Questions from a dissenter

I hear in the media and from our elected Democrat representatives that we who oppose the President’s plan for a public option in health care are trying to stifle the conversation rather than offering solutions of our own; that we are spreading “disinformation” about the President’s intentions when we bring up that, as recently as his most recent campaign, he has proclaimed that he supports a, so-called, “single payer” health care system (similar to Canada’s). Videos have surfaced showing the President proclaim “I don’t think that we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process – I can envision a decade out or fifteen years out or twenty years out.” These are his own words during his campaign for the office he now holds, so there exists legitimate concern that he might actually keep one of his campaign promises. It was in response to these videos' promotion that the white house started accusing dissenters of spreading lies and disinformation – going so far as to ask citizens to spy on and report each other to the white house.

But in the spirit of sportsmanship, I will not use these statements to express my concerns about the regression toward socialized health-care a “public option” might create. Instead, I ask your readers to consider the following (since our elected officials seem unwilling to answer any questions from us dissenters directly).

I’ve heard that this public option will compete against private insurers, not replace them. Competition implies, to me, that one objective is to win business away from the competition (private insurers who, admittedly, are in the business to make a profit for their stakeholders), so let’s ask a few questions about just how they intend to compete. Will public-option subscribers be required to pay premiums into the program (as private insurance subscribers are)? Will any collected premiums cover the costs of the health care provided to all of its subscribers? If the answer to that last one is “yes,” then why are we hearing ramblings about raising revenues to cover the costs by taxing private plans? If either answer is “no” and the additional costs are paid for by taxing private insurance plans, then how can one expect that this isn’t the beginning of the end for private insurance? How can private insurance compete with a public option whose subscribers aren’t required (collectively) to cover their own costs – especially if those costs are the burden of the private competition?

I am not opposed to reform, as the Democrat supermajority and the main-stream-media imply – nay outright report as fact - but I do have legitimate questions about the viability of the plan put forth, and am concerned, specifically, that it risks (I fear, intentionally) nationalizing an industry that accounts for 17% of our GDP (according to National Coalition on Health Care) – the consequences of which will be disastrous to our economy.

Perhaps instead of trying to solve the problem (and I admit that there is one when the costs of insurance/care are rising at twice the rate of inflation) from the consumer side of things, we could look at what drives the cost of care up. Insurance rates are a byproduct of the costs incurred by the doctors/hospitals. Malpractice insurance rates paid by doctors are outrageous due to unwieldy malpractice judgments/settlements against doctors who, more often than not, have the patients’ best interests in mind when mistakes happen. I am not saying this is the case in all malpractice suits, but tort-reform is one way to address health care costs. Pharmaceutical companies are advertising drugs and encouraging patients to “ask your doctor about x” rather than allowing doctors to diagnose ailments and determine the best treatment for patients. Why is this necessary? I am not suggesting they shouldn’t be allowed to advertise their products – I don’t know. But I do know these are just two legitimate issues, directed toward the source of the problem that I don't hear anyone talking about. Instead, the plan set forth merely shifts the costs from the private sector to the government (aka the tax-payer).