news-record.com

OPINION

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Only good public option will help all Americans

Sunday, November 8, 2009

(Updated 3:00 am)

Americans have waited long enough for adequate health care for all. Too many people are under-insured or uninsured. This is not only a shameful reflection on the priorities of our country, but it has been proven that, in the long run, it’s even more expensive than a public health option would be.

We need a robust public option that everyone can access, not a trigger that will be activated in the future, if ever, not an opt-in by the states, and not an opt-out by the states.

Lyn McCoy
Greensboro

What do you think?

23 comment(s)

Read other visitors' comments.

Comments

This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments on letters to the editor are only accepted for 24 hours.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

xeno10

November 8, 2009 - 6:51 am EST

Lyn McCoy, late last night House Democrats delivered on what they promised they would do; they advanced legislation to overhaul the nation's health care system. And the bill contains a public option! The 220 - 215 vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin debate on the issue. BTW, only one knowledgeable Republican voted for the bill! And, of course, it wasn't Virginia Foxx!

swerdna

November 8, 2009 - 7:43 am EST

Perhaps Ms. McCoy was too busy reading the Constitution to find where it gives every American health care?

J D R

November 9, 2009 - 2:04 am EST

The word "Church" is not in the Constitution.

Sawdust

November 9, 2009 - 6:57 am EST

Nobody said it was. "religion", however, does appear.

ghost from white oak

November 8, 2009 - 10:45 am EST

truman, you are right, in that the republican moron was from Louisiana.

neocon

November 8, 2009 - 8:22 am EST

truman, enjoy your wait in line down at the welfare office to pick up an application to apply for a MRI or an examination to see if you qualify for a stent.

Hey, who knows...you may be 2 or 3 people in front of the guy who drove up in a Hummer. Wouldn't that be grand!

Sawdust

November 8, 2009 - 9:29 am EST

Exactly how has it "been proven more expensive that a public option would be"? That statement is total b. s. No one has proven it, it cannot be proved. It is a talking point.

Let's see: the taxpayers are footing the bill for the uninsured because they can go to the emergency room for free. If the Senate also passes this bill, the taxpayers will be paying to insure the uninsured. How is that an improvement? It does nothing to reduce the cost of medical care.

I haven't seen the bill, but I'm willing to bet it does nothing about limiting malpractice awards or being able to buy insurance across state lines, two steps which would lower costs.

Given our government's long history of trotting out programs which cost a lot more and deliver a lot less than their backers say they will, any joy over passage of a "public option" (government-run health care) is a little misplaced, in my opinion. Just imagine the knowledgeable, friendly, and helpful folks from the IRS having control of your health care, and you will see the full effect of Obamacare.

Panacea

November 8, 2009 - 9:44 am EST

I've read the bill, Sawdust.

No, it does not address tort reform. It doesn't need to; malpractice costs are less than 2% of the overall health care costs nationwide.

It DOES create a national insurance exchange; in other words, people will be able to buy insurance across state lines.

Sawdust

November 8, 2009 - 10:52 am EST

Ah, yes, an insurance exchange "approved" by the Commissioner. Or should I say, the Commisar. And it expressly forbids the States from enacting tort reform. We're off to a good start. We should all be good little comrades within 8 or 10 years. And then all will be well.

mamaboilermaker

November 9, 2009 - 6:25 am EST

I will never be a "good little comrade"--I will make those communists shoot me, because they will never assimilate me.

Sawdust

November 8, 2009 - 10:57 am EST

And you apparently have a lot more faith in the integrity and competence in the folks in Washington than I do. I think they're a bunch of clowns who can't find their rear ends with both hands, and severely lacking in integrity. I can't imagine why I should feel that way. After all, they have so much experience in the health care field, as well as having extensive backgrounds in the business world. I'm sure you're right, they will pull this off without a hitch, and no one will ever lack for quality, affordable care. Except for those here illegally, of course.

firerescuechick

November 8, 2009 - 11:07 am EST

I will be holding a candle-light vigil tonight for what our country used to be and for the death of our Constitution. I will not however stop the fight....DOWN WITH OBAMACARE!!!

