Postings: Members’ essays

Dave Patterson’s letter to Ramona Sentinel:

The Ramona Forum stood at the fair recently promoting single-payer
healthcare, managed by the government or a government corporation.  Several
people came by and argued that government subsidized healthcare will kill
the benefits they currently enjoy as employees, and they may be correct if
the Republicans are successful with their ideas.  On of the Republican ideas
is the Ryan-Burr $5,000-per-family tax credit in Congress, a replay of the
McCain health care plan from the recent Presidential election.

What most people don’t realize is that the government currently gives all
businesses that qualify a $5,000 tax break, per employee, if they provide
health care insurance.  This means that the government is currently
subsidizing our healthcare, even if we get it from our employer.

The average cost to an employer for our healthcare is something over $8,000,
and rising.  Our employers are looking at costs rising at 20% per year, and
we all know that that means our health benefits are diminishing quickly.
One feature of the Republican $5,000 voucher plan is the guarantee that if
the government stops paying this money to our employers, they will be out of
the health care business overnight, and the government will own it all very
quickly.  This is attractive to the businesses, so they embrace the
Republican idea.  We all need to make sure that the Ryan-Burr plan is DOA.

Personally I do not believe that I deserve government-subsidized healthcare
any more than someone that is out of work.  We have to start looking out for
our fellow Americans and solve this problem, or it will rip our nation
apart.  Let’s stop throwing stones and get to work for everyone, because a
healthy nation is a productive nation.

Dave Patterson
1003 6th street
Ramona, CA 92065
760-207-9139

Two very interesting commentaries by two Forum members—Dave Patterson and Dante Cpsentino—have been published in The Sentinel on June 18, 2009 and June 25, 2009 respectively, which are being reproduced here. The two articles will be followed by a letter sent by a Forum Member to Rep. Hunter, whose commentary on June 4 issue of The Sentinel started, in a way, these dialogs.

MEDICARE FOR EVERYONE

by Dave Patterson

A Single payer medical program, Medicare for everyone, has been proposed by the Obama administration. There are several reasons to support Medicare for everyone, including the business advantage. Some people don’t like the idea because they can’t see how we would pay for it. Unfortunately we are already paying for it when people without insurance go to the emergency room. Emergency room care costs many times what a doctor’s office visit costs, and we pay each time it happens. We pay in our increased taxes and for the added cost of our own health care insurance. Medicare for everyone would reduce the cost of drugs, as the government would have the power to negotiate the cost with the big drug companies. Medicare for everyone would reduce what I call the real death tax where the medical industry sucks away of our assets as we age, so that when we die we are poor. Medicare for everyone would be particularly good for small business by reducing or eliminating their obligations to provide healthcare for employees.

The argument that Medicare for everyone is Socialism is a false argument because if we apply the same idea to our police and fire services, nobody would like the result. How about the police don’t protect you unless you can afford to pay a $300 per month premium? If we apply it to the fire department, they could refuse to put out your house fire unless you can pay an additional $100 per month. Perhaps we should apply this same formula to schools and roads and other services. In the end the arguments against Medicare for everyone do not hold water, including one I read recently where a doctor complained that we shouldn’t do it because 40 million people without insurance would flood our medicals services. Congressman Duncan Hunter is against Medicare for everyone because he says it would ruin the doctor-patient relationship that we currently enjoy, but he doesn’t consider the 40 million citizens with no healthcare that have no doctor-patient relationship.

Medicare for everyone is not the end all program, and it would have to be optional at first to give the medical industry the chance to adjust their business models. However, at this juncture the smartest choice is enactment of Medicare for everyone, and reduced cost for our nation. If you agree, call your Senators and Congressman. Every time an uninsured person gets sick, our costs go up not down.

Dave Patterson
1003 6th street
Ramona, CA 92065
760-207-9139

ANOTHER VIEW OF HEALTHCARE

by Dante Cosentino

I appreciate Congressman Hunter’s Guest Commentary (June 4, 2009) on health care. I agree with him when he says there is a “crisis facing our health care systems” and I agree that we must curtail spending and look at “how we arrived at this point in the first place.”

Perhaps the answer to why we have a crisis in health care and how we arrived at this point lies in the fact that the insurance and pharmaceutical companies have been in charge.

The cost of health insurance is currently 17% of our GDP and is projected to reach 20% by 2017. We spend more money on health care, per capita, than any other nation yet we are 34^th in the world in life expectancy. In infant mortality we rank 29^th in the world, tied with Poland and Slovakia. We have approximately 46 million uninsured, including over 8 million children (see Time magazine, Dec 1, 2008). This sad situation doesn’t even factor in the millions of underinsured, which, when added to the uninsured, reaches an astounding 42 percent of the under-65 population (from The Commonwealth Fund report, June 10, 2008).

