An Open Letter to John
Cornyn and the Congress
Ah, yes, John!
I believe for every drop of rain that falls a flower grows
I believe that somewhere in the darkest night a candle glows
I believe for everyone who goes astray, someone will come to show the way
I believe above a storm the smallest prayer can still be heard
I believe that someone in the great somewhere hears every word
I believe, I believe.
Yet beliefs, as yours are, are far more often erroneous than right.
You write,
"I believe our top priority should be to lower the cost of health care, without reducing quality or access to care."
No, John, the top priority should be to lower the cost of health care and improve quality and increase access. Maintaining what we've already got won't help.
You write,
"I believe we can lower the cost of health care without giving Washington more control over the decisions of doctors and patients."
But, John, what control has Washington had over the decisions of doctors and patients? Private insurers are notorious for exercising that kind of control, not the government. All the government has had control of is reimbursement to providers, and reimbursement is not a medical decision.
You criticize Kennedys bill, perhaps rightly so, but your points don't make the case.
You write,
"First, Senator Kennedy's bill will cost at least $1 trillion over the next ten years and that's just the beginning. . . . The taxpayers' $1 trillion does not include the cost of increasing eligibility for Medicaid for people up to 50 percent above the poverty line."
But, John, what are the CBO's assumptions? We know that currently, Americans pay more than twice as much per capita for healthcare than the populations of other developed counties and not only are fewer people covered but the quality of care is lower. If other countries can provide universal coverage for half as much as we spend, why can't we simply divert what is currently being spent into one fund and cover everybody? It wouldn't cost an additional cent. Certainly we ought to be able to provide universal care for twice as much money as other nations spend to provide it. If they can do it, why can't we?
You write,
"Second, Senator Kennedy's bill includes a government-run health care plan that will force at least 15 million people to lose their current private health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office recognizes that no current provider can long compete against a government that calls the balls and strikes even as it takes the field. According to the independent Lewin Group, a government plan could eventually take away current health benefits from 119 million Americans, and force 130 million Americans into a Washington-run health care plan."
So what, John, they would still have coverage, wouldn't they?
You write,
"Third, a new Washington-run plan will increase the cost of private insurance. "Cost-shifting" occurs when a health care provider accepts low government reimbursement rates, but only if it can charge extra to those with private insurance. This cost-shifting acts like a hidden tax on millions of American families and small businesses. One respected actuary estimates that cost-shifting increases the average American family's health care premium by more than 10 percent, or more than $1,500. Adding another new government health care plan on top of Medicare and Medicaid will only increase this cost."
But, John, taking private insurance out of the picture makes cost shifting impossible.
You write,
"Fourth, a new Washington-run plan would lead to government rationing of health care. Just look at the results in Canada. Thousands of our friends to the north come to the United States every year for life-saving surgeries, after their government has told them they'll just have to wait. Various studies suggest that Canadians, especially the poor, are less healthy under socialized medicine than those in our own country. More and more Canadians want to reduce the role of government and expand private options for health care, even as elites in Washington want to move America in the opposite direction."
Oh, John, this is pure propaganda! First, you are misusing the word 'ration.' Look it up! When things are rationed, everyone who needs them gets a share; nobody goes without. Second, thousands . . . come to the United States . . . for life-saving surgeries, after their government has told them they'll just have to wait. That, John,, is a bald faced lie. Canadians do often have to wait for elective surgeries, but not life-threatening ones. But you fail to mention the thousands of Americans who are going to Latin America and even Asia for procedures that are unaffordable in America. And third, your use of various studies is nothing but a dodge or perhaps an Edsel. People who don't cite studies are scoundrels. Studies are not created equal. Some are good; some are bad, and one can select just the one's that support his/her beliefs while ignoring the others.
You write,
"Fifth, a new government plan would replicate the model of Medicare and Medicaid, which illustrate everything that can go wrong with Washington-run health care. Costs for both plans have exploded. Low reimbursement rates force many providers out of the system, and many patients to long waiting lines. Taxpayers pay up to $90 billion a year in fraudulent and wasteful medical bills, about two-thirds of that in the Medicare program alone."
Well, John, maybe true, maybe not. But the Congress wrote the Medicare and Medicaid plans. If they don't work well, its your fault. Yes, the costs have exploded. So have the costs of private plans. And if those private plans were abolished, the providers would be unable to leave the system unless they stopped practicing altogether. And if there is fraud and waste in the system, it can only be because the Congress created programs with many loopholes and enforcement failures. Again, John, it is not the programs that are at fault, it is the Congress who created them without adequate safeguards. That's you, John!
You write,
"The Kennedy Bill has other provisions that would increase Washington's control of our health care system including new punitive tax increases. If a family doesn't have a Washington-regulated health care plan, they would pay a new tax. If a small business owner doesn't offer a Washington-regulated plan for every employee, then she would pay a new tax. These tax increases are designed not to raise revenue to pay for health care, but to punish families and businesses that step out of line."
Oh, John! Your claim that the increases are designed to punish is pure presumption. What evidence can you cite? Anyhow, John, someone needs to be punished for the creation of this abominable system.
You write,
"There are alternatives to a Washington takeover of the health care system, and the best of them will give patients more control over their care. Innovators in both government and the private sector have learned that empowering patients as consumers can lower costs. They've learned that the right incentives can encourage patients to make healthier choices, and providers to compete for their business. These are the ideas that can drive successful reform of our health care system."
Pure bull, John. What patient has ever had control over his/her own healthcare? The physician he/she goes to has the control. When a physician diagnoses a patient's problem, the patient is not given a menu of options. The physician doesn't say, I can sell you this treatment for x dollars, or this treatment for y dollars, or this treatment for z dollars. A physician's office is not a retail store. And what empowering practices have been learned that can lower costs? If they have been learned and can lower costs, why haven't they? And how can medical providers compete for the business of patients? How can the model used by cosmetic surgeons be adapted to real medical problems? A patient suffering a heart attack doesn't have the luxury of being able to shop around.
You write,
"Health care reform can be successful if we take the time to get it right. . . . when Congress acts too quickly, it often delivers bad policy. . . . Washington elites want to dictate to the American people the future of health care, but I believe the best solutions will come when Washington begins to listen."
Well, John, finally youve gotten something right. The Congress, of which you are a part, is made up of a bunch of Keystone Kops legislators who haven't gotten anything right for decades. And although you believe (here we go again) that Washington (deceased) needs to listen, the question is to whom? And those Washington elites, who are they? Are you one of them?
Senator Kennedys bill is not a solution to the problem, because the problem with the American healthcare system is private insurance. It sucks an enormous amount of money out of the system without providing a worthless cent's amount of healthcare. What medical procedure does an insurance company provide for the money it takes in? Not even an aspirin tablet! All private insurance does is collect money, skim a portion off the top, and pay the providers from what is left. The insurance industry is a worthless middle man, getting paid for nothing. And that, John, is the industry whose services you seek to preserve.
If private insurance companies had any interest or desire to provide Americans with a high-quality healthcare system, they have had half a century to do it and haven't. Private industry has no interest in solving social problems. Never has, never will have. Its only interest is profit. And profit buys no medicine, John, none whatsoever. So, John, if you truly want health care reform to be successful, stand up, and for once in your life, do the right thing. Your only job is to provide the American people with high-quality healthcare, not to preserve an industry's profits. You are a representative of people, John, not of business, that is, unless you're just a scoundrel. (06/19/2009)
2009 John Kozy
Print article>
Send
to friend
Author
feedback