The biggest obstacles to health care reform have little to do with legislation currently being considered by Congress. Obstacles like rising unemployment, a growing number of home foreclosures and the continuing economic instability are currently being magnified by an underlying public fear about the future. That fear is manifest in the ferocious disruptions of town-hall meetings with members of Congress, urged on by opponents of reform. Long exploited to stoke the “war on terror” and to combat “big government,” fear of the future seemed to many to have been conquered with the last presidential election. But now, given the ill effects at home of the global recession, fear is making a comeback.
President Obama’s economic stimulus has kept the financial tsunami from hitting with full force, and some economists claim that the Great Recession has bottomed out. Even so, many people are still suffering from its effects. And suffering is what voters see when they look at the data on foreclosures and unemployment, expected to reach 10 percent nationally in 2010 and already higher than that in some places. Voters still worry about the sagging value of their life savings and their home equity. Many look to President Obama to lead the nation out of the recession, but find it too early to assess his effectiveness. If all the efforts made by Mr. Obama and his team since January have not yet stabilized our economy, many wonder, will his ideas work for health care? The public needs convincing signs of economic recovery. As it waits for an upturn, the public appears to have suspended its hopes for the government’s broader agenda, including health care.
What happened? As recently as mid-June, according to a New York Times/CBS national poll, respondents indicated overwhelming support for substantial health care reform; they also favored a tax increase to extend health coverage to all Americans. Nearly three-quarters, including half of those who identified themselves as Republicans, favored a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers. Since then, however, more jobs have been lost, long-term unemployment has grown, and foreclosures have risen despite incentives given to banks to modify loans; many states are in fiscal distress and are considering tax increases. While waiting for the economic stimulus to work, voters have become more susceptible to the spread of misinformation by some opponents of reform, like Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Sarah Palin, who have taken advantage of the vacuum of hard information on health care to stir doubts about the president’s leadership.
Both major parties, focused on the coming 2010 Congressional election, know that the failure or success of health care reform, as well as progress on the economy, could determine the outcome of that election. As a result, partisanship is overtaking Congress even as it works on the reform bills. Ideological opponents have resorted to groundless fear-mongering, like the “death panel” rumor, to destroy any chance of success with health care reform, despite the benefits it could bring the country as a whole.
Passage of a strong health care reform bill could allay one of the deepest legitimate fears Americans have: that of going bankrupt because of illness. Currently, insurance companies can refuse coverage, drop coverage or raise premiums beyond reach for those with a pre-existing condition. The proposed House reform bill would outlaw such practices. Just as auto insurance is currently required of vehicle owners, the bill would require health insurance of individuals and employers; it would offer subsidies for those with low incomes and small businesses. It would also cut waste and curb costs. If the majority party were to pass such legislation without the help of Republicans, it might secure Democratic leadership for years. Such reform would also exemplify the change a majority thought they had embraced when they voted for Mr. Obama: a fairer, more compassionate America.
Health care reform would not solve the job or housing crisis, or send stocks soaring. But it would add the United States to the roster of developed nations with universal health care, where no family need be bankrupt or homeless because of illness or injury. Both parties understand that passage of an effective reform bill would have major political significance. That is what drives the misinformation campaigns and the scare tactics now reaching a fevered pitch.
Finally, Mr. Obama is correct to point out the relationship between health care reform and economic recovery. For the soaring costs of health care insurance and delivery, if unchecked, are unsustainable; they will leave us mired in debt. That is one more reason why these obstacles—joblessness, foreclosures, economic instability, fear of the future and partisanship—must be overcome, and why a strong health reform bill must be passed.
"While waiting for the economic stimulus to work, voters have become more susceptible to the spread of misinformation by some opponents of reform, like Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Sarah Palin, who have taken advantage of the vacuum of hard information on health care to stir doubts about the president’s leadership."
