Letters to the Editor
Letters To The Editor, 6/23/09
Will Regulation Give Altria Immunity?
Editor, Times-Dispatch: At last, the dreams of Altria (Philip Morris USA) have come true, and all the money it spent lobbying legislators has paid off. Congress has now passed legislation that Altria has wanted for years -- namely, to get the federal government into the cigarette business.
Why would a big company like Altria advocate federal regulation of its business, if it weren't for an ulterior motive? Certainly not for any altruistic reason. Could it be that once the government regulates nicotine and tars, Altria can dodge any further cancerand health-related lawsuits, and simply point to the FDA, saying, "You can't sue us, it's not our fault, the government said it was OK."
This is a greater boondoggle than Sen. Ted Stevens' Bridge to Nowhere. We've all known since 1776 that Congress is still for sale, and that taxpayers will provide the legal tender for said sale.
Ernest Irby.
Henrico.
Phone Exec Needs Education on Facts
Editor, Times-Dispatch: I am writing in response to the letter, "SCC Decision Costs (Most) Virginians," by an AT&T president who complains that the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) should do more to lower the costs of his global phone giant at the expense of Embarq's local telephone customers.
In his letter, J. Michael Schweder complains that the rates his company pays to use Embarq's local telephone network contain support that helps keep basic service rates affordable, especially in high-cost areas of the state. Based on his comments, it appears he has not read the SCC's May 29 order, which reduces by half the rates he finds troubling.
As a resident of Pennsylvania, and not Oakton, Va., Schweder may not know that although Embarq serves less than 10 percent of the local telephone customers in Virginia, those customers live in the more rural parts of the state where the cost to provide basic telephone service is extremely high.
The support Schweder complains about exists because, as a nation, it was decided many years ago that all Americans should have access to basic telephone service and that it was a benefit for everyone to be able to call to -- and from -- places where telephone service would otherwise be cost-prohibitive. In some areas of Virginia served by Embarq, the real cost of service is more than $100 a month per customer. Without some form of support, many of these Virginians could not afford even the most basic telephone service.
Although further access reductions might be welcomed by an AT&T president in Pennsylvania or by its corporate headquarters in Texas, they would only harm Virginians. The SCC was sensitive to the needs of rural consumers in the recent order reducing Embarq's access rates. Although the SCC did not adopt the Embarq position in the case, it certainly did not adopt the extreme position taken by AT&T and others. Rich Schollmann, State executive, Embarq.
Richmond.
Obama Health Plan Makes No Sense
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Do people think the Obama administration's health care plan, whereby pre-existing health conditions cannot be used to exclude coverage nor increase the premiums for coverage, is good? Does it make them feel good that the government is going to take care of that unfortunate person with poor health?
Well, think a moment about this theoretical situation whereby all of the car owners in my neighborhood participated in a single group automobile insurance plan. This plan would not allow the insurance company to limit pre-existing conditions nor charge policyholders anything extra for them.
So all of the car owners in the neighborhood sign up for this group policy. Then, one day a new neighbor moves in. He has a badly damaged car from a recent wreck. He decides to participate in our neighborhood group car-insurance plan, and because the plan stipulates that the insurance company cannot limit coverage for pre-existing conditions nor charge extra for them, this new neighbor signs up for coverage with the exact same rate that I am paying.
The next day, he files an accident claim, and the insurance company pays him $12,000 to repair his wrecked car. At the end of the month, all of the neighbors receive bills from the insurance company increasing their premiums to cover the new neighbor's claim.
Now, if you were me, would you think that was fair? That the new neighbor with the already wrecked car could pay the same premium that the rest of the neighborhood was paying, get his car repaired the next day, and then everyone's premiums are increased, even though they are good drivers and are taking good care of their cars?
Well, that's exactly what the Obama administration proposes to do with its government health care plan. I don't know about others, but it seems ludicrous to me.
William E. Kahl.
Moseley.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Without profits, there is no incentive for the best talents to go into the health care industry. After years in school and hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal debt from tuition, high malpractice insurance costs, breaking even is unsustainable and is not a realistic expectation or objective.
The notion that a government option is sustainable is not born out by our history. The notion that the government both regulates and administers a health care plan in competition with private industry is a conflict of interest. It’s just that simple.
Fairness is subjective, however, when health care is “free” to one person at the expense of another - even the most jaded individual would agree that isn’t fair. When you’re the one who has to foot the bill for someone else’s medical bills while busting your hump to maintain your own medical plan, the view is a whole lot different.
Finally, there is no indication that the government can do this correctly, efficiently and render the same quality of care that Americans expect. Nobody is willing to accept a cut in quality. Nobody will accept crappy health care for all at the expense of great health care for most. This default position that the government has to be the one to administer the program is the worst kind of faulty logic floating about today.
The current economic model for healthcare is not sustainable.
Purposefully maintaining a space in this market for profits distorts outcomes without the benefits of supply/demand market controls. In this sense, profits are obscene because they are superfluous, countering practical necessity, and without common market mechanisms (“the invisible hand”).
As to “fairness”, it’s subjective and unreasonable to assume that a democracy will always reflect one’s direct will. Reality and happenstance require sacrifices and this theme of common struggle is nothing new to America.
Profits are a beautiful thing. People talk about them like they’re an obscenity. Those people are usually politicians and under acheivers.
Is this an issue of fairness? What’s so fair about a system that is comprised of people who did not pay into it, being supported by people who already have their own health care who also have to pay into the public option?
I pay for my family’s health care. Any takers on why I should be compelled by the government to pay for other people’s health care? Do I get a say in telling the free loaders that they can’t smoke, do drugs and have unprotected homosexual sex? I mean, if I’m paying into something, I should have a say in their lifestyle choices. That’s fair wouldn’t you say?
“R”, I know the posting is a profound one and I think after reading it thrice I’m getting the message (not as bright as my bulb was younger). It is the “Third parties attempt to buy this commodity at cost and sell it below cost for as much as the consumer market will absorb” that most interest me. Can better understand Pfizer and others of such, producing products to sell at profit; and they provide excellent products and deserve profit for doing so, although via their lobbyists efforts in Washington, won’t allow some generics into U.S., and sell us same products much higher than elsewhere on earth. It is the insurers that are most intriging They produce nothing; thus they have little risk of investing. They can dictate what customers will pay, what the insurer will pay, what is covered or not, even who they will insure (primarily only healthy people). They easily guarantee themselves annual profits, by two simple means: Raise premiums & deductibles and deny coverage.
If I ran a large private insurer with same mindset as current CEO’s, I’d set annual profit percentage; say 10%. I’d also want health care costs to skyrocket, as now. Higher overall costs, more $‘s flow in via that 10% line. Claims paid tracking cost toward $10 billion in 2009, squeeze both ends of revenue to generate $11.11 billion. No health insurer should ever lose $, as they control all controls.
No wonder both the insurer & pharmaceutical lobby groups work together, while some among us getting squeezed say, “more, please”.
It should be pointed out that there is not a single free-market healthcare system in the world worth mentioning because it is not a plausible concept.
The healthcare industry is cost-prohibitive, labor intensive, and yet, necessary to any well-functioning society. It has to be had, but it can’t be had as a business—there is no direct market for simple services that cost thousands of dollars.
In brief: The basic overhead costs of providing quality care in this country are far beyond the consumer market’s ability to purchase without a third party. Regardless of the structure of this third party, it is necessary to mitigate the bankrupting costs of medical service to the consumer.
Healthcare is not viable as a commodity, it’s ubiquitous and unaffordable. Third parties attempt to buy this commodity at cost and sell it below cost for as much as the consumer market will absorb—There is no miracle of competition because actual costs are not represented to/by any of the parties involved.
Collective bargaining, cost sharing, is the only economic model proven to be effective in instances wherein the consumer market cannot directly absorb the costs of service (Military, highways, water treatment, etc.). That is an indisputable fact.
thetruth - I don’t think either of us were looking for agreement. As for your personal assessment, you couldn’t be further from the truth. Like many people, you’ve confused being nice and compassionate for being a sucker - I’m a great guy, I regularly donate to several charities, do charity work and, (gasp) give money to panhandlers (they have the guts to look you in the eye, tell you what they want and nobody in the government gets a cut of what you give them). I worked hard to make certain my family has great private health care, has great food on the table and pay my kids’ college tuition. I served in the military and as a fireman. I’ve been employed at one job or another since I was 14 - regardless of the economy. I’ve been married to the same great woman for over 20 years. You’d love to have me for a neighbor (see I cut my neighbor’s grass once a week). I do all of these things much better than the government could.
