Letters to the Editor Policy

To My Pro-Life Friends

The tremendous outcry against the Freedom of Choice Bill which President Obama promised would be his first signed bill seems to have derailed that particular bill. However some in the administration are trying to bring it back through the back door. There is an attempt underway to include a “Reproductive Health Care” provision to the new Health Care bill now being considered. This would mandate that abortions be provided in the name of Health Care by our tax dollars. It is clear that a vast majority of Americans are opposed to tax funded abortions, partial birth abortions and abortions for sex selection, but these facts are being ignored. Already over 50 million innocent babies have been slaughtered on the alters of “freedom” and “choice” in our country. And even more tragically, Rachel’s Vineyard has proved that countless millions of women suffer for being duped into accepting the easy solution.

Please take a moment and telephone Senator Arlen Specter (570 346-2006), Sen. Bob Casey (717 231-7540) and Rep Chris Carney (866 8124) and tell them you strongly oppose any abortion rights granted through this Health Bill. Edmund Burke was right when he said that the only thing needed to allow evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. When a nation walks away from God’s truth He allows them to go and His loving support is lost. Our country was built on a reliance on God for our prosperity. Please pray with me that this horrible nightmare of death be stopped and we, as a nation return to “One Nation Under God.”

Sincerely,

Annette Corrigan

Jackson, PA

The One-Step Cure For Health Care

The health care system is a broke down, bloated bureaucracy faltering under a burden of administrative costs, mismanagement, corruption, and frivolous use. The cost to keep this cash glutton afloat threatens to bankrupt the nation. It must be fixed and fixed soon.

Buy why of all the goods and services available in a free-market economy does health care stand out as the most inefficient, the least accountable, and financially the most exorbitant service? To answer this question let's use something familiar as a stand-in for health care: the family car.

Suppose you were in the market for a car. Depending on you finances, a wide range of choices are available: a Lamborghini or a Ford fresh off the assembly line. You might choose a vehicle from one of a dozen nearby used cars dealers or perhaps a roadside, “For Sale By Owner,” car might suit your needs.

For insurance it's the same: a score of companies will compete for your business. Each vying with the others to give you the insurance package you want for the best possible price.

In a day or two your auto, fully insured, will be parked outside your home.

And if a mechanical problem develops, it won't send you into financial turmoil. You may go to a mechanic who specializes in your car's manufacturer or patronize the garage down the street. There's even Joe the barber who does auto work on the side.

In all these examples, there is an array of choices, competitors, seller accountability, and buyer bargaining power. Thus, free market commerce insures a variety of choices at the lowest price and the highest quality. Now cross out family car and write in health care; that's the way it should work and did work up until 50 years ago. Before government involvement in health care, people were self-insured. Doctor visits and hospital stays were paid for by private savings. Medical care for affordable fees, it had to be. No so today.

The meteoric rise in health care costs have a cause and that cause is a medical monopoly created by the American Medical Association through licensing and other laws. The AMA restricts the number of medical schools and students. These restrictions are designed to created a deficiency in supply and, consequentially, higher fees for services.

The first step, then, to fundamental health care reform is to break the bottleneck created by the AMA. How? Eliminate all licensure requirements and repel all laws that make the medical monopoly possible.

But wouldn't that create a medical free-for-all with no standards? Yes, it would open up medical care to anyone who wished to hang a shingle; and no, standards and quality would not be lower but higher.

Competing services would soon establish their own voluntary accreditation associations. Many would have standards as demanding as any today. Other treatment modalities, such as Little Bear's Clinic For Tribal Medicine, might be lower. As for Madame Zoro's House of Mystical Healing, and others of that ilk, there wouldn't be any professional association or standards. Just as in buying a car, the choice is yours not mommy government or the self-serving AMA.

Moreover, medical innovations would be free to flourish. Treatments formally ignored because they dealt in nonpatenable medications would be explored. No one would go to Mexico or Europe for treatments that are available here. And when patients pay for service, doctors would no longer be forced to prescribe a roster of unnecessary tests for protection from malpractice suits.

Free-market competition always drives prices lower and quality higher. Government enforced monopolies invariably create higher prices and lower quality.

What are the chances of breaking the medical monopoly? About the same as the survival of a pig in a pork factory. What will be done? Simple. There will be more government involvement to solve a problem that government created in the first place; in a word, socialized health care. It's a slam dunk.

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR POLICY
Letters To The Editor MUST BE SIGNED. They MUST INCLUDE a phone number for "daytime" contact. Letters MUST BE CONFIRMED VERBALLY with the author, before printing. Letters should be as concise as possible, to keep both Readers' and Editors' interest alike. Your opinions are important to us, but you must follow these guidelines to help assure their publishing.

Thank you, Susquehanna County Transcript

©