Repeal the health care act

I find myself compelled to respond to the letter published from Michael Cooper regarding the Health Care Reform Act (The Nugget, Letters to the Editor, February 9). As I read the letter, it was immediately clear some of the information included was factually inaccurate while other parts neglected to discuss the various issues in their entirety.

In his opening sentence, Mr. Cooper states he is not a Democrat. His stance is certainly not conservative.

Regarding the specifics of the letter, I would like to address the following:

• "Give you the same healthcare benefits and rights as members of Congress."

The fact of the matter is Congress exempted itself from the act in its entirety. The benefits provided members of Congress far exceed those in the act - most would consider the benefits afforded members of Congress to be the "Cadillac of all Cadillac" plans. I assure you, the coverage provided in the Affordable Health Care for America Act will not approach the coverage Congress has provided itself.

• "Reforms will limit, beginning this year, how much profit health insurance companies can earn."

The premise in your statement is premiums will be limited due to profit limitation.

If that is the case, please explain to me why premiums are already increasing and are projected to continue to do so going forward? Limiting profit, I submit, will actually do more to increase premiums, as the direct effect will be a decrease in insurers' willingness and/or ability to remain in the industry.

The result of fewer insurers will be less competition and therefore higher premiums.

In addition, we're already seeing companies eliminate benefits due to the impact of the reform act.

In reality, the average profit earned by insurers is 3.4 percent with average ROE of 13.1 percent - not sure how that equates to earning "as much as they can get."

• "Eliminate lifetime caps."

This is a difficult question to be sure. The challenge is there will always be a finite quantity of dollars available to pay for all required coverage. I submit the net impact of eliminating lifetime caps will eventually lead to an overall lower level of care and to care rationing. I cannot envision a viable model that can and will provide all coverage for all citizens given limited resources.

Regarding pre-existing conditions, Mr. Cooper, are you aware the Republicans also agree this is an area that must be addressed?

Everyone I've spoken with agrees heath care reform is needed. For me, the act passed is not it. If Congress was serious about limiting premiums it would have, at a minimum, included tort reform and the ability to purchase insurance across state lines, but it didn't.

The act falls short on many levels and can only lead, eventually, to a single-payer, government-run boondoggle, costing a magnitude more than we are being told, and will be a net job loser (per the Congressional Budget Office the most recent estimate is a net loss of 800,000 jobs).

One of the most frustrating things about the entire health care debate is the ignorance (and I mean that by definition, not as a pejorative) with which the debate is conducted. Both sides regularly spew talking points without taking the time to research the issue for themselves. But then again if, as ex-Speaker Pelosi says, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it," why should anyone be surprised?

I believe the best course of action is to repeal this 2000-plus page monstrosity and replace it will a bill or series of bills that actually meet the desired goal of affordable health care without blowing up an entire industry and creating a government takeover of fully one-fifth of our economy.

Rob Malone has been a resident of Sisters since 2003 and holds a BS in Business Administration/Finance from Oregon State University.