Marketplace![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.gif)
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (15)
First and foremost, the House health-care reform legislation being debated as of the writing of this letter has been assembled behind closed doors. If it were voted upon in the U.S. House of Representatives today, it would fail miserably. I would oppose it, and I have publicly opposed many components of this measure in other forms. Congress should be deliberate, inclusive and thorough when addressing this complex issue, but so far it is 0-for-3.
Responsible health-care reform requires us to improve access to quality care by lowering costs without impinging on the doctor-patient relationship or by limiting Americans' access to private coverage. Multiple opportunities for cost-cutting reforms exist in the system, as well as in Medicare and Medicaid, by removing barriers to access of prescription drugs and speeding the approval process for generic drugs, by expanding risk pools for health insurance and by using evidence-based outcomes to make better information about drugs and treatments available to patients and doctors.
Instead, the crux of this debate is over the size and shape of a "public option" -- a single-payer, government provided insurance product which would subsidize the insurance for low-income Americans at taxpayer expense while at the same time competing with private insurers for patients at higher income levels. This option is poor for several obvious reasons: It would force Americans out of employer-provided coverage with fees, taxes and penalties. It could intervene in the decision-making of doctors and their patients. And it would add the new demand of millions of insured Americans to the market for health-care services, driving up costs for quality care.
Instead, we must find responsible ways to expand access to the American health-care system and to graduate from a system that treats only illness to one that also prioritizes wellness -- regular and preventive care that identifies serious diseases and conditions early instead of in late stages when treatments become extraordinarily expensive and far less effective.
The costs of the uninsured in America today are borne by taxpayers and every paying participant in our health-care system, and those costs are substantial. Broader health-care coverage is a goal of mine not just to serve the sick who currently have no way to access the system other than an emergency room, but also to make these Americans paying stakeholders in the system, even at the lowest levels of income. I think everyone can afford five dollars to pay for the treatment of a serious disease or injury. Quality health care is a privilege in our great country, and access to this system of care demands responsibility when using it. At the same time, doctors are sworn to treat the sick wherever they encounter them, and Congress should use the same compassionate approach to ensure that the system can be accessed by everyone who needs it.
In the U.S. House of Representatives, you can be sure I am working toward the responsible realization of this goal. I want to cut costs, introduce better technologies for patient tracking and care (especially in rural America), make sure treatments are affordable, effective and available and ensure that Americans are not turned away when they most need the care of a doctor. As I carefully consider health-care reform measures on behalf of southern Missouri, I appreciate everyone in our district who stays up to speed on these important issues as well.
Jo Ann Emerson of Cape Girardeau represents Missouri's 8th District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please 
Joann, you are so out of touch with reality in stating that you believe that everyone can afford to pay five dollars for a serious illness. The 8th congressional district that you serve ranks the 12th poorest in the nation. How could you make a statement like that when children are going to bed hungry in your district? When a parent has the choice of going to the Dr. or preventing their children from going to bed hungry, which choice do you think that parent will make?
Thank you Representative Emerson. Brave of you to suggest that people should place their personal and family health care in front of a pack of cigarets or a six-pack of beer. Please be assured that you have plenty of grass roots support. They may be quieter than the whiners, but they are there nontheless. The 'Tea Party' crowd are real people trying their damdest to let you and your fellow lawmakers how they feel - and those regular folk that go to work every day to pay for those who can't. Stay with it - you have our support. A good parent will find a way to feed their children and get them proper medical care - both are available.
As with everything... It's all about the choices individuals make.
People chose to let their employers decide upon their insurance coverage, carrier, "network" of physicians instead of doing it themselves.
People chose to allow the insurance carrier to dictate everything about their healthcare instead of doing it themselves.
People chose to ignore cost/benefit and failed to demand that their healthcare providers perform the best healthcare with economic efficiency.
People are now choosing to blame everyone but themselves for the current state of affairs.
Most people put more research, effort, fiscal planning, and negotiation into buying a car than they do with their own healthcare.
I think that when you choose to be dictated to, you get what you deserve. And the push for "universal" healthcare is nothing more than choosing to go further down the same old road.
So scottm, let's have the adults among us, knowing what you say exists in life, and has been enabled in our society, work towards real reform. Encourage Congressperson Emerson and her colleagues to carefully pass well thought-out, openly discussed and truly bi-partisan, courageous legislation and give our children's children better options.
