Dear Mr. Brockert,
Thank
you for your letter regarding healthcare reform and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
Although
it's far from perfect, I truly do believe we have the finest healthcare system in the world. We need
to preserve what works in our system and work to improve what does not. Unfortunately, the new healthcare
law does neither. It is designed to lead to a government takeover of our entire healthcare system (1/6
of our entire economy).
I
have no faith that the government has any capability of doing that effectively or efficiently. If this
law is fully implemented, it will result in rationing, lower the quality of care, and dramatically decrease
medical innovation. That is the inevitable result of government run, socialized medicine.
Unfortunately,
the damage to the quality of our healthcare is only half the problem. This law will also lead to trillions
of dollars of deficit spending over the next two decades because the cost of this new entitlement has
been significantly underestimated. We simply can't afford it. We are already facing a debt crisis in
this nation caused by out of control government spending and the growth of entitlement programs that
are not financially sound. It will be difficult
enough to fix current programs without adding an entirely new entitlement.
The
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act should be repealed so we can start over and address the real
problems of our healthcare system. We should start with medical malpractice
reform that would save hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary tests and junk lawsuits.
We
should return healthcare to the
free market to lower costs and improve quality and customer service. Allowing individuals to purchase
insurance across state lines, reducing mandates that drive up the cost of insurance, encouraging the
growth of Health Savings Accounts, equalizing the tax treatment of individual versus employer purchased
care, improving medical information systems, and fostering patient centered care should be the type of
solutions we pursue.
We
need these kind of commonsense
reforms that address cost and affordability without sacrificing the high-quality care for all Americans
or stifling the innovation that saves lives.
Thank
you again for taking the time to share your thoughts.
It is important for me to hear the views and concerns
of the people I serve. Please
feel free to contact me in the future if I can further assist you or your family. It is an honor
representing you and the good people of Wisconsin in the U.S. Senate.
Sincerely,
Ron Johnson
United States Senator
-------------------------------------------------
12 June 2013
Sen. Johnson,
Thank you fro responding to my letter regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
I understand that you are politically opposed to the act, but as one old fella used say, "Do something even it is wrong." I figure that Pres. Obama has done something, even if it not right, it is a start. I liken the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to building a stairway when you have never done it before. You ask for advise and start. If something goes wrong you go back and adjust and rebuild, and you keep on trying, until you have it about right. In this case you will never have it 'about right' and can call it good and stop working on it. As in all government stuff, tweeking is how it is improved and makes it work better.
"Although it's far from perfect, I truly do believe we have the finest healthcare system in the world. We need to preserve what works in our system and work to improve what does not. Unfortunately, the new healthcare law does neither." This is dictum, big deal, but 'believe we have the finest' should be 'believe we had the finest,' since it is now not what it was in Pres. Bush's day.
"It is designed to lead to a government takeover of our entire healthcare system (1/6 of our entire economy).
"I have no faith that the government has any capability of doing that effectively or efficiently. If this law is fully implemented, it will result in rationing, lower the quality of care, and dramatically decrease medical innovation. That is the inevitable result of government run, socialized medicine."
I can not help but agree with you that 'the government has (not) any capability of doing that
effectively or efficiently.' I just figure that dong nothing is worse and that repealing and going back to square one, where we were in the days of Pres. Bush, would result in massive inconveniences and confusion all around. Ya know, what was the rules back then was this part of it or not, what about the college grads who have piggy-backed on their parents health insurance until they have insurance or are older than twenty-six, or the new medicare rules that give older folks free exams of some sort (I have heard of like glaucoma testing or diabetes but I could be wrong), or the insurance payments that have been made because of the Act, but would not have been under the previous rules, do the insurance companies need to be paid back, etc. etc.??
I can see that you have no faith in the government being able to anything, the government workers play follow the leader, and they follow our representatives in Washington If you can not find a way to make things work batter, neither will they.
"This law will also lead to trillions of dollars of deficit spending over the next two decades because the cost of this new entitlement has been significantly underestimated. We simply can't afford it. We are already facing a debt crisis in this nation caused by out of control government spending and the growth of entitlement programs that are not financially sound."
Statistics. 'there are liars, damn liars and statisticians.' You can prove whatever you want with statistics, just like you can with the Bible. It may cost us a lot, but at least we are dong something for the poor of our country. I think the alternative is we pay for emergency room care for them rather than this. Is that what you would chose?
