Dear Congresswoman Bono Mack;
Thank you for your recent letter. As a progressive Democrat I am encouraged that you chose the enlightened approach by voting in support of ACES legislation. This was a courageous action in view of Republican National Committee opposition to that legislation. It tells me that you are a person who can be reasoned with and that you are open to constructive action when dealing with the issues of the day.
Regarding health care reform; a hot topic these days and I note your address to a local group a week or two back. It is good that you maintain communication with your constituents.
That said, your policy statement “Bono Mack Calls for Meaningful Health Care Reform, Not Government Takeover” is not helpful to the dialogue. One of the most hotly debated components of health care reform is the so-called ‘public option’. I believe that that component is what you were alluding to as integral to the ‘government takeover’. I’d like to be candid as well as non-confrontational on that concept. The ‘public option’ is just what it says, an option made available to people needing health insurance, but unable to qualify for private insurance due to either a pre-existing condition or that their employer simply does not offer any group insurance for their employees, or that they have changed employment or moved.
President Obama has repeatedly stated that people who are happy with their current private insurance can keep that insurance. No one will be forced into accepting the public option. There are other countries that have both private insurance and government-sponsored health care available to their citizenry. France and Germany as well as Switzerland utilize such an approach. It is also worth noting that the World Health Organization ranks those countries above the United States in quality of care. I’m certain that you want your constituents to have the highest quality care, yes?
There need not be any expansion of bureaucracy to make the ‘public option’ of use. And, we’ve all heard about ‘the rationing of care’ that is alleged will occur with government involvement, correct? Private insurers already ration care by denying claims and arbitrarily raising premiums to persons who make claims through no fault of their own. That sounds like ‘rationing’ to me.
There are structures in place that could implement the ‘public option’ almost from the day that reform is signed into law. One structure, of course is Medicare, now available only to seniors like myself. The other model is one developed by the Veterans Adminstration. This is the approach that I would favor. “Best Care Anywhere” by Phillip Longman outlines how the VA has streamlined procedures, incorporated advanced IT disciplines and lowered costs while delivering better patient outcomes at the same time. That’s a model that our over-priced private sector has yet to emulate, and without the competition that a ‘public option’ would bring, is unlikely that it would develop on it’s own. I would highly recommend that book to you. I believe that it would open your eyes as it has to other members of Congress.
Another phrase that you used, “…without threatening people’s ability to choose a plan that best meets their needs” seems to argue exactly for the public option. Why is that? Simply stated, most areas in the country are dominated by only one insurance provider. In many areas 75% of coverage is through one provider, such as Aetna or United Healthcare. And, in some geographic areas that percentage increases to almost 90%. Not too much competition there.
Now, Ms. Mack, even though I am a progressive Democrat, I also am a confirmed capitalist. I believe in the capitalist model. But the capitalist model shows that it is competition for market share that holds costs down more than any other factor. The ‘public option’ would be the competition that would help to lower insurance rates thus improving accessibility for middle and working-class Americans, those who need it the most.
One last item that I would like to bring to your attention. Fiscal conservatives have been fond of citing a projected cost of one trillion dollars should a ‘public option’ be enacted. That CBO figure is over a ten-year time frame, much less than the Iraq debacle has already cost since we invaded some six and a half years ago. That ten year time frame I alluded to works out to one hundred billion dollars annually. That is a significant cost, but I would suggest that the cost is an illusion. Allow me to demostrate:
Back in the 1990’s, the CBO did a study on the financial impact of the GI Bill. What it found was that for every one dollar spent for Veterans seven to twelve dollars in tax revenue was generated. Why was that? Well, returning veterans used their GI Bill benefits to allow them to enroll in college, thus enabling them to be more productive members of society. Simply by investing in fellow citizens, the American Middle Class arose to prominence in the 1950’s. I remember it well. I also remember that, for the longest time, the year 1955 was used as a benchmark for defining prosperity. And, yes, a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower presided over that prosperity. Interesting, yes?
By the same token, I would submit that, by implementing the ‘public option’, we would make it possible for small business owners to offer affordable health insurance to their workers, alleviating a strain on their budgets. In turn, I suggest, they would then probably be able to hire more workers. More people working translates to increased economic activity as dollars begin moving around our badly crippled economy. Success begets success, and slowly we could find ourselves climbing out of this recession. Indeed, I believe that such increased economic recovery could go a long way toward reducing the deficit we inherited from the previous administration. I will even go so far as to suggest that at the end of the ten-year cycle we could experience budgets that are balanced, not on the backs of the middle class but due solely to a vibrant, full-employment economy. Every capitalist’s dream, you might say.
Now, Congresswoman, I am aware that this letter is not likely to come to your eyes save the attention of a staffer who might see the validity of my position; I would hope that would be the case. And I hope that you would, in your elected capacity, decide to support implementation of the ‘public option’ when time comes for such consideration by the House of Representatives.
Respectfully,
R. Roger Beck
Palm Desert, CA
No comments:
Post a Comment