!!!!!" I agreed with those measures because I believe that some temporary exceptions can and should be made during times of crisis. Sound familiar? That's what the Obama administration and its accomplices in the House are saying today. It's just a different policy debate.

    The difference is that he is trying to permanently alter our economic system and social paradigm. I want America to succeed so I pray every day that he fails to do so.
  • Frank
    You are wrong. The Social Security and Medicaid admins are SUPER EFFICIENT. Far more efficient than the private sector. SS admin operates at a 2% overhead. So... for every dollar that goes in, 98% makes it to a recipient. Compare this with a 25% overhead for private insurance companies (to pay shareholders, CEO's, TV ads etc), so, every dollar you pay to your insurance company, 75 cents makes it to the doctor who actually provides your care. Do you get the picture? The insurance companies are nothing more than an expensive middleman. The reason why SS and Medicaid are in trouble is how they are funded, NOT how they are run.

    As to "new and creative income taxes ". Correct, you will have to pay more taxes to make this system work... however... if your employer already pays say... 5,000 per year for your coverage as part of your yearly compensation, then this should be paid to you directly as income instead to offset the tax rise. Because the govt is FAR MORE EFFICIENT, this 5,000 will go further, hell and maybe some children who lack coverage can now be covered as well.

    As to "marching orders", the insurance companies ALREADY control which doctors you can see, what is covered, what percent is covered, what proceedures you can have, if they will drop you tomorrow because you gained 10 pounds, etc... and this is all done to ensure the most PROFIT, not based on your health. I would rather have the govt (we the people) control what is covered etc... at least I have some say in the matter, as opposed to some CEO (a King) deciding what gets covered (and how I get shafted) without any input from me.

    Stop LYING... the Canadian system AND the Brittish system ARE FAR FAR FAR better than what we have in terms of quality AND cost. This is propaganda, just ask a Canadian which system they would prefer.

    Power Grab??? No... people who are democrats actually want to see the government do well for its people, as opposed to you naysayers who want to continue the current broken system where the costs for medical coverage are bloated, pay for CEO's is bloated, and republican (dem too) congressmen are paid handsome sums by the insurance companies to keep it this way.

    Bottom line, anytime you have a "for profit" entity involved in anything that should be part of the "commons", such as the common good by having a healthy populace, the corporations DESTROY it. Would you also advocate for a "for profit" police force where share holders get dividends ON TOP of the costs of officer's pay and new squad cars? No, you wouldn't, because police and fire departments are part of the common good.

    "Whatever happened to government, of the people for the people and by the people?"
    Do you understand what this even means?

    A Government "OF THE PEOPLE" (all of us), having a system that ensures the health "FOR THE PEOPLE" (all of us), run "BY THE PEOPLE" (our congressmen elected by us).

    Don't you understand that by you saying this, you are actually agreeing with starting a state run system?

    Lastly... what was the "heirtage foundation" paid by the healthcare industry to run this article?
  • Dave Luke
    Frank, I can only speak about the British and Canadian healthcare systems as a former Canadian healthcare provider with a sister married to a British healthcare provider. As a proud American citizen of 8 years, I can categorically state that a US nationalized healthcare system would not work without the following concessions: 1. Tort reform: Unlike Canada, you can sue anyone for anything in the US (Recall: McDonald's coffee lawsuit in Hartford, CT); 2. Tax the hell out of tobacco and alcohol (which is valiantly being implemented here in the States as well); 3. Being seen by a primary care physician first before being referred to a specialist. Can you find a mother who doesn't want her daughter/son being seen first by a pediatrician? How about the elderly saying I don't want to see a cardiologist? 4. No military support. Canada depends largely on the US for military protection and homeland security, and diverting funds from the military to health services will leave the US at risk; 5. Goods and Services Tax (GST) in Canada which dictates about 10% of all fund exchanges. With these concessions, a nationalized health care system could exist but still not explain the inefficiencies of health care. Does anyone believe that Medicaid, Medicare, or the VA health care system work efficiently?
    The essential problem that you have, Frank, is that you think there is a consumer/patient RIGHT to health care. Do you realize that without for-profit organizations like the pharmaceutical industry, there would be no new drugs. Indeed, in the last decade, 93.7% of all drugs have been discovered and developed by the pharmaceutical industry. A great example is the first antiretroviral for AIDS, zidovudine (ZDV). In the 1950's, the NCI discovered ZDV but put it on the shelf as a busted oncologic agent. Burroughs and Welcome discovered the antiviral properties of ZDV and went on to develop it as the first AIDS drug (AZT). Because of this foundation, we now have a chronic disease known as HIV and mortality has significantly dropped since the introduction of highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART). Similar consequences can be found with atherosclerosis, psychoses, depression, oncology, and anti-infectives. Frank, because of the pharmaceutical industry, and not the government, you can live longer ton crab about the price of your drugs.
    Your intentions, Frank, are to diminish the effects of the private sector at the expense of increased taxation and big government. Go live in Canada or Great Britain and see the effects of your vision. I love, and will always love Canada but I also understand that we, here in the US, have a much more solid foundation based upon liberty, free speech, and small government. And by the way, as a Canadian/American, I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. Perhaps I should be called a Nationalist?
  • cf
    Hey Frank- if these programs are so super efficient, why are they all going broke? All the goverment programs are in financial trouble- Amtrak,Post Office,Social Security,Medicare,Medicaid-all of them. Even beyond all of your smoke screen numbers, let me ask you a very basic question. Why should anyone but you pay for your health care? Is this more of the agenda of you and your statist pals to remove all personal responsibility from all Americans?
    If we take this health care debate to its logical conclusion, the goverment will be providing food, housing and transportation. We all know how well the government providing housing turned out.
  • Matt
    The government is starting to provide food here in Boston. There is a free summer lunch program for children here in Boston. It is funded by a federal program. This left me wondering, why aren't the parents taking care of their kids? Nationalized healthcare is one step closer to this kind of nonsense.
  • Ryan
    if obama gets what he wants with healthcare reform, your going to start seeing a shortage of doctors because your not letting all the hard work they have done to become a doctor pay off once you start capping their salaries. just look at the shortage of teachers, police officers, etc, in all of the state and government run entities.

