Letter to my Senator

The following letter is one I wrote and sent to my Senator regarding the health care bill (at the time).  Instead of going along and just believing the words coming out of my TV, I took a look at what was substantive about the proposal and wanted to discuss it with my Senator.  I never got any indication it was received so I do not know if it did any good.

I was cleaning out old notes and found this so I thought I would share… it is in the theme of New Perspectives, even though it is a bit negative, since it seemed “everyone” thought this would be a good thing – even though I heard polls said as many as 87% of Americans were opposed to it by the time it went to vote.

Senator Nelson,
Good day, sir.  With all the respect due to a United States Senator I would like to make the following comments in response to your recent email.

You stated in your recent email that “it will let folks happy with their insurance keep it,” According to the bill from the best source I could find, in Title I, Sec 102, (a)(1)(A) it says that no one can enroll with an individual health insurer after day 1 of Y1.  Every time a citizen changes jobs they have to be enrolled in a new plan so that person’s choice ends when they change jobs.  With the current economy that may happen at any time for most of us.

Furthermore, (b)(1)(A) of that same section says that after 5 years any new plans that still exist in competition with the government plan must conform to it exactly.  Again, this removes choices.  If I choose a plan that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover cancer, that should be my right.

Regarding removing pre-existing clauses, I agree that it is abused by the insurance companies.  I also feel, however, that insurance is a reimbursement for loss.  If we want to revise the healthcare system then including insurance limitations such as this simply muddies the water and distracts from each individual issue.  Health care coverage for everyone doesn’t necessarily mean insurance for everyone.

You say it will require insurers to cover everyone.  In this great country that we are blessed to be caretakers of momentarily, we have the right to refuse service to anyone we choose… right down to McDonalds.  Why should the insurance companies, or any business for that matter, be forced to provide service to everyone?  In a free-market system, the ones that reject too many customers go out of business naturally, we don’t need the government telling businesses how they have to be run.  If the businesses aren’t smart enough to decide this then the consumers who can refuse to use that business are.  This holds true for forcing doctors to perform procedures they are morally opposed to as well as for whom I design web pages.  Should I be forced to make web sites for bars, adult entertainment, and terrorist cells if I oppose such things?  As an attorney, if you today had a private practice, how would you have felt if the government told you that you had to represent everyone that came through your door?
It’s not the government’s place to tell businesses whom they must serve.

If we are simply concerned about those who legitimately want coverage and can’t afford it then why don’t we just increase the income level qualifications for Medicade instead of wrecking the entire system?  It makes us feel that there is more to it than just ‘insuring the poor’. You mention something that I am very much for.  I’ll add a couple of others:

• Eliminate waste in the drug (and medical) system. Reduce the overcharges.  If I go to a doctor that charges me $800.00 and he is part of an insurance plan it gets marked down 50% or more. Let’s charge what it’s worth and no more in all situations.

• Change the ridiculous amount doctors have to pay in malpractice insurance and lawsuits.  If there are demonstrable damages then sure, make the negligent doctor pay that, but millions of dollars of punitive protection simply destroys the good doctors that do a great job and yet have to pay the insane premiums.

• Put in place incentives for young people to become doctors.  With the costs and red tape there are fewer reasons to choose that profession and it shows.  The free market can’t force out the bad ones because in some cases that’s all there are.  In Key West we do not have many specialties represented so we have to “make do”.  I am diabetic and yet there is no Endocrinologist here to treat me so I’m being treated by a cardiologist – an extra expense for which I feel badly but what am I to do?  Travel 200+ miles round trip for a checkup?

• Discourage illegal immigrants from using our hospitals for run-of-the-mill problems and only admit them for serious injuries. I don’t want anyone denied service, but there are too many “stomach bugs” being treated in hospitals at our (great) expense.

By all means, keep the government involvement to a minimum where possible.  It is needed for programs such as Medicare, but for normal business let the free market do its job, which it does well.  Help out if it is out of control, such as inordinate lawsuits, but otherwise the market will take care of itself.

For instance, look at General Motors. When I was a child we would have seen GM fold.  Their assets would have gone as far as possible to pay their creditors.  They would have been replaced by a larger Ford or a brand new company and the void would have been filled.  If they can’t run a business successfully then they don’t. Instead we have given billions of tax dollars to the same basic crew that failed the first time.

Without consequences there is no change. The same should be true of insurance companies.  We have never needed the government to run businesses in the past and don’t need it now.

Thank you for being there to represent ‘we the people’.  I suspect it is a thankless job for the most part and even with different views I greatly respect and appreciate your work to keep us going.