Letter to the Editor

Alumnus disagrees with Romney health care plan

Dear Editor,

I am writing in response to the Op-ed piece “Romney health care plan a necessary compromise” (8/30/07).

Point by point, I disagree with everything the author wrote. First, she says the details of Romney’s health care plan are “easily found in the news.” Since I couldn’t find any details in the article I figured I would go to Romney’s Web site. Not only did I notice that the Health Care link was the second to last in his issue list (just above Education, clocking in at last for Romney’s issues – what a guy!) the only things written on Romney’s Web site were two brief quotes and this: “The health of our nation can be improved by extending health insurance to all Americans, not through a government program or new taxes, but through market reforms.” This ‘extremely detailed proposal’ says nothing – but in fact sounds like Romney is against health coverage for all citizens (practically) and is instead promoting employment-based health coverage (i.e., “not through government programs.but through market reforms”.) He is saying he’s for it in theory, yes – but that’s hardly a plan. I also find it funny that Romney doesn’t think health care is worth raising taxes. If there was ever a reason to raise taxes I would think health care would be on that list.

The next piece of the article says “needs are not the same around the country, and it allows each state to tailor a plan.” The words “separate but equal” are ringing in my head right now. Let’s use some brain power to figure out why this “state based plan” is crap: If there is a state with rampant poverty, high unemployment, and many uninsured citizens (Rust belt, Deep South, Mid-America, etc) how can they suddenly afford to insure all of their citizens? Isn’t the whole reason for a federal plan because the states already have shown they don’t have the resources to pay for it all? If 90 percent of the country’s wealth is in 10 percent of the states, how can you expect 90 percent of the states to pay with just 10 percent wealth?

The article then goes on to moan about bureaucracies. Sister, you only have the right to (whine) about waiting in line when we have a line to wait in.

As we move on, the author says she doesn’t understand the use of malpractice suits. Well, how about this: I don’t want a doctor who sews someone up with a sponge left inside to have the chance to cut me open! I want that doctor’s license revoked before he (messes) up again! Part of the point of civil suits is to compensate when criminal charges cannot be filed. Just because there was no intent doesn’t mean the person shouldn’t be punished.

The article ends with more fluff about a plan I think the author knew nothing about.

Greg Cieslik

Alum, Class of 2006