‘Obamacare harms the many to help the few,’ reader says
To the Editor,
Once again, I must offer a rebuttal to Dr. Gehrke’s 11/28 Obamacare letter. I hate to say it, but there you go again, doctor, dodging, distracting, then criticizing working Americans who will be harmed by this.
And I absolutely disagree that “little is gained,” or that people who disagree “do harm,” or are “less than valueless.” That’s a rather arrogant, condescending attitude toward those of us who will be paying for it. Please stop the personal criticisms, and kindly stick to the issues.
Can we at least agree that your President lied, about availability (30 million, conservatively, will lose coverage), affordability (premiums rising for families by thousands, copays up to $12,000/yr.), about care rationing (now confirmed, death panels — Mark Halperin, Time Magazine), and rationing boards? You are older, with some health issues; do you want an unelected board of 15 bureaucrats deciding if you’re valuable enough to deserve care? Doctors, and their patients should determine care, not government.
The White House recently admitted that this actually is redistribution of wealth. Most workers have had enough of their wealth redistributed already! No criticism meant, doctor, but you are a millionaire; this insulates you from the pain these costs place on average earners. An 11/24 Detroit News article described how “Obamacare will kill middle class.” Take a look at it.
You criticized my view of personal behavior, stating that workers would have to join wellness programs under Obamacare. But what about 50 million food stamp and welfare recipients? I want someone monitoring their lifestyle habits before workers have to subsidize their care.
You danced around the availability of care issue also; You know, doctor, that there are long delays of care in Canada and England; you know that cure rates are lower for many diseases there, due to this. This is the one common denominator; you of all people have access to this research. Are there related factors? Sure. But it all comes down to rationing of care. Again, that’s not the American way! And yet, you support this care redistribution. I understand your concerns for the poor and the underserved. I get it. But do it in a manner that doesn’t harm the majority to help the minority.
I stated that if he had recruited the brightest and best of medicine, business, government, and citizens, your President would have had much support. But he didn’t. Hell-bent on ramming Obamacare through, he could have moved slowly, since he had both Houses of Congress at that time.
You haven’t practiced medicine for awhile now; ask working doctors how their reimbursements have plummeted; on a physician panel discussion I saw, most agreed that their incomes would fall further, and that many of them would retire or leave medicine before letting government dictate their salaries or how they care for patients. You didn’t address that, either.
You asked for ideas; these doctors were very much in favor of health spending accounts, giving people freedom to choose what coverages work best for their needs; freedom to purchase coverage across state lines, and tort reform, to reduce frivolous, expensive lawsuits. These should be considered.
We agree that health care delivery needs improvement, and you seek “adequate availability, reasonable access, and affordability.” In hundreds of free clinics and local health centers nationwide, several in this area, we already have it! We should assist the poor to take advantage of what already exists.
We can’t create utopia and care for everyone, doctor, and I truly understand your passion for medicine. But a bad idea is a bad idea, and average people shouldn’t have to just swallow this because your President and his cronies think they know what’s best for us. Again, no one told you how to care for your cancer patients; if government can’t even run Amtrak or the Post Office well, do you want it running healthcare?
Obamacare harms the many to help the few. Is that the American way? Would you have offered lower quality cancer care to 10 of your patients just to give basic care to one or two? I doubt it. But that’s what we’ve been forced to do. Think about that.