Time now to act on health care reform

To the editor:

Skyrocketing health care costs have working families struggling to make ends meet and pushing employers to the brink. But some in Washington, and here in Nevada, are telling us that we cannot afford health reform, and that we need to wait. This just doesn't make sense. Now is the time to fix the system so we have quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

As wages tighten and unemployment rises, soaring medical costs are squeezing individuals, families, businesses, and the nation as a whole. One in two Americans say someone in their family skipped pills, postponed or cut back on needed medical care due to the cost. Increasing medical expenses can often lead to filing for bankruptcy. And government spending on health programs is rising so rapidly that it jeopardizes other priorities.

The financial burden of health care will only get worse over time without action. If nothing is done, the average family premium for employer sponsored insurance will jump by nearly 40 percent in four years, and will almost double by 2016. The full cost will rise from an average of about $13,000 this year to over $24,000 in 2016.

As health care costs continue to grow faster than wages, insurance will become more and more unaffordable. The share of income spent on family health insurance will nearly double between now and 2016 -- jumping from 6.7 percent of median household income this year to 9 percent in four years, and to 12 percent in eight years.

Money spent on employee health insurance is money that can't go into paychecks to keep up with the costs of other necessities. Employers -- if they can afford to keep picking up most of the cost of employee coverage -- will see their share of health insurance bills increase from an average of almost $9,900 per worker today to $13,300 in 2012 and $17,900 in 2016.

The financial protection offered by health insurance will continue to deteriorate if we do not act. Without health reform, the average health insurance deductible -- what people have to pay before their insurance kicks in -- will climb 73 percent in the next eight years to more than $2,000.

The deepening economic crisis will force millions to turn to government help for health care without reform. Many economists predict that the unemployment rate will reach 10 percent by the end of the year. Unless something is done, each 1 percentage point rise in the unemployment rate could cause 1.1 million to become uninsured and Medicaid and SCHIP enrollment to jump by 1 million at a cost to taxpayers of $3.4 billion.

And yet in the midst of all this despairing news, there is hope. Americans are coming together to demand solutions. We are building a groundswell of voices to demand that elected officials deliver on their campaign promises to fix health care. Together we can help turn the current national health care nightmare back into the American dream -- for now and for generations to come.

Carla Sloan

LAS VEGAS

THE WRITER IS STATE DIRECTOR OF THE AARP'S NEVADA OFFICE.

To the editor:

If you believe Republican claims about the health care that President Obama and congressional Democrats want to provide for all Americans, you would think that all Americans would become medical slaves. Forced to go to various doctors, denied treatment by government agencies, having to wait endlessly for operations, and other procedures, and on and on all with dire consequences for Americans.

Their statements are nonsense.

What the Democrats want is for all Americans to have adequate health insurance. Since private health insurance companies will not accept someone with a pre-condition such as diabetes, a government health insurance agency similar to Medicare would be available for these medical pariahs to be insured. For those Americans happy with their insurance coverage? No change, they can continue on as before. But we do have some 48 million fellow Americans without health insurance, and a similar number whose coverage is so basic as to be health insurance in name only.

Let's let all Americans get the health care they need by supporting the Democratic effort to provide this insurance coverage.

Richard J. Mundy

LAS VEGAS

To the editor:

John Stossel makes a very good point in his column on health care reform in Thursday's Review-Journal when he states that health insurance causes health costs to increase because when a third party pays the bills, people don't care what it costs. He argues that "what holds costs down is patients acting like consumers, looking out for themselves in a competitive market. Providers fight to win business by keeping costs down and quality up."

Mr. Stossel then proceeds to completely miss his whole point.

After arguing that more insurance will increase costs, he argues that consumers should be allowed to buy whatever kind of insurance they want. The competition among insurance carriers will bring down prices. Hello! It's not competition between insurance companies that will bring health care costs down, it's competition between health care providers that will bring costs down. That is why the cost of Lasik eye surgery has gone down by 30 percent.

So instead of spending the rest of his column encouraging people to reduce health care costs by making providers more competitive, he complains about how insurance premiums are set and who "wins" and who "loses." "Healthy" people lose and "sick" people win. If that is the way you look at it, then why do healthy people need insurance? Maybe it's because there is a risk that healthy people some day may become sick. Then they become a winner.

Richard Pratt

HENDERSON

To the editor:

In a July 8 Associated Press article headlined "Benefits tax raises doubts," the White House and Vice President Joe Biden were proud to note that hospitals were going to give up $155 billion in Medicare and Medicaid payments toward the proposed nationalized health care system. Considering that most hospitals live from hand to mouth, if this vast sum of money were to be forgone, what would be the result on hospitals having this lesser amount of money to operate with?

Would they cut medical staff or new equipment purchases or other items? And if so, would these moves result in a care system similar to the Canadian or U.K. systems ... where those in need have to wait weeks or months to see a doctor or for an appointment to undergo an examination via some piece of equipment because there isn't enough equipment?

Fortunately, the people of Canada, etc. can come down to the United States and receive the prompt medical services they need to survive. Where will we go?

Harvey Goldstein

LAS VEGAS