Can't use same size bandage on all cuts
Phillip Procento's letter about the issue being resources not discrimination comes closer to the crux of the medical insurance issue, but the inflammatory word, discrimination, clouds the real issue.
There is a conflict of interest between buyers and sellers in our society. Insurance companies need to make a profit and individuals need health coverage. An individual or company will purchase medical insurance from the provider with the best coverage for the best value.
Young, healthy people need preventive care and receive low rates. Older people pay higher premiums for catastrophic coverage. This results in a plethora of plans with variable options and coverage.
The conflict of interest and needs comes into play as "discrimination" when the government steps into the picture as the sole payer of one plan for all.
Budget constraints limit the ability of government to purchase or fund unlimited coverage.
When funding one plan for the masses (one coat for all sizes), individual needs conflict. To referee this conflict, the government will need another cabinet of bureaucrats (mostly lawyers and political appointees) to decide how to apportion these limited resources.
Since it's no secret that fewer dollars will go farther in preventive medicine, the "bean counters" will soon realize that thousands of doses of vaccine can be purchased for the price of an organ transplant.
Medical care is always "managed" by the provider unless the patient pays his own bills directly.
The buyer always has the option to change policies or provider companies as long as he is paying the bill. When the patient is no longer the buyer, he is subject to a conflict of interest he can no longer control.
Welcome to socialized medicine.
Thomas V. Johnson, Jr.
Lake Zurich