Letters To The Editor: Insurance Companies Will Suffer the Greatest
Insurance Companies Will Suffer the Most
Editor, Times-Dispatch: President Barack Obama and the Democrats aren't tired of spending money we don't have. While the United States has the best health care system in the world, they propose health care reform that by their own estimates will cost $1.2 trillion to $2 trillion. Not only is the cost astronomical; during a time when even Obama says we're broke, this proposal could make our health care system worse.
It is being put together too quickly without detail or enough evaluation and analysis. The president claims that we'd still be able to choose our doctors and our coverage, but this is not true. A government bureaucracy would decide what health care and procedures a person could receive -- if at all -- in the name of resource management and efficiency.
In countries with national or universal health care, patients may wait two or more years for a needed operation even when they are considered eligible. Health care decisions should be left to the individual and his doctor, not a bureaucrat in Washington.
A recent Lewin Group study shows that upward of 100 million Americans would lose their current health care plan and have to use the government's plan. When given the option of providing health care for employees or letting workers get their insurance through the government, most employers would choose the option that costs less -- having their employees participate in the government-run plan.
How can private industry compete with the federal government when the government can operate without having to make a profit? All it needs to do is raise funding. With the government health care plans undercutting private insurance, the private insurers will go under, leaving people with no choice but to turn to Uncle Sam for their health care needs. It is important to communicate with legislators about this very important issue.
Jane Logan.
Richmond.
All Three Branches Need Personnel Changes
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Our Constitution gave us three independent branches of government that were to provide checks and balances, thus preserving the rights that are reserved for the people. Too often now, rather than protecting our rights, the three branches have conspired to relieve us of them. That process will not stop until the electorate changes the population of those three institutions.
Secession is not the answer. We the people must become united and seek out and elect those of us who will stand in defense of our rights and preserve the principles contained in the Constitution. Put an end to the political class.
John Mittell.
Richmond.
Washington Must Fix Health Care System
Editor, Times-Dispatch: I am still hopeful that Congress and the president can come up with a single-payer health care system for this country. Our economy and our citizens need and deserve to be out of the current topheavy, inefficient health care system. Mindy Loiselle. Richmond.
Climate Legislation Is Based on Hot Air
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Cap-and-trade is based on questionable -- some even say junk -- science. It is an absolute fraud and will cripple the U.S. economy. A PowerPoint show by former Vice President Al Gore does not constitute proof and a consensus of scientists is a farce.
The consensus of most scientists was nearly unanimous in 1491 that the Earth was flat.
The consensus of most scientists in 1850 was that the atom was unsplittable.
The consensus of most surgeons in 1940 was that open heart surgery was impossible and to attempt it was unethical.
Fortunately, all those scientists were wrong. I, myself, had open heart surgery in 2001, proving that consensus in science in nonsense. True science demands proof -- not political spin.
Congress must not destroy our country based on this supposed consensus. By the way, has anyone noticed that the proponents do not say climatologists or oceanographers or paleontologists agree? There are social scientists, there are psychologists, opthamologists, oncologists, proctologists, metallurgists, dentists, etc. -- none of whose training qualifies them in climatology, atmospheric analysis, or oceanography. If a dentist offers his opinion on operating a nuclear power plant, is he considered an authentic expert -- even if his urologist agrees with him? I think not.
Let's ignore that "consensus of scientists" baloney. A vote for cap-and-trade is a vote for hoax.
Don Cahill.
Fork Union.
Is All the Media Crazed With Grief?
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Anyone in his right mind was saddened by the death of pop star Michael Jackson. However, the amount of news coverage devoted to his death is absurd and appalling. You allotted three pages of the front section of the newspaper, including the front page, to the death of the talented, yet freakish and past-his-prime, singer and dancer. Ridiculous.
The television networks were even worse. The NBC news at 6:30 devoted almost the entire show to his death, followed by CNN at 7:00 which did likewise. At first we tried muting the shows until news came on, but when it became apparent that this was the only news to be reported, we turned the TV off.
Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, energy, and health care have all become irrelevant, it seems. How long will the media continue this madness? I hope nothing Earth-shaking happens any time soon, because we certainly will not be told about it by the media.
Carol M. Smith.
Sharps.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
armtdm: there may be those in the US who are uninsurable by private insurers, but NO ONE can be refused health care in a state-funded facility. Even illegal aliens can walk and be treated. That’s why California is bankrupt.
A national health care plan is just another layer of cost and governent interference we don’t need. So if you want to fund healthcare for everybody else - have at it via your personal checking account. But as TheGoodShepperd said - stay out of my pockets.
As with most studies one needs to determine who or what organization actually funded the study. So the Lewin Group study, was it funded by the Health Ins Industray (as I suspect it was) or a political party etc.
Further, Medicare part A is a very well run program and IT IS ADMINISTERED VIA INSURANCE COMPANIES but Gov. controlled.
And those of you who do not wish to pay for someone elses health care, well, just wait, I guarantee at some point in your life you will be UNINSURABLE. Then we can have another conversation
Amen, TheGoodSheperd.
