Recent comments

With life insurance, most state have a two-year contestibility (one year in a few states) clause that after two years prohibit recision of a policy due to errors in the application unless gross fraud is found. Why, oh, why, is the same not done with health insurance products? The Republicans claim that allowing health insurance policies to be offered across state lines would provide "competition". However, unless policy product offerings are standardized, as was done with Medicare Supplement policies (with the collection of A through L choices), a race to the bottom will ensue, and the results will be an assortment of "garbage" products! It was the state insurance regulators, together with Congress that came up with the scheme to clean up the Medicare Supplement Insurance product offering mess back in the late 70's to early 80's.

I tried to attend David Wu's town hall meeting in Portland, OR on 8/11/09, but there was only room for 60. I was disappointed that this important event was held in such a small venue. So I sent my questions via email: 1) Private "Health Care Insurance" is, at best, an inefficient and superfluous billing system. More typically, it is a financial racket, skimming profits off the top of health care transactions, without adding any value. Why aren't the proponents of reform highlighting this aspect of the debate? 2) We do need a coherent, effective universal health care system, but we can't afford to finance it through more foolish deficit spending. The funding should come from existing revenue (an oversimplification, ignoring redirecting private cash flows or implementing more taxes, but valid for the purpose of this question); we need to set priorities and live within our means. Therefore, why are we not discussing the obscenely large proportion of revenue currently going to military and defense-related spending in this context? That is, wouldn't it be prudent to redirect some of these funds to real health care (for the non-military US citizens, since the military personnel are already covered)? 3) If the private health care insurance system is "good" then why doesn't the federal government use it for all the federal employees (including Congress, and the military & veterans, etc.) that have government-provided health care? 4) How long can this nation survive on its current course? There are many warning signals – financial, economic, social, political – flashing bright red. If we can not do the right thing with health care will we have a sustainable socio-political system? I’ll be surprised if I receive more than a form letter response to these (politically naive) questions, so in case you’re actually contemplating them here are the short answers – which, of course, you’ll probably not hear from a politician: 1) Because the current system is financially beneficial to most of the key players, despite where they profess to stand. Besides, they are covered. 2) Because the current system is financially beneficial to most of the key players, despite where they profess to stand. Besides, the military lobby is more powerful (and more dangerous?) than the 47 million uninsured. 3) Are you kidding? 4) Don’t worry – we should be able to keep this game going as long as we can keep you folks engaged in the contentious and entertaining distractions that we’ve substituted for mature discourse/debate and rational policy-making.