New York Times Letters to the Editor
January 31, 2003
To the Editor:
To satisfy President Bush’s call for universal health insurance, Ted Halstead wants to make it mandatory (Op-Ed, Jan. 31). He wants to enroll the uninsured “in a default private plan by the government, and either billed or subsidized accordingly.” This would be tough to enforce.
In Mr. Halstead’s model, non- insurance would be disclosed on tax returns next year; what about sick or injured scofflaws in the interim? And what about the millions who don’t file Form 1040’s?
Despite major government subsidies, Mr. Halstead shuns new regulations. Lower premiums would be only the hoped-for result of insuring more young and healthy participants. In fact, the plan’s objective seems simply to finance private insurers, whose more than 14 percent overhead compares unfavorably with Medicare’s 2 percent administrative cost.
Wouldn’t it be easier and more cost-effective to improve and expand Medicare to cover everyone?
JOHN GLASEL
Hoboken, N.J., Jan. 31, 2003
To the Editor:
Forcing all Americans to buy health coverage would not drive down coverage. As the laws of economics tell, increase the demand, and the prices will go up.
Ted Halstead’s plan (Op-Ed, Jan. 31) would force millions of Americans who have made a choice about their needs to buy coverage they may or may not need.
In addition, his suggestion that Americans would get better care from the insurance companies once everyone was forced to buy it flies in the face of experience.
If Mr. Halstead’s insurance companies want “young and relatively healthy Americans” to buy health insurance, they should focus on lowering the price rather than forcing the government to cover its shortfalls.
CHRISTOPHER BOWEN
Washington, Jan. 31, 2003
To the Editor:
I appreciate Ted Halstead’s attempt at solving our health care crisis (Op-Ed, Jan. 31). But there is a flaw in his plan.
If we require all young individuals to buy insurance, the premiums would pay for only the medical resources they use. This would have no impact on the cost of health insurance for older individuals. If we require them to pay premiums higher than the resources they use, then we are taxing them to help offset higher costs for older individuals.
It is understandable that the general public does not understand the pricing of health insurance since the cost of medical services are harder to find than Iraq’s chemical weapons. But it is becoming increasingly frustrating that most people in a position to affect public policy do not understand the financial aspects of health insurance.
CHRIS S. CARLSON
Milwaukee, Jan. 31, 2003
To the Editor:
I commend Ted Halstead’s endorsement of universal health coverage (Op-Ed, Jan. 31). However, his idea for putting it into effect is unfeasible on one major count.
Comparing mandatory health insurance to car insurance is misguided in that many Americans do not even own cars. Either they can’t afford one, or paying for insurance would cripple their quality of life.
For many, paying for this coverage would be an insurmountable task, even with a reduced cost. Why don’t we instead do away with this bureaucracy of privatized for-profit insurance companies? The powers that be could create a national health care system in which the money that was originally going to individual health costs would instead be collected in taxes, and health insurance would be provided for all. For those who cannot afford to pay for health insurance, this would allow them access to proper health care. STEVEN SOBEY
Allston, Mass., Jan. 31, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/03/opinion/L03INSU.html?tntemail0