And by the way Mindy - along with government intervention in health care comes government intervention in alomost every other aspect of your life. Are you willing to let the government tell you what to eat and drink? How much you should weigh? Which restaurants you can freqent? How many babies you can have? Because trust me, access to government health care will be dependent on these choices. Eat a burger and you won’t qualify for coverage. Drink alcohol and you’ll be deemed too high a risk. Risky behavior? The government will define it for you. Want to see a specialist? Get in line and expect a 3-month minimum wait. Three kids? Only two will be covered. Got private insurance through your employer? Kiss it good bye - your company will drop it in a hearbeat, save millions, and tell you to access government healthcare.
Government intervention in health care has failed or is failing in every single country taht has implemented it. Wake up America - SCREAM at the top of your lungs: NO to national health care.
Mindy Loiselle:
1)Government intervention into health care is unconstitutional.
2)Socialist.
3)Huge, giant, big tax increases.
4)Reduction in choice and quality.
There is no logical argument for government healtcare, only emotional. It’s not my responsiblity to pay for other’s health care.
Stay out of my pocket. Stay out of my pocket!
The stark contrast beteen letters written by Jane Logan and Mindy Loiselle says it all. Ms. Logan cites facts about the true cost of Obama’s plan to insurers, providers, and patients, while Ms. Loiselle simply states a “want” without giving a single thought to logistics, cost, and long-term implications.
Obama’s plan will be the final nail in the coffin of America’s economy. It will leave us bankrupt and waitng months for care, it we are deemed eligible for care at all. For the love of God and the future of our children, scream NO to a national health care plan.
Thank you, Mindy Loiselle.
May the United States join the REST OF THE WORLD in single payer health care.
“Lewin Group study?“
Lewin Group also provided stats used in the proposed Healthy Americans Act S.391, supporting private insurers only to cover 99% of Americans at same quality as those in Congress, and to save $1.48 trillion over ten years. Sounds great! Wonder why insurers did not propose this decades ago? Who be the Lewin Group? They be owned by Ingenix, subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, who settled for $50 million in NY ST for stealing from customers. Ingenix supplied data that helped 2/3’s of health insurers steal billions more from us. So, trust them?
Private insurers’ profits are more important than our own health and financial survival? That’s nuts.
Insurers & pharmas are hoodwinking too many among us.
As if on queue after my post from yesterday commenting on the second grade level of science education that most Americans have, along comes Mr. Cahill as if by divine providence to prove my point. I was left particularly slack jawed by the statement “The consensus of most scientists was nearly unanimous in 1491 that the Earth was flat.“ I guess he was educated by Bug’s Bunny cartoons based on that apocryphal story of Columbus trying to convince the Queen Isabella that the Earth was spherical. The Greeks were the first recorded people to figure out the Earth is a sphere, nearly 2000 years before Columbus, and that knowledge did not die. Around 250 B.C.E., the Greek philosopher Eratosthenes even figured out the circumference of the Earth to a pretty accurate level.
Next, “The consensus of most scientists in 1850 was that the atom was unsplittable.“ Likewise, completely wrong. Really, until Einstien defined Brownian Motion as caused by particles in a fluid bouncing off atoms, and thereby estimating their size, atomic theory was barely more than a philosophical venture, save for a few theorists before that time.
Also, “The consensus of most surgeons in 1940 was that open heart surgery was impossible and to attempt it was unethical.“, wrong again Mr. Cahill. Open heart surgery had been thought about in the abstract as early as the late 19th century, and the main hurdle for a successful operation was the invention of the heart-lung machine to keep patients alive while the heart was operated on. It was not an ethical quandary, but a technological one.
Finally, “By the way, has anyone noticed that the proponents do not say climatologists or oceanographers or paleontologists agree? There are social scientists, there are psychologists, opthamologists, oncologists, proctologists, metallurgists, dentists, etc.—none of whose training qualifies them in climatology, atmospheric analysis, or oceanography”. You have actually pointed out the primary strategy of one of the standard bearers of the climate change debunkers, Sen. James Inhofe, who is consistently among the top receivers of campaign funds from oil companies and who’s infamous list of supposed experts claiming climate change is false includes people that have no scientific credentials or training, or even worse, people who are proponents of climate change but whose comments were purposefully misrepresented and taken out of context, such as physicist Freeman Dyson. Not everybody on his list asked to be on the so called list of “650”.
Man made climate change is accepted widely in the scientific community of Earth scientists, the consequences are where so much uncertainty lies. RTD, I know you are having financial woes, but you can’t afford to pay one science editor to verify, or review articles and editorials. This Mr. Cahill’s letter should be an embarrassment to your paper. I mean really, scientists thought the world was flat in 1491, what a joke, just like Mr. Cahill’s so called knowledge.
A final note, Mr. Cahill is correct about one thing, cap and trade is “baloney”. Obviously, the complexity of why is what escapes him. But it is certainly not because of a hoax.
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