Re:  Biting the bullet:  Even in faltering, health reform needed

In advocating the imposition of the Democratic government expansion in the health care market, the Chronicle editorial staff makes the diagnosis correct but the prescription wrong.  Yes:  we do need to reform our health insurance system; however, enacting unprecedented government mandates and prohibitions, while raising taxes (during a time of continued economic instability, no less) does not "reform" the health insurance system in ways that empower individuals and families while reducing costs.

Efficiency and cost-effectiveness are increased by competition in an open market where consumers have choices and where businesses are competing for their dollars.  Yet the so-called "ObamaCare" plan does nothing to end prohibitions against voluntarily buying insurance across state lines, group plans, or extending the same tax benefits to individuals and families currently enjoyed only by employers.  These reforms would work for health care the same way competitive markets have worked to bring down costs (while increasing service quality) of cell phones, laptop computers, and elective procedures like laser eye surgery.

Instead, the government-centered plan imposes new fines, taxes,and individual mandates, while creating new bureaucracies and regulators.  It subsidizes unhealthy lifestyle choices and potentially moves many younger, healthier adults out of insurance coverage (until, of course, they need treatment).  It purports to cut hundreds of billions in "inefficiency and waste" from Medicare; yet Congress has never succeeded in making such cuts previously, and if they were so easily done, why not do them as a stand-alone bill?

True reform involves getting government less involved in the health care choices of individuals and families, not more.  True reform would remove government barriers and obstacles, not increase them.  True reform would empower consumers, not politicians.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX