Response to President Obama's Lastest Article

President Obama says:

Each and every day in this country, Americans are grappling with health care premiums that are growing three times the rate of wages and insurance company policies that limit coverage and raise out-of-pocket costs. Thousands are losing their insurance coverage each day.

Without real reform, the burdens on America's families and businesses will continue to multiply. We've had a vigorous debate about health insurance reform, and rightly so. This is an issue of vital concern to every American, and I'm glad that so many are engaged.

But it also should be an honest debate, not one dominated by willful misrepresentations and outright distortions, spread by the very folks who would benefit the most by keeping things exactly as they are.

So today, I want to spend a few minutes debunking some of the more outrageous myths circulating on the internet, on cable TV, and repeated at some town halls across this country.

You are absolutely correct, Mr. President. It should be an honest debate. But you and your liberal friends are the ones engaging in willful misrepresentation and outright distortion. And instead of engaging in actual debate with conservatives and those who do not agree with your vision of reform, you and your cronies criticize Fox News, talk radio and town hall protesters. I don't know what your definition of vigorous debate is, but when you try to ram your ideas down America's throat without considering alternatives presented by the other side, that's not really debate.

Let's start with the false claim that illegal immigrants will get health insurance under reform. That's not true. Illegal immigrants would not be covered. That idea has never even been on the table.

Hmm...I wonder where people get that idea. Could it be from the fact that you claim there are "47 million uninsured" and that number includes illegal immigrants? If you are committed to insuring those 47 million people, then wouldn't illegal immigrants be covered? And you told Katie Couric that an exception might have to be made for illegal immigrant children. So, you're basically lying when you say illegal immigrants will not be covered. Now, it's true that children should not be denied medical care just because of their immigration status. And if you want to ensure all children have health insurance, just come out and say it - at least it would be honest. But saying illegal immigrants "will not be covered," is just simply untrue.

Further, though they are not specifically covered in the current legislation, they are also specifically not excluded from coverage. Democrats rejected a Republican amendment that would block illegal immigrants from applying for benefits. So, in the current language, there is no method for verifying the immigration status of an applicant for the public option. In addition, there is language that states that if one family member is eligible for benefits, the entire family (illegal immigrants and all) is eligible. So, you are either lying when you say illegal immigrants will not be covered, or you do not understand the bill.

Some are also saying that coverage for abortions would be mandated under reform. Also false. When it comes to the current ban on using tax dollars for abortions, nothing will change under reform.

If that is the case, then why did you tell Planned Parenthood that the right to an abortion is "at the heart of the plan," that you have proposed and that the public option would include coverage for all reproductive services?

Why did Robert Gibbs say that decisions on abortion coverage would be "left to experts in the field," instead of saying that abortions would not be covered?

Why have Democrats blocked Republican amendments that would specifically exclude abortions from federal coverage while also including the Lois Capps amendment that does subsidize abortions?

And as every credible person who has looked into it has said, there are no so-called "death panels" - an offensive notion to me and to the American people. These are phony claims meant to divide us.

Again, we have something that is not specifically included in the bills, but common sense says the legislation will necessarily lead to something of this ilk.

The will be government panels that make coverage decisions based on cost, taking into account the age and prognosis of the patient. You yourself stated that there will have to be a time when we decide not to give surgery but instead give a pain pill. Liberals have complained that 80 percent of healthcare costs come at the "end" of a patient's life - if your goal is to increase coverage but reduce costs, you will have to reduce such expensive care.

So yes, there will not be a "death panel" that looks at a patient's records and stamps the word "Death" on their form. But the decisions they make will deny life-saving medicine to some. And isn't that really the same thing?

And we've all heard the charge that reform will somehow bring about a government takeover of health care. I know that sounds scary to many folks. It sounds scary to me, too. But here's the thing: it's not true. I no sooner want government to get between you and your doctor than I want insurance companies to make arbitrary decisions about what medical care is best for you, as they do today. As I've said from the beginning, under the reform we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period.

So which is it Mr. President? Are you lying now when you say the idea "scares" you, or were you lying to the AFL-CIO when you said this was exactly what you wanted? Why is it that prominent liberals say that this bill will pave the way for a single-payer system? And why have you and Nancy Pelosi undertaken a campaign to disparage insurance companies as evil, money-grubbing entities?

Now, the source of a lot of these fears about government-run health care is confusion over what's called the public option. This is one idea among many to provide more competition and choice, especially in the many places around the country where just one insurer thoroughly dominates the marketplace. This alternative would have to operate as any other insurer, on the basis of the premiums it collects. And let me repeat - it would be just an option; those who prefer their private insurer would be under no obligation to shift to a public plan.

There are two major problems with this assertion - first that the public option will not impact private insurers; and second, that it is a good way to increase competition and choice.

The public option will lead to the destruction of private insurance carriers. You are planning to offer great coverage at a lower price with low (or no) premiums and deductibles and no exclusions for pre-existing conditions. People will flock to that plan. Employers currently are able to offer affordable insurance to employees because of the number of people in the plan. When people leave these plans to pursue the public option, the rates will necessarily raise on those that stay in the plan because "they like their plan." The costs will rise to such a point that even someone who likes their plan will not want to stick with in when they can switch to the government option and save money. As more and more people flock to the public option to save money, more and more insurance companies will go broke.