Statistics. As for the national debt going to get worse and worse and worse, I see the military and foreign aid being bigger parts of it than these social issues. Are you willing to do anything about those?
"We should start with medical malpractice reform that would save hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary tests and junk lawsuits."
You may have a point, but in the interests of fairness, when you do something wrong, there should be some sort of punishment. 'Junk lawsuits' may be a waste of time, but until you get into court or at least start the process, you do not know it. It is bad that it costs so much that a lot of suits are settled before anything else happens just to avoid the expense of the rest of the suit, irregardless of the rightness of the one side or the other. ('you can be right and broke, or settle and get on with your life.'). Also, are your campaign contributors mostly insurance companies and their employees, so would they like this?
"We should return healthcare to the free market to lower costs and improve quality and customer service."
By 'free market' you mean that poor people would have to get health care from emergency rooms? How many restaurants offer health insurance at any price for their waitstaff or dishwashers? or the temporary labor workers? The ideas in this paragraph are mostly good, but lot of them are mostly good for your campaign contributors, not necessarily for poor folks. I especially like 'fostering patient centered care' which I think would have to include end of life decisions (death committees - as Mrs. Palin commented on, like those under the need for this would live forever if we did not do this).
Thank you for your time,
Joey
effectively or efficiently.' I just figure that dong nothing is worse and that repealing and going back to square one, where we were in the days of Pres. Bush, would result in massive inconveniences and confusion all around. Ya know, what was the rules back then was this part of it or not, what about the college grads who have piggy-backed on their parents health insurance until they have insurance or are older than twenty-six, or the new medicare rules that give older folks free exams of some sort (I have heard of like glaucoma testing or diabetes but I could be wrong), or the insurance payments that have been made because of the Act, but would not have been under the previous rules, do the insurance companies need to be paid back, etc. etc.??
I can see that you have no faith in the government being able to anything, the government workers play follow the leader, and they follow our representatives in Washington If you can not find a way to make things work batter, neither will they.
"This law will also lead to trillions of dollars of deficit spending over the next two decades because the cost of this new entitlement has been significantly underestimated. We simply can't afford it. We are already facing a debt crisis in this nation caused by out of control government spending and the growth of entitlement programs that are not financially sound."
Statistics. 'there are liars, damn liars and statisticians.' You can prove whatever you want with statistics, just like you can with the Bible. It may cost us a lot, but at least we are dong something for the poor of our country. I think the alternative is we pay for emergency room care for them rather than this. Is that what you would chose?
Statistics. As for the national debt going to get worse and worse and worse, I see the military and foreign aid being bigger parts of it than these social issues. Are you willing to do anything about those?
"We should start with medical malpractice reform that would save hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary tests and junk lawsuits."
You may have a point, but in the interests of fairness, when you do something wrong, there should be some sort of punishment. 'Junk lawsuits' may be a waste of time, but until you get into court or at least start the process, you do not know it. It is bad that it costs so much that a lot of suits are settled before anything else happens just to avoid the expense of the rest of the suit, irregardless of the rightness of the one side or the other. ('you can be right and broke, or settle and get on with your life.'). Also, are your campaign contributors mostly insurance companies and their employees, so would they like this?
"We should return healthcare to the free market to lower costs and improve quality and customer service."
By 'free market' you mean that poor people would have to get health care from emergency rooms? How many restaurants offer health insurance at any price for their waitstaff or dishwashers? or the temporary labor workers? The ideas in this paragraph are mostly good, but lot of them are mostly good for your campaign contributors, not necessarily for poor folks. I especially like 'fostering patient centered care' which I think would have to include end of life decisions (death committees - as Mrs. Palin commented on, like those under the need for this would live forever if we did not do this).
Thank you for your time,
Joey
You make many good points and the politicians sound as if they are trying to convince us of the reasons they vote they way they do (apparently at the behest of the lobbyists who keep their bank accounts well lubricated). This is supposed to be a republic, which means they are supposed to represent our views, not convince us of theirs. Too often I feel like they are just out there making their talking points instead of listening to the will of the people.
ReplyDeleteTime to vote for some people who will listen and not just to people with fat wallets. The majority of the people who vote aren't rich, but it sounds like they are the only ones who are heard.
good point - they should be listening more than telling us their views, but still they have a right to think as they want. A dichotomy: do they vote for what we want them to vote for or do they vote for how they fell they should vote?
Delete