I find it deplorable that the editors a journal of America's stature, would allow unwarranted and slanderous comments appear under its banner. Mr. O'Reilly, Mr. Beck and Governor Palin are outstanding contributors to the national debate and are scrupulously honest. They do not deal in "misinformation". Governor Palin is a potential 2012 Presidential Candidate and has every riight to question the current President's leadership, as do many American Catholics. I think you owe these people an apology. I expect America to do better.
What's not being covered by the major media is the amount of money that insurance companies and other healthcare corporations stand to lose if this goes badly for them. Broadcasters are silent, held hostage by the massive advertising losses they would surely sustain if they reported this aspect of the story.
I hope you are right, that the outcome will be determined by the will of the people. But I fear that is irrelevant and that it is really greed that drives all of this - both on the part of corporations and their legislators.
My goodness, your editorial makes you look like administrative press agents, but more condescending. Yes, we do need reform including means of controlling cost and expansion of care to serve our most vulnerable, but what we don’t need are excuses (It’s the economy, stupid) made by elitist editors. You really don’t see any of the serious moral issues presented and believe (gladly swallow?) that the true intent of the opponents to Obama’s & Pelosi’s reform agendas are a result of the distortions of right wing conspirators? Is it that we great, ignorant, unwashed are purely driven by our individual greed and really don’t know what is best for ourselves? Investigate who exactly authored section 3200 and tell me it’s not a step toward euthanasia! Repeat the pledge that the bills being contemplated will not promote, increase, and pay for elective abortions! Tell me the language and obfuscation is not a deliberate means of deception! Then, tell me again it's the economy, stupid!
Or, it could be as Catholics we realize the President looked Pope Benedict right in the eye and told him he wants to reduce abortion. Hard to do when you are doing away with policies that for decades have restricted abortion and pushing federal money for more abortions.The man can't be trusted with the sanctity of life. Why should we trust him with healtcare?
I do approve of the separation of church and state. However, I think it is time our pastors must speak out from the pulpit about the immorality of spreading misinformation about health care reform bills or shall we call it by its true name, lying.
Yes, some of us may have to suffer a tax increase but that doesn't compare with the suffering a low income or no income person endures with no health insurance. It is time to debate the true issues and get a fair health reform bill.
American have lost faith with the president: 1. His other programs (stimulus, cap and trade, cash for clunkers) have been ineffient, poorly run, wealth transfer programs; 2. He made a huge political point in his campaign that he would govern differently, more bipartisan and with new ideas: but he has the same re-tread liberal ideas pursued in an agressively partisan manner with agressively partisan rhetoric. 3. He has run up deficit spending to the highest percentage level ever in peacetime (just raising dramatically his own 10 year forcast) 4. and, to the point, he has been disengenuous about his health care proposals.
His health care system will have rationing (all socialized systems do)
His health care system will have 'death panels' (called something differentt)
His health care system will run people out of their own private insurance (my 35 employees will be switched the day the bill is signed).
His health care system will cover abortion (a substantial majority of voters-though maybe not America editors-think that we should not be forced to use tax dollars to pay for abortion).
His health care system will be as efficient as other government agencies (read Post Office)
His health care system will not save money, it will cost more money; we cannot cover 50+ million more people at current spending levels.
His health care system will leave many people still without insurance.
His health care system will hurt research because he excoriates the 'profit motive'.
So President Obama has created quite a mess for himself, and despite generally accepted feeling among Americans that something should be done to help those without insurance, it seems likely that he will fail.
Could President Obama have succeeded? Are Americans really in favor of socializing medicine to the extent of including themselves in the deal?
And should Catholics be in favor of a system that helps the truly uninsured, I think that the answer is a resounding "yes"!
Let's put together a system based on Western beliefs of freedom, not those that are a poor cousin to Karl Marx.
Once again it's evident that the person writing this article didn't quite do their homework. Before defending this healthcare reform, please read the 1,000 pages and after that take a deep breath, because you're not going to be quite so pro-healthcare reform.
