We need a public option
The issue of national health insurance reform can be accurately explained in complex detail or simply and conceptually. Either way, economists, experts, business leaders, the AARP and most doctors, nurses, hospitals and American citizens agree - reform legislation must be signed into law this year or the economic consequences will be dire for our country, for businesses and for American families. Additionally, real improvements in quality health care, such as prevention, will only come if there's reform.
The U.S. economy needs fixing. But the economy can't be fixed without fixing national health insurance - because it represents such a large expense (already 16 percent of the GDP and growing). Because of their massive buying power, purchasers (i.e. government, business and individuals) deserve better benefits at much lower costs than currently exist.
At least one of the insurance options, among hundreds of voluntary, for-profit commercial choices, must be a nonprofit public option. This is because even a single nonprofit public option would serve as a competitive model, would save more than $50 billion and would keep all the for-profit commercial insurance companies reasonably honest.
More than 65 percent of Americans want and need this kind of health insurance reform, and their number is growing as the public becomes more aware. The U.S. House of Representatives is in favor of reform with a public option, as is a modest majority in the Senate. Regardless of party affiliation, the public servants we sent to Washington should ignore special interest money and pressure and do the right thing. And that is to put people, health and country before profits.
Roger C. Kostmayer, Baltimore
I'll take my chances with government bureaucrats
It's really strange that Republicans say that a "public option" for health insurance would put the private companies out of business - when they say in other contexts that government can't do anything right. Does this mean that private business is even less efficient than government? And then consider that UPS has been competing successfully against "the government" (i.e., the U.S. Postal Service) for many years. So what is the problem?
The difference between services provided by government and services provided by private business is that private business can decide what customers to serve - and they choose to serve only those who can bring them a profit. Private health care insurers prefer to exclude customers who will cost them money - that is, sick people. If they have to insure everyone, they'll just jack up their rates, which we will all pay.