Congressman Hunter is against a public option. His reasons seem to be that it “would erase the PATIENT-DOCTOR relationship.” Notice his capital letters to bring attention to his concern (or perhaps to frighten us with the prospect?) about patient care. It “would put government bureaucrats in charge of making healthcare decisions” instead of the patients and doctors making decisions. He also warns us that this public option, he always calls it a “government option” (to frighten us a little more with that old bugaboo, “government control”?), “might also deny treatments that are needed on a selective basis.” Notice the use of the word “might” here.

Hunter uses the typical scare words like “government-controlled” and “government bureaucrats” to try to give us a less than objective view. Maybe we should talk about “insurance-controlled” and “insurance bureaucrats”, since it is obvious that the insurance companies (and the pharmaceutical companies) have a stranglehold on the consumer. The insurance companies spent thirty million dollars to torpedo the Clinton plan before it got launched. We can look for even more money this time around for commercials to defeat “the government option”. This money will come not just from insurance companies but others with a vested interest like pharmaceutical companies and the National Chamber of Commerce. The AMA has also recently come out against the public option, so the obvious question is why are they against it? Well, first of all it is important to remember that the AMA no longer represents all or most American doctors, actually the figures are down to less than 50% now. Secondly, there is something that is generally overlooked when we focus on insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and that is the role of providers (doctors and hospitals). They also are large stakeholders in this game. Thirty-five percent of our health care money goes to doctors and forty-six percent goes to hospitals ( according to the 2008 Milliman Medical Index) and a public option might limit their fees which, as we all know, do seem exorbitant at times.

The notion of “might deny treatments” that Hunter talks about is interesting. Insurance companies are very selective in who they accept as customers. If you have a pre-existing condition, which they don’t like, you’re excluded (how’s that for selectivity?). The insurance bureaucrats are probably more efficient than the government bureaucrats in getting rid of people they don’t want. The insurance bureaucrats have already made the rules for “DOCTOR-PATIENT’ relationships. Those rules favor insurance companies (surprise), not doctor-patient relationships.

Let’s look at a few other facts. According to the American Journal of Medicine, 62% of bankruptcies filed in 2007 were related to medical expenses, even though 80% of those people had health insurance. Most of those debtors were middle-aged, middle class and homeowners.

More facts: there are people who are afraid to retire because they will lose their health insurance. There are people who are unemployed who have lost their insurance and can’t afford new coverage. There are those who will not change jobs and stay in a job they really dislike in fear that another insurance company will reject their insurance application because of a pre-existing condition, which just turned up the year before.

I know a sixty-year-old woman who wants to divorce her husband but can’t because she’s on his health insurance plan and, since she has had two incidents of breast cancer, cannot get any other insurance at a price she can afford.

We are the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn’t have health care for all its citizens. I saw a senator on TV recently who doesn’t want to change our health care system because “it is the best in the world”, which I’m sure it is - for him. This senator and others who are against the public option plan often use scare words like “government-controlled”, “government bureaucrats” and, the real scary one, “Socialism” to push against a public option. Since they are all reading from the same script, it is not surprising that they use the same words.

The American Journal of Medicine states “We do not have the best health care. The World Health Organization ranked the U.S. health care system the 37^th best of 191 countries and last among 17 industrialized countries in 2005.”

It needs to be pointed out that even with the public option plan we can still keep our present insurance or buy any other plan we want.

If you like what we have, do nothing. If you want change, write to your representatives and let them know.

Lettter sent to Rep. Hunter

Most comments on healthcare do not challenge the status quo, which are not acceptable by Americans.
1. We often hear that competitions in market place are good. Then why are the private insurance companies afraid of public insurance company? Many of these private insurance companies are now talking of ‘improvements’. Where were they until the President started talking about healthcare reform? What we need is a non-profit healthcare organization, or, at least, a non-profit insurance company. My Medicare experience is good. A Medicare-type non-profit system for all Americans will be good.
2. From friends and relations I have in U.K. and Canada, I hear how satisfied they are. The advertisements the private insurance companies are running on TV talk about inadequacies of those systems, such as some tests are delayed. How many of these delayed test complaints are the result of desired instant gratification? Are we not are of the fringes of the bell curves?
3. Are the so called technological advancement—the cost of which are passed on to the patients—providing better care, or are better, no matter how insignificantly better, confirmation of diagnosis obtained through ‘less advanced’ methods? These medical technology companies are no better then technology companies that are obsessed with consumer electronics or advanced weaponry, which are of optional, not real, value in its field of use—such as a better telephone camera or weapon that any nation will never be able to use, or have to use as they possess so many other destructive weapons.
4. Majority of Americans do not directly see their medical costs until the employers are priced out of providing the medical insurance, or until the coverage shrinks, the employee contributions increase or co-pays go up.