The recession hasn't even started to bottom out in Arizona, besides all of the foreclosures, businesses closing their doors, extremely high unemployment that is verging on 15%, school districts who don't have enough funds to make it thru the school year.
Yet, another ungly problem has raised its head - over 13% of the homeowners with conventional loans are either losing their homes or behind on mortgage payments.
So before we jump on the Obama bandwagon - study the facts. Look around your state, ask questions and then ask why no jobs, why is the unemployment rate still climbing, why did Obama offer a ridiculous home modification program that is already going down the tubes, why did he offer a "Cash for Clunkers" program that's going to bite us in the fanny before Christmas of 2009?
Our government has crucified us under Obama's short 7 months and he's been playing the drum for all to hear and marching to a "tune of no return."
As Always, Annie
I have spent over 30 years in the group health insurance field as an Insurance Executive, a Senior Partner in a World-Wide Consulting Firm and as a Senior Vice President for a Pharmacy Benefit Management Company. Now retired, I am for health care reform. However, many of the health reform bills have significant consequents that most citizens, and members of Congress, do not adequately understand. Even worst is the fact that some politicans are ignoring these implications because of political advantage, blind faith to their party's philosophy, or ignorance.
I agree with some of the points described in your editorial. However, the article does not mention the most controversial elements of the proposed legislation that are fueling opposition to it. Based on my experience, politics is part of the problem. However, the following issues are most responsible for the out-cry over the current health care bills.
1. The Government Plan and Private Insurance Plans are expected to compete with each other......but not on a level-playing field. The Government Plan is expected to reimburse physicians and hosptials like Medicare. By some estimates, Medicare pays hospitals 7% under costs and pays phsicians about 19% under costs. Today, hospitals and physicians make up the Medicare short-fall by charging higher prices to private payers. Just think what will happen when the Government Plan insures 50,000-100,000+ people! It will result in health industry consolidations, massive layoffs and irresponsible cost-shifting. Ultimately the Government Plan will effectively transform the current health care system into a predominately single-payer system and the problems that go with it. An alternative to a Government Plan is health insurance co-operatives. For many reasons, beyond the scope of this reply, health insurance co-operatives will not work. Not enough critical mass, local and regional in design, and without legal induced pricing and reimbursement advantages, such as Medicare enjoys. Of course, Medicare is marching towards bankruptcy.
2. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has reported the Health Care Reform bills before Congress will increase costs over the next 20+ years, not decrease them! The CBO report was an embarassment to the Obama administration and the Congressional Democratics. So, what did they do? They ignored the CBO report and decided to rely on their own rosy forecasts. Most average Americans, that disagree with the current proposals, don't believe you can cover an additional 47 million Americians and expect to pay for it from controversial future cost savings and higher taxes. Most experts believe that future cost savings are signifantly over-stated. What will happen if costs continue to rise, as in the past, and anticipated cost savings don't materialize? Well the Government will do what they always do. Read on.
3. In order manage the cost increases of the Government Plan, an explicit or implicit cap on such cost increases are anticipated. Eventually this will lead to the rationing of health care services as in Great Britain and Canada. If a vaguely worded bill passes Congress and is signed onto law by O'bama, the rules, regulations and operating principles of the Government Plan will be left to government buracratics. The thought of this freightens most people.
4. While conservative talk-show hosts, like Bill O'Reilly, are critical of the bills before Congress, calling them "opposers of reform" was without specifics. O'Reilly in particular has stated many times he is in favor of reform. His beef is the lack of answers to legitimate questions. President Obama himself and the Democratic Congress has yet to explain, in easily-understandable language, how these health care reform proposals will work. As your editorial has pointd out, it is also true that Congressional Republicans are playing politics as usual. However, as recent polls have shown, a majority of people are growing increasingly unhappy with all our elected officals.
