Nevadans all riled up about health care reform
To the editor:
I am so sick of hearing conservatives grump about the president's heath care reform; they say it's not constitutional, the process is improper, the polls show the people don't want it, and on and on.
The new administration sincerely wants to reduce health care costs and it needs a framework in place to govern. Some bill will likely be signed into law before Easter; it won't be perfect, but it will establish a government structure to effect the changes needed to reduce health care costs.
It is fairly well known, if under-reported, that the primary reason that Americans are such large consumers of health care is our poor diets. The main problem with our diet is the excess consumption of animal products (find books by John McDougal, Dean Ormish and others). If the incidence of heart disease, diabetes and cancer were greatly reduced by significant changes in the American diet, health care costs would be greatly lowered.
With the fundamental transformation that the administration will bring to health care, American diets can be influenced in any number of simple ways to become healthier. For example, beef products including meat and dairy products can be taxed to increase their expense and so wean us off of them.
A side benefit would be that fewer cattle would produce less of the greenhouse gas methane. So what some view as a massive new entitlement program will actually be a way for the government to improve our lives.
ED DORNLAS
LAS VEGAS
To the editor:
On March 18 I attended a health care forum presented by the Clark County Medical Society, of which I am a member of the Board of Trustees.
It saddens me that physicians have become so insignificant in the current health care reform debate. What saddens me more is that I personally, and the Clark County Medical Society's leadership, are opposed to the passage of the current health care reform bill.
Many people may not know that Congress, by law, is planning on reducing Medicare payments to all physicians by more than 21 percent this year, and possibly more than 40 percent next year. These figures are based on current Medicare budgets, not on the proposed health reform bill that will largely expand coverage to patients.
Look at any doctor's office in Las Vegas -- my OB/GYN practice alone has seven locations, and we have more than 150 employees. We provide health insurance benefits, a 401(k) program, disability benefits, and a host of others. Has anyone seen any of these costs go down? Of course not.
How are we supposed to continue to provide these benefits with these looming cuts to physicians?
The current bill does nothing to fix this problem. It does, however, continue to allow hospitals to charge whatever they want without a reduction in their payments. And health insurance companies continue to post record profits, even in this down economy.
So, what will happen to our doctors just as the baby boom generation starts joining Medicare? Surveys suggest that many will retire early, or find other employment.
And what about our next generation of doctors? Many doctors, including myself, are sadly advising their children to not pursue a career in medicine. The dignity and selflessness of our proud profession have been slowly stripped away.
I am supportive of measures that will increase health care access for all, especially women and children. But the current bill, if passed, will have unforeseen damaging ramifications to the system as a whole.
What's the use of having health insurance if there are no doctors left to see?
KEITH BRILL, M.D.
LAS VEGAS
To the editor:
The Children's Heart Center Nevada cares for all the children and many adults with congenital heart disease in the state. The current health-insurance reform measure before Congress will help thousands of our patients and harm none. It will bring more stability to the health care system, not less.
As per the independent Congressional Budget Office, the bill will not increase the national deficit but rather reduce it. We strongly request that our representatives in congress vote for this measure.
WILLIAM EVANS, M.D.
LAS VEGAS
To the editor:
I have been trying for two days now to contact Rep. Dina Titus to ask her to vote "No" on the health care bill, however, I have been unable to contact her or leave a message as the recorder continually says that it is full!
Is it convenient that no one has bothered to retrieve the messages that are already in the recorder or doesn't anyone really care?
BRYCE LEE
LAS VEGAS
To the editor:
I'm confused at how anyone can possibly believe this health care bill will not cost trillions more than projected. In 1965, Congressional actuaries (CBO wasn't around then) expected Medicare to cost $3.1 billion in 1970. It really came in at $6.8 billion.
House Ways and Means analysts estimated in 1967 that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990. They were off by a factor of 10 -- actual spending was $110 billion, even as its benefits coverage failed to keep pace with standards in the private market.
Is it just that those people were stupid and we're so much smarter now?
Why would we completely ignore the example of Massachusetts? Since enacting their bill in 2006 they have leapt to the front as the most expensive state in the country for health insurance. Why would their experiment somehow be different on a national scale?
I know why Obama is burying his head in the sand, but what is motivating the rest of America to ignore real world examples in front of them?
ADAM KILBOURN
LAS VEGAS
