addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-leftarrow-right-10x10arrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcredit-cardcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobe--smallglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1languagelaunch-new-window--smalllight-bulblinklocation-pinlockm-swarmSearchmailmediummessagesminusmobilemoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahooyoutube

Westchester for Change Message Board › Howard S.

Howard S. Veisz's Great Letter to the Editor on Medicare Reform, Medicare 'reform' bad for our health

Rachel E.
user 11954175
Harrison, NY
Post #: 6
Medicare 'reform' bad for our health, by Howard S. Veisz­

Last Monday's Republican presidential candidate debate displayed the real death panel: Seven candidates pursuing an agenda that will deprive Americans of health insurance. For Americans under 55, the candidates would replace future Medicare coverage with vouchers that are simply discount coupons for a product that can't be bought. Advanced age is, in effect, a pre-existing condition that insurers shun. As a risk factor, elevated age is like an elevated cholesterol level — except that a 65-year-old can't bring that number down. Indeed, the Republican claim that vouchers would materially reduce the deficit could only be true if the vouchers couldn't be cashed in because insurers won't sell policies to the elderly at all, or if their value is far below the costs covered by Medicare, and thus, far below what insurers would charge for comparable coverage.

Republicans, ostensibly defending the "right" of Americans under 65 to live without insurance, also seek to dismantle the Affordable Health Care Act that guarantees their ability to obtain it. This could only begin to make sense if individuals were making the decision rather than having it made for them by employers and insurers. In the real world, the right being championed is often nothing more than the right to be denied coverage. The more individuals need insurance, the more the right to be denied coverage is exercised — not by the individuals, but by insurers focused on their bottom line. Living without insurance is not exercising a right, but suffering a deprivation that can lead to the deprivation of life itself.

Howard S. Veisz


Powered by mvnForum

People in this
group are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy