Published: August 20, 2009 05:03 pm      

LETTERS: Aug. 20, 2009

Reader responds to Curran’s health care column

Maybe if the health care debate were reformed as a human rights issue, the argument for health care reform would be more palatable.

Water, food, shelter and even education is seen as a human right. In some countries, even the right to work. So, why not health care?

We are the only industrial nation without national health insurance. By not having national health insurance, we have at least 50 million people uninsured. The biggest percentage of all bankruptcies are from people who are uninsured. When a catastrophic illness hits a family, they find out how good their health insurance is — cancer, a newborn with birth defects, a crippling auto wreck — will soon determine how your current health insurance stands up. None of us are immune to the tragedies of life. We are all a heartbeat away from bankruptcy because of the high cost of health insurance. We are all a heartbeat away from being homeless because of the out-of-control cost of health insurance.

On the economic side, since we are the only industrialized nation without national health insurance, it puts every company who attempts to compete on the global market at a great disadvantage, because of cost per laborers on health insurance to the corporations. Our country loses billions of dollars a year globally because our corporations are not competitive internationally — primarily because of health insurance.

Counties that support hospitals and clinics would finally get a break if we had national health insurance. Clinics run by counties would shutter their doors. Moving to hospitals by counties would be needed no more. Hospitals that have shuttered the doors of emergency rooms because of indebtedness due to lack of insurance or inadequate insurance would suffer no more.

The only organizations to suffer would be insurance companies. Actually, the name “insurance company” is a misnomer. Insurance companies are primarily investment companies. When stocks and real estate prices are up, they never complain. When stocks and real estate are in the tank, as now, they cut service, cut payments to doctors and hospitals, raise premiums and lobby for more restrictions on lawsuits — think Anthem and Humana. Norton is no longer served by Anthem, and Humana is dropping doctors.

We must start thinking of the patient first. We must think of humans as potential patients, not consumers that add or detract from the bottom line. As this writer sees it, this country has two options. The first option would be nationalized health insurance. The second option would be a regulatory system over insurance, such as with our utilities. We have seen how well regulatory agencies work — think the SEC and our economic collapse. My vote is for nationalized insurance.

“When you do it unto the least of these, you do it unto me.” — Jesus

— Steven A. Fetter, Jeffersonville



Reader fears American ignorance

With our president continually repeating himself and the new openness of our government, I’m amazed at what the people of our community continue to believe.

People are gullible enough to believe that government wants to decide our medical care, they believe manipulations of English made by corporate interests, and actually believe the new health care bill includes death squads. Sure, and aliens will attack next week.

The real sadness in all of this is the way we make fools of ourselves by fighting to stop those that want to help us. The fact that a Republican can add a statement to the bill offering a counseling service for the elderly and then Republicans themselves will say our president wants to create death squads.

What I fear is real and happening now. That is insurance companies determining not only my care, but the academic curriculum doctors attend and believe. I fear the drug companies attempting to ban natural vitamins in order to patent a synthetic with an astronomical markup. I fear that a lost job followed by an illness can make me homeless. With all of this, I remember, we pay our president $400,000 year, yet we pay pharmaceutical CEOs hundreds of millions a year to make profits at the expense of our health.

I’m sure the government may end up making a few decisions, but I certainly trust them to do a better job than our “sick industry.”

— Keith Pryor, Clarksville



Reader’s open letter to New Albany’s Mayor England

In regards to the naming of the property at S. Ellen Jones School, it is my understanding that this parcel of land was dedicated and named after a prominent figure in the clergy, Cardinal Joesph Ritter. It is known that Cardinal Ritter did a lot of good deeds for the public, such as helping to integrate the schools way before segregation.

I just feel that a lot of other prominent people were overlooked when dedicating the name of this public land. I attended Sarah Ellen Jones School from grades one through six and I had the privlege of encountering some of the most wonderful and influential teachers a person could ever ask for. These fine educators were: Mrs. Ross, Miss Atkins, Miss Frieberger, Mrs. Campbell, Mr. Payton and Mr. Smith, and Mr. Gilbert was principal at that time. All of these taught with the capacity and wholeheartedness to be worthy of having something public named in their honor for their service.

I, for one, just feel like it was an oversight of the powers that be to dedicate this public property to someone in the clergy, when so many others were just as deserving to have the park named in their honor.

— Michael S. Nance, New Albany



Reader: Thanks for addressing healthcare in Tribune editorial

I wish to express my gratitude for your editorial Sunday on health care. I am fighting for health care reform. The stories of real people without insurance, underinsured, denied or rescinded are enough to bring any caring person to the realization that our health care system is not functional. The only reason to keep our health care as it is would be if one were receiving money from the for-profit system — as our state representatives do.

So, again, I thank you. We have no money with which to fight the big health care companies and people like Rick Scott.

When the press lives up to their responsibilities, reports the truth and debunks the misleading, intentional or unintentionally contrived rumors as you did, you restore a balance important to our democracy.

— Darleen Cox, Sellersburg



Response to ‘County GOP’s head critiques health bill’

I, too, found this bill on the Internet and would like to comment on the sections of the bill cited in the article.

Sec. 113 (pages 21-23): A study is to be conducted “to ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure or create adverse selection in the risk pools of large group insurers and self-insured employers.” There is no mention of a mandated audit.

Sec. 123 (pages 30-35): “There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.” The committee is making recommendations on insurance regulations — it does not make decisions about treatment for individual patients.

Sec. 163 (pages 57-65): “...enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual's financial resposibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card” Machine-readable beneficiary cards may be used, but the legislation does not require the cards.

"...enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice" The intent is to adopt standards for typical transactions between insurance companies and health care providers.

Sec. 203 (pages 84-87): Sets rules saying plans must offer basic plans before they can offer plans with extra benefits. This section defines the different plans — there is no discussion of rationing.

Sec. 225 (pages126-128): Provider participation — this section requires a health care provider under the public option be licensed or certified under state law and defines payment rates for various types of providers. If a doctor chooses, he (or she) does not have to see public-option patients.

Sec. 1233 (pages 424-434): There is no mandate for advance care planning consultation.

Finally, the article suggests that it will be diffcult to contact Baron Hill to ask why he supports this bill. I contacted Baron Hill's office last week about this bill and received a two-page response which included the following paragraph:

"As introduced, H.R.3200, the America's Affordable Health Choices Act, was not something I could support. It did not adequately address the concerns of Hoosiers, and equally as important, it was moving through the House far too fast."

— Carol Jenkins, New Albany



Happy to see facts outweigh feelings

At a time when many newspapers are reporting/exploiting only the town hall fights around the health care debate, it was refreshing to see The Tribune’s editorial exposing the myths around the proposed reform. We desperately need more of this kind of accurate reporting that focuses on facts not feelings.

I am very surprised that no one seems to be looking at systems in other western democracies. As you well know we are the only industrialized democracy without universal health care for our citizens. While Britain and Canada have universal care, they are not the only model out there. There are many ways to develop a mixed public/private system that provides universal care.

— Susan Ryan, Floyds Knobs