Spring Break
Letter to the Editor
Issue date: 11/5/09 Section: Opinion
In Charanya Krishnaswami's defense of the Democratic health reform plan on Tuesday, she reiterates some common fallacious arguments that are misinformed, misrepresent the opposition, and frame the debate in a rather elementary fashion.
Krishnaswami seems to believe that the "public option" will bring honest competition to the health insurance market. This could not be further from the truth. The proposed plan has the very real potential of crowding out private insurance; and by force, not by providing more competitive rates.
In the latest Pelosi bill, an employer mandate will require small business owners to provide coverage for their employees or face an 8 percent payroll tax. Many economists have predicted that small business owners will drop their employees onto the "public option" since the 8 percent payroll tax will most likely be cheaper than the cost of providing private insurance.
Private insurers will also be subject to new regulations that control the price of premiums and require insurers to provide an "essential" level of coverage and benefits. This would be like Apple forcing Dell to put more expensive hardware in their computers and charge less to sell them. Dell would most certainly shut down as that level of production would be unsustainable. In short, the Pelosi bill is to competition as Yasser Arafat was to world peace - the relationship only seems harmonious if you're liberal.
Then Krishnaswami goes on to imply that opponents prefer the "status quo" where rape victims are denied care on the basis of "pre-existing conditions." All emotionally ridden anecdotal arguments aside, the notion that opponents prefer the "status quo" is elementary thinking to say the least. Everyone, for the most part, agrees that our current health care system can be improved and that reform is needed in certain areas. No one wants to see anyone get turned away for "pre-existing conditions" or get denied care because they can't afford insurance.
Krishnaswami seems to believe that the "public option" will bring honest competition to the health insurance market. This could not be further from the truth. The proposed plan has the very real potential of crowding out private insurance; and by force, not by providing more competitive rates.
In the latest Pelosi bill, an employer mandate will require small business owners to provide coverage for their employees or face an 8 percent payroll tax. Many economists have predicted that small business owners will drop their employees onto the "public option" since the 8 percent payroll tax will most likely be cheaper than the cost of providing private insurance.
Private insurers will also be subject to new regulations that control the price of premiums and require insurers to provide an "essential" level of coverage and benefits. This would be like Apple forcing Dell to put more expensive hardware in their computers and charge less to sell them. Dell would most certainly shut down as that level of production would be unsustainable. In short, the Pelosi bill is to competition as Yasser Arafat was to world peace - the relationship only seems harmonious if you're liberal.
Then Krishnaswami goes on to imply that opponents prefer the "status quo" where rape victims are denied care on the basis of "pre-existing conditions." All emotionally ridden anecdotal arguments aside, the notion that opponents prefer the "status quo" is elementary thinking to say the least. Everyone, for the most part, agrees that our current health care system can be improved and that reform is needed in certain areas. No one wants to see anyone get turned away for "pre-existing conditions" or get denied care because they can't afford insurance.
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 7
P.J. Gardner
posted 11/05/09 @ 11:09 AM CST
This letter, while claiming to set the record straight, misrepresents the issue. First, it is dishonest to use the Pelosi bill as representative of the Democrats' plan on health care. (Continued…)
Jesse
posted 11/05/09 @ 1:11 PM CST
Right, when Republicans are against reform, they're xenophobic poor-people-haters, but when Democrats are against reform... Well, we like to skim over those parts. (Continued…)
Charanya
posted 11/07/09 @ 3:26 PM CST
The "xenophobia" PJ was referring to is seen in the second-to-last paragraph of Fornear's article: "9.7 million are undocumented immigrants or non-U.S. (Continued…)
Jesse Fornear
posted 11/09/09 @ 1:57 AM CST
Charanya, I apologize if that came off as offensive. Nonetheless, Millions of immigrants are legal American taxpayers, so I still fail to see how that statement was xenophobic. (Continued…)
Adam
posted 11/09/09 @ 4:46 PM CST
Illegal immigrents have no right to be covered by the American Taxpayer. How is that xenophobic? Illegal immigrents should not be given the same rights as American citizens or legal immigrents. (Continued…)
Adam
posted 11/13/09 @ 12:50 PM CST
You must not be listening to any reputable news sources then. Anyone in the news without a bias agenda has been screaming about the violations in this bill and many other proposals for months now. (Continued…)
Post a Comment