Second, the idea that private insurers "compete" with the public option is laughable. The public option does not have to make a profit or even remain solvent - the federal government will subsidize any losses. It is not subject to malpractice lawsuits, which is probably the largest reason for cost increases in private insurance companies. The public option will cap consumer price and doctor compensation - two things that would be anti-competitive violations of the Sherman Act if done by private industries.

Sure, the public option is a "competitor" in the marketplace in that it will take customers from the private companies. But if competition is truly the goal, why not allow people to buy insurance across state lines? Instead of one new "competitor" in the marketplace of each state, there will be hundreds. If you think hundreds of new competitors won't reduce prices and won't offer inexpensive programs to help insure everyone, you are crazy. It is really the only way to increase competition.

So let me stress them again: If you don't have insurance, you will finally have access to quality coverage you can afford. If you do have coverage, you will benefit from more security and more stability when it comes to your insurance. If you move, lose your job, or change jobs, you will not have to worry about losing health coverage. And we will set up tough consumer protections that will hold insurance companies accountable and stop them from exploiting you with unfair practices.
We'll prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person's medical history. They will not be able to drop your coverage if you get sick. They will not be able to water down your coverage when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We'll place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because no one in America should go broke because they get sick.

There are much better ways than a public option and 1000 pages of new government regulations to insure these goals.

For example, if you give individuals the same tax subsidies that corporations get, they can purchase insurance without needing to rely on the public option.

Further, the insurance industry is already subject to such onerous regulations - part of the real reason prices and costs have skyrocketed. Subjecting the industry to even more regulations, in the guise of "consumer protection" will only make the situation worse, not better.

When companies can compete across state lines, they will be forced to offer good benefits to consumers without exploiting consumers. It will be the only way to stay in business in the face of hundreds of competitors. More regulation is not the answer - allowing free competition is truly the answer.

For example, if the market shows that insurance plans with lower deductibles and premiums are doing well, more insurance companies will offer those types of plans to remain competitive. It won't take government regulation to ensure such a thing exists.

And we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies. There's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer on the front end. That makes sense, it saves lives, and it will also save money over the long-run.

Requiring insurance companies to require certain things is another factor that runs up costs. Many states have similar requirements and people end up paying for more than they use. Why would males want to pay for insurance that covers mammograms? Why would 25 year olds want to pay for colonoscopies or Alzheimers or other things that they won't begin to use for years?

Let insurance companies create programs for individual patients - certain procedures could be excluded to reduce the price. Further, the would be insurance plans that cover mammograms and colonoscopies for people who want those items covered - the market will require such a thing.

We know what a failure to act would bring: More of the same. More of the same exploding costs. More of the same diminished coverage. If we fail to act, the crisis will grow. More families will go without coverage. More businesses will be forced to drop or water down their plans.

So we can push off the day of reckoning and fail to deal with the flaws in the system, just as Washington has done, year after year, decade after decade. Or we can take steps that will provide every American family and business a measure of security and stability they lack today.

Even those "obstructionists" that are attempting to thwart your reform efforts, and those "un-American" "angry mobs" that speak out at town hall meetings agree that some changes to the system are needed. But 87% of Americans like the system we have. So why are we going to completely change the entire system to satisfy 40 million people?

We can make changes and improve the system. And there are some ideas out there that would accomplish your stated goals of cost and competition. So why not show some leadership and be the post-partisan president you promised you would be, meet with people on both sides of the issue, and find a way to bridge the differences and make some positive changes to the health insurance system?

It has never been easy, moving this nation forward. There are always those who oppose it, and those who use fear to block change. But what has always distinguished America is that when all the arguments have been heard, and all the concerns have been voiced, and the time comes to do what must be done, we rise above our differences, grasp each others' hands, and march forward as one nation and one people, some of us Democrats, some of us Republicans, all of us Americans.

And those who use fear and name-calling to promote the radical agenda they have put forward. At this point, not all arguments have been heard and not all concerns have been voiced. "The time for talk," is not over on this issue! A lot of people still have a lot to say. Instead of demonizing critics and opponents, maybe you should actually listen to what they have to say. Then we really can grasp each others' hands and get the work done.

This is our chance to march forward. I cannot promise you that the reforms we seek will be perfect or make a difference overnight. But I can promise you this: if we pass health insurance reform, we will look back many years from now and say, this was the moment we summoned what's best in each of us to make life better for all of us. This was the moment when we built a health care system worthy of the nation and the people we love. This was the moment we earned our place alongside the greatest generations. And that is what our generation of Americans is called to do right now.

If you act in a truly bipartisan way and work to improve the system without a radical overhaul and government control, this will be true. But if you insist on ramming your agenda through Congress without the support of the American people and pass a system that will completely alter the course of this country, we will look back many years from now and bemoan the loss of our Republic and the final indignant trouncing of the Constitution. It is truly up to you to decide which of these paths you want.