Over the last month I have been preaching about the Obama Healthcare Proposal and its intent to create a monopoly on the free market in the healthcare system. For those who remember, Sen. Obama preached during the final presidential debate that the uninsured could have “the same health plan that Sen. McCain and I enjoy”. This plan is supported by the free market and is not as government controlled insurance company. Rather it is a private nonprofit company that negotiates their contracts annually with the government as part of the competitive free market. This is not a government agency and does not currently operate under government oversight.

The current proposal submitted by Sen. Baucus creates a national insurance exchange, which was not a part of the Obama platform. This insurance exchange, under the heavy government regulation will “allow” private plans to compete with a public insurance option. In other words, the Obama plan will create a government monopoly within the free market health care sector of the American business market. The proposed model for this plan is Medicare, which currently sets the curve for medial care prices and reimbursement. Current estimates for this plan are skimmed over as roughly an investment of $150 billion dollars per year, and do not consider the cost of creating an oversight office, the cost of the new employees, the associated union benefits, and pensions.

For those with low incomes, the government supplies a subsidy to make the cost “affordable”. Businesses that don’t supply health coverage will now have a payroll tax to support the plan. During the final presidential debate, Sen. Obama went on record as saying “there will be no fine” for employers who do not provide health coverage; however, he circumvented the American people by substituting a payroll tax for a fine. He obfuscated the truth with two simple one syllable words, fine and tax. Sen. Baucus oversees the finance committee, which as we pointed out oversees half of all government spending and taxes. At this juncture, the tax amount escapes even a ballpark estimate.

The final blow to the American people is the post election platform change of the words voluntary and mandatory. Again, the same number of syllables, unfortunately, they are autonyms. This platform change applies to the individual and not the business or employer. It mandates that all individuals buy into the healthcare program. Individuals and individual families eligible for government subsidies to purchase the health package would be permitted to earn 400% above the poverty level. A family of three making $66,000 per year would qualify for a subsidy, with higher incomes in Alaska and Hawaii.

Now, at the crux of the proposal, aside from the deviations from the campaign plat form, is the inability of the government to reign in the spending practices of the current program model, Medicare. Additionally, the government seeks to control both the newly created public market and regulate the private companies that currently compete in the free market. This creates another regulatory agency that owns the product and supervises the competing agencies. In short, this will create a monopoly in the health care industry and devastate the current dismal economic outlook for the nation.

Let’s remind ourselves what happened when the government “owned” two of the largest mortgage companies. We now require a bailout of the banking industry with taxpayers dollars on the assumption that the taxpayers will see a return on their investment and the markets will rebound. Now, the incoming administration plans to own all of the checkers the health insurance market, and shrink the size of the playing board. At the same time, the government and Obama promote the concept of government run health care as being efficient, which just creates one more oxymoron for the English language.

Based on the current trends in medical education and practice, the medical profession practicing primary care and internal medicine is conversely shrinking in proportion to the number individuals seeking actual primary care. Although the legislation believes that government has the authority to legislate mandatory healthcare and control the market, it is unlikely that government will legislate itself the authority to mandate sufficient professionals into the medical field to meet the needs of the masses.

November 7, 2008

Dear Representative ______________,

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your re-election. At such a historical time in American history, I would like to take the opportunity to suggest that you and the Republican Party make even greater history.

This morning I watched as the media announced that the three leading auto makers in the US and the leaders of the UAW plan to meet with Sen. Pelosi to double the “handout” or rescue for the ailing auto industry. This affects our state because of the impact on local production plants and dealerships. My question is this, “Why can’t the Republican Party make the first effort to address the auto crisis”? If the party was to meet the issue head on with the middle class of America, then the party would begin to dispel their image of “friend to big business”.

I strongly urge you to take a leadership position and consider this proposal to introduce within the Republican Party. As a taxpayer, union member, nurse, and spouse of a small business owner, I oppose any more handouts to the automakers. They are just stalling the inevitable without commitment to change. It might best serve the industry to work with the union in an effort to preserve and create jobs and promote a less costly and more efficient American automobile.

Unions organize for three specific reasons; wages, pensions, and health benefits. Health benefits were a primary issue of the recent election, but faded into the backdrop after the economy plummeted. Health care is an issue that will not go away. I urge you to look back in history and take a lesson from early unions. It is time for the auto industry and unions to work together for self preservation. First, consider negotiating a return to the trade unions “Welfare Fund” structure. This held true for decades until the advent of health insurance companies. However, trade unions continue to provide their union members coverage through these funds. Healthcare is not a one size fits all proposition. An example of this is that a young healthy auto worker does not require a $12,000.00 per year health plan, whereas most young families do not use a fraction of that plan in a year. The employer is paying thousands for the “just in case” plan, without including the employee co-pay. Now, add this thought to the process. If unions provided welfare coverage, then as a bargaining agent, they have the ability to invest in an umbrella policy at a lower cost for catastrophic illness. The state of New Jersey supports the “Catastrophic Illness for Children” fund, which is an example of the type of umbrella fund that I suggest. Trade unions have survived throughout the last century and are an example of the independent American workers spirit, something we need to inject into the auto industry.

Welfare funds decrease the cost to the auto industry, protect the health of the worker, and maintain the integrity of the collective bargaining unit. The second part of the proposal would encompass unions seeking federal funding to provide community based Federally Qualified Healthcare Centers. Unions, as non-profit organizations can apply to the federal government for grants to provide the healthcare that their demographics require. The more Primary Care Centers (PCP) the union provides throughout the country, the greater opportunity to increase their union earning power. FQHCs provide free and reduced healthcare (medical and dental) to communities. They also participate with and accept other forms of insurance, such as Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, occupational health, and workers compensation, as well as provide healthcare the uninsured and underinsured. Associations with teaching healthcare facilities provide access to advanced and acute care and contribute to medical education. This allows reinvestment into the union, community advancement, and cooperation with work related illness and injury. This creates more jobs in more communities through the cooperative effort of the union, corporation, healthcare, and certainly not the federal government. To encourage and support such a novel idea truly bridges some of the gaps and frustrations of the Republican Party and organized labor. It also reinforces our conservative values of less government intervention.

With a reduction in healthcare costs, the industry will be able to refocus on building a better product that will not reflect the added cost of employee health care. With that said, the next issue is the employee pension. When you connect the dot of healthcare to the employee/employer savings in healthcare, the union, as a nonprofit organization can use the proceeds to provide supplemental care within the pension plan, such as prescription coverage and decreased employee pension contributions.  Using national Pharmacy Managed Care Organizations reduces costs and increases choices of providers. This reduces the dependency on government intervention and preserves the future of many pensions. The union and its board of representatives become the watchdogs of their futures and not the stock holders of the company. If a company dies, so does the pension plan, or any hope of future gains.

The topic of wages and unemployment is of great consequence to the auto industry. Succinctly, extended unemployment does not support a family nor add to your pension. By reducing the dependence of the worker on healthcare concerns, it enables the worker to address their earning abilities. The industry can then address realignment of product production and future wages. If the union follows the previous suggestions, then it increases the value of the workforce through independence and greater control over their earnings. The key issue is to build a competitive American product that increases our ingenuity and returns the American automobile to a top selling product. Companies need to apply for federal grants that improve the product and decrease our dependence on foreign companies. We need to start with directing and assisting unions to seek the available grants for workplace improvement and technology that secures our autoworkers jobs, tax credits, and profitability in a fragile economy. Americans want to work; I don’t believe that a federal bailout for the short term is the answer.

                                                                        Very Truly Yours,