5. Lastly, covering people with no insurance and those that lack the financial means to afford it, is reflective of my beliefs as a Catholic. This includes the 12 million illegal immigrants that O'bama wants to cover. However, covering 12 million illegal immigrants without immigration reform is irresponsible. Both should be handled under an Immigration Reform Bill. Let's hope this happens. I pray that effective health care reform becomes a reality soon.
I don't subscribe to your magazine. I came here to see what the flagship Jesuit publication had to say in the health care debate. On this important matter, in this special moment of the debate, I expected so much more from your editorial.
The best and the brightest among you in the press keep ignoring the elephant in the room (Big Insurance). You focus on relatively minor improvements on the periphery. After you criticize the trash media types, easy targets, what are you for, specifically? What is central to health reform? What has been central to the failure of our health care system so far? Will you lose your readership if you dare say it? Does "America" depend on money from Big Insurance or well-bonused Catholics among the Masters of the Universe to pay the printer every month?
At this stage of the debate, it seems one must hear from teachers, bold and plain spoken and not in awe of a milquetoast president or the corporations he serves, that a single-payer system would be best--as it is now and has long been in just about every other advanced nation on earth. Senator Baucus and the Blue Dogs say the single payer system is off the table. Editorialists speaking out here and there could put the single payer option right back on the table if they did not suffer from the same passivity that will undo Obama. Too Bill Moyers? Too messy and confrontational for the likes of "America"?
At very least--and this might be addressed next time by your editorial staff--let's be clear: there will be no real reform without a robust public option in the bill that eventually goes to the president.
Dear "America,"
Are you really a Catholic organization? I ask this only because your support of public funding for government health care will CERTAINLY lead to more public funding for abortion through this vehicle. Something, by the way, that Mr. Obama strongly supports. In fact, past statements he has made and votes he has cast leave no doubt about this. I thought abortion is something the Catholic Church opposes, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Or perhaps this is an organization that not all Catholics support, although your organization's name would lead one to believe otherwise.
By the way, the Bible clearly indicates that God knew and loved you as you were knit in your mother's womb. Personally, I believe any Christian who doesn't believe abortion is wrong has simply not studied the bible in its original languages, or has ignored the connection for personal or convenience. Although the Bible doesn't directly mention "abortion," the implications that God knew you before you were born are indisputable.
Proceeding with logic from that viewpoint, it is not difficult to understand why so many believe this is another Holocaust-and that they want no part of it. In fact, they wish to stop it. As an aside, the Catholic Church strongly condemns the Holocaust today, but at the time, its opposition was anything but universal. I also believe the Catholic Church and its leadership love God and wish to follow His leadership and that of his Son. Are we really going to repeat history here?
If you want to contribute to this cause AND AGAIN IT DOES NOT MATTER _AT ALL_ ON WHERE YOU STAND ON THESE "CEREBRAL ISSUES" of "HEALTH CARE REFORM," you can contribute to our "Miracle for Morso" campaign at: [url=http://www.miracleformorso.org]http://www.miracleformorso.org[/url]
I was shocked to read that America believes the difficulties that health reform is experiencing is due to the public's listening to misinformation spread by Palin, O'Reilly, Beck, et al. There are many informed Americans who have been following the debate on health care who don't think H.R.3200 or the Kennedy Senate bill are the answer. Many of us want to reform health care and want to do it in an incremental and studied way, which will not throw the good that is in the private health system with the dirty bath water. Further, fear of a public plan is real. We have only to look at the near-bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, and the financial crisis so many of the nationalized health programs in Canada and Europe are experiencing, and the rationing and long wait for services in these countries.
We do not need to rush into a health care reform bill that addresses all things. We need to fix what is wrong and expand coverage to the uninsured, who it turns out, for various reasons, may be a lot fewer than we're being told. We need to eliminate prior health condition as a reason for denying coverage. We need to reform the tort system so doctors can perform their duties without fear of becoming bankrupt. And, we do not need government to interfere in our very personal decisions regarding life and death.
