Dear editor:
I object to the Senate’s version of health care reform. It’s not because I’m selfish or hard-hearted. I am a realist. Regardless of the rosy predictions that this health care program will not add to the public debt, I’m convinced that it will.  To believe that this health care program is deficit neutral, you must believe that Congress can and will take almost $500 billion out of Medicare over 10 years without degrading Medicare. That’s a big leap of faith.

You must accept that new taxes will begin almost immediately, but benefits won’t begin for three years.

That accounting trick may take care of the first 10 years. I don’t believe it will help much in the second 10 years. The United States of America is no longer the rich nation it was after World War II.

We’re piling up debt at an unheard rate and this bill will just pile on more.

I also object to the notion that the federal government can mandate that no pre-existing conditions can be considered without insurance companies raising rates on everybody.  What’s to prevent them?  There are actuarial tables of risks that the Congress cannot alter by passing a law. Further, why should an employer pay thousands of dollars per employee for health insurance for employees when the employer can pay a $700 fine per employee and discontinue health insurance?  I predict millions of people will be thrown into Medicaid when their employer cannot afford group health insurance any longer. Try finding a doctor who will take more Medicaid patients.

I object that Republicans are accused of obstruction when no Republican ideas were adopted.  Some Republican ideas were eminently sensible: restricting lawsuits to reasonable damages and allowing insurance companies to sell across state borders like car insurance is sold.

If people want to throw around charges of obstruction, lets take a minute to analyze why neither Republican ideas were added to the bill.  First, trial lawyers give predominately to Democrats.

Prominent Democrats bluntly announced that they would not risk alienating such an important Democrat constituency as trial lawyers.  Even though Democrats regularly castigate health insurance companies, those same companies support this bill because they want more customers without increased competition.

Finally, I object to the process that produced this bill. Where was the openness that Obama promised? Just why is Blue Cross/Blue Shield in Nebraska and Michigan exempt from the tax on “Cadillac” insurance plans? Nebraska’s exemption is obvious – it was a payoff for the senator from Nebraska’s vote.

Michigan’s exemption is a little more subtle. It may be because large unions in Michigan use Blue Cross/Blue Shield so Obama and Sen. Reid do not want to offend unions. Why do union workers in Michigan get a break, but union workers in Ohio and Indiana do not? It’s a patchwork quilt that reflects the political influence of the various senators.

All-in-all, the health care debate seems to lose sight of its chief purpose, which is to benefit more Americans. Americans have heard the debate and a 60 percent majority doesn’t like it anymore.

Democrat senators have become hard of hearing and determined to pass this hodgepodge of health care regardless of what their constituents say about it.

It’s still not too late for Michigan’s representatives and senators to listen.

Every last one of them are up for election in 2010, 2012 and 2014.

Michael L. Waldron
Niles