PLEASE -- if you change healthcare, do it in a way that makes sense!  If the government must take over insurance, and if the government is unwilling to consider tort reform that would truly reduce costs, then TAKE OVER PROVIDERS' MALPRACTICE INSURANCE and leave my medical insurance alone!

That would DRASTICALLY reduce costs without punishing the 85% or so of us who are happy with our coverage and do not want to see a change.  It would also encourage more people to pursue careers in the medical profession, and it would likely allow the return of many charitable hospitals and clinics.

It would also continue to reward the research and development efforts that have made the U.S. the world leader in medical care.

Per the plea on your blog, I feel obliged to report some rumors that I’ve heard circulating regarding your plan for Health Insurance Reform.  I urge you to find the source of these rumors and put an end to them immediately. 

Unsubstantiated rumors are identified by bullet points.  Rebuttal to these rumors follows in italics.

• No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions

Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

For anyone who understands insurance, this is an absolute absurdity.  If this is true, then why would anyone pay for insurance prior to becoming ill?  Insurance is based on actuarial mathematics, not blind luck.  (Would you buy a vehicle from a newspaper ad that simply said “automobile:  $20,000” without insisting that you obtain additional information about it, such as make, model, mileage, and condition?)  To eliminate underwriting principles is to ensure the collapse of the private insurance industry, thus ensuring that the only option remaining is the public insurance option, thus ensuring that all except the ultra-rich will be subject to government-controlled medical care, thus expanding rather than contracting the gap between economic classes.

• No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays

Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

“Exorbitant expenses” and such would be replaced by what?  The guarantee of corporate losses in an industry that is already struggling?  Any extra expense forced on a business must be made up for by either cutting costs (most likely jobs) or by finding additional sources of revenue.  Suppose every American were covered under a “competing” government plan.  These “exorbitant expenses” would be replaced by an additional source of revenue, meaning increased debt or increased taxes.  People who have never worked in a business environment seem to believe that corporations try to dream up ways to “stick it to” their customers.  People whose livelihoods depend on business understand that success depends on providing quality goods or services at a reasonable price while making enough of a profit to ensure that the business survives.

• No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care

Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

This is a noble ideal.  However, it will add another expense that must be compensated somehow.  Again, this will result in either higher premiums or job losses.  Both consequences are the opposite of what you profess to be working towards.

• No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill

Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

I believe this to be a smokescreen.  For people covered under individual or small group plans, perhaps a particularly high claims experience may justify an increase in premiums that makes insurance become unaffordable.  This is certainly a problem that needs to be addressed.  However, for the majority of those Americans covered under large group insurance plans, I do not believe that coverage is dropped when insured persons become seriously ill.

• No Gender Discrimination

Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

I believe this, too, to be a smokescreen.  I believe this is not common practice.  However – fair or not – insurance is based on actuarial risk, and the medical expenses for a woman in childbearing years is most likely to be higher than the medical expenses for a man in the same age group.  This is not just a matter of mathematics; it is common sense.

• No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage

Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

Again, I would argue that since limitless care carries increased risk, the result would be increased expenses.  The natural outcome would be higher premiums or fewer jobs.

• Extended Coverage for Young Adults

Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

Ditto to the above remark (again).  Does anyone in the federal government understand that increasing expenses necessitates increasing revenues?  Of course, that assumes that the entity paying the expenses cannot borrow without limits or manufacture its own currency.  It also assumes that the entity paying the expenses holds itself accountable to those who are impacted by its success or failure.

• Guaranteed Insurance Renewal

Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Another smokescreen.  Rates may go up as an individual’s health declines, but that is an actuarially sound decision.  I do not believe that this is a significant issue.

I do believe that there are legitimate problems with our healthcare system.  Government healthcare – or government “insurance,” as it has been rebranded for some reason – is NOT the solution.

If you must reform insurance, perhaps you should initiate government-sponsored malpractice insurance instead.

I believe you have honorable ideals.  I believe your supporters believe in your fairness.  I believe your supporters would be horrified to think that a future Republican administration might be charged with administering whatever plan you sign into law.  There may not be a Republican administration soon, but surely there will be one again someday, and by that time, there may be no private insurance available to the masses.  Ask your supporters if they would vote for a bill that would put a bureaucrat appointed by the likes of George W. Bush in charge of a federal insurance program.  I doubt that they would feel reassured with that thought.

