Costs underestimated, just as with Medicare

When Medicare was introduced decades ago, many physicians were concerned about the socialistic nature of this health care program for the elderly. In time they learned they were being reimbursed for services they had been essentially donating to the needy elderly.
Now that they are recipients of the Medicare program, most are grateful that it exists for them as well, even though they saw a progressive decrease in compensation for their services to the program's patients.
At the time the original Medicare program was developed, it was projected that the cost in 10 years would be around $10 billion annually. Unfortunately, the planners' projections were off by tenfold.
As we go forward with a similar program, one must be concerned about how underestimation is going to be financed and/or prevented, which may be why some people are over-heated about the House of Representative's bill.
Both civil and governmental cost projections are notoriously under the actual costs for anything, from building a dam to fighting a war.

-- Dr. Ernie Pellegrino, Middleton

Cost is not only health care reform needed

A recent editorial called for more information on medical care's "cost-effectiveness." I'd like to see America make better use of the information that already exists on medical care's "effectiveness."
American physicians currently use a mix of tests and treatments, some effective, some ineffective and some of unknown effect.
National health programs in other countries have controls on the main components of medical care, including how doctors are paid, how new technology and procedures are added, who owns hospitals and clinics, which drugs, medicines and devices are covered.
As the debate on health care reform unfolds, we need to pay careful attention to the key issues. The uninsured should be insured, but reforming health care requires more than that.

-- David Nordstrom, Madison

Don't be misled about health care for all

Congress and the media have been deceived and taken their eyes off the real focus of health care reform.
America must not be tricked into believing there is not enough money to pay for decent health care for everyone. America's health care outcomes and infant mortality rates are some of the worst in the world.
Insurance companies, medical and hospital associations, pharmaceutical companies and banks and corporations are relegating our country to second class status. Why would they lobby against what is good for America? Isn't it "patriotic" to want a healthy, strong work force, children who grow up healthy and American jobs that do not go overseas because small business cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums?
Granted, some people and corporations will not make outrageous profits as they used to, but they will still make a good living.
Other countries in the civilized world have understood that a good health care system benefits everyone. They will be willing to take the number one spot in the world as America declines morally and financially.

-- Dr. John Murphy, Madison

Reform expensive and will eliminate jobs

Hang on to your wallets, people! First it was the stimulus bill. Now Congress and the president want to push through a health care package costing over a trillion dollars.
While I agree some reforms are needed, why are they ramming it through with so much at stake? The only way to fund this plan is to ration care, cut payments to facilities and tax whatever they can. This plan will tax small and large businesses alike, costs which will be passed along to customers.
In the interest of full disclosure, I've been in the health insurance business for 22 years. Should this plan pass in its current form, not only will I be on the plan, which you will pay for, but you will also help pay my unemployment, along with hundreds of thousands of others whose livelihoods depend on the health insurance industry.
And it's sad that my own elected representatives won't listen. I visited with Rep. Sondy Pope Roberts, D-Verona, some time ago with others in my industry. Her mind was made up that socialized medicine was the way to go. And while I also disagree with Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton, on this subject, at least he will listen and honestly debate.
This plan will hurt all businesses.

-- Randy Littel, Mount Horeb

Single-payer plan cuts administrative costs

In any health care reform plan, cutting costs is essential. Removing waste and profit is the key, and here's how.
Over 700 companies sell health insurance in Wisconsin, each with several options including what procedures are or are not covered, whether there are co-pays or deductibles. In a large hospital it takes scores of accountants.
In a single-payer hospital, whatever the patient and doctor decide will be covered, with no insurance clerk between them doing the deciding. Just a few accountants are plenty.
Besides this paperwork, insurance premiums pay for lobbyists, for large donations to finance political campaigns, for costly TV ads, for multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses for corporate heads and profits to shareholders.
None of this is part of any single-payer plan. Insurance administrative costs are usually 25 percent or more. For Medicare (a single-payer plan), administrative costs are 5 percent.
With such a plan, everyone would have a Medical Security card. As with Social Security, the government would collect funds and distribute them. Social Security costs are 2 percent, yet every month millions of dollars are sent out on time, in the right amount, to the right address -- often considered an accounting miracle.
Let's put single payer back "on the table."

-- Katherine Wenban, Madison, member, Coalition for Wisconsin Health