Thursday, December 12, 2013
On July 30, 1965, Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law. As we note that anniversary, it is interesting to compare the health care news of our own day.
President Lyndon Johnson signs the Medicare bill into law July 30, 1965, as former President Harry Truman, right, observes at the Truman Library in Independence, Mo. A letter writer says the program is more cost-effective than private health insurance.
1965 File Photo/The Associated Press
For instance, an article in the July 25 Portland Press Herald ("Briefcase: Wellpoint stock sets record ahead of health care reform") reports: "Shares of Wellpoint Inc. hit an all-time high Wednesday, after the nation's second-largest health insurer trounced second-quarter earnings expectations and detailed how it expects to benefit from the health care overhaul and other growth opportunities over the next few years."
I'm no economist, but it seems to me that if the payer of medical bills is trouncing earnings expectations, then the payer of premiums must be paying for more than health care.
This is of particular note when we read the same day that Anthem, a subsidiary of Wellpoint, is entering an exclusive partnership with the nonprofit MaineHealth ("Anthem-MaineHealth network approved -- with conditions"). Is that a strategy to improve health, or to "benefit from growth opportunities"?
There's other news, too: about whether to expand Medicaid coverage to the thousands of Mainers who have no insurance; about postponing the Affordable Care Act's mandate; about the move by some employers to reduce workers' hours so they can avoid providing health insurance.
All very complicated, not to mention distracting from the basic mission of health insurance -- making medical care affordable by spreading its cost.
What a contrast is the Medicare story. Despite the program's problems and the chronic, yet surely resolvable, issue of its funding, it has proved to be far more cost-effective than private health insurance (1 to 5 percent overhead cost versus 12 to 30 percent for private insurers, according to www.politifact.com), far more inclusive and certainly more efficient than the stopgap ACA.
Indeed, we should celebrate Medicare's 48th anniversary by resolving to take it to the next level -- Medicare for all.
Daniel C. Bryant, M.D.
Anti-abortion activists can protest where they like
This letter is in reply to the editorial "Our View: Clinic doors wrong place for abortion protesters" (July 30):
I beg to differ. One of the nefarious arguments that the Portland Press Herald repeats several times is seen at the very beginning of their pro-abortion propaganda spiel, which reads as follows: "Free speech is not the right to interfere with an individual accessing a medical facility."
Do tell. Since when can't a protester stand on any public right of way and picket or criticize any institution, be it a business of any kind or a medical facility such as a hospital or one of Planned Parenthood's baby-killing establishments?
Also, a normal medical facility is a place where the goal is to heal. Oh, yes, Planned Parenthood does a few diagnostic procedures such as mammograms, HIV and pregnancy testing, but precious few healing methods are offered.
Furthermore, it cannot be denied that their goal is not to heal but to deny life by killing someone who God miraculously created and had special plans for. This is to be accomplished either by pills, saline solution or a procedure that is more bloody and gory than what was once used by executioners in England, where the criminal was drawn and quartered.
However, there's no question that pro-lifers have a legal right to stand on the sidewalk, without blocking it, directly in front of any Planned Parenthood facility and freely voice their opposition to this cruel, inhuman execution of babies in the womb.
(Continued on page 2)