Couple of personal anecdotes will not be out of order, I hope. Our Medicare supplemental insurance has increased by nearly $200 dollars in five years. My wife is reaching the ‘donut hole’ in Medicare prescription drug at a much faster rate because of pharmaceutical companies continually increasing the cost of the medicines, and Congress is not doing anything about it.

Finally, I received this e-mail from a person who immigrated to Canada from USA:
You had asked me to write a brief synopsis of the aforementioned subject. The following is what I am composing in this regard based on my own personal experieces.

When I had to seek psychiatric consultation in the US, I had to pay a fee ($100 per session). No such fee applies here in Canada. Also, I believe medicine costs less in Canada than in the US. I have also had an MRI done recently at no cost. Here in Canada, there is no fee to see a family physician or when one goes to a walk in clinic. I even know of cases where a Canadian Citizen got her father landed immigrant status only so that he could have a free heart surgery done here in Toronto.

A. Duttaahmed
Ramona, CA

The following commentary by Ron Selkovich was published in The Sentinel on June 11, 2009

RON’S RESPONSE TO JAMES TAPSCOTTS

First, my thanks to the Ramona Sentinel for giving me this opportunity to respond to James Tapscotts commentary of May 28th.
James’s commentary was the last of a number of discussions in the Sentinel on the merits or otherwise of Proposition 8.
Unfortunately he has strayed from the subject, and has instead concentrated on the alleged abuse of Prop 8 supporters. He has mixed accusations of verbal and physical abuse with actions by government to curtail his freedoms. So before progressing to the real issue I would like to respond to those accusations.
The abuse he claims, even if true, in no way is comparable with the abuse endured by gays. The current hate crimes bill is named after Matthew Shepard who was tortured and killed because he was gay and more recently a woman was gang raped because she was perceived to be a Lesbian. And if you go back in recent history, the story’s are even more horrendous. To suggest that the suffering of gays and the harassment of Prop 8 supporters are in any way comparable is like saying ‘reverse racism is comparable to racism against blacks.
James claims that the hate crime bill will inhibit his freedom of speech. I can’t believe he has read the bill, but I have to assume he has relied on others to provide an interpretation. I did read it, and I see nowhere where it places a restriction on speech.. In fact the opposite.
James attacks the ACLU, a favorite target. Well if he can find a concrete example where they have done anything but pursue their mission, which is to defend the Constitution, please let me know so we can confront them together.
He brings up the old argument of ‘the slippery slope’- acceptance of homosexuality will eventually lead to pedophilia. Well, contrary to a slippery slope I see a very bright line, and that line is crossed when a relationship is no longer willing, consensual behavior between adults.
James quotes Martin Luther King, a hero of mine and every Progressive I know: “We should be defined by the content of our character”. James is making my case. Would King have accepted Proposition 8 as consistent with his dream of equality for all? I think not.
Let’s get to the real issue: Do we have the right, constitutionally or morally, to deny gay couples a secular marriage?
I am not an attorney or constitutional scholar but I would assume that if we wanted to, we could, by amendment, change the Constitution to deny rights to any minority group, we could even reinstitute slavery, but should we- and that brings me to the real basis of our difference – is Proposition 8 moral?
There are two very divergent approaches to morality and that’s what makes productive dialogue on the subject so difficult. The Fundamentalist approach and the Humanist approach.
James fairly obviously takes the fundamentalist approach. To him it is sufficient to refer to legacy beliefs. He talks about family values as if there is no need to discuss what makes up family values and if, or why, they are valid.
He refers to our Judao-Christian values as the basis of USA morality implying they are not capable of dissection, analysis or criticism , and of course, being able to quote (selectively) from ancient religious documents is considered to be the definitive answer.
As a Humanist I don’t have the luxury of relinquishing my moral compass to a superior entity. I am compelled to use my limited brain to analyze each situation, testing it against a criterion of logic and compassion. How does a situation affect society, How does it impact the happiness of individuals. Does a particular position help more than it hurts- and as a Humanist I can find no morality in denying gays the right to marry.
James uses the treatment of Miss California as an example of intolerance by gays. I tend to agree that the judges behavior was not acceptable, but bad manners is irrelevant to the question – was she a suitable candidate to represent American women? I am prepared to complement her for being honest, but there are two reasons to deny her the crown. The obvious one: We shouldn’t honor someone who is prepared to discriminate against minorities whether because of race or sexual orientation. The other, even more important reason is that she gave the classical fundamentalist justification for her position: ‘She was brought up that way’. In other words, rather than think for herself, she is an uncritical product of indoctrination. I do believe that our young people are better than that. They are more educated, have recourse to much more information than ever before and, not coincidentally more opposed to Prop 8 than the general population. I believe the crown should go to a thinking person.
James, I belong to a local Progressive group, the Ramona Forum, and we would be very happy to welcome you and your friends to a very informal get together so we can discuss all these issues. I promise you won’t be intimidated and I think you’ll find that your accusations of suppression of free speech are totally without merit.