If you sincerely believe that "Mr. O'Reilly, Mr. Beck and Governor Palin are outstanding contributors to the national debate and are scrupulously honest", then maybe you need to revisit your definition of 2 words: scrupulous and honest.
The fact is, God knew us before we were conceived. My opinion is that that is what that verse of the Bible is really trying to say; just look at the context, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.
The editorial is trying to answer the question "Why were the majority in favor of reform but no longer?" I don't think it did a good job of answering that question. (Economic fears should make us realize even more how precarious our "insurance" is, and illness in previously insured people is still the leading cause of personal bancrupcy.) I wish the commentators would at least try to address the operative question. The vehement objectors and their arguements were known of long ago but not their ability to persuade the middle at the last minute. Well maybe some knew, which would explain the president's attempt to avoid delay.
Obama's plan has been long considered to be the only viable compromise which is why he ran on it, and probably why he left out payment for abortion and illegal alliens, and why the criticism that it's too fast does not hold water. Any much further compromise would be the equivalent of the incremental reform we've been experiencing for decades which only makes the system more complex, bureaucratic, and inconsistant in it's apparent aims.
Welfare medical coverage does not work. (Check on the Internet about the mess with welfare coverage in the province of Ontario, Canada.) Here in US everyone receives medical coverage as of now. Hospitals and clinics cannot refuse patients without coverage. No one has died because he did not have insurance. More people die, as of now, in hospitals that DO HAVE insurance. I believe the latest statistics on that is 90,000(ninety-thousand) patients annually. No one has given us statistics that show how many people died that supposedly do not have insurance. The government should be concerned more on keeping the health care costs down. Welfare insurance will only bring higher taxes. Someone has to pay for it. In my case my children and my grandson (and his descendents) will be paying for this.
What do you say to an American who comes into a government-run hospital (office, institution, etc.) and wants a free service? Answer: This is your assignment to think about.
Meanwhile, ponder this: Anyone who believes in government run health care in America in the 21st century, after the current debate, is guilty of culpable ignorance.
Like him or not, George W. Bush has forever changed the way we talk about Social Security by making discussion of privatization acceptable. Though his plan failed - for now - any discussion of Social Security reform will always begin further to the right than it otherwise would have. By contrast, the Democrats have taken off the table what I believe is the best option, a single payor system, before the health care debate ever began, meaning that every conversation about health care reform, like
every discussion about Social Security will always begin further to the right than it otherwise would have. Now, even a public option appears to be radically socialistic, thanks to the obfuscation on the part of some politicians and ignorance on the part of their hearers, and will fail if Democrats insist on seeking bi-partisanship that the vast majority of Republicans have no intention of reciprocating.
As a government employee, I am disheartened to hear such negative talk about the inability of "government bureaucrats" to administer a health care system, or even part of one. My experience has been that most government bureaucrats are intelligent, dedicated public servants of high integrity, and that political appointees tend more often to get in the way of efficient government administration. I also find it interesting that much of the American public is willing to put its health care system in the hands of profit-motivated insurance company bureaucrats, apparently assuming that anything the private sector does will always be better than what the public sector can do, no matter the failures of the current health care system. Of course, in a sense, this goes back to America's deep-seeded mistrust of government, dating back to the American Revolution. But twenty-first century problems require more than eighteenth-century rhetoric, and although I fear for the prospect of any public health care option, part of me still hopes for an elevation of the public debate.
The problem with government vs. private bureaucrats is one of power and alternatives. If I get poor service from my private insurance plan I can complain and threaten to go to some other carrier. So can my company. If there's monopoly this "or else" doesn't exist. Further more, there's no incentives for GOVERNMENT bureaucrats to treat their 'customers' with TLC, patience, kindness or fairness. Plenty of experience with all levels of government has made many Americans upset about the lack of empathy. The attitude seems to be that we're burdens on their day...whereas private companies at least have the mindset that customers are essential so attitude is not long tolerated.