Sawdust

November 8, 2009 - 12:34 pm EST

All these people supporting the public option, let me ask you a question: How many of that 30% or 80% or whatever figure you throw out there, how many of them have read the whole bill? What do you think, maybe 1%? Maximum? 10% would surely be much too high. And of those, how many can make heads or tails out of it, assuming they do not have a law degree? Again, 10% seems a high figure. So we have maybe, tops, absolute maximum under the best circumstances and on a good-hair day, 1% of the population who fully understand the total intent of this legislation, much less its real effects. Yet all these people support it. They have no clue about what it will cost or what it might possibly do as soon as it takes effect, much less what kind of havoc it might cause 30 years down the road.

But still they support it, trusting in the competence and wisdom- not to mention, integrity- of the elected class in Washington, DC, USA. And what a fine, upstanding bunch they are! Charlie Rangel, the main man writing the tax laws that we obey to escape punishment of fine or imprisonment, or both, and Timmy Geithner, the man responsible for collecting those taxes, backed by the threat of fine, or imprisonment, or both, are you can fill in the blanks.

Back around 1950, Social Security sounded like a good idea. History's full of good ideas, that was just another one. Today, Social Security is apparently broke. Not just broke, but facing the retirement of all us baby boomers, as we switch from paying in to taking out. Where is all this money coming from? (I know, Mrs. Ellis-a preposition is a bad thing to end a sentence with, but I still do it at times).

From all that I can hear and read, we're pretty much in the hole, as a country. I've been in a hole, financially. Not a big one, but one that I dug for myself. I got out of the hole by devoting my resources to those things absolutely essential to survival. Food, clothing, and shelter, for instance. No nights in the bars, or needless new cars, whatever.

I didn't do it by spending even more. But that seems to be the proper approach for the country, in the eyes of some. There is no need for us as a country to tighten our belts just a tad.

I fear that this legislation will prove, in the end, to cost us a lot more than we are led to believe, and will not deliver any more or any better health care than we receive now. This is strictly a personal opinion, based on years of observing government trying to solve problems, and the end results of their efforts. I don't believe that the government is either competent or Constitutionally empowered to make medical decisions for the public. There are millions of decisions made by millions of patients and millions of doctors every single day, and to think that those fools in Washington can somehow do it better is beyond my belief system.

There is a lot of fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, I don't think any responsible person would deny that. They're going to fix that. OK, go fix that, then come back and talk about the rest of it. Can't do it. If they can, why haven't they done so already? People have been griping about it for years, why haven't you fixed it yet?

Because they couldn't. The government is too large, too incompetent, and too dishonest. Not every single government employee, but federal government as a whole.

When the government controls your retirement funds and your medical care, they've got you by the balls, figuratively speaking. And as some wag said, if you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.

Sawdust

November 8, 2009 - 1:40 pm EST

Here, Hayek said it better: "It is sheer illusion to think that when certain needs of the citizens have become the exclusive concern of a single bureaucratic machine, democratic control of that machine can then effectively guard the liberty of the citizen. So far as the preservation of personal liberty is concerned, the division of labor between a legislature which merely says that this or that should be done and an administrative apparatus which is given exclusive power to carry out these instructions is the most dangerous arrangement possible". from The Constitution of Liberty

firerescuechick

November 8, 2009 - 4:59 pm EST

Unfortunately, the Constitution of this great country has become a joke to all but a select few members in Congress. And the one who thinks it is the biggest joke is Pelosi.....with help from her and Obama's minions, of course. She is a disgrace to this country and so is anyone else that voted for this atrocity that they call "health care reform."

dcolin

November 8, 2009 - 3:00 pm EST

"A as well as having extensive backgrounds in the business world."

Actually they do.

Certainly not at your level but extensive never the less.

Sawdust

November 8, 2009 - 9:27 pm EST

How many of them? Who are they? Obama? no. Biden? No. Pelosi? No. Reid? No? Charlie Rangel? No. Who are those who "actually do" have vast experience in medicine and business? Not the ones calling the shots.

Aquaadverse

November 8, 2009 - 10:07 pm EST

Actually, that figure only addresses the premiums and the settlements. It does not take into account the costs of defensive procedures which have no medical use and only lowers the profile of litigation.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_CARE_DEFENSIVE_MEDICINE...

"A 2009 analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that government health care programs could save $41 billion over 10 years if nationwide limits on jury awards for pain and suffering and other similar curbs were enacted. Those savings are nearly 10 times greater than CBO estimated just last year."

