Letter to Congressman Matheson

I received a letter from Congressman Matheson about health care that really upset me. This was my response. I know the response is too long to be effective, but it felt good to vent and put some ideas down on paper.

Congressman Matheson,

I wanted to respond to some points of your letter about health care.

Statement #1: "Skyrocketing health care costs are straining family budgets, threatening the survival of small businesses and exploding our national deficit."

I hear a lot about skyrocketing health care costs. Few politicians, however, seem to attribute this increase to its true sources. Greg Poulsen of Intermountain Healthcare points to utilization and technology as the greatest increases to costs. No longer is a two view x-ray sufficient for a sprained ankle - which cost about $60. Now a $2000 MRI is required - required either by the patient who is aware of the technology, by the lawyer who might sue for malpractice if the doctor doesn't give the most complete care possible, or by the physician who may own a fraction of the MRI facility.

All the government can do to stem those costs would be to limit the amount of money a facility can charge for an MRI. What would the effects of price limitations be? It would mean that people would no longer want to build MRI facilities because they wouldn't be worth the cost. Availability would go down, quality would go down, and pretty soon going to get an MRI would be like standing in line at the DMV.

Also, I am fine with paying for my family. I have some choice as a consumer how those dollars are spent, and if I want to spend it at all. I get more upset over the amount I spend for Medicare and Medicaid, of which I have no control.

Statement #2: "Health care costs are the number one driver of our long-term deficits."

I would like you to explain this one a little more. Are you saying that Medicare and Medicaid are expensive and we can't pay for them?

Frankly, medicare is the cause of many of the problems with the health system today. Insurers know that if they can hold off on a particular procedure until the patient is 65 (or whatever the age is), the government will pick up the tab instead of the insurer. So it pays them to ease the patient along instead of fixing the problem until the government will pick up the tab.

Statement #3: "A third of the $2 trillion spent on health care in this country goes towards administrative costs, not to patient care. We need a more efficient, less bureaucratic system."

This statement makes me laugh. The federal government is the cause for this overhead. So why would an additional system make the process less bureaucratic?

I work on a team for Intermrountain Healthcare that is responsible to submit CMS' "core measures" to the federal government. The report requirements, when printed, are 5 inches tall. AND THEY CHANGE QUARTERLY, sometimes even more frequently. Nearly a quarter of our staff worked on the project to keep our submissions updated. Eventually it became too complicated and we had to outsource the process. The government is the cause of the overhead. So how can you use this as the impetus of reform? Just change what you already created. Creating additional bureaucracy will not eliminate bureaucracy.

Statement #4: "Insurers should not be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions."

Insurers are in the insurance business to make money. Unlike the federal government they cannot print money when they run out (which practice I wish the government would stop doing). By forcing insurance companies to pay for everything for everyone, you know you are forcing them out of business. In the end, then, there will only be a single payer left standing - not because they are the best, offer the best service, or have the best outcomes, but because make money by printing it.

Summary
At the fundamental core of this debate should be this question - Do I have a fundamental right to force you to pay for my health care?

My answer is no. And you don't have the right to force me to pay for your health care.

We are Americans. We ask how we can help our country, not what government programs we are entitled to.

We are Americans. We the people sustain the government, the government doesn't sustain us.

We are Americans. We believe that we were all created equal, not that we are going to die equal. We don't buy into socialism.

We are Americans. We created a limited federal authority and reserved power for states and local governments. We didn't and don't want a king. Give us back the 10th amendment.

Please reform health care by removing some of the federal influence, not by imposing more.

Brian Rawlings