I have no issue with your ideals that we should look out for those among us who are less fortunate than ourselves.  I believe that is a requirement of being human.  However, it is also an issue of charity, and charity is a religious principle.  Government involvement in charity is therefore tantamount to government endorsement of religion, which violates the establishment clause of the first amendment.

To be a free people means to accept that bad things will sometimes happen to individuals through no fault or responsibility of the government.  For the government to take responsibility for individuals is to deprive us of our individual liberties.  It arrogantly assumes that someone either elected or appointed is better able to care for us than we are able to care for ourselves.  Such a government would be tyrannical.

I wish you success in restoring our individual liberties at the expense of governmental controls.  Your current health reform does not qualify for my support.

Sincerely,

Tom Comeaux

aka:     Member of a “Mob”

            Too well dressed to have a legitimate point

            Naysayer

One simple question for this administration: What are you trying to accomplish?

Whatever your answer is, please keep in mind the following bit of wisdom that is taught to education professionals as well as business professionals: Behavior that is rewarded tends to continue, whereas behavior that is punished tends to cease.

It appears to me that this administration’s policies reward failure and punish individual accomplishment. That is the absolute antithesis of the liberty that once was the cornerstone of this last, best hope for the world. It is why the tired, poor, huddled masses who yearned to be free flocked to this country and willingly bled to defend her.

And remember whenever you utter that line about how we must be our brothers’ keepers that many slaveholders of the 19^th century believed that they, too, were doing a favor to people who otherwise would not be capable of caring for themselves. We know now how absolutely evil that philosophy turned out to be.

When I was a child, on the rare occasions when we went to eat at a restaurant, my father chose the restaurant. Why? Because he had the wallet.

Who pays, says.

When a manager wanted to treat my coworkers and me to a “thank you” lunch, she restricted our choices to the lunch menu. Why? Because she was picking up the tab.

Who pays, says.

When I take my kids out to eat, I often tell them they are only allowed to order water to drink. Why? Because I’m the one with the money.

Who pays, says.

When the federal government bailed out GM, the federal government insisted that the CEO needed to be changed. Why? Because they were footing the bill.

Who pays, says.

What can we expect to happen when the government pays for our healthcare? Is it possible that the entity that is paying for our healthcare might restrict our choice of doctors, restrict our choice of services, and limit the amount they’re willing to pay for?

If you believe in logic and rational thinking, then you must conclude that the federal government would definitely restrict our liberty in that area.

Why?

Who pays, says.

I found that out recently. I never suspected it. But when my son’s school sent home a note reminding us that it was time for additional vaccinations, I remembered that there was a clinic funded by the state that inoculates children at no cost to the parents. I did not hesitate to take him there. Paying for something that is offered for free is economically irresponsible.

I was asked to fill out forms stating why I wanted my child to receive the shots at the free clinic rather than paying for them at a doctor’s office. I had only a few check-box choices for my answer, and the only one that fit my situation stated that I am underinsured because my health insurance does not cover vaccinations.

Underinsured??? Really??? That’s news to me!!!

Here’s a bit of a reality check.

Net result:   Costs are unaffected for insurance company, costs are unaffected for covered policyholders, and benefits are no different than at a private provider.

Net result:   Costs increase for insurance company, costs increase for covered policyholder, and benefits are no different than at the free clinic.

So why is my insurance company vilified for being economically responsible to their policyholders and their corporate stakeholders? Because they’re an easy target. Insurance companies – and corporations in general – are expected to follow the example of our federal government. They are expected to spend more money regardless of economic circumstances in order to make life easier for their customers and employees.

Perhaps if they acquiesced, then the rest of the world would like them better. And in a short time, they would be asking for a federal bailout because of their irresponsibility. And they would again be vilified.

I am not a protestor by nature. I respect the rights of the public to elect representatives, even when I strongly disagree with them. This is America, and that’s how we do things. We must be supportive of the will of the people.

But I am a concerned parent; hence, my dilemma. Do I sit quietly and let the lesson of rewarding hard work be diminished by the actions of the government? Or do I speak out against the flawed logic of rewarding failure at the expense of success?

Let me emphasize that this is not a complaint about our current administration. It is an indictment of all politicians who support this flawed attempt at behavior management. It most recently began during the 2008 presidential campaign, before our current president was elected.