But the biggest underestimated cost is having the lawyers on each side of the table churning out billable hours with little incentive to bring it to a close. You can currently paper the system with all manner of litigation and make a nice living from the ones that settle rather than have a bunch of people with zero medical knowledge get a chance for a bit of payback.

Funny how trial lawyers aren't "special interests" to a bunch of people with JD degrees who retire as millionaires after a 20 year career as a professional politician. Perhaps all that trolling on national networks for class action chum is purely for righting injustice.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Tri...

ghost from white oak

November 8, 2009 - 10:43 am EST

Be careful what you wish for!
It may just come true, it may not be what you expected or were told, however.

tonymo

November 8, 2009 - 2:07 pm EST

"A jubilant Speaker Nancy Pelosi compared the legislation to other historic Democratic programs from the past like Social Security and Medicare." If you will go to: usdebtclock.org, you will see that unfunded promises made to Medicare now totals just under $78 TRILLION! And for Social Security, $16 TRILLION. Our annual total GDP is about $15 TRILLION! Comrade Pelosi is right to compare this fiscal disaster to the other "historic" Demo-Rat programs that have bankrupted this country, as our total unfunded debt is about $105 TRILLION! This one will be even more disastrous.

Fortunately this travesty from Comrade Pelosi's (Nut)House of (non)Representatives will almost certainly never make it through the senate. How many of you advocates of this travesty even understand that you will begin paying the taxes and fees in 2010, but will receive NO benefits before 2013 or 2014? How would you same geniuses feel about going to buy a new vehicle, make the down payment, begin the montly payments, pay license, tag, and inspection fees for 3 or 4 years before your vehicle is delivered? That's what I thought.

The very same people telling us this will not increase the deficit are the people who early this year had to privatize the Senate dining room, because they could not efficiently (it had lost money in the millions over previous years) run a cafeteria, want us to believe they can run health care! I refer you back to unfunded mandates for Medicare and Social Security, their other "historic" programs.

Let's get back to the lie about this disaster "reducing" the deficit. First, do you believe that the same inept fools that turned a projected $450 billion budget deficit into $1.4 TRILLION in less than a year are going to add a massive new program and "reduce" the deficit even by using the scams they've built into this plan? They will begin collecting the taxes and fees in 2010, but will not begin providing benefits until 2013 or 2014. So the crooks will collect revenues for 10 years, and provide benefits for only 6 or 7 years (at the most depending on how long it takes our normally "efficient" bureaucrats to phase in all of the promised benefits.). That's dishonest maneuver number one.

Then they simply remove about $250 billion from their plan (the doctor fix) and add it directly to the deficit elsewhere! You can fool some of the people (liberals) all of the time! That would be the same as telling your spouse that you are going to signiciantly decrease the debt on your Visa card. Then you get a Master Card and move most of the debt from your bulging Visa to your brand new MasterCard. You then show your spouse on your next Visa statement how much you removed from it, by buying a new Lexus, but of course, you stay mum about the new, now bulging, MasterCard! This is how Demo-Rats bankrupt a country, or a state (Krazyfornia for one).

Let me close by saying to my liberal friends, ignorance is not a virtue, and when paired with stupidity you have a near lethal combination!

rightwingnemesis

November 9, 2009 - 2:19 pm EST

"..ignorance is not a virtue, and when paired with stupidity, you have a near lethal combination!"

Wow Mr. Tonymo! That was the perfect description of the "Tea Baggers"--I love that they have no idea what that means.
Mr. Tonymo,
You are so "out there" that even some of our most vitriolic partisans cannot even hold a candle to your gruff demeanor. Good luck with that.

xeno10

November 10, 2009 - 2:10 am EST

tonymo: Proof that God has a sense of humor! :)

truth

November 9, 2009 - 10:07 am EST

Seems everyone wants to blame the insurance companies. And sure, they share in the problem with overpaid executives and inefficiences in handling claims. But, the real problem is the COST of healthcare. Part of that is fraud and overcharging on the doctor's part, part of it is malpractice insurance and associated costs, part of it is insurance.

And a big part of it is that there are umpteen million procedures and medications for every little and big medical problem that humans face. You can't have everything and expect it to be cheap.

This bill seems to deal with insurance companies and provide healthcare to the poor at the expense of those who actually pay taxes now and in the future. It doesn't seem to really address the underlying reasons why health care is so expensive.