    I work for a rich man that lives in holland but he owns properties in the U.S. and he has told me first hand how terrible the socialist healthcare system is in europe. he has foot problems and he has to fly to the U.S. just to get surgery.

    As for the government being far efficient than the private sector, that is freakin laughable.
  • oldmomster
    No, the Canadian system and the British system are NOT far better - maybe the propaganda you read says that, but try going to the website for Canada - the country - look at the articles about how many BILLIONS it is costing the government (people) because their healthcare is in such a sorry state - how long people have to wait for life-saving tests - in UK read articles about how long people lie in the ambulances because government passed a law saying no one should wait more than a few hours to be seen - so now they leave them in the ambulance because there are not enough doctors for the services needed, nor enough equipment for the tests required! Read the stuff from the REAL people - go to UK/Canada newspapers, blogs, and see what they are REALLY doing there -not what some fool here says about their system.
  • C Tanner
    If you would like to die before you get medical help, go to Canada or Great Britian. That is what Tom Daschel said to the older people when he was nominated and had to quit because he didn't pay his taxes. He said for the old people to get used to being old and to just shut up and die. He will be old one of these days.
    What it this a Government "OF THE PEOPLE" you surely don't believe that, do you not know that OBAMA is PRESIDENT, KING, MASTER AND GOD OF THE USA, and nothing in this country is going to be run "BY THE PEOPLE" and nothing is "FOR THE
    PEOPLE" or "BY THE PEOPLE" HE IS IN CONTROL. There are many stupid people in this country, how do I know, OBAMA is president, thats how.
  • Joanna Campbell
    Every time I read Dr. Feulner's letter to the President, I am reminded of the value of clear thinking articulated in his letter. Now to the challenge of spreading this value to every household in this great United States of America.
  • Deanie and Francis Dunne
    We hope that more Americans learn the truth about the president's plan. It is rationed healthcare and it's failed everywhere it's been tried. Why do you think Europeans come here for healtcare?
  • I had barely finished a blog post at http://coyoterants.blogspot.com/ (and in my facebook group "The Coyote") when I came across this article. It answers many of the questions I raise...thanks for the good read and relevant topic!
  • I had barely finished a blog post here:http://coyoterants.blogspot.com/ and in my facebook group "The Coyote" when I came across this article that answers some of the questions I raised. Good read! Thanks!
  • Almira Campagna
    It is very important to the public to have control over health care. I am the mother of a child with a chronic condition, Eosinophilic Esophagitis. I do not know what will happen to the health of my child, or what risks we will be forced to take, if we as parents are unable to obtain the care that he needs by selecting and keeping his team of physicians. We are working almost exclusively with one children's hospital, and have built relationships with the doctors, nurses and other staff members who know our son very well. The continuity of care is extremely important to us in obtaining exactly what our son needs for both health and survival.
  • Lynne Leahey
    We already have a "pilot" gov't run health care program. It's called the VA. You can see how many people are clamoring to get into the gov't hospitals to see gov't paid doctors. As a Navy veteren, my husband began to check into it. The formulary for prescriptions was extremely limited - he didn't look any further.
  • jim mcguinness
    I am currently insured by Blue Cross/ Blue Shield. With the economy down turn I had to adjust my coverage for lower payments. One way to assist me in the cost of insurance would be to have the payments tax deductible along with the other extra costs (example) co-pays, meds, and balance out of pocket. I had major surgery this year and the extra cost were as much as my premium.

