SEARCH
Dear Senator: Please Support Public Option and Save My Life |
|
 |
||||
|
||||
Today, state and local union activists are continuing to deliver the more than 42,000 personally written letters from union members and Working America members calling on Congress to pass comprehensive health care reform legislation.
The letters are part of a massive nationwide week of health care action. Union leaders and activists are spending two days in Washington, D.C., delivering the letters and talking with their senators and representatives about the need for strong health care reform legislation that provides guaranteed coverage for all, includes a public health insurance option and more.
Yesterday, working Americans across the country took part in the National Call-In Day for Health Care Reform, sending their senators strong messages.
Here is a sample of what people wrote to their senators.
Margaret from Newark, Del., doesn’t mince words in her letter to Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.), who voted against a public option in the Senate Finance Committee last week:
Health care is too expensive. Some of us have no health insurance or Medicare. Fix the health care bill now. It should include a strong public option and ensure that employers provide coverage to their employees or pay into a pot.
Cathy from Newark, Del., tells Rep. Michael Castle (R-Del.):
I am without health care at this time and can’t afford my meds. I have high blood pressure, high cholesterol and uncontrolled diabetes. If this bill passes, I will get access to the medicine I need to save my life. Please support a strong public option.
Jonathan from Maple Falls, Wyo., tells Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Wyo.), who supports taxing health care premiums—and who voted against a public option—that he is opposed to having his health care benefits taxed.
I am the sole source of income for a family of five, and, quite frankly, this proposed tax would cut into my grocery and housing money….I have a family of five, a 30-year mortgage, car, insurance costs, etc. You do the math!
Pamela from Omaha writes to Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) that she recently had appendix surgery and her health care provider
only covered $50 out of $17,672. I am a production employee…and have been paying into my health plan for over two years and feel this is completely ludicrous.
Gail in Augusta, Maine, tells Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) that as a school nurse, she sees
just how many moms and dads are working two and three jobs just to pay for food, let alone health. So by necessity, I am their primary care provider. This needs to be addressed for the children as well as the parents, who are without health. In this age, with health care issues on the rise, we need your support for a public option.
Charles in Arlington, Wash., says that when he voted for Barack Obama and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), “I voted for change” and that includes health care reform.
We need, and the people have expressed their desire for, real health care reform. This means including the most important aspect of health care reform, providing the American citizens with a public option. This is the ONLY way we can be sure that the health insurance companies in these United States will deal with their clients in an honest and fair fashion.
Roy in Fargo, N.D., tells Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who voted against a public option, that he has health insurance, but still
cannot afford health care. I have over $10,000 in medical bills, and something needs to be done. I voted for you to represent my views. Please support public option.
3 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I HAVE TALKED TO APROX 100 VARIOUS UNION MEMBERS AND NOT ONE IS FOR OBAMA’S HEALTH CARE PLAN. THE UNIONS NEVER SHOULD HAVE BACK OBAMA-HE IS NOT A VERY KNOWLEDGABLE HUMAN BEING. WE NEED JOBS FIRST, WITHOUT JOBS A HEALTHCARE PLAN WILL NOT DOE US ANY GOOD. A FAIR TAX OR A FLAT RATE TAX SYSTEM WILL BRING JOBS BACK TO AMERICA
Obama’s National Health Care proposals inconsistent and ruinous.
Prior to his Sept. 9, 2009 speech, President Obama declared 2 objectives: A) that all Americans will be absolutely clear on what he’s proposing, and B) that all Americans will understand that he’s will to consider all ideas to make this work. This second objective is so inconsistent with the first, that it speaks to a high degree of disingenuousness. As to the first point, his speech was highly rhetorical, and there was no honest disclosure and discussion of specifics. What is the plan? How will it affect existing employer plans, private plans, existing insurance companies, and Medicare (it’s touted that a $500 billion reduction is called for)? What will it do to government expenditures, the deficit and debt (adding hundreds of billions?), and taxes. A real-world clue is that congress will exempt themselves from this plan, just as they’ve exempted themselves from social security, if favor of an overgenerous alternative funded by the taxpayers.
On Sept. 13 (60 Minutes), Obama said that a bill would be passed that reduces costs, gets control over the deficit, and will not affect anyone who has coverage now. (Give me a break!) He also said he’d consider any ideas which would get the job done. So here goes:
Do we really trust a government agency to run this efficiently? Do we want another massive spending program (each man, woman, and child already owes $38000 on our present debt), one that will ruin all the above aspects of our present system, and one from which there will be chance to retreat once it’s enacted (like there’s no exit strategy for the Iraq war and Obama’s war in Afganistan), and one which would be politically near impossible to remove or curtail later on when costs get out of control? Instead, I suggest the following: Let’s assume that our national objective is to make sure all American’s have healthcare coverage and show proof of such coverage. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with this. After all, we mandate that all drivers to show proof of having liability insurance. And we require (in theory) all Americans to compulsorily contribute to the expenses (no matter how repugnant they are) of the government – it’s called income tax. This is a far different objective to jumping into an ill- or non-defined even more massive government spending program. (I wish Milton Freidman were here to explain this.)
By default, all those not covered by a health insurance program (meeting minimum standards) should go into a “pool” of uninsured and be covered by a default government sponsored plan. They should be billed on a sliding scale according to their income and ability to pay (admittedly subjective and a policy decision). After all, society already pays for the most indigent segment’s medical needs. This approach would be the least disruptive of the above aspects, least disincentivise employers, private providers, etc, and allow congress (if it’s up to the task?) to do the hard work of discovering, and correcting, the worst abuses of the present system.
Thank you,
Lou
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 muno56@aol.com
I think it’s great that people are trying to reach their representatives in Washington. However, it’s not at all clear that politicians represent popular opinion. Today a newspaper, owned by the New York Times, published an article revealing a survey conducted last Monday through Thursday which showed “53% of Americans favored a public health-insurance plan”. Although this doesn’t show an overwhelming majority in favor of a public plan, the numbers are significant when one considers the millions of dollars being spent on television ads condemning the current health care bill. I see at least one everyday on network television, and I don’t watch a lot of TV. If their was a similar ad campaign in favor of the plan, there would likely be an overwhelming majority of Americans in favor of it–but who has that kind of money to throw around?