Letters to the Editor: In response to Jack McCauley's letter to the editor of Feb. 10
I read Jack McCauley’s letter to the editor about misled opponents of Universal Health Care last week with some surprise and some humor. I believe Mr McCauley to be more a victim of the current public school systems inability to teach how the AMERICAN system and free enterprise works than a victim of our "for profit" Health Care system.
What Mr McCauley stated in that employees pay more each year for their company provided health care plan and affordable health care options are becoming limited is a true statement. But this is not the fault of "for Profit" health care. One needs to dig deeper for the culprit. Government and state mandates on Corporate health plans or even any plan is the culprit. Our illustrious government even limits the number of doctors that can be licensed each year and what caregiver can prescribe what drugs! These are limiters to your health care and drive the cost up to the individual. Every little lobby group has put their "you owe me" in there so they can be assured of the profit McCauley despises.
I read the constitution and it very wisely has no jurisdiction on our health care. Who in the hell is Barack Obama or Joe Barton to tell our doctors anything about what services they can provide? Mr McCauley, that is a state issue. Now lets look at a Universal Health care program set up by the State of Massachusetts under the faux Democrat Governor Mitt Romney: It is collapsing and forcing the state into bankruptcy. It is excessive government mandating too many unnecessary treatments and giving the insurance companies a profit. With everything paid for by government, there is no reason to buy cough medicine for the house. Go have a doctor give it to you for free! The system is overloaded.
What if our government allowed schools and hospitals to decide how many doctors they could train. What if the State of Texas made a law stating the the insurance companies could make a cafateria plan for health care for anyone free of mandates. You would only buy insurance for what you need - me and the wife would no longer pay the premium for prenatal that we do now.
Our kid days are over. But I do need a good catastrophic care policy. I just don’t want to pay for one that includes HIV care - ain’t my lifestyle. Mr McCauley, insurance programs are based on the per centage of chance of a person needing a certain kind of care. When government mandates that you have to provide for everything including unnecessary items, the price goes up. As far as the "for profit" system, it works. There is a huge per centage of Doctors planning on getting out of the business soon. Although large sums of money pass through their offices, They are not making that much money and have a huge legal liability. They can’t make a profit!
That is not a good thing but we have legislated these good men out of a business they love. Our medical care is the best in the world with the best doctors. It was not government that paid for that system. It was profit. It is profit that allows them to install an MRI machine or Cat-scan equipment. It is competition and efficiency that lowers costs, not government mandates. And as far as only the rich being able to afford good health care, health and wealth comes from proper application of the system. Poverty comes from theft from the taxpayers. Tell Obama to take a hike!
Bill Foster Red Oak