|
WHY THERE MUST BE A
GOVERNMENT OPTION WITH UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE
By: Robert
Fassbach, editor,
www.SeniorArk.com June 17, 2009
This morning on MSNBC I heard
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) discussing the Republican view of
universal healthcare. (Truth be known, I feel that the
Republican view is really that we don't need universal
healthcare, but the pressure for it has grown, and they can no
longer avoid addressing it.) Mr. Cantor stated that the model
for universal coverage should be patterned after Medicare Part
"D". Under that program, Seniors' prescription drug coverage
was turned over to insurance companies. The result has been
confusion, deception, extreme expense, and ever-shrinking
coverage. Part "D" needs a competing government option to set
the standard for other insurers, and so does universal
healthcare.
We are hearing the tired old
question being asked again: "Who do you want to make decisions
on your health; your doctor or the government?" The question
is a lie. The true question is this: "Who do you prefer to
make decisions on your health; a for-profit company, or a
government system?" If you have health insurance today, your
doctor makes the decisions only allowed by your insurer. Your
insurer is a for-profit company with shareholders. The mandate
of executives in for-profit companies is to sell as much of
their product as possible, while spending as little as
possible. The result is higher profits for the shareholders.
If corners can be cut, or service denied--without otherwise
harming the company's image--they will do it. If a policy can
be sold that confuses the consumer, and saves money for the
company, they will do it. If you become "unprofitable" for
them, they will try to withhold treatment, or drop you
completely. So a constant tension exists between doctors and
insurers, and between patients and insurers.
A government option can temper
the abuses of for-profit insurers. If insurers know that their
customers have the freedom to choose a government
Medicare-type program to administer their healthcare, it can
make them a lot more responsive to the real needs of patients.
If the government plan is the real anti-treatment boogieman,
as insurers would have you believe, then consumers would have
the option to leave the government plan and return to a
for-profit insurer. The the truth will be told, as to which
entity you want to make decisions on your health.
Insurers, doctors, and
Republicans vehemently opposed the establishment of Medicare
the the 1960's. It passed anyway. The result has been a
quality, reliable, consistent program of healthcare for
Seniors in America. The terror of facing old age without
coverage ended. Life quality for Seniors has improved. Burdens
on their children have been reduced.
It is time for doctors in our
country to look again at their mission "First, do no harm",
and find a way to insure EVERY American. Otherwise they turn
their backs of 40-70,00,000 of our people, allowing them to
suffer great harm without coverage.
It is time for Republicans to
move past the "Our people already have insurance", and
"It's our people who sell the insurance", attitude, and
start representing ALL of the people.
It's time for insurers to drop
the fear tactics, making the government the monster who is
about to strike. Surely you can provide a service at a
reasonable price that can compete with that awful government--you
know with all of its inefficiencies, restrictions, and
bureaucracy.
It's time for Democrats to get a
spine, and stop trembling at the lobbyists who hover outside
their offices. Where are the real statesmen who are willing to
lose the next election for the benefit of their people? We
supporters are watching you.
|