Secondly, there is a self-perpetuating inertia to all government. Whereas private companies respond to market forces, tax-payer funded entities continue to advance regardless of the economic situation....they get budget hikes in good times and bad. Again, there's no incentive for cost savings, efficiences, better techniques, etc. Look at the Post Office. DMV, VA and a host of other entities. People just don't like the concept that our 'public servants' tend to be better paid than the general public, and tend to have much more power and lee way than 'regular citizens'.
Finally, the class envy/warfare thing. Typically liberals look at SOME rich people with an envy bordering on hatred - as though the rich got wealthy by stealing from the poor. Meanwhile they endow government bureaucrats and programs with sainthood even though their entire operation is funded on the backs of the whole population.... No one forces you to purchase ANYTHING from a private company. But we are FORCED to pay taxes. Big big difference.
rhetoric, and although I fear for the prospect of any public health
care option, part of me still hopes for an elevation of the public
debate. Amen, Amen. Yes, I would prefer a dedicated public servant over a bottom line rules bureaucrat any day. The health care plan that Congress has is government run, yet opponents say that Congress will foist something on the public that they wouldn't get themselves. It is so obvious that both sides are creating 'drama' from nothing that it is easy to believe that money is at the bottom of their motive. It is too bad that there is no one to trust anymore who can give real debating points. Does it really matter if the death panel results from considered opinions of professionals or from economic factors beyond our control? There is no way to challenge economic forces though one can challenge insurance companies and government officials. The fact that the uninsured have to pay full cost while Medicare and Insurance Companies pay less than cost is a sin, but not a crime. Perhaps we should go back to where individual compassion provided the money for health care. The reason we don't is obvious. American citizens could care less about the poor and that's why health care reform is having such difficulty. People are afraid that might be forced to be compassionate.
(The reference in the editorial to Beck, O'Reilly and Palin was unnecessary, in my opinion.)
While I strongly disagree with Rep Barney Frank and his politics, I had to applaud his handling of Rachel Brown at a town hall meeting in Dartmouth MA. Ms Brown, it seems, is a member of Lyndon LaRouche's PAC. And it also appears that quite a few people who attempt to disrupt such meetings are also followers of Mr. LaRouche. These people are not representative of any majority in this country. Mr LaRouche, however, would have you believe otherwise. So it seems that we're not necessarily seeing people who fear the future who disrupt town hall meetings, but rather people who blindly follow a wing nut.
I don't really fault Mrs Palin, Glen Beck, or Bill O'Reilly for the inaccurate statements they make regarding the current Health Care Reform proposals. They oppose the concept of any plan put forth by the Democratic Party. But I do fault those who blindly follow these pundits without checking on the accuracy of of any "facts" they put forth. It's sad that most Americans today prefer to be told what to believe rather than forming an intelligent opinion garnered from acquiring information on their own. These same people will denigrate anyone who opposes their ill formed views by attacking the opposition rather than setting forth counter arguments. We have become a nation that thinks that he who shouts the loudest is the rightest.
I consider myself to be a moderate member of the Republican Party (if that's possible today). I have deep reservations concerning the current Congressional Health Care Reform proposals. But at least I've read them and realize that they are proposals, not the final product. I don't like the absence of specifics in many parts of the current proposals, nor do I have a warm fuzzy feeling that if any program ever gets enacted that over the years it will become a spaghetti sandwich due to congressional meddling.
So please,everyone, spare me the fact that you're "disappointed" with the "deplorable" article written by "elitist editors" who make "unwarranted and slanderous" statements. Tell me why you object by using facts, not dogma, not opinion. Please educate me with specifics. I know you object, but you haven't convinced me that you're right.
Then we have repeated statements from Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL pro-choice America that they support this bill....are we to conclude that it DOESN'T fund their activities? That the pro-abort plank in the Democratic party platform won't be involved?
