Why not try Medicare for anyone who wants it?
Regarding "Health Bill Deal Thrills Democrats" (Dec. 10): I am not "thrilled" by the Senate proposal to allow those who are as young as 55 to enroll in Medicare, but I'd bet that insurance companies are.
Private health insurance plans make it their business to be sure that the health insurance premium dollars they collect exceed the costs of paying for health care. Insuring fewer people who are 55 or older would mean private insurance plans will spend less, since older people are at higher risk of actually using health-care services, while still raking in profits by "cherry-picking" healthy younger customers who cost a lot less.
If legislators aim to reform our system of health-care delivery, I suggest they "compromise" by more significantly reforming the health-care insurance market: allow any citizen, regardless of age, to purchase Medicare as their health insurance plan by paying premiums (in addition to Medicare wage deductions). Why not try this as a "pilot program," administered by the current regional contractors for Medicare, since they are already getting paid for paper shuffling? Data from utilization and actual costs could demonstrate how the additional funds paid in to Medicare as health insurance premiums by younger subscribers exceed their costs (and help pay for the care of those already "entitled" by age or disability).
Since administrative expenses of Medicare are significantly less than private health insurance companies, premiums in a "Medicare for Anyone Who Wants It" program will be less, with a positive effect on market competition. Some people might not choose to enroll because they believe Medicare benefits aren't good enough, but it would be a reasonable "public option" for many who can't afford the exploding cost of private health insurance.
You can bet insurance companies won't be "thrilled" by that.
H. JORDAN GARBER, M.D.
Leet
Trickle-down costs
Today our government in Washington is in the process of trying to pass a new health-care bill that will cost billions of dollars. Our representatives say we need this bill because there are too many Americans without health insurance.
Instead of adding to our national debt and increasing taxes, why not first correct the problem that is causing most of our citizens not to have medical insurance?
The high cost of insurance premiums is the primary reason. It is too expensive and they simply cannot afford it. So what is the answer?
The health insurance industry will tell you that the premiums are high because it has to cover its costs and medical malpractice lawsuits are the major reason. As long as patients can sue their physicians for unlimited amounts for malpractice, the insurance industry has no alternative than to charge high malpractice insurance rates to doctors to cover the anticipated exorbitant awards. In turn, physicians must increase their charges. It all trickles down and the figures involved are mind-boggling.
Now we get to the root of the problem. We must have tort reform. These are curse words in Washington, D.C. Why? Because the majority of politicians there are attorneys and it is attorneys who profit most from malpractice lawsuits. How many politicians have you heard mentioning tort reform? I can't think of any.
Proper tort reform would bring the cost of medical insurance premiums down considerably. It's up to we the people to stand up and pressure our politicians in Washington to pass tort reform. A few people like me making noise can't do it; we need a lot of people to make a lot of noise.
AL HESSLER
South Park
Stupid move
On health care, the mantra is that "doing nothing is not an option." Is doing something stupid an option? Moveon.org is pressuring those who vote against the House/Senate plan. Maybe it should be investigated?
GEORGE BISKUP
Irwin
End all subsidies
How outrageously hypocritical of the federal government to propose to regulate large producers of greenhouse gases while it subsidizes the two largest sources of greenhouse gases -- the meat and dairy industries and private automobiles made necessary by suburban development.
If not for government subsidies, most people would be vegetarian and live in cities from economic necessity. One-third of greenhouse gas emissions would be eliminated. Contradictory behavior by government can't be that surprising, however, considering it also subsidizes tobacco farmers while suing cigarette companies.
Those interested in ending all subsidies to everyone should register and vote Libertarian.
NICK KYRIAZI
North Side
Students, attack now
College students appearing before and appealing to City Council have no clout, because many are not residents of Pittsburgh and many do not vote.
But if they want power, the hundreds who signed petitions need to identify council members who will vote for the 1 percent solution to the mayor's budget and get out on a door-to-door campaign to unseat them in the next election. And if they start right now, before the vote, and demonstrate the threat, maybe the tax on them won't pass.
Moreover, the "gap" of $15 million in a $454 M (megabuck) budget is only 3.3 percent. I believe a good mayor can reduce a budget by 3.3 percent. That's chump change. But I think a bad one can't.
JOHN LENKEY III
Downtown
Re: bear baiting
Regarding "Hunter Charged With Bear 'Baiting' Boo-Boo" (Dec. 9): If Charles W. Olsen is found guilty, maybe the next time he should hand feed the bear doughnuts and pastries; then let's see who gets the trophy!
DEANNE YATES
Irwin
First Published: December 12, 2009, 5:00 a.m.