I agree that the Representative is totally out of touch. Why did she not mention that one company, Well Point, controls 68% of the health insurance market? She did not mention that thousands of middle aged people in her own district have been excluded from the healthcare market because they have lost there jobs, and are blackballed by insurance companies because of age. She did not mention that Tax incentives are useless to a population of unemployed who have lost healthcare due to the disastrous policies of her own political party. As a long time supporter, I have been bitterly disappointed in Representative Emerson's attempts to sit on the fence on this while many in her district lose everything because of corporate greed, having committed the awful sin of getting old. As for the good Doctor, there are far to many like him in our area who like Representative Emerson, have been blessed with having it all while being disconnected from the realities of the community they are suppose to serve.
"I think everyone can afford five dollars to pay for the treatment of a serious disease or injury."
What world is this woman living in?
"Quality health care is a privilege in our great country, and access to this system of care demands responsibility when using it. At the same time, doctors are sworn to treat the sick wherever they encounter them, and Congress should use the same compassionate approach to ensure that the system can be accessed by everyone who needs it."
Not only is this statement contradictory, it's also depressing to hear that she believes receiving health care should be a "privilege." This from a representative from the party of "right to life." Hard to maintain a life without proper health care.
What is in the water in Southeast Missouri that warps these brains into this bizarro-alternate reality where health care costs five bucks and is on the same level as driving a car?
Like many other things in the reality of the world, all of us, just like our respresentation in Washington are out of touch. Jo Ann Emerson and every other elected official have been presented with healthcare reform options from the private sector in the communities in which they live, but they've turned a blind eye and held a deaf ear. Stimulus money for Missouri went to things that did not create jobs, when there are local companies trying to create jobs. These local companies trying to create jobs receieved no money. Politicians are lawmakers. It is up to us, the general public, to take care of our own problems. But with so much of the country looking for a hand out, the few needing a hand up are slighted. Policiticians have no business trying to reform or fix healthcare, nor do they need to run insurance companies, banks, car companies, or any other entities dealing with business. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel that the governement's job is to pave roads, protect the citizens from enemies, take care of seniors, and lead the way in education. Medicare/Medicaid and social security are on the brink of bankruptcy. Are you sure you want these people fixing your healthcare? Next time you hit a pothole, remember the people wanting to be in charge of your health, are the same people that were suppose to fix that hole.
We are privileged to have the quality of health care we enjoy in this country. And we are quite capable of destroying that privilege. Congressperson Emerson has the unenviable responsibility of following her own best judgement, satisfying as many constituents as humanly possible; and at the same time trying to stay in office so she can do these things. Instead of cherry picking her statement for the most negative connotation, we might best be served by helping her make the best decisions possible. Unless that is not your motivation.
First off, the biggest potholes I hit are on municipal streets. The Feds are doing the highways, which are always under improvements or construction.
Let's point out some of the "potholes" in the current plan, which I'll call "Held Hostage to Insurance Companies or Uninsured Altogether", or "HHICUA".
In "HHICUA", your care, your family's care, and your future is managed by a corporation. That corporation answers to stockholders, who wish to see their investment's value rise. Unfortunately, this plan is foiled by one thing: people being sick.
So, the insurance company fixes this in one of two ways: denying your claims, or dropping you altogether. Wonderful system that works great until you actually get sick.
Your other option under "HHICUA" is to just be uninsured, whereby you visit the ER for any illness that requires a doctor's intervention. Being prohibitively expensive, as most hospitals now are privately-owned and out to profit off the insurance companies, you just leave following treatment and never pay, forcing cost increases for everyone else.
We pave roads for every citizen, we have military protection for every citizen, and we provide education for every citizen...not sure why health care is a lower priority than any of these.
Maybe...
But I think it is high time that we start holding the people we put in office accountable. These are serious issues and shouldn't be treated with small cander. If people think worrying with health care is cherry picking an issue, I would hate to see the pie the rest of the cherries lay in. We all support Jo Ann and wish her well, but I have yet to see her red faced and mad on CSpan, CNN, Fox, or NBC. I am not an apologetic or sympathetic constituent that makes excuses for lackadaisical behavior and people that are concern me. All of our representatives spend more time worrying about staying in office as opposed to taking the measures necessary to improve Missouri and this country. The time for them to start making a difference is now. I think that if our politicians (all of them) do not start standing up for the people of this state, then we need to change who is representing us. People that get to help these politicians in the decision making process are either contributors or "special interest."
