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.