    Tax deductions for private insured. Thank You For What You Do
  • clayne
    I agree with all of the above ideas, however, we also need to stop giving medical benefits to illegal immigrants. People on welfare have to stop using emergency rooms as their personal physicians.
  • colleenf
    Totally agree! I am a RN who worked for many years in ER. Many of the medicaid recipients who came in were for nonemergency care, yet they tied up the docs, us nurses and thousands and thousands of dollars 'cause the docs ordered tests just to cover their butts in case of potential lawsuits. Some of those people were on a community care program which required them to call their community care doc to see if he/she/it could get into the office first. Some actually did call, but when told at 9 am to come in at 2 pm got mad at "having to wait" for medical care for a problem which usually had gone on for 2 or more weeks! You guessed it...they came in at 9:30 am and were still in ER at 3 pm! Still griping about the wait. And wanting us to feed them lunch!
    If you called the community care doc and he/she said to send the person to the office...they usually refused to go. Then the community care doc would "discharge" them from his/her service...just to be referred to another doc with the same scenario repeated over and over again!
    The key to the whole problem is to get these free-loaders to work doing something to help themselves, but this will not happen as long as the democrats continue with the "plantation" mentality. And the freeloaders love it and don't care. Many are now 3rd generation welfare.
    Post Katrina, we in southwest Louisiana came to the aid of many of these individuals. Many were offered jobs with a comment I personally overheard by one: "My mama never worked, my grandma never worked, and I ain't gonna be the one to start!" Force these freeloaders to work at anything and to hell with the liberal bleeding heart attorneys telling us and them the job was "demeaning"! Believe me, as a nurse a LOT of work is demeaning!
  • Almira Campagna
    I agree! We spent several hours in a children's hospital ER very recently with our son who was suffering from dehydration and tachychardia. We were in line behind all the people who brought kids in with runny noses. They were all directed to the non-emergency area to be seen. I wonder how much of our substantial co-pay for the ER went to fund their "clinic" walk-in appointments?
  • FarleyAF
    Currently my health care package selection is "none" and I like it. I am healthy, see doctors that do not accept insurance and am thrilled with the care I receive. I would like to have a catastrophic plan that would cover me at any hospital and with any specialist in the event I experience a health catastrophe. Why isn't this the goal? I understand that prescriptions can run very high but I see that as a separate problem from seeing the doctor or having the operation.
  • Clarice Johnson
    I am very concerned about the Federal Health Care Plan currently being discussed. I think the current Administration and Congress are hiding the actual cost of this plan to the public. I think most people need to be educated to the fact that this is not free and they will have to pay individual premiums along with having to pay higher taxes. I don't think a lot of the public actually understand this. More information must get to the public and not just what is put out by the drive by media or what is sometimes refered to as the government run media.
  • Dave
    Let me go a little further in terms of letting the states figure it out. Do you think you stand a better chance of finding the best solutions if you have one single "pilot project" or 50? (Let's face it, whatever Washington might come up with will be a total experiment at best.) I guarantee you at least a handful of states would come up with a reasonably effective and efficient system. The other states who wind up with an unsatisfactory system would soon look around for better possibilities and would find 49 other systems to evaluate and use as models for modifications to their own system. Within a decade or so you would be down to the best five or six ideas and everybody would be much better off. I just wish these "geniuses" in Washington could get a clue for once.
  • Brad Probst
    This is spot on! Away with the government control! Wake up people! Do you seriously want the government making all of your health decisions. Are you going to put your tail between your legs because of all of the hardships we've endured and let the government "try" to fix the problem??! Obama doesn't understand capitalism or the free markets. Regulating one of the biggest/most important portions of the GDP will create a lower standard of living for all and Obama is too short-sighted to see that, but that's what will happen. Making these rash, short-sighted decisions leads to greater future impacts to our quality of life and of our children and grand-children! Mr. President...please open the dialogue to all parties involved and LISTEN. A great leader is marked by his ability to listen to all involved parties, think about short/long term impacts, implement ideas from all parties, and make sound non-partisan decisions.
blog comments powered by Disqus