Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Health benefits

January 27, 2010

Advertisement

To the editor:

Mark Hirschey may have a bit more research to do regarding his admonition that “more government meddling is an unlikely solution” for health care reform (Journal-World Jan. 24).

Although the professor acknowledges he buys health insurance through Kansas University, he doesn’t admit that his employer provides health insurance through the government-run state employee health plan. If he has single coverage, the government subsidizes 95 percent of his insurance premiums. If he has family coverage, the government subsidizes 55 percent of his premium (www.khpa.ks.gov).

Next, he tells us he received excellent cancer care at two public academic medical centers, but fails to mention they are both significantly supported by government dollars (KUMC received over $100 million in state general funds last year; www.kumc.edu).

Finally, the high quality of care he received is in fact highly regulated by the government, thus he could be assured that the physicians treating him were licensed by the government (through the Kansas Board of Healing Arts), that the pharmaceuticals he needs are regulated by the government for safety and efficacy (through the Food and Drug Administration), and the cures and treatments he received were possible because of the investment in basic science research, overwhelmingly provided by the government (the National Institutes of Health budget last year was over $30 billion; www.nih.gov).

It is a blessing that Hirschey’s cancer is in remission, but many Americans don’t have good paying government jobs, with generous government-provided health insurance benefits. Perhaps government involvement in health care isn’t as bad as the professor professes.

Comments

ComradeRedRooster 4 years, 2 months ago

Get a job! Get a second job! Eat beans and rice.

0

headdoctor 4 years, 2 months ago

You seem to have all the answers about health care, Herr Rooster. Even if people cut corners to be able to afford insurance, I would like for you to explain how those same people are suppose to pay for the deductible and the 20% of the bill and other uncovered costs? Not everyone can qualify for additional coverage for the uncovered amounts or pay high enough premiums to cover that. That 20% of an emergency or ongoing health problem is enough to bankrupt the lower income people.

I would would also like to know why you and others seem to think that if everyone was insured it would drop prices overall? What world are you living in? That isn't going to happen.

0

headdoctor 4 years, 2 months ago

ComradeRedRooster (Anonymous) says… LTE Health Benefits = whine Most Americans can afford health care if they make responsible choices. The following items are not necessities: Cell Phones Cable TV Internet entertainment computer/video games organic foods marijuana & alcohol These items are costing couples & families anywhere from $300 to $600 a month. Guess what? That is about the cost of health insurance. And if more people made responsible choices and insured themselves first then costs would come down. So we don't need Obama's neo-marxists central planning, we need American's to be responsible for their actions.


Right Herr Comrade. Just as soon as the list of American's to be responsible for their actions include a very obvious and active participation of the Politicians who keep throwing away tax payers money on stupidity and reign in the corporations who are really one of the biggest offenders of draining this Country dry other than the Politicians.

Until then, all bets are off as far as I am concerned.

0

ComradeRedRooster 4 years, 2 months ago

LTE Health Benefits = whine

Most Americans can afford health care if they make responsible choices. The following items are not necessities: Cell Phones Cable TV Internet entertainment computer/video games organic foods marijuana & alcohol

These items are costing couples & families anywhere from $300 to $600 a month. Guess what? That is about the cost of health insurance. And if more people made responsible choices and insured themselves first then costs would come down. So we don't need Obama's neo-marxists central planning, we need American's to be responsible for their actions.

0

George Lippencott 4 years, 2 months ago

Jimo (Anonymous) says… Communist!

0

Jimo 4 years, 2 months ago

"And without that, the rest of the house of cards falls apart, doesn't it?"

Errr.....no. ??

If inexpensive, efficient options exist for people without insurance (but with the means to pay), it isn't at all clear whether this is a million people or just one 'you can't tell me what to do' anti-social misfit like George Lippencott.

0

George Lippencott 4 years, 2 months ago

Let us break this apart. There is general agreement that reform of our health care system is needed. How extensive is debatable.

But in this reform bill is a trillon dollar a year new entitlement. WE can not meet our obligations to the entitlements already in place, even those purchased all or in part by the recipent. This bill demands no payments and just gives away that trillon.

Are we morally bancrupt?

0

Richard Heckler 4 years, 2 months ago

It's like Brownback and the repubs constantly bitch about big government but fail to quit the big government high rollin lifestyle at taxpayer expense. What about those big government retirement benefits including medical care for entire family courtesy of tax payers?

They are socialists no question about it ..... love those big government tax dollars in their bank accounts and covering their expenses.

0

Stu Clark 4 years, 2 months ago

STRS,

I would guess that you're nowhere near 65 years old. When you get there are you going to avoid Medicare and continue to pay the $700/month premiums for a private plan that may cover 80% of your costs? Turns out that If you have Medicare and want complete coverage you will still need a private supplement plan. So even with universal Medicare, the private insurers would still be in business.

To argue that health plan reform is the first step to socialized medicine is like saying that social security is the first step to a universal welfare plan under which no one will have to work. Nonsense!

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 2 months ago

You're not evil, bozo, you just have really bad ideas.

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 2 months ago

KSManimal (Anonymous) says…

"Show me where in any actual bills there is provision for the government to take over health care. What's that? Can't find it? Shocking."