This is why many of us are no longer Democrats, why many of us who were once "liberals" are now libertarian or conservative... the tendency to just assert things without backing it up with evidence and then demean anyone for daring to challenge us to 'back it up'. After away the cognitive dissonance just got too much for us. In one breath we called on the government to "keep out of my body" and in the next breath we called on government to pay for and regulate everything to do with "our bodies". We're told to hate 'big business' but then to embrace big government. To hate corporate execs, but love big union execs. To believe MLK's Dream Speech about being judged not for our skin color but character...but also embrace affirmative action which doesn't touch character at all but instead hinges entirely on skin color. We were told that there is no such thing as "evil" but then that Cheney and Haliburton are evil.
Now we're told to take on faith that there's nothing wrong with a 1,000 page bill...and there's no need for us to actually read it. That little old ladies are members of a mob, but SEIU members aren't mobish. That spontaneous crowds are 'astroturf' but paid for union members, ACORN, and Democratic party volunteers are "grassroots". Uh huh. Pardon me for just not accepting it anymore.
I suspect that America is just sloppy rather than malicious.
David M. Ross - I hope that is a joke. These three people are the most obvious example of what is wrong with the Republican Party. To say they are "scrupulously honest" means you do not know enough about these people. How about Bill O'Reilly's sexual harassment lawsuit? Was Palin scrupulously honest when she was sworn in as governor of Alaska only to bolt for political reasons? I won't even go into Mr. Beck.
Let me define a preexisting condition that exists prior to buying any insurance. A person whose house is on fire cannot buy fire insurance while his house is burning. Likewise a person who finds out he has a chronic or terminal illness cannot then decide to buy health insurance.
What is insurance? Insurance is the transfer of risk from oneself to a professional risk taker, an insurance company. Rates of fire insurance are calculated by actuaries as to how many fire claims will occur within a given set of insured. The all pay into a fund from which losses are paid. In health care the same calculations are made. Allowance is made that those least likely to get sick, the young, pay less than the old. You see as the body ages it becomes more vulnerable to disease. If maternity benefits are included women of childbearing age pay more than men or older women.
I would like the federal government to take over the duties and responsibilities of the individual state commissioners, reviewing rates, determining mandatory coverage and monitoring consumer complaints. I thing government makes in sports terms, a better referee than a player.
Since I am in the insurance industry, I limit myself only to that side of the problem.
Let me define a preexisting condition that exists prior to buying any insurance. A person whose house is on fire cannot buy fire insurance while his house is burning. Likewise a person who finds out he has a chronic or terminal illness cannot then decide to buy health insurance.
What is insurance? Insurance is the transfer of risk from oneself to a professional risk taker, an insurance company. Rates of fire insurance are calculated by actuaries as to how many fire claims will occur within a given set of insured. The all pay into a fund from which losses are paid. In health care the same calculations are made. Allowance is made that those least likely to get sick, the young, pay less than the old. You see as the body ages it becomes more vulnerable to disease. If maternity benefits are included women of childbearing age pay more than men or older women.
I would like the federal government to take over the duties and responsibilities of the individual state commissioners, reviewing rates, determining mandatory coverage and monitoring consumer complaints. I thing government makes in sports terms, a better referee than a player.
Since I am in the insurance industry, I limit myself only to that side of the problem.
Malpractice tort reform is mandatory. It is the cancer in the system that is going untreated. Unnecessary testing, overprescribing of meds, etc. would be significantly reduced.
Kevin Donnelly, M.D. AMDG
A good companion piece for this editoral is the commentary by James Surowiecki in the Aug. 31 New Yorker (p.29), "Status-quo Anxiety." Anxiety over ANY change is being turned to irrational fear by lies and misleading ads benefitting big insurance. Some estimate we will be paying 100 percent of our income for health care by 2025 if we fearfully clutch onto our present system. Maybe then we will see the folly of no change nohow.