I wasn’t able to attend Congressman Reye’s Town Hall Meeting on health care reform at the Ray Pearson Forum last week-end. I don’t know how many, if any, of the following questions got asked and answered. I hope that these are among the points that he will address at the meetings that I understand are upcoming:
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DRAFT FORM OF HB3200 ON HEALTH CARE REFORM
Is there anything in the proposed legislation that would force someone with health insurance to give up their current policies?
Medicare and Veterans’ Health Insurance account for close to 40% of all health insurance. Those are public plans. Do you hear widespread complaints from your constituents about those government-financed programs?
Private health insurance premiums have doubled in the past five years. Have medicare premiums risen that much?
Do public plans like Medicare deny coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions?
Given the fact that seniors are overwhelmingly satisfied with Medicare, why can’t we just expand that program to anyone who wants to buy into it? Wouldn’t allowing younger people to participate in it make the program more solvent, since they would consume less health care for the same amount of premium payments over a longer period of time than seniors?
We spend roughly twice as much on health care as other industrialized nations. Why is that, and is the quality of our health care that much better?
Health care costs are rising three times faster than wages. What measures in the proposed legislation are designed to rein in these rapidly rising costs?
If Medicare, or any other public option were made available, would people be required to buy into the public plan?
Are there measures in the proposed legislation to make insurance more portable, so that if I lose my job I won’t automatically lose my insurance?
While it’s true that wealthy foreigners sometimes come to the US for treatment by specialists, at which our country excels, do you know of anyone clamoring to drop their health insurance under the French, German, British, or Canadian systems in favor of buying private health insurance in this country? (I don’t! Whatever complaints foreigners have about their systems, I’ve never had a single one tell me they wish they lived under the American system of health care.)
Is there anything in the pending legislation that would restrict anyone’s access to treatment, or “ration” health care?
Enabling doctors to own the labs that conduct the tests they order, or the hospitals in which they do their surgery, would appear to be a conflict of interest. Does the proposed legislation deal with that problem, as one step toward controlling costs?
Is there anything in the pending legislation that necessarily would force private insurers out of the market?
Does the proposed legislation have any provisions for tort reform, to reduce the incentive to practice wasteful defensive medicine? If not, why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If these aren't rhetorical questions, I'll take a stab at this, but I want to know first. I went and tried to listen above the din.
ReplyDeleteMost are rhetorical, in that the correct answer is known. They are designed to give the speaker a chance to set the record straight, where it has been distorted. The most important question to ask is the one that you really want to have answered.
ReplyDeleteSeniors may be "satisfied with Medicare" if they have not moved house. Those of us who have moved in retirement are much less satisfied. Why? Because we can't get any medical care. Why not? Because increasingly doctors simply refuse to accept Medicare patients, even if we have excellent secondary insurance, since Medicare insists on being primary, and limits costs. Can't find a local family doctor who will accept new Medicare patients (those who've lived here a long time still on the books but forget it if you've moved here) - and specialists drop you by sudden last minute calls about being "out of the office" and rescheduling you over and over and over and over, no cardiologist appointment actually fulfilled in over two years now, just rescheduled and rescheduled, but if you drop by the office on the day they are supposedly going to be "out", full waiting room of younger people. Our health care is severely rationed already. Haven't heard this issue raised yet.
ReplyDeleteAt that particular meeting, the congressman made some relevant points in attempting to clarify what is currently in the proposed legislation, but there were other occasions when it was evident that he had only pat answers to insightful questions. Among the questions you asked above, I can say there were perhaps three that were asked, either in the same manner or some derivative of the way you present them here.
ReplyDeleteThe remainder of these are excellent and were never presented by those who lined up, nor were these points introduced by the congressman. It was, at times, a free-for-all, dominated by those who intended to disrupt and yell over people who wanted to hear what was said. The pundit points and irrational behavior we have come to expect from these meetings was a distraction, to say the least, which of course, was what these disruptive individuals wanted.
One hopes that with a little practice, the congressman will get more practice at handling such nonsense.
Using your standard as a basis for addressing any of the above issues as they could have been? Suffice it to say, that doing this would have resulted in a more informed, responsive and intimate interaction with Reyes. Why? Because following this standard would have entail the exclusion of all of the rhetoric, screaming, disrespect and misinformation that was repeated throughout the meeting.
ReplyDeleteReyes acknowledged that everyone present had a right to be heard. However, if one were to have structured the thing to where those who were clearly invested in disrupting this event were restricted from behaving inappropriately, there would have been more time to discuss this legislation, clarify doubts and answer questions.
Can you just hear it? "They restricted my right to free speech!"