•Public health care option needed
•Furloughs vs. layoffs
Public health care option needed
I would like to respond to the letter, “Fix health care system” by John Love (Letters, June 21). Mr. Love states, “No American who understands how single-payer systems actually work would dream of trading our system for one like those in Britain, Canada or New Zealand, to name a few.”
I have personally seen how these systems work in Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Europe. And these systems that currently exist in truly free countries work very well.
More than half of bankruptcies in America are the result of medical bills. A full 75 percent of those had health insurance — American-style health coverage.
In Canada, the U.K., Japan and Western Europe, an outcome like this is impossible.
People who pander to the current system have a vested interest in the current system in America. In other words, they are getting paid. And getting paid very well.
They are profiteering off of your misery. Most of the people in Congress who are dragging their feet are receiving money from pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies.
Mr. Love states, “There are long waits for all health services.”
I waited eight months here in America to get something that I needed desperately and my insurance company did not want to pay for.
Around this same time, our local newspapers reported that my own nonprofit insurance company had just given their managers a raise.
HMSA released salary information showing CEO Robert Hiam’s pay rose to $1.16 million in 2007, which included a bonus of $503,511. Mr. Hiam is the highest paid local executive of a nonprofit. Michael Gold, executive vice president and chief operating officer, received $851,005, including a $336,442 bonus. Chief Financial Officer Steve Van Ribbink made $558,778.
That’s what these guys are putting in the bank every year. And that’s just the top three managers. Almost $3 million going into the pockets of just three guys who work for a nonprofit insurance company — every single year.
And that is the problem with America’s health system. In order for you to receive good health care, it costs money. If the people working for pharmaceutical and insurance companies want to make hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars per year personal salaries, then that money has to come from your personal suffering.
Because some in America think it’s a good idea to make a profit from human suffering. I wonder if Jesus spoke of making huge sums of money off of humans who are sick or dying.
Mr. Love states, “Bureaucrats, rather than doctors, make decisions about what treatments they will approve for you.”
That is not true in the above-named countries.
Currently in America, however, it is true that an employee of your insurance company makes the first decision on your case, then it must be approved by a “consulting” physician who receives money from said insurance company.
Sound biased anyone? Do insurance companies find “amenable” physicians?
And that is how America’s current system in working — not for you.
I have had firsthand experience with hospitals in Australia and Europe. They charged me nothing.
So when I hear people who have never gone anywhere or experienced something themselves, who just spout whatever talking points they have been told to by Faux News and Web sites with a vested interest in human suffering, it just makes me sad for the future of America.
Every generation of Americans has to be good in order for America to be good. We cannot live off of the good deeds of former generations and still be considered good.
At least not for very much longer.
I’ve expressed my opinions and concerns to Hawai‘i’s U.S. senators and representatives. I will be expressing my concerns when we vote in a new governor and I hope you will as well.
If we do not have a public option on health coverage, in the end, we really do not have any option. It will be business as usual.
Dennis Chaquette, Kapa‘a
Furloughs vs. layoffs
Referring to The Garden Island editorial on Sunday concerning furloughs for 30,000 vs. layoffs for 2,500, either approach would yield the necessary savings to balance the state’s budget.
So the choice is a little pain for 30,000 or a lot of pain for 2,500?
Note that unemployment insurance will temporarily help the 2,500, but will eventually require an increase in unemployment insurance premiums to restore a depleted fund, thereby increasing the employer’s (the state’s) expenses.
Wouldn’t you hate to be the person who would have to choose who is to be laid off? But here’s a possible positive outcome of layoffs: We might find out that we really didn’t need some of those employees at all.
Sandy Brodie, Princeville
