Letter to my congressmen in support of the Public Option

Dear Representative James Moran:
The US health care system is in deplorable state. Upon repatriation for any number of reasons your ~7 million expatriates are the only citizens of OECD member countries with no social health protection mechanism in place to assist in transitioning back home.

As a voting constituent in the 8th Congressional District of VA, I respectfully urge you to vote for a strong and comprehensive public option that guarantees all Americans with the choice of a public health insurance plan, as proposed by President Barack Obama.

This reform package, which aims to provide all Americans with access to affordable health insurance, must include a strong and comprehensive public option that:

• is available to ALL Americans on DAY ONE. Co-ops or triggers weaken the public health insurance option and make it ineffective. I ask you to oppose these proposals.
• is national, available everywhere, provides transportability and thus a continuum of benefits.
  
• has government-appointed decision-makers and thus are accountable to Congress.
• provides substantial bargaining leverage against providers and pharmaceutical companies.

I also ask you to put a statement on your web site's home page supporting these points. As aptly stated by our fellow American expatriates in Canada: health insurance in a civilized society is a collective moral obligation, not a discretionary consumer good.

We voted for Change in 2008 and I ask that you support what voters have overwhelmingly demanded from our representatives. I look forward to reciprocal support for you on the 2010 ticket.

Sincerely,

----------------------------------------------------------

Look up your representative(s) in the House here.

Look up your US Senators here.
.
.

the health insurance debate

There is so much dialogue on the issue of health insurance coverage, on FB, the blogosphere, tweetscape, news. Everyone has an opinion on the best system (popular option seems to be single-payer) and so much energy is batted around the design of a universal scheme.

What I want to see is a growing dialogue on the root issue, which is the big pharma-medical financial incentives megastructure. From the agriculture policy to who funds continuing medical education to lobbying heft on the Hill, there is NO ONE AREA of lifestyle NOT touched by this monied interest. Look around, do some research, and you will find that even the most innocuous facets of life and decisions made is heavily if not directly influenced by Big Pharma.

Those who insist that there are laudable national health insurance designs in France, Scandinavian countries, and Japan (or elsewhere beyond the top 3 in coverage schemes) must look at the books. Populations in these universal coverage programmes are ageing, expecting more high-tech innovations in care, demanding more options and access. These lead to increased financial liabilities to the health system. They are all to one extent or another unsustainable in their current form in the long run. And that is with regulation in place for big pharma much more stringent and patient-focused than we have in the US.

Dialogue--and legislative action-- has been taken up in these oft-cited "model" countries on how to make access to health and medical care affordable without bankrupting the system. There needs to be a sound legislative and policy framework before we can talk about coverage and financing designs.