-FriendO
Yes, all these things are provided, but none of them are done well. Any asphalt on any road is done by government. What do you think the city and county of Cape are? or any other town? I think that the people of this country are safer in the hands of a corporation than this administration or any future administration at this time. The elementary reasons the cost of health care are so high is because of the people billing for the service, not the corporation gambling on your health.
Until the insatiable appetite of clinicians, practitioners, and health care providers can be contended with, and paid for the services already rendered in a timely fashion, there will be no reform. Good luck trying if anyone is fool-hearty enough to attempt.
Yeah, our country is doing a great job educating people too.
ithenana ... Hate to make such a strong statement, but ... You are wrong.
Except for perhaps the very poorest of the poor (i.e., the 'homeless' with no income whatsoever), there probably is not one person in this country who could not pay a $5 OR even $10 co-pay for medical care ... whether covered by private insurance, Medicaid, or SCHIP.
Part of the problem with the Medicaid program is that it imposes little or no incentive for the enrollees to handle their health (or financial) issues in a responsible manner ... such as not going to a doctor for minor ailments or using birth control methods to eliminate bringing an extra child into the situation, or not saving a few dollars for 'emergencies' by eliminating unnecessary purchases. For you to understand this, perhaps you would have to spend a few days as a grocery-store checker, or follow 'the poor' around Walmart for a while. I'm willing to bet that you could see at least $5-$10 being spent upon things that were not necessary.
But then ... I'm only going by life experiences ... remembering when 'poor' was having no TV, no computer, no internet, no telephone, no A/C, and often no car ... And seeing now the difference between 'poor' then compared to 'poor' now.
Thanks, blogbudsman ... and scottm52 ... phatnes ... I don't always agree with Emerson's decisions ... in fact, seldom do lately. However, she is reasonably on-track with this issue. I firmly support, and always have, co-pays for health services.
wrcactus does rather have a point in that low-income, middle-aged, childless, non-handicapped people in low-paying jobs--or unemployed through no fault of their own--have been ignored. Apparently they have no access to programs such as Medicaid.
FriendO....
There are many ways to avoid the calamity of "HHICUA". It's called "COMPETITION".
About two years ago I reevaluated my own family's healthcare. I decided that allowing a company to dictate what insurance would be available to me was unacceptable.
I decided that allowing an insurance company to control the playing field was unacceptable.
I took maybe a week total, but in actual time maybe only a day to research and evaluate and another day to have a little "chat" with my doctors, pharmacy, local hospital.
I now have an MSA and an insurance policy with a very high deductible. I pay CASH to my doctors, pharmacy, hospital in exchange for a huge DISCOUNT on their products and services.
After some extensive oral surgery for one of my children and ACL surgery that I received I can happily report that the healthcare I pay for is worth every penny... All $362/month for a family of four.
If people can't find affordable healthcare, they're not trying... Or have made a conscious decision to not take care of themselves.
Aside from the savings created by the prevention and wellness program, medical IT, foreseeable potential stem cell effect, mental stress relief and massive job creation, ending subsidies for the private insurers and payment reform and so on could be enough to meet the goal of deficit-neutral.
Public school, public insurance policy, and public clean energy act are the natural parts of life in the free nations.
Thank You !
Wow..........Are you kidding me?!
Hypothetically, there could be huge savings created by a prevention wellness program. Emphasis on could. Hypothetically, technology is terrific, but in that system you have to create a monopoly for one provider to ensure compatibility for the whole system. That would only destroy free market competition, eventually increase prices, and with the lack of research and development, the system would become outdated.
In this rosey scenario, my only question is who assumes all the debt for that perfect reform to bring a deficit back to neutral? How do you reap a refund on that investement?
Like I stated before, public schools are horrendous. Our children are not coming out of school ready to compete in the global market. Public clean energy act? Public insurance? Who told you these are natural parts of life? These are created comforts in other free nations. How well has it worked for them? The only reason these countries haven't completely failed is because our country still reigns supreme supporting them. Everyone of you had better wake the hell up, look around, and start noticing what is going on. We are in a global economy and we must win in business first. Your only natural parts of life in a free nation are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....no more.