Eugene (Gene) Farley

“ John and all in the Meet-Up group, We have concern that many people mistakenly believe that if DFW supports the "Health Care For All" group's proposal that it cannot also support the "Wisconsin Universal Health Program" proposal, a single payer type plan benefiting from the experience of the Canadian Medicare system, or a national health program such as the Conyer bill. The two plans are very different: "Health Care for All", supports a bill that protects the interests of the insurance companies while decreasing the number of uninsured, but does little to lower the administrative costs of the present system or to change the basic structure in any way. It is a complex proposal that does not correct the underlying problems facing our health care system and does little or nothing to reduce the administrative costs, including those in the doctor's office. "Wisconsin Universal Health Program" provides everyone in the state health care coverage and assures individuals the ability to choose their doctor or other providers and their hospital. It denies them the ability to choose their insurance company. It is a plan that socializes health care insurance to assure the ability of individuals to choose their doctors - it is a program that supports private, non-investor-profit, practice of medicine. It rationalizes, simplifies and reduces the massive administrative costs of our present non-system and facilitates the ability of physicians and others to practice their profession and of people to recieve the needed care. It is possible to support short term increase in the number of people covered with health insurance while we continue to work for long term real changes that make more effective use of our fantastic health care resources (including the dollars spent) and assures that no one is uncovered and that there is no such thng as bankruptcies caused by health care costs. There are many different health care proposals being presented, all agree that the single payer type plan is the most cost effective and best, but then say it is "not politically feasible". Obviously as long as people say it is "not politically feasible" and therefore refuse to unite behind and work for such a plan it will always be "not politically feasible". For the past 40 years there have been multiple efforts to change our health care syestem in a gradual piece-meal manner - they have resulted in radical "changes" with increased complexity and administrative costs, but not necessarily "improvement". Hilary CLinton negotiated with the insurance companies to come up with an extremely complicated plan that protected the interests of the largest insurers, all of whom deserted her at the last minute. Since the failure of her plan we have seen dramatic and rapid changes in our health care system - changes that increase the cost and complexity, that deny coverage to almost 500,000 people in WIsconsin and to over 45,000,000 nationally, that leaves another 50,000,000 + underinsured and changes that are associated with 50% of personal bankrupticies being associated with health care costs. I hope that DFW will review the issues and consider supporting both the short term incremental approach of "Health Care for All" and the long term simplification, rational person and business supportive approach of "Wisconsin Universal Health Program" or its equivalent. Thanks for what you and the other DFW activists are doing. Gene & Linda ”