Response to Rep. Harry Mitchell 9/16

Below is my response to one of those form letter emails you get when you write to Rep. Harry Mitchell.
-----------------------

Mr. Mitchell,
I fully believe this is a waste of time, but I'm going to respond to your form letter email which is not an answer to anything I have sent to you.

You said, "Thank you for participating in my live telephone town hall on health insurance reform. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss what I consider to be the important components of health insurance reform, update you on the status of this legislation in Washington, and answer questions."

That thing you inappropriately refer to as a town hall was anything but a discussion. It was predominantly a presentation by you with extremely limited feedback from a handfull of people. A town hall is when you have the guts to get up in front of a whole auditorium of people and face real questions and get real responses. As I told you in the email I sent that very night, the purpose of a town hall is not for you to tell us the way things are but for you to get a real feel from your constituents for how we want things to be. No guts no glory Mr. Mitchell.

You said, "Throughout the August district work period, I have had the opportunity to listen to the thoughts and concerns of thousands of constituents about health insurance reform. This is an intensely personal issue that affects us all."

Does that include the time in August that you were doing your tour in Israel?

You said, "During the live telephone town hall, I was pleased to have the opportunity to answer many questions. However, with more than 14,000 participants in the town hall, I unfortunately could not get to everyone's questions."

In addition to your telephone travesty I personally attended both Shaddeg's and Flake's town halls which were real in-person meetings with constituents. Each of them easily received 10 times the direct comments and questions with a thousand times better feel from the constituents than you did regardless of how many people you were pontificating to.

You said, "I agree with Sen. John McCain when he says that we cannot afford to do nothing. More and more families are losing access to the care they need, and our economy is suffering as businesses try to cope with escalating costs. Individuals with pre-existing illnesses or chronic disease are often denied coverage."

Well, I disagree with both of you. In truth we can ill afford to do the wrong thing just so that we can claim we did something. Doing the wrong thing in haste can end up helping no one and instead hurting everyone. Hurt everyone that is except government employees like yourself who will be exempt of course. Have you signed on to that bill that would require all Congressmen to take the public option?

You said, "Insurance premiums are rising, due in part to the costs associated with millions of Americans who lack coverage. The average American family is paying an extra $1,100 in premiums a year to pay for the shifted cost. While I support reforming of our health care system, current proposals in Congress are still not complete."

Time for a little dose of logic Mr. Mitchell. Those costs don't go away. They still get shifted. They just get shifted to the taxpayers while making a little detour through the government so you guys get your cut. So, instead of $1,100 of shifted cost burden it will be more like $2,000. Great cost saving. Oh, you meant that **you** will get to save our money from **us**! I get it.

You said, "First of all, I believe that reform should provide more choice, not less. I would not support a plan that would make you change your insurance."

I have seen no version of the bill that would not result in the extinction of existing plans in five years or less. It's the old bait and switch. Sure you can keep your **existing** plan, it's just that your current plan won't **exist**. It's an old magician's trick to give people what seems like a choice when in fact no real choice exists.

You said, "I oppose a government takeover of the health care system, also known as a single-payer system. I would vote against any proposal that would result in a government takeover."
Of course you wouldn't. It is never presented as a take over even when that is what it is. You always get to pretend it isn't. Then you don't get stuck with the result, but we do and we don't want it period.

You said, "In order to for any independent insurance option to be effective, I strongly believe it must operate on a level playing field with other private options-in other words, it cannot have any competitive advantage that could lead to unfair competition."

There is nothing that can ever be a level playing field between a government run system that takes it's losses out of the taxpayer pockets competing with insurance companies which don't get to tax people or print their own money.

You said, "I will not vote for legislation that would lead to rationing of care."
Systems are self regulating based upon cost or by rationing. There is no third alternative. If the cost is not in part carried by the person being cared for they judge the service to be free and the demand goes through the roof. Then the only way to keep costs down is by rationing. This kind of system involves rationing, official or unofficial, everywhere it has been used.

I'd go on, but like I said at the beginning, it's probably pointless. You are going to do whatever you are going to do, and in 2010 I'm going to do what I'm going to do at the voting poll.

Curtis Eickerman
Phoenix, Arizona
Democrat, 5th District