I’m simply telling you, and you’ve failed to get it again and again and again, that the government is not the way to go for health care (they do not have the expertise, the constitutional imperative and it’s a conflict of interest). You seem to be stuck on the notion that the government is the way to go - that a crappy, ill-prepared and fiscally irresponsible entity that has no track record of success in this area can handle a task of this magnitude and I’m simply telling you it can’t and it shouldn’t - it isn’t a reflection of my compassion or your misguided notion of what a horrible human being I am, it has everything to do with the reality that more tax dollars will be used to support administrative bureaucracies than will be used for medical services. Lots of tax dollars will be used to contend with litigation when the government’s work goes sideways and a patient wants to sue the pants off anyone who had anything to do with the plan.
It is abundantly clear that you like the idea of government provided healthcare so much, but, you haven’t considered all of the logistics, the expense of future litigation, the cost to administer the program, the constitutionality and the conflicts of interest. You’ve questioned me as a human being but have remained blind to the immorality of YOU insisting that taxpayers, who will not be using government health care, will be compelled to pay into it to support people who won’t pay into it but receive the services. It just looks like you’re either deliberately ignoring all of these red flags in order to launch a disasterous government program or you’re a paid hack who knows what a disaster this program would be, but, you’re paid to ignore its shortcomings.
In any case, you’ve confused being a sucker for a horrible idea that will be poorly executed for compassion and being a nice guy. See, it won’t be YOUR job to tell the people who fall through the government cracks why things have gone horribly wrong and since you probably won’t pay into the program but receive all of its benefits, you probably won’t care that people who work hard pay for your care and their own private care are out money that they’ve earned that could be put towards college tuition for the kids, food or other necessities - and that is a horrible reflection on what kind of person you are. You want my money and when I don’t give it up - you judge me. WOW - you’ve got some kind of guts.
Oh Greta! Thank you again! Have you all read the 2009 premium schedules for our nation’s “Non-Postal Premium Rates for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program”?
My wife could op for the Basic Self, Blue Cross Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan at full monthly premium of only $369.76 (currently split for Fed employees at $277.32 by our taxes + $92.44 employee copay). She could pay the full $369.76, round it up to even $400 to help others, and still save over half of current private insurer’s premium. No wonder private insurers fear a non-profit government plan, even operated by same company with whom my wife has coverage. We’d be more than happy at $500/mo, just to help the poor working folks among us all. Empathy not all bad.
As to Randy, maybe this will get through his head. I don’t seek his agreement. Zero. Zappo. Just don’t think he is a very nice person. But, that’s just my hunch from reading his stuff. No compassion for others, even if it means affordable health care for all, even his love ones and friends. So Randy should go to others to sell his “self-only” desires. Some will buy it. Some won’t. I’ll stay on with the group who won’t. Judging from 73% of Americans who expect a public health care option, I feel at home with those who favor “one for all and all for one”….a “United” States of America.
Here’s what I’d agree to:
No government healthcare paid for by taxpayers.
AGAIN - and I have no idea how to get this through your head: Having the government regulate AND compete with private health care insurers represents a conflict of interest. The legality of this notion is a show stopper right from the beginning. Conceptually, the government could eventually regulate all of the other providers out of business leaving no choice to everyone but government care - but you don’t seem to get that.
AGAIN - compelling taxpayers who want to keep their own health insurance to subsidize government health care is WRONG. It is WRONG to compel people who already pay for their own insurance to pay into a government insurance pool that they will not utilize and to subsidize the poor health choices of people they don’t even know.
I don’t know who’s more greedy, the government or the people who insist that tax payers subsidize other people’s health care by government coercion. Certainly insurance companies are greedy, but, at least there a voluntary exchange of goods and services. With government health care, I have to pay more taxes so people can do all the things I don’t do, like smoke, abuse drugs and alcohol, have unprotected homosexual sex - nah, I won’t agree to it.
Thank you, Greta! You just may have discovered the holy grail of a cure to your nation’s sick health care system!
Surely Randy, mrright, and all others who oppose Obama’s simple challenge to Congress to come up with “affordable health care for all”, will 100% support expansion of Federal Employee Health Benefits Program to include, as the option for all citizens? Full understanding being, if you still prefer what you have now, keep it. If any American citizen opts for FEHBP, they are approved for such without penalty for pre-existing condition. After all, if it is good enough for “our’ federal employees, ought to be good enough as option for their employers (we).
Let’s have a unanimous “YEA” for FEHBP option for all!
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement