Since I actually care about people who sent me this email, I have left out all identifying references.
....
The U. S. senators and representatives who were elected to serve us are on their August recess, so they are at home where we can appeal to them personally.
...
We urge you to contact your Senators and Congressman at their local offices during the August recess.
...
We have included links to a few articles about the current health care debate for your information and for sharing with others.
Talking Points: Six facts about health care "reform" that every American needs to know.
1. It has life and death in the details.
According to Cal Thomas, the small print may determine who lives and dies. He asks why we should trust government with health care when there are already so many things it does inefficiently...read the Washington Times article.
Ask your representative, "Since almost no one has read the bill, should I be afraid of fine print hidden in health reform?"
2. It will subsidize abortion.
According to Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council, the health care "reform" plans being considered could subsidize abortion, create perverse incentives to euthanize the elderly, and force Christians to provide health care services that violate their conscience...read the Washington Times article
Ask your representative, "Would you vote for a plan that funds abortion?"
3. It will cost more.
Health care expert Sally Pipes points out that politicians are being deceptive about the cost of this plan, but even the Congressional Budget Office has admitted that it will cost a trillion dollars, which will lead to increased taxes and bury future generations in debt. read the New York Post article
Ask your representative, "Why should Americans be saddled with higher taxes and more debt, especially during a severe recession?"
4. It’s based on false information.
Stanford University professor Scott Atlas says Americans should not believe those who say that countries with government run systems have better health care than America. Despite the fact that politicians and the media repeat this myth, the evidence shows just the opposite. People in other countries are highly dissatisfied, and American still has one of the best health care systems in the world...read the National Center for Policy Analysis Report.
Ask your representative, "Why do people in countries with government health care complain of long wait times and poor quality, while America continues to be responsible for the vast majority of medical innovations? "
5. It will lead to worse health care.
Award winning economist Thomas Sowell points out that health care "reform" plans are nothing more than price controls, which politicians have imposed for thousands of years. Price controls always result in reduced quality, shortages, and black markets...read the Investor’s Business Daily article
Ask your representative, "Why would Americans want worse health care, shortages, and black markets?"
6. It’s a government takeover.
If the government is going to run health care, why not nationalize grocery stores, asks health care expert Richard Ralston...read the Orange County Register article
Ask your representative, "Isn’t it un-American to be forced to have an unelected federal official decide the details of what insurance I must buy or be fined?"
My response to email point by point:
Talking Points: Six facts about health care "reform" that every American needs to know.
First off, I would put the word "facts" in quotes.
1. It has life and death in the details.
The heading is a veiled reference to so-called "death panels," the scary term opponents created to describe the the idea of advising everyone to have a "Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care" and a "Living Will". Until recently conservative were among the number one proponents of both documents.
The link is not to an "article" but to an editorial with nary a real fact. The only worthwhile paragraph in the whole editorial is this one because it has some ideas worth considering. The rest of the editorial is nothing but rhetoric:
"As Rick Scott, chairman of Conservatives for Patients' Rights, has noted, "Americans want lower health care costs, not a government-run system. And there are several reforms we can do immediately to lower costs that won't cost a dime, [such as] allowing insurers to compete across state lines, requiring doctors and hospitals to post their rates and results to allow consumers to shop around, and creating one standardized reimbursement form for all insurers." Allowing employees (bold added) to choose among several insurance policies (a choice available to federal workers, including Congress) would let individuals tailor policies to their needs, instead of forcing them to accept a one-size-fits-all policy. That, too, would reduce costs."
I would question the apparent assumption that health care insurance should be targeted to employees. Even unemployed people should have access to a way to pay for health care. The argument that the uninsured can always go to Medicaid is false. Most uninsured do not qualify for Medicaid. They are too poor to afford insurance but too rich for Medicaid.
2. It will subsidize abortion.
This link is also an editorial, not an "article." Facts, again are in short supply, Before an election, local, state or national, all voters receive a "Voters Guide" in the mail. As we all know, opponents of whatever measure, include a paragraph full of scary "wills" and "coulds" that are not part of the text of the proposed measure. It reminds me of the time we had a guest Bible teacher at Sunday School. After class I went up to him and said, "Most of what you said is not in the Bible." His reply, "Well, the Bible doesn't say it didn't happen the way I said." I told him, "A lot of people walked out of this room not knowing the difference between what the Bible actually says and your enhancements." Revelation warns against adding to the Bible. There will be no earthly dire consequences for those who add to legislative text, but it is no less deceiving.
3. It will cost more.
This linked article at least has some facts to think about, but the conclusions are not necessarily valid. In this climate of high emotional rhetoric it is difficult to evaluate conclusion from any side. I do not believe that Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement can be cut further. Medicare and Medicaid already pay too low for many doctors. More and more doctors are refusing to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. Health care providers make up the difference by overcharging the uninsured, especially for supplies, like the $364 for crutches on my bill.
"Ask your representative, "Why should Americans be saddled with higher taxes and more debt, especially during a severe recession?"" Of course, taxes may increase. But that may not be a problem. It is very common for health insurance premiums to consume 15% of a median income. The Japanese provide comprehensive health care for 4%. So even if our taxes went up 4%, we get to keep the other 11% for our families. I am sure a lot of families could use that 11% during a severe recession.
"Even after socking high earners with new taxes..." That the super-rich may have to pay higher taxes is not a problem. Over the last 15 years, the super-rich, the upper 1% and especially the upper 0.1$ got even richer while the rest of us stagnated or lost buying power.
"Preventive care costs more than it saves." No one knows better than us the falsity of this statement. As a group, our medical costs are so comparatively low because of preventive measures and preventative lifestyles.
The foregoing is what I know just off the top of my head. If I wanted to take the time, I could probably challenge many more of the conclusions in this article. Besides, it is not true that the "expert" who tells me what I want to hear is more knowledgeable or credible than the "expert" who doesn't. I want to know which expert is telling the truth. I have no reason to believe that conservative experts are more trustworthy than liberal experts or vice versa. A non-partisan expert cannot even be heard because if a nonpartisan expert's opinion happens to favor one side or the other, the unfavored side will automatically dismiss him as biased toward the favored side. It's a lose-lose proposition for nonpartisan experts.
4. It’s based on false information.
"People in other countries are highly dissatisfied," Here is yet another example of an over-reaching conclusion. What "other countries?' Seven of the ten comparisons in the link focus on Canada alone. The article is focusing on medical care quality, not costs, which is fine, but the article does
not strive to ensure the reader does not become confused regarding which countries have a private plan, a single payer plan or a universal plan. Furthermore, no one is disputing the quality of American medical care, at least, outside of insurance company involvement.
"Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their medical care system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."
If particular aspects of the German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or British systems are dysfunctional, then it would behoove those countries to repair those aspects. But five countries is not the world. The article does not even discuss countries which are highly rated for both their medical care quality and medical care cost, such as Japan, the one with which I am most familiar. The article is simply not even-handed enough to help the public formulate an informed opinion, but then again perhaps it was not the author's intention to be even-handed.
5. It will lead to worse health care.
I most definitely agree with Thomas Sowell's title, "Logic Gets Lost Amid Hysteria About 'Reform.'
Again, the link is an editorial not an article. Thomas Sowell, expert or not, clearly know very little about Medicaid. "As for those uninsured Americans we keep hearing about, there is remarkably little interest in why they don't have insurance. It cannot be poverty, for the poor can automatically get Medicaid." The poor cannot automatically get Medicaid. There are plenty of poor people who do not qualify for Medicaid.
In fact, Mr Sowell doesn't seem to know much about people and emergency rooms. "In fact, we already know that there are people with substantial incomes who choose to spend those incomes on other things, especially if they are young and in good health." I do not not know what he means by "substantial." "If necessary, they can always go to a hospital emergency room and receive treatment there, whether or not they have insurance." Yes, anybody can go to an emergency room and receive treatment, but it won't be free. "Here, the advocates of government-run medical care say that we all end up paying, one way or another, for the free medical care that hospitals are forced by law to provide in their emergency rooms." People who have "substantial" incomes will not get free treatment. People who are poor but ineligible for Medicaid will not get free treatment either. What he may mean by free treatment are the people who receive treatment but skip out on the bill. Eventually the hospital will be forced to write it off as collectible debt.
Mr. Sowell also assumes the public option means price controls. Then his train of logic says price controls lead to "(1) shortages, (2) quality deterioration and (3) black markets." Funny but the Japanese public option (you can have private health insurance in Japan if you want) hasn't led to any of those evils. Maybe Mr. Sowell's premise is wrong. I do agree with Mr. Sowell that the debate has confused terms almost to the point of incomprehensibility: Medical care, health care, price, cost. But he has not helped clear the confusion when he writes, "Nothing is cheaper just because part of the price is paid in higher taxes."
6. It’s a government takeover.
Not only is the link not an article, but an editorial, it is also a joke, satire, parody, or in the current lingo, snark. Do you really propose we present this article as a serious argument? But hey, while you are asking your representative, "Isn’t it un-American to be forced to have an unelected federal official decide the details of what insurance I must buy or be fined?"" Ask also if it is un-American to be forced to have unelected officials decide the quality of your house wiring, the type of road you drive on, the nutritional info on labels, etc, etc, To be consistent, those who worry about a government takeover should be out there shoveling the snow from the highways, patrolling their own neighborhoods, putting out their own fires, etc, etc.
In short, anyone who goes to their representative presenting these talking points as facts will look the fool.