An American Response to an "Un-American" Charge

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer,

Thank you for practicing your First Amendment rights and placing your viewpoint in an Opinion piece in the USA Today, August 10, 2009. I found your argument interesting. You provided nearly a century of history in a paragraph. You provided 3 "facts" in favor of health care reform/health insurance reform (both terms are interchanged in your piece). You put forth a plea for "civil dialogue." In response to your plea, I am writing to you this morning.

I find your account of history interesting. Understandably, your "history" is heavily shaded by your desire for a specific kind of health reform now. I will not argue with your dramatics as such. I merely want to qualify your article's first sentence. You wrote, "Americans have been waiting for nearly a century for quality, affordable health care. " I would counter that the absence of a government-controlled health care distribution system has powerfully enabled the astonishing technological advances that American health care has generated for itself and the world. A century ago, it is arguable whether recipients of the then available "health care" were more helped or hurt by it. That our physicians and nurses and other providers have so many effective tools and so much useful knowledge is largely due to enterprising Americans who might have been stifled by a top-down controlled system. Could it be more affordable? ABSOLUTELY! Could it have more quality? SURE! Yet, your dramatics ignore facts and their appropriate sources.

You presented three "facts" (I would call them "goals") for this debate. To recap, they are:

Goal 1: More Patient Choice
Goal 2: Cost cutting measures
Goal 3: Promoting Preventative Care, without paying a dime out-of-pocket

These goals are not ill-directed. In fact, I find them excellent goals. My challenges, and perhaps the challenges of many Americans, are the details you left out of your opinion piece. I believe that if you allow the market to work, you would find "innovation" and "more patient choice." Have you visited a maternity ward in a hospital lately? Many are better than fancy hotels! They are providing patients with choice while experiencing innovation.

As for the doctors you claim make decisions in order to benefit the insurance companies, I think you need to find a new doctor! Every profession has bad apples, but I have never heard of a doctor making decisions for an insurance company's benefit! I have been associated with the medical field for over a decade. I have met few doctors who are interested in their own gain. The majority of doctors I have met are interested in what is best for their patients. I have yet to meet one interested in the insurance company's gain. Your opinions may derive from the capitated health care providers that abound in California. It is funny how uncomfortable people get when they feel some monolithic controlling power is calling the shots for their healthcare. It sounds almost like governmental bureaucracy!

I think lowering cost is a fabulous goal. Lowering costs by restricting the freedom of choice is not a fabulous method. Additionally, a major cost in medical expenses relates to physicians making decisions to assure they will not be sued or will have gold-plated defenses if they are. Oddly, there is not one page of your proposal that addresses tort reform. This only demonstrates your lack of sincerity in lowering cost. Or, perhaps, it reflects your awareness of the rising costs of campaigns and the willingness of the Trial Lawyers Association to cover some of yours.

Finally, preventative care is a great goal. The reality is that nothing is free. The cost of not "paying a dime out-of-pocket" is merely accomplished by shifting funds from one government entity to another. In reality, we are still paying -- just from a different pocket, at a different time. Additionally, where is the responsibility clause? If patients are not given responsibility, and they do not accept it, your preventive care measure is dead on arrival.

Speaker Pelosi and Representative Hoyer, we could debate, even civilly, your facts all day. My concern is not the facts you laid out, but what you failed to address - the ramifications of the how. I am also concerned that as you find yourself in the "defender" category, you are quick to label, judge, and accuse. You are claiming ugliness now; yet, you have NEVER spoken against such tactics in the past. You have NO track record to allow me to believe your claims. Let me lay out some "facts:"

Fact: The current debate on Health Care Reform Legislation was first introduced on July 14, 2009.* We are less than one month into the debate. You wrote in your article that this fall you will achieve your reform goal. You also write, “...it is well worth the time it takes to get it right.” Your statements demonstrate your politics, not a genuine resolve.

Fact: You wrote "...it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent ...but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion." Additionally, the Speaker also made accusations of "swastikas" at town hall meetings last week. These are many charges. Some have yet to be proven by your offices.

I recall many protests in which effigies of a former US President were displayed. Did I miss your outcry? I recall "shouting" and "drowning out" presentations by some bloodied pink ladies while a desire for "substantive discussion" by members of a former president's cabinet was occurring on Capitol Hill. I recall a senior member of the Senate "misrepresenting facts" and claiming "The war is lost." I remember a movie depicting the assassination of a sitting President of the United States. In reaction to each of these events, I do not recall your stating "...it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent...but to disrupt public meetings and prevent [the] conducting [of] a civil dialogue." Clearly, your credibility has no foundation for your currently fierce protection of civil dialogue.

When you decide to have credibility (consistently supporting or criticizing the first amendment rights of all sides, all the time), to lay out facts in their entirety (including cause and effect, the how, and consequences - good and bad), and be non-partisan in your laying of blame for the problem (not just doctors, not just insurance companies, but trial lawyers, special interests, politicians, and a desire to claim political victory) I am sure more Americans will be open to a civil dialogue.

I am anxious to watch your actions unfold during the August recess and in the fall. I am anxious for genuine desire and credibility.

Sincerely,
A Watching American

*Note: July 14, 2009 is the anniversary of the storming of the Bastille. This date reminds us of the uprising of the oppressed over the ruling class. Beware of the dates you choose when planning "monumental legislation," because lately, you and other members of government have been looking increasingly like a privileged ruling class than like representatives of the oppressed.