factbat.com

It seems prudent to illuminate activities that much of the nation is likely engaging in concerning the Health Care debate, and thus I have decided to publish one of the emails I have received on the matter, and my response to it.

This is in furtherance of transparency of the legislative machine affecting the nation, and those who currently propagate its prerogatives.

First is the email from California representative, and Congresswoman, Lynn Woolsey, followed by my response.

Dear Mr. Wilson:

Thank you for contacting me about health reform. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me. Unfortunately, this is an issue on which we disagree.

We must reform our health care system to provide high quality and affordable health care for everyone. At least 46 million Americans are now uninsured and by the end of the day, 14,000 more Americans will lose their coverage. In addition, health care expenses for the average family of four are projected to jump $1,800 every year. Congress has held hearings and listened to the recommendations of many stakeholders, including doctors, patients, and employers and these viewpoints have been important in shaping a health care reform bill.

While I’m an advocate of a single payer national health insurance system, I supported a robust public option that would compete with private plans to bring down the cost of health insurance and give patients the choice between a public or private plan. I’m pleased H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act contains a public option and eliminates pre-existing condition exclusions and lifetime caps. The bill also closes the Medicare Part D Doughnut Hole over time and allows the government to negotiate drug prices, which will lower prescription drug costs for seniors. In addition, this bill will ensure that any increase in health care premiums will be reviewed before they take place.

These reforms would have far-reaching effects in the 6^th Congressional District. They would:

• Improve employer-based coverage for 419,000 residents.
• Provide credits to help pay for coverage for up to 121,000 households.
• Improve Medicare for 101,000 beneficiaries, including closing the Medicare Part D Doughnut Hole for 12,800 seniors.
• Allow 21,700 small businesses to obtain affordable health care coverage and provide tax credits to help reduce health insurance costs for up to 20,400 small businesses.
• Provide coverage for 47,000 uninsured residents.
• Protect up to 800 families from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs.
• Reduce the cost of uncompensated care for hospitals and health care providers by $81 million.

H.R. 3962 passed the House on November 7, 2009 and the Senate passed its own health care reform bill, H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, on December 24, 2009. The House and Senate are now working together to merge these bills so a single health care reform bill can be considered by both the chambers of Congress.

While we may disagree on this issue, I am sure that there are other values that we share.

Again, it’s good to hear from you. The people of Marin and Sonoma counties are the most important voices I listen to as I serve in Congress.

Sincerely,

Member of Congress, Lynn Woolsey.

Below is my response to Congresswoman Woolsey:

Dear Lynn Woolsey,

Thank you for your response, but I must disagree with your position on Health Care Reform, and voice my consternation concerning the fact that many in the congress intend to pass this legislation regardless of the people's majority repudiation.

Essentially you are claiming that the ends justifies the means, and that it is only by regulation and force that a cohesive mechanism can be implemented. However, this first and foremost contradicts the intention of “cohesion” or cooperation. Furthermore, the Obama machine claimed many times that his proposals would garner overall voluntary support from the entire nation, and that the current efforts to force this on the public would never be necessary.

There are a bevy of facts and indications to address concerning this matter, and following are just a few of them.

Unfortunately, you appear more convivial and complimentary toward the providers of medical treatment, than you do concerning respect for the recipients of such. You make blanket statements regarding the figures which allegedly show the amount of people not covered under some form of health insurance, or those that have lost their provider.

However, there are always two sides to any story, and there is no data proferred by you which indicates the number of people gaining new coverage every day.

You claim that controlling the market and capping premiums is the only solution to the alleged crisis (that I myself do not find to be as dire as asserted by this administration), which intends to indemnify the providers and consumers, and ignores their overall contribution to the matter.

Unfortunately, many doctors appear to be nothing more than a predatory network of “agree to agree” proponents and promoters of pharmaceutical companies who’s main agenda is the sale of drugs. These pharmaceutical companies want large amounts of money for these drugs, and I see no reason why the government should get involved in the equation, and as typically ensues, exacerbate the situation. The government’s explicit involvement in the process will only seek further subsidies (supported by tax-payers, i.e. consumers) which will allow drug companies to continue ignoring the true concerns which illuminate the fact that most of the food corporations’ daily assault on the American mind creates a mentality of veritable suicide by diet.

Incessantly demanding to medicate people -- who could better benefit from a more educational system which allows them to daily engage more self-reliant behaviors that in turn reduce their dependence on medial treatment for preventable maladies -- is something this legislation seeks to further proliferate. The bill also continues an atmospher which absolves the consumer of responsibility, and in so doing, silences far too many of their possible concerns.

This is a disturbing development from a largely intrusive government which is exhibiting an overtly authoritarian intent in tandem with excessive collusion with the American corporate machine which prey’s on ignorance and seeks to manipulate people with promises of instant gratification. And much of the industry's claims rarely, if ever, warn the consumer of the true consequences of this gratification.

Just one example: Over 90 percent of what is sold as food in over 98% of supermarkets is not fit for human consumption. Argue this point if you must, but I have proven it to be utterly irrefutable with empirical scientific methods and personal alchemy.

To ignore the many indications of misinformation and dietary obfuscation which allow the medical industry to proliferate in an atmosphere of veritable malpractice is a dire crisis that this administration, and as well many others, is obviously loathe to engage.

To purport that you, and those in public service, have perorated the conversation with the most viable solution, when your analysis has not even engaged the equation in an equitable manner, is nothing short of derelict. Regardless of whether this is due to incompetence or tortuous intent, the consequences are the same, and the crisis will reach terminal velocity much sooner in the environment you envision.

The government has handcuffed the free market for decades and prevented healthy competition by exempting health insurance companies from tort reform legislation (edit: I meant to say "anti-trust legislation". As far as tort reform, the fact that a doctor or hospital that deserves to be sued then passes the cost of negligence on to patients is the issue at hand) that prohibits behaviors that seek to subvert or avoid competition.

There are literally thousands of health care insurance providers in this nation. However, in California, employers are only allowed to choose between 6 of them. This is manipulation of the market, and there is no excuse for it. Regardless of the fact that this administration argues that allowing coverage across state lines would create excessive levels of fraud and misfeasance, this assertion is largely unfounded. The claim is that the consumers would be subject to the lowest common denominator because coverage would monopolize in those states or counties which choose to reduce their regulations in an attempt to tailor them to a burgeoning market, and that all other providers would be required to offer the same lax policies. However, once again, the intelligence on this is completely without merit.

For anyone who truly researches the mechanism of free markets, it is entirely obvious that increased quality is a direct result of increased selection, and thus competition across the board and across the nation is one of the first considerations which must be focused upon when seeking to reform the health insurance industry.

A single payer system will not work, as it will eventually evolve into an argument over costs and delivery, rather than that of service and availability. A single payer health care system would often require the medical industry to operate on bare bones, and would typically mandate that the level of care be that which requires the least amount of effort, rather than that which first respects the patient and his or her choice.

(edit:) This is due to the fact that the single-payer system would rely solely on tax dollars and premiums absent any competition.

Furthermore, the areas of contrast and controversy, such as homeopathic medicine, healing foods, disease-as-toxicity and so forth, will be further marginalized in what will be a burgeoning system of mitigation rather than informed prevention.

The Hippocratic oath which states “first do no harm” likely finds no solace in this bill, and furthermore, may very well become more of an obstacle in the ensuing mechanisms which will evolve amid the socialized atmosphere being proposed.

As far as pre-existing conditions, while this is a touchy subject that unfortunately was made worse by insurance providers being allowed to avoid tort reform legislation, and also being able to drop policies of those who did become sick, the governments involvement caused, and incessantly exacerbates, the situation.

Mandates which created COBRA and other allegedly progressive legislation, actually reduced accountability of insurance companies, and further decreased competition by forcing certain employers to buy from only those providers which complied with COBRA mandates.

These intrusions then force suppliers and consumers alike to comply with mandates which eventually hurt the insured individual by reducing coverage, denying those with pre-existing conditions, raising premiums, lowering wages for the individual worker, capping coverage, etc.

Furthermore, the intrinsic ideology that creates the mechanism of insurance is based on probability, and thus is predisposed to gravitate toward healthy consumers, and avoid risky clients who either may have a pre-existing condition or who merely exhibit a propensity to require excessive medical attention.

How can the government now propose to enter this veritable gambling house and demand to be allowed to deal from the bottom of the deck. This legislation is intent on assuming control of risk factors that are part and parcel of the insurance market, and which are necessary parameters which must be taken into account if an insurance company is to survive, let alone thrive.

While it is obvious that there are too many cheaters in the game, the fact is that they are almost all of them created by intrusion of the government.

In a free market, insurers must be savvy providers that literally operate with their finger on the pulse of society. It is not only imperative that they take all things into consideration in an effort to avoid insuring those who present unmanageably risky behaviors, but must also intend to influence a market base in such a way as to decrease overall risk by incorporating high levels of educational information in their proposals to average consumers and investors alike. (Now there's something that would drastically reduce health care premiums, folks.)

The competition that must ensue is necessary to reflect the much needed levels of personal responsibility and accountability this nation is ignoring, and which is causing far too many advents of auspicious creation to languish in defense of excessive and misguided indictments on their behaviors; behaviors which are merely portentous reactions forced upon the markets by near-sighted and abusive legislative mandates.

I could go on for days. However, judging from your excessively pragmatic and less than intuitive response, your eyes are likely already spinning in your head.

Furthermore, that you make the statement “Marin and Sonoma counties are the most important voices I listen to as I serve in Congress” is rather exculpatory to the cause of the many people who are calling for your resignation, and I sincerely doubt that your agenda is first and foremost one of authenticity. Regardless of where I live, my concerns are not reserved to my geographical location, nor reflective of only the voice of those in close proximity.

The fact that Marin county is one of the richest in the world, does not exempt it from moral, legal or logical obligations, and thus cannot expect any more representation than that of the rest of the state, or nation.

Regards,

Mr. Wilson.