So you think the two thousand, seven hundred plus pages they were trying to turn into federal law was - what, exactly? A commentary?


Jimo (Anonymous) says…

"Taken item by item, Americans overwhelming agree with virtually every component of the bill (except mandating insurance coverage)."

And without that, the rest of the house of cards falls apart, doesn't it?


just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“Here is an actual bit of data from the Massachusetts debacle. The AFL-CIO conducted a poll in the state and, according to the union's pollsters ..."

Now there's an objective source, Herr Klowne.

Say, did the AFL-CIO ask people whether union members should be exempted from the tax on Cadillac insurance plans?

"... it revealed that the election “was a working-class revolt” driven by a “huge swing among non-college voters,” who went for President Obama in 2008 and for Mr. Brown this time around."

In other words, the children got bored and their attention wandered elsewhere, as is often the case for children. In any event, the 'working-class' you tout so frequently seems to have abandoned the Democrats - and you, Herr Klowne - nicht wahr?

0

Flap Doodle 4 years, 2 months ago

I wonder if the voters in MA are getting dizzy from all the spinning their last election is going through.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 2 months ago

Well, now that we know that the only decision is between what evil people like me want, and what totally virtuous and good people like you want, there really isn't much choice, is there STRS?

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 2 months ago

But bozo, your goal is not a government option. You want centrally-controlled, single payer government health care.

As I see it, your vision of a socialized medicine promised land does nothing to assuage the fears of conservatives and centrists who want little more than to retain their remaining income, dignity and freedom.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 2 months ago

A very large percentage of the voters in the Mass. election last week were voting against the corporate bias of the current healthcare reform bills. If there were a public option included in that bill, it appears that the election would have gone the other way.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703906204575027484210248038.html

"Here is an actual bit of data from the Massachusetts debacle. The AFL-CIO conducted a poll in the state and, according to the union's pollsters, it revealed that the election "was a working-class revolt" driven by a "huge swing among non-college voters," who went for President Obama in 2008 and for Mr. Brown this time around.

Here is a second data point: The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, together with two other liberal groups, did a poll of Massachusetts voters who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 and then for Mr. Brown last week. Health-care reform was, as everyone knows, the most important issue in the Massachusetts race, and yet if this poll is to be believed, an incredible 82% of these swing voters favor the late "public option," a bête noir of the centrist punditry. Even if the poll is off by a few points, that number is shocking."

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 2 months ago

Jimo,

I'll leave "Fantasy Island" long enough to examine your polling on items B, C and D. Please provide links to the unbiased statistics, especially regarding "the majority of the 58% oppose (a health care takeover) because they believe their fellow Americans should just die and go to hell."

0

Jimo 4 years, 2 months ago

"What most of us don't want is government taking over health care for 100% of us when only a small fraction of Americans lack coverage."

"Taking over" health care "for 100%" isn't being proposed. Please leave Fantasy Island and come sit down at the adult table. What fraction is large enough to no longer be "a small fraction"? 15% 25%? That is exactly where present trends are taking us.

(Note: 100% of Americans lack coverage that they can force their insurance provider to provide should the provider summarily decide to dump them.)

"And now polling suggests that 58% of Americans firmly oppose a government health care takeover. Why are we still debating this subject? "

A. There is no "takeover" of anything. Please cease. B. A significant portion of this 58% oppose the watered-down bill at hand because it is far too compromised to solve the problem. (Granted, the majority of the 58% oppose it because they believe their fellow Americans should just die and go to hell.) C. Taken item by item, Americans overwhelming agree with virtually every component of the bill (except mandating insurance coverage). D. Americans consistently right up to this month say that health care and reform of health insurance is one of the most important problems they believe their government should solve.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 2 months ago

Manimal,

Please. You're only lying to yourself if you don't believe that the House and Senate bills are stepping stones to socialized medicine. We have to say no to today's bad ideas so they don't grow like a tumor into abominable ideas in the very near future. And 58% of Americans would agree with me.

And my only "ulterior motive" is freedom and personal responsibility.

0

KSManimal 4 years, 2 months ago

"And now polling suggests that 58% of Americans firmly oppose a government health care takeover. Why are we still debating this subject?"

We're still debating it because the entire concept of a "government health-care takeover" is a flat-out lie; fabricated by folks with ulterior motives, and propagated by folks who continue to use the term either out of blind-follower ignorance or deliberate dishonesty.

Show me where in any actual bills there is provision for the government to take over health care. What's that? Can't find it? Shocking.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 2 months ago

Mr. McPherson ignores the fact that, as an employee, Professor Hirschey receives health insurance as a work-related benefit. Nothing about that suggests the government - or any other employer - should be compelled to provide a similar benefit to those who are not its employees. Following this LTE's logic, if a KU employee (such as Chancellor Gray-Little) receives a taxpayer-funded cell phone, a company car or a residence, the government should provide these perqs to all Americans. Nonsense.

Also, the LTE states, "...government involvement in health care isn’t as bad as the professor professes..."

No one is suggesting that government not have a hand in supporting and encouraging public health. What most of us don't want is government taking over health care for 100% of us when only a small fraction of Americans lack coverage.

And now polling suggests that 58% of Americans firmly oppose a government health care takeover. Why are we still debating this subject? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latestpolls/health_care.html

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.