Capitalism not cause of health care woes
Diana Niesman's June 1 letter has quite an ironic title, considering its content: "Public doesn't grasp health-care problem." Ms. Niesman herself has difficulty comprehending the nature of America's health care-related issues. Lamenting the fact that the majority of Americans favor a market-based solution, Niesman says, "[T]hey chose the system that we already have to fix the system they don't like." She goes on to assert that "A strong public option is necessary to give big corporate insurers competition and bring costs down," and, "It would be open to everyone and affordable."
These three quotes are each demonstrably false. First, pro-capitalist Americans aren't resistant to change, as Niesman suggests; in fact, capitalism is the change we need in health care today. Current health care issues are the result of too much government control, which cripples individuals and companies by force-feeding them endless regulations and sky-high taxation.
To blame the state of America's health care industry on too much capitalism - too much "freedom to choose," to paraphrase Milton Friedman - is a blatant contradiction of the facts. Second, a "public option" would hinder competition in the health insurance industry, and actually raise prices - as Massachusetts' citizens saw when their government implemented one kind of plan, known as mandatory insurance.
Health insurance became neither "open to everyone" nor "affordable," thanks to the ingenious idea of granting the government arbitrary power to determine criteria for a plan's acceptance; thanks to the now-increased presence of special interest groups that have to fight to get their plans accepted, just to stay in business; and thanks to absurd health care selections only the government could come up with, like mandating alcoholism therapy benefits regardless of whether one drinks or not.
Where would we be if Ms. Niesman had her way, and the Massachusetts plan, or some variation, was adopted nationwide?
Brendan Moore
Naperville