Our medical technology is world renown. Foreign dignitaries come here
for treatment of difficult cases and our research and development has
produced new diagnostic methods and machines that are used all over the
world. But, yes, our costs are indeed in need of reduction. Before the
House passed their 1,100-page bill without reading it, I asked
Representative Peter Welch his opinion about two items that contribute
to costs.
1) Hospitals must treat all who show up at their emergency rooms
including illegal aliens (by some estimates to be 12 to 15 million,
most of whom can't pay). Hospitals, in order to pay their bills, must
make a profit; therefore, their rates increase.
2) <MI>The Valley Reporter<D> editorial complains about
contributions influencing health care legislation. Well, wake up and
smell the roses; that is (sadly) the way our current government
operates. Example, the Trial Lawyers Association is a big contributor
to the Democrats who want to preserve their malpractice income.
Physicians carry insurance protection with some premiums as high as
$100,000 per year. In fact, not long ago a West Virginia medical group
threatened to go "on strike" if something wasn't done. Now, again this
situation contributes to our medical costs. I asked if there was any
attempt made to restrict frivolous lawsuits and put a cap on the pain
and suffering portion of out-of-control jury verdicts, in order to
reduce the cost of our medical insurance.
I did get a response from Peter Welch, not like his predecessor Bernie
Sanders. He said that he was glad that I had contacted him with "my
opposition to a universal health care system." He also included the
usual platitudes about "passing legislation that makes health care
affordable and accessible to everyone." Wow!! What a non-answer. I
guess I shouldn't have been surprised. So much for constituent input to
our representative.
I mention the above two items contributing to cost, because one hears
nothing about them in the media and gets nothing from our member of
Congress.
What we must have in this health plan remake is insurance competition.
Not a government tax-supported plan versus a private one, because the
government plan can set rates low enough to put the other one out of
business and shift the costs indirectly through taxes back to us.
Besides, has there ever been a government-run program that did what it
was supposed to do without thriving on waste, fraud and abuse? The
postal service? Wrong. Social Security? Congress stole all the money to
pay for their social programs and pork and left an IOU for other
generations to pay. Medicare, Medicaid? Out-of-control unfunded
mandates, including states. No, government has an entirely different
responsibility. They should set up the rules, monitor them and then get
out of the way for the private sector to compete. That is the only way
to achieve reasonable health care costs.
As demonstrated by the government-run health care programs in the U.K.
and Canada, there is never enough money to satisfy the needs, health
care rationing is rampant and expenditures on new infrastructure and
technologies decline. This is what is called a "single payer system"
and has been proven to be impossible to manage by those countries, so
why do legislators who know this still insist? Ask them and see what
kind of non-answer you get.
Potter lives in Waitsfield.
