|
Government takeover of
health care is not the reform we need
by
Rep. Mike Armstrong
At the
close of the 2009 legislative session in April, I was released from the
hospital after a minor, but important surgery to open a blockage to
some
blood vessels in my heart. The surgery was a complete success. I'm feeling
better than I've felt in many years. I'm exercising,
eating right, and my doctor says I'm healthy and
doing very well.
I'm lucky to be living in a nation
with the highest quality of health care. After having
chest pains, I was
immediately checked into the hospital in Olympia and had my
procedure the following day. That rapid response means
that I have the opportunity to live to a ripe old age,
and to enjoy my children and, someday,
grandchildren and even great grandkids.
The national debate over whether the
federal government should take over health care is very
disturbing. Judging from the town hall meetings
across the nation, people are extremely concerned about
government trying to take charge of their own personal
health care decisions.
Many folks cite the Canadian system as
an example of a nation providing health care to its
citizens. However, I would not bet my health on a system
such as Canada's. In the Aug. 10 edition
of the Vancouver Sun, it was reported that "Vancouver
patients needing neurosurgery, treatment for vascular
diseases and other medically necessary procedures can
expect to wait longer for care." The newspaper said the
Vancouver Coastal Health Authority is considering
chopping more than 6,000 scheduled surgeries in an effort to make
up for a $200 million budget shortfall.
Can you imagine having to wait to have a
life-saving surgery because the government has a budget
shortfall?
During the last legislative session, we
found ourselves with a $9 billion budget deficit in
Washington state. One of the ways the Legislature
addressed this shortfall was to cut funding for the
state's Basic Health Plan (BHP) and to increase premiums
for current enrollees.
Originally created 21 years ago as a
pilot program for 4,000 low-income residents, the BHP
was expanded to a permanent statewide program that had
106,000 enrollees at the beginning of this year.
Throughout this massive expansion of costs and
bureaucracy, poor decisions in Olympia forced many
health insurance companies out of the state. This left
the BHP as the only viable option for many people and,
now, it is systematically being taken away from them.
It's estimated that 30,000 people will lose their
coverage because they cannot afford the premium
increases.
This is precisely why Olympia or
Washington, D.C. should not take over our health care.
There's no question that our health care
system is in need of reform. If you can't afford health care
coverage, it is a crisis.
However, there's a greater crisis looming under a
federal takeover of health care -- denial or delay of
treatments you need when you need them, and politicians
and bureaucrats making your health care decisions and
putting themselves between you and your doctor.
True reform should not be synonymous
with a government takeover of health care or put the
fiscal well being of our nation at risk. I'm very
concerned by claims that people would be able to keep
their current physicians and health care plans under the
Obama proposal. This is simply not possible, as
employers would be forced to cancel health insurance for
employees due to billions, if not trillions, of dollars
in taxes that would be required to implement health care
for all. Millions of Americans could lose their existing
health insurance and be forced into government-run
health care under these proposals.
What we really need is a balanced,
common-sense approach that contains costs, provides assistance to those
who truly need it, and keeps health care
patient-centered, rather than government-centered, for
everyone. I have joined with my House Republican
colleagues in proposing a 10-point plan for Washington
state which includes legislation that would reform the
BHP, allow purchase of lower-cost health insurance plans
from other states, expansion of health savings accounts,
choices for small employers, tax credits on health-care
plans, cost transparency, core-benefit plans for young
adults, and health-care provider innovation.
Reform is needed, but it must be the right
kind of reform that provides more access to treatment
and doctors, and protects the quality of health care, with
less interference from insurance companies and
government bureaucrats.
I am a
walking example of being able to receive timely medical
treatment that saved my life. I am also fortunate to be
among the nearly 89 percent of Washingtonians who have
good health insurance. We
shouldn't push people with good health coverage onto a
government system like Canada's that rations health care
when budgets face shortfalls. There is an important role
for government in health care, but it should be limited
only
to helping people who truly cannot afford it.
# # # EDITOR'S NOTE:
State Rep. Mike Armstrong, R-Wenatchee,
represents the 12th Legislative District. He can be contacted at (360)
786-7832 or from his Web site at:
www.houserepublicans.wa.gov/Armstrong.
For more information, contact:
John
Sattgast, Senior Information Officer: (360) 786-7257
|