Louis Ross – 8/7/05

This page was last updated on August 7, 2005.

Why not a universal HMO?; Louis Ross; Beaver County Times; August 7, 2005.

I’m sure Mr. Ross means well, but he doesn’t seem to understand too much government interference got us into the healthcare price situation we’re in. As a result, he proposes even more government interference.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“In the past 10 to 15 years, we have heard many discussions on health care for all citizens.

“As I study my own health insurance coverage, I wonder how a senior citizen such as me can have complete coverage at premiums of less than $100 per month (exclusive of the $56 from my Social Security benefit).”

[RWC] He’s 65+ years old and he wants a premium of less than $100/month? I’m 52, in excellent health, and pay in excess of $250/month.

“My quandary centers on the fact that seniors are more prone to need more health care than the younger members of our society. With this in mind, why can’t we have an HMO plan for the younger people at a comparative cost?

“Realizing that most young people do not qualify for Social Security benefits, a major flaw appears in this plan. There is more than one HMO plan, and some plans have premiums of less than $20 per month. (These plans have no provisions for prescription drugs, but do young people need this coverage anyway?)

“Another idea for the premium cost could come from the financial aid programs now in place by the government for people who have no coverage at all at this time.”

[RWC] These existing programs are part of the problem, not a potential part of a solution.

“I know there are many people in our area who have the knowledge and financial expertise to come up with a financing plan for a very serious national health problem.”

[RWC] The answer is to eliminate government interference in the healthcare market. We need to eliminate third-party payment for healthcare because third-party payment works against the natural pricing mechanism of a free market.