Mon07242017

     Subscribe  |  Contact  |  Advertise  |  RSS Feed Other Publications

Wednesday, 05 July 2017 15:25

Health bill critics ignore facts

Written by 

To the Editor:

Last week’s letters to the editor were critical of the proposed healthcare reform. HRMC executives write, “Without coverage, many ...[are] left without access to the healthcare service they need ....” If HRMC is turning away patients, they are in violation of federal law.

The writers hope for “a bipartisan solution.” I don’t remember them advocating that for Obamacare, which had no Republican support.

They wail about “Medicaid cuts,” but the only “cuts” are to the rate of increase. Even the far left Politico admits, “Medicaid spending goes up under any scenario. It’s just at a far lower rate under the Republican health care bills.”

Elsewhere, they have written in opposition to proposed per capita caps for Medicaid, but never complained about Clinton’s proposal of caps in 1995. Tom Daschle, Obama’s first choice for running HHS, said Congress should fund states’ Medicaid programs on a capped basis. Where was the outrage then?

They cavil that “Medicaid ‘cuts’ could have a detrimental impact ... for many years to come,” but ignore that every study shows that Medicaid enrollees have outcomes that are no better than those with no insurance. Certainly, these health care executives must be familiar with the CDC’s WONDER database which shows, in the decade before ObamaCare, the all-cause mean death rate for ages 15-64 was 310.4 per 100,000 and never higher than 313.5. For 2014-2015, the rate jumped to 320.4.

What is responsible for the surge? Increased insurance coverage or health care? How’s “Primum non nocere” working out for us? Why are they focusing on all the “what-ifs” of reform instead of the realities of the morbidity that ObamaCare wrought?

Many of the claims they make are directly from the Commonwealth Fund, which has been mocked by various publications including the Institute of Economic Affairs, National Center for Policy Analysis, Forbes and the Federalist. One describes their “studies” as “advocacy pieces masquerading as research.”

Maybe the next criticism they will come up with is that if I like my plan or my doctor, I might not be able to keep them. Or, that instead of saving $2,500 on my premiums, they will double and my deductibles will soar.

Dr. Wall asks, “Why does President Trump not ask the Senate to have open hearings? Why the secrecy and the rush to get this done before any public or expert input. We must demand answers.” Did he demand answers when Senate Democrats discussed ObamaCare in secret? ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber said the bill’s inherent “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage” in selling it. There are your “answers,” Dr. Wall.

Remember, if you want to tick off a conservative, lie to them. If you want to tick off a liberal, tell them the truth.

Timothy Van Eck

Whittier

blog comments powered by Disqus

Media

blog comments powered by Disqus