So why are so many people suddenly voicing their concerns so loudly now when we vented on a much smaller scale previously? We disagreed with the previous administration, and we voiced our frustration on blogs and radio shows, but we knew the administration would change soon. We vowed to honor the will of the people and give the new administration a chance to do what is right. Instead, we have found that the new administration has expanded the spending that was unchecked by the previous administration. Their rationale seems to be that the previous administration caused the problem by overspending, so they must overspend even more to correct the problem caused by the overspending of the previous administration.

Yes, it is that insane.

And that is why I, a man who tries to reserve all my spare time for family togetherness rather than political involvement, have decided to take a stand. With the full support of my wife, I attended the Houston Tax Day Tea Party, along with upwards of 8,300 others who signed in. I strived to come up with a clever sign that would capture the imagination of the masses. Instead, I resorted to this simple equation expressing the inverse relationship between government and liberty:

It’s the same principle that was used to decry the Patriot Act. That was perceived – and rightly so – as an intrusion on our personal liberties.  However, that was a response to a direct physical attack on the country, with the threat of additional severe attacks to come, and it proved to be a temporary – and successful – measure in protecting the citizens of this nation. The current spending plans are a promise to permanently expand governmental powers to enforce charitable giving by one segment of the population to another segment.

Charity is a religious principle. As such, enforcing charitable giving by confiscating income from some (according to their abilities) and redistributing it to others (according to their needs) is a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

I have always believed that paying taxes is a patriotic duty. Yes, I agree with the vice president on that issue. I do not feel that I am personally overtaxed, but neither do I believe that those who are more successful than I should be punished for their success.

Even my children understand the consequences of such actions. I must protect their Creator-endowed unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I think I finally understand why conservatives are less effective than liberals at voicing our philosophy.

Conservatives want to live independently, working to achieve our own definition of success so we can support our families and the causes of our choosing. Liberals want to live in unity with one another, pooling their resources together to ensure that everyone has an equal level of some arbitrary definition of success.

So it only makes sense that liberals who enthusiastically depend on others are more effective at pleading their case together than conservatives whose fundamental desire in life is to be left alone.

How odd it is that liberals have been so effective at painting conservatives as a sort of moral police force who wants to ensure that everyone lives by conservative rules. From my vantage point, it is the liberals who want to enforce sameness in our behavior (smoking is bad, so it should be banned even from privately owned establishments) and sameness in our results (failure is bad, so success should be punished in a fruitless effort to eliminate failure).

And since liberals have been so effective at stereotyping conservatives, I should point out to you that I fit into an economic demographic that would lead most people to guess that I am a liberal voter. I live paycheck-to-paycheck. I say this with no sense of pride. However, as a conservative, I recognize that I alone am responsible for this. To believe my personal economy is the fault of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Congress, or any other individual or entity is to cede power to that individual or entity. I refuse to surrender my autonomy to anyone this way.

Conservatism is rooted in a strong belief in the power of the individual. I am responsible for my own success or failure, regardless of circumstances. Those who willingly relinquish this authority to others have no appreciation of the word “liberty.” Ironically, they label their philosophy “liberal,” which is the etymological cousin of “liberty” but has come to represent an entirely antithetical meaning.

So, in order to preserve liberty, conservatives need to adapt the liberal strategy that has proven effective. We need to band together to ensure that our freedom survives long enough for our progeny to enjoy it. Our ancestors did this for us. We owe it to their honor to pass their legacy on to future generations of free Americans.

"Give me liberty or give me a government program to take care of me.”

You can’t give me one without depriving me of the other.

Is the shooter guilty of one murder or two?

Roe vs. Wade effectively states that only a pregnant woman can determine whether the fetus inside her is a human life or a parasitic tumor. If she was on the way to a prenatal checkup to ensure that she and her fetus were healthy, she clearly thought of him or her as a baby human, which therefore should result in a double homicide charge. If she was on the way to have the fetus removed, she clearly thought of the fetus as a non-human mass, which therefore should not result in an additional homicide charge.

In both scenarios, the action committed by the shooter is the same. In both scenarios, the outcome of the action is the same as well.  So how can one action that causes one outcome result in two possible consequences?

That just doesn’t seem right.