Two letters [in the Aug. 6 issue] expressed opposition to health care reform, stating that a "government-run" program will be too costly and wasteful. This country now has government-run health care systems—Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans' Assistance and military programs—and they are effective and well run, but fail to cover everyone. [Their] administrative costs are a small fraction of those of the private insurers. Clients need not fear their insurance will be dropped because they become too sick for the "company" to make a profit, as is too often the case in the private sector.
Millions of Americans are un- or under-insured.?Many bankruptcies are caused by high medical bills, even with health insurance. What is too costly is the present, unsustainable system with escalating premiums (for those with insurance), loss of insurance with loss of job or contracting the wrong illness. There is a large hidden cost for all of us to cover the uninsured who use emergency rooms. The U.S. is the only industrialized country without universal health care. It's been proposed since Teddy Roosevelt's administration. It's long overdue. A large majority of American citizens want it and we should have it now.
Joan R.Golowich
Amherst
One feels for Conor Hennessey, who, from his letter in the Aug. 6-12 issue, seems traumatized by the prospect that the rest of the world might be stampeded to collectivism by health care reform in the U.S. Fortunately, he can rest easy, since health care has been "collectivized" in all other industrialized countries of the world for quite some time, which might explain why citizens of those countries live longer, healthier lives than we do. Incidentally, the Advocate seems to have been inundated with anti-health-care-reform letters recently, most of which came from writers who didn't reveal where they live, except for the guy from Cleveland. Which valley does your paper's name refer to, again?
Paul Cherulnik
Leeds
I'm not sure that Conor Hennessey has permission to speak for the Republican Party, as he does so vigorously in his letter called "Keep Government Out of Health Insurance" (Aug. 6, 2009). Nonetheless, Republicans are not the only party that is scoffing at single-payer healthcare. For example, the top Democrat, President Barack Obama, insists that it would be "disruptive" for the nation to seek single-payer healthcare.
To me, there is something much more dubious about Mr. Hennessey's letter than what has been mentioned thus far. It is: the threat of government power, whether police or military, allows both Republicans and rich Democrats like Obama to be able to accumulate wealth/profits in the first place. Otherwise, without the aforementioned threat of government power, how would the latter be able to stop people from taking their fortunes? We all need government a whole lot, for a variety of reasons. Eh, Conor Hennessey, et al.?
G. Djata Bumpus
Northampton
