Obama Calls me "Dear Friend"

Today, I received my second personal email from President Barack Obama. I know it was personal for two very obvious reasons: 1) It was addressed to "Dear Friend," and 2) I didn't get any warning from my email provider advising that this could possibly be spam. Therefore, I know this was personal letter from the President to me. And this, despite the fact that I didn't vote for him. President Obama truly is reaching across the aisle.



The President wants me to tune into his televised speech tonight concerning the impending national health care legislation. Apparently, he didn't get the time slot he wanted because Susan Boyle is having her coming out party with her new image and the network was pretty sure that Boyle would get a bigger audience than Obama. Anyway, the President wants to clear things up because there has been a lot of "back and forth" in the media; I guess that means that too many people are watching FOX News and it's offsetting his control of the state run media (CNN, ABC, PBS, Oprah, The View, and David Letterman).



In the letter, Obama starts by letting us know that there is critical consensus in Congress. Well, I would say he's correct because both houses are controlled by Democrats, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made it abundantly clear that anybody who stands in her way is going to have to deal with her - i.e. forget about having any meaningful influence in Congress. So, despite a few renegade Democrats who threaten to upset the apple cart, there is critical mass (I mean, consensus).



The President's letter says that "...reform will provide you with more security and stability." Within the bill, there is a stipulation that should you lose your present insurance, due to leaving your job, changing your job, etc - you must go with national health care insurance. Remember the promises about "choice"? Obama goes on to say the bill will "...prevent your insurance company from dropping your coverage if you get too sick." Being in the insurance industry, I don't know of a single provider out there who is has the power to go after private individuals based on their health. They can underwrite CLASSES of insureds, but not deny coverage to individuals based on changing health.



"You will finally have guaranteed access to quality, affordable health care, and you can choose the plan that best suits your family's needs," writes Obama. Well, not only will it be guaranteed, it will be required. Right now, I don't have health insurance. Why? Because right now, I can't afford it. When it's mandated, I will have to afford it. How? I'm not sure, but it's going to be required.



The President continues, "And no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition." Do you know how insurance companies keep rates competitive? By underwriting - which means by weaning out the bad risks and assigning the best rate they can to people who aren't bad risks. If, as an insurer, I take on all drivers, irrespective of their driving habits, the good drivers could expect to pay higher rates to cover for the losses caused by the bad drivers. It's called "spread of risk." So, if I insure people's health, and insurers are not allowed to deny certain kinds of people, then people who maintain their health can expect to cover the losses of drug users who have HIV, chain smokers who get cancer or other diseases from smoking, alcoholics who have liver diseases, chronically obese people who suffer from heart attacks, stroke, and other circulatory disorders, and more. In other words, people who strive to live a healthy life will pay much higher premiums to cover for those who make lifestyle choices that guarantee extremely high health care costs.



My personal favorite quote from the letter is this: "...we cannot control our long-term fiscal health as a nation without health insurance reform." In other words, the President is saying that unless this bill passes, we're going to be in worse financial shape than ever. Really? Private insurance companies, for the most part are profitable. Despite health care costs, these companies have figured out a formula for keeping the boat afloat - providing health care while making a profit. The government run programs - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc, are going further and further into debt, and the horror stories of people on these programs are legion. How is another government program going to be different? I don't know about you, but I don't really want our doctor's offices to resemble the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Post Office.



President Obama assures his readers that without this reform, "...we are consigning our children to a future of skyrocketing premiums and crushing deficits." The crushing deficit has already been consigned due to the Stimulus Act - not only to our children, but our grandchildren as well. As to the skyrocketing premiums, here are the places for reform: tort reform that eliminates frivolous lawsuits against doctors and result in the plaintiff and his attorney paying all legal fees and court costs if it is determined they had no cause for action; limits to pain and suffering awards; and no care for a person who cannot prove his/her citizenship and has no means to pay for care.



I'm not against addressing the need for universal health care. Believe, I'd love to have coverage. However, we need to fix the things that create the huge costs (previous paragraph), not build a plan that admits the problem but provides for the skyrocketing costs. The government has not shown a record of running anything profitably - they don't have to because the taxpayers have no choice but to pick up the tab. Traditionally, once the government institution is running, all problems are attempted to be solved with one solution: put more money into it.



Our health care system doesn't really need fixing, any more than our country needed to be rebuilt (as Obama campaigned). What needs addressing is how we can contain costs, reform the legal system, and provide private affordable insurance to those who don't have it. The present bill under consideration does none of these. Rather, it's like treating a man with a broken finger by amputating his hand and replacing it with a hoof.