Ron Selkovitch
789-6314

The following letter/commentary by Ron Selkovitch was published in The Sentinel on January 22, 2009. This is followed by a response by one of Forum member, Steve.

In 1993 I became an American Citizen and I was presented with a small flag. I still have the flag but I have never waved it or any other flag until this inauguration.
The flag too often has represented an arrogance that has allowed us to justify the imposition of our will on other less powerful countries.
Too often it has been used to intimidate other Americans from expressing dissent.
Too often Americans who protested our government or just don’t wear a lapel pin have been accused of being anti-American or worst yet, traitors.
On Tuesday when Barak Obama is inaugurated I will wave the flag with pride and hope.
Pride in my fellow Americans who have, for the first time, selected an African American to lead our nation, and hope that our new government will begin to repair the damage caused by the past government. The hope that we will once again be respected by the rest of the world because instead of dominating by threat and physical force we will use negotiation and diplomacy, and that at home we will work together to solve our problems instead of promoting the uncontrolled self interest that has led to our financial collapse.
I will continue to stand each week on the corner of 10th and Main with other members of the Ramona Forum, hopefully to proudly wave my little flag, but it won’t be visible if our new leader doesn’t fulfill his promise.
Ron Selkovitch

The following essay was published in RAMONA SENTINEL on Noverber 13, 2008

SUCCESS DEPENDS ON OPPORTUNITY (Author’s original title: Socialism?)

It seems Steve Smith (Guest Commentary, October 23, 2008) got carried away by the campaign lines of one of the presidential candidates, which are often meant to stretch the truth. I am talking about socialism aka redistribution of wealth. Redistribution of wealth happened in legends—Robin Hood. Redistribution of wealth happens now in Alaska, where every citizen of the state get a check from the taxes gathered from crude oil output—the state collects and distributes to its citizen.

In all countries taxes are collected and used for the maintenance of national structure—the very frame of government is part of the national structure, the defense of the country is another and so on—and for other programs for the benefit of its citizens. The progressive taxation according to the income of the individual or the family is practiced in our country from the time taxes been collected. It is somewhat like the plate/basket that is used for offertory in a church—those who wish to give or are able to give according to their ability, richer people offer more than those who are not. The church decides, with the consent of the congregation and the deacons, or the like, how to spend that money. With regard to taxes the only difference is that it is not your wish to give rather one gives according to a formula. Believe it or not, every citizen has a formula! However, an agreed compromise prevails as the formula, as it should in a democracy. The compromise reflects mostly the views of a majority group in the Congress, not necessarily the majority party.

What do we do with the money? It is spent to benefit the entire citizenry such as roads, streetlights, traffic lights, bridges, airports, maintenance of law and order, national defense, maintaining the presence of the country throughout the World and things of that nature. I can go on for pages. The money is also spent to benefit select groups, usually the brightest of students and researchers who will enhance the nation and the less fortunate ones, some for their maintenance that include educating the brighter ones and training the less brighter ones for jobs, so that they do not become a social charge. I know—I was an educator in West Virginia! By the term social charge, I do not only mean a financial burden, I mean an emotional burden too. I do not want to see a struggling or starving family ‘next door’. Would you? Voluntary help is wonderful, but it is optional. The burden of living is not optional. There should be a structure to oversee whether an effort has been made by the person to earn a living and yet they need help. Steve Smith thinks everybody would be a ‘success’, if they just try, which is kind of a wishful thinking. As success depends on opportunity, it is the responsibility of the society—by extrapolation, the government as its representative—to ensure that the opportunity is available equally to the enterprising, and the person in need as well. Examples of ‘un-success’ whether it is a job or an enterprise are also common, for no fault of the person concerned—factory closed, company failed, changed neighborhood unable to sustain a business and, thus, its employer and employees, and so on. Those people need a helping hand—another opportunity, that is—so that they can stand on their own again. The structure of opportunity offered by all of us through our representative—the government—should be in place. Our country is great, not for our wealth, but for our available opportunities—enterprising citizen, our national system for everybody to flourish, and our collective helping hand for those who needs it. Just be vigilant that our generosity is not abused! This vigilance could be a big topic for discussion for another occasion.

This is humanity and morality, and collective self-interest as well! One famous Eastern poet said, ’those you leave behind, will pull you back’. (Paraphrased) Those who have more give a little more to our common fund, call it whatever you like, but, please, do not get carried away by slogans of political campaigns!

A. Duttaahmed Ph.D

Comments