Netlets: Readers write about health care reform

As the health care debate continues we learn of more problems ahead for consumers. The recent report by the Kaiser Family Foundation showed that health care premiums, averaging more than $13,000 per family, have gone up 131 percent while wages have only increased 38 percent and inflation 28 percent. Other reports show the majority of physicians support a public option. And there are still more than 46 million Americans who can't afford health care.

While all this is happening, there is a glaring example of the waste in health care: full-page ads by drug companies "educating" the public about drugs for shingles and arthritis. I love the one for HUMIRA because it has the note (in bold print) that "serious infections have happened in patients taking HUMIRA. These infections include tuberculosis (TB) and infections spread throughout the body. Some of these serious infections have been fatal." Great to know that the medicine you take for arthritis could kill you, but hey, it does make the drug companies feel better.

Such advertising of drugs is illegal in most of the rest of the world. But ads sell in the United States, and it's the health of the drug industry that is of most concern, not the people. All this wasteful expense is paid for by the consumer. It's enough to make you sick.

ROBERT SHUMER, EAGAN

All the information, please A New York Times analysis reprinted in the Sept. 13 Star Tribune omits very significant information. The article included the following statement: "Republicans have made effective use of estimates by the Lewin Group, a consulting concern, which said that more than 100 million people might sign up for the government-run insurance plan." The author adds that the Congressional Budget Office estimate is only 11 or 12 million.

Here's the omission: The Lewin Group is owned by UnitedHealth Group, the health insurance corporation. That fact really clarifies that the larger estimate hardly comes from a neutral source. The CBO has to be neutral, since its role is to provide info to all of Congress.

The Lewin estimate is based on the assumption that all Americans would be allowed to switch to a government option. The current bills do not allow people with employers' insurance to make that jump. There's the big difference.

JIM BARTOS, BROOKLYN PARK

Workable models are there; political will isn't Why do none of the plans proposed to date appear to take account of the 900-pound gorilla in the room, the health insurance companies? If companies must insure everyone, the costs will go up for certain. How not? Can't deny coverage for preexisting conditions? Up go the costs. Can't negotiate costs with drug companies? Up again.

In most European plans, coverage is mandatory and cannot be denied. Coverage is cradle to grave and it's provided by private insurers for the most part. So how do they control costs? It's simple really. Health insurance companies must be nonprofits. Taxes are higher due to universal coverage, but costs are much, much lower.

It's also worth noting that the oft-criticized "Canadian Plan" is the model that Lyndon Johnson used for Medicare. The Canadian national health program is even called "Medicare."

But let's face it. We don't lack workable models in the world. There are many. What we lack is the political will to attack the problem once and for all. And at the end of the day, this isn't a financial decision. It's a moral decision, and our system is about as cruel as can be.

Government pays for irresponsible citizenry For the most part, an important topic has been absent in much of this health care debate: personal responsibility. One third of this country is obese and another third is overweight.

We Americans can find time to fit in 40-plus hours of TV watching and video game playing each week , but many of us can't seem to find time to exercise. Our exploding waistlines and the chronic diseases they bring are shown to be major factors in the growing costs of health care in this country. Tell me, what in this new health care plan will force people to take more responsibility for themselves? Instead, I fear, more and more of the costs will be passed to their neighbors and there will be even less incentives for people to live more responsibly. What we are witnessing is the collectivization of the consequences of individual decisions.

The lesson is learned, my fellow Americans: Eat those heart-bursting burgers, drink 50 ounces a day of your favorite sugary soda and meditate on your couch in front of the TV for six hours a day. Don't worry about a thing; your government (your neighbor) will pick up the tab.

STEPHEN MANDERFELD, HOPKINS

A question about patriotism I have been wondering about a couple of things lately: the struggle that Wall Street types have to recoup and engage their million-dollar-plus bonuses, and the struggle that corporate CEOs and health plan providers have to justify their multimillion-dollar salaries. Why is their patriotism not questioned? Why are they not contributing to their hurting country more by taking less?