Getting Health Reform Right

by Dick Castner

Congressional recesses serve a valuable purpose. They provide members of Congress with extended periods back in their states and districts, where they can connect with constituents and find out what’s on their minds.

At no time was this truer than with the recess just ending. Constituents packed town hall meetings in numbers never seen before. Most came to express serious concerns about the direction Congress is headed on health care. There’s plenty to be concerned about.

Before breaking for recess, four of the five committees that handle health care (three in the House, two in the Senate) approved massive reform bills. They acted with remarkable speed, given the importance of the issue and its complicated nature, and they acted with Democratic votes only. The Senate Finance Committee might still produce a bill with some bipartisan support. For months, three of the committee’s Democrats and three Republicans have huddled in marathon negotiations behind closed doors. They’re up against a September 15 deadline; if they don’t have a bipartisan bill by then Democratic leaders are preparing to go it alone.

Among the concerns voiced at town hall meetings across the country were several that the U.S. Chamber strongly shares. To cite the largest:

• Government-run plan. Touted as a way to "keep the insurance companies honest," it would instead put many of them out of the health insurance business. The government can’t and won’t be a fair competitor with private companies. It can bury many of its costs and has no need to make a profit. Three of the four committee bills would allow the government to reimburse providers at or near Medicare rates, which are far below market and would encourage cost shifting to the private sector on a massive scale. Cheap premiums for the government plan could dominate the market, leaving us a short step from just one option for all Americans.

• Employer mandate. In the House versions, employers with payrolls that exceed $250,000 annually would have to provide "qualified health benefits" to their employees and their employees’ dependents. They’d have to pay at least 72.5% of the premium cost for employees, 65% for dependents. If they don’t, they would pay a payroll tax of up to 8% of their total payroll to the government. All of this comes with onerous new record keeping requirements. After five years, a government board would define what a "qualified health plan" must contain, limiting design flexibility for ERISA plans and setting the stage for costly coverage mandates.

• Who pays? Estimates of what all of this would cost, especially covering most of the uninsured, run well north of $1,000,000,000,000 (that’s trillion) in additional spending over ten years. Supporters claim their bills will be "deficit-neutral" when they come to the floor. But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says they have a long way to go, with the House piling up $239 billion in additional deficits over the first ten years. That’s after hundreds of billions in unspecified cuts to Medicare providers and hefty income tax surcharges to the highest earners, many of whom are successful small business owners. The administration and Senate leaders have discussed a long list of personal and business tax increases that could hit everything from nonprofit hospitals to sugary drinks. Underlying all of this is the debate over whether to tax employer-provided health benefits. Candidate Obama said he wouldn’t do it but as Willie Sutton said about banks, "that’s where the money is."

The business community has as large a stake in health care reform as anyone. Employers voluntarily pay more than $500 billion annually to provide coverage for nearly 177 million Americans. But soaring premiums make it harder each year for employers to provide these vital benefits. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is committed to finding ways to make quality health care more affordable and accessible for all.

There is widespread agreement about much of what is being discussed, things that could pass with large bipartisan majorities. We could reform the insurance system by eliminating restrictions based on pre-existing conditions or health status; guaranteeing that anyone can buy a policy and that those policies couldn’t be revoked; placing reasonable limits on rating differences; providing subsidies for those who can’t afford coverage; and requiring everyone to have health care coverage. We could control costs by using health information technology; focusing on wellness and prevention; simplifying administration; combating fraud and abuse; and letting individuals and small businesses deduct health insurance expenses. We could create a vibrant marketplace with a health insurance exchange that connects consumers with insurance options, removing fragmentation and spurring choice and competition. These things needn’t cost a trillion dollars and would make a real difference in people’s lives.

One thing on which opinions differ but that should be on the table if we’re serious about controlling costs: medical liability reform.

What can you do?

Two things: Join the Campaign for Responsible Health Reform to stay informed; and contact your members of Congress as they return from recess to Washington. Urge them to step back from the direction they were headed in July and focus on sensible reforms that will improve the quality and availability of health care while holding the line on costs.

Comments

[sadsad]

lower the production costs and help US Exports to compete better internationally. After all these years of loosing market shares, I would have thought the CEOs would have learned something from Japan & Europe and support universal coverage. I do not understand why they are not pushing for Universal Coverage.
It is a sad moment in history, in the name of Christ the Right wingers are not satisfied until the last manufacturing job is exported.

[Dallas L.]

Charles T., your analogies display a lack of the ability to reason intelligently. The US Postal Service has a monopoly on non-urgent mail, UPS and FedEx compete only in the area of urgent letters and packages to people who are willing to pay exorbitant prices. If one follows your analogy then Government health care will be a nightmare, really crappy guv'ment service to those who can't afford it, and really great private service for those who can. Your analogy also has the unintended effect of proving our point, that Government does a terrible job (the Post Office), and private industry does it better (FedEx, UPS). Then in your convoluted logic you try to make the exact opposite point in your second paragraph. "If the Chambers view is..." Maybe you should find out what the Chambers view is then make a comment. "If" is for children. The Chamber has stated quite plainly that Congress needs to take action, including forcing people to buy insurance and forcing the insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions. If that isn't Government intervention in health care I don't know what is.
As far as checks and balances, it is called the free market. Your precious Government intervention is what caused a financial meltdown, not the market (see Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Barney Frank).
90% of other countries provide better health care? Then why don't you move there? What study were you reading? Or should I say what U.N. study were your reading? If our per capita costs are higher it's because we have the best technology in the world and are the most generous with it, and because of the leeches on society who refuse to take responsibility for their own health care. If this health bill passes in any form it will be the beginning of the end of what was a free country.

[Keith McMurtry]

The V.A. system works well considering the way we fund it. 55 Rep. Congressmen use Medicare because they have the option to use it. If government run health care is so bad why don't they use their private insurance? If private ins. is so great giving people the option should not matter. The Rep. are worried about how we are going to pay for reform. Why weren't they worried about how we were going to pay for Medicare part D(Prescriptions) or the Iraq war or the expansion of the government during the Bush Admin?

If we cared more about people living or dying and less about who we married maybe we could figure it all out.

[JD]

Thank you for your work in opposing ObamaCare. Those who claim we must have a Public Option or else are misguided, and believe that they are entitled to whatever they want, so long as its paid for with other people's money. You want good health care? Work hard, earn your own money, save, make healthy choices, take care of yourself, give to charity. Stop relying on an inefficient government which is already billions or trillions of dollars in debt.

[Charles T.]

The USCoC stand that a US foray into the Healthcare would mean the demise of Insurance Companies is utter nonsense. You need only look outside and count the number of FED-EX and UPS trucks out and about everyday to see that the government run US Postal Service has some stiff competition. From the television commercial wars on tV, it is apparent the private sector has a very viable model. So what is different with Health Care insurers? And UPS & FedEx credibly competes without the benefit of Anti-Trust exemptions Health Insurers have. Maybe these two companies should take over Healthcare?

If the Chamber's view that US Government involvement in anything is bad, you ought to look at work traditionally done by the US Military, but recently outsourced to a growing military industrial complex with the likes of KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater, and others. Ask why we have cost over-runs, abuses of power, shoddy work by contractors that result in the needless deaths by electrocution of servicemen taking showers.

Government needs checks and balances yes. But where are these same checks and balances in the private sector? Where were they when the greed of wall streeters nearly killed the US and Global economy.

If 90% of the planet's Industrialized countries can provide health care to their citizens with a better health outcome than the USA, why can't we do the same? Considering our per capita medical costs are much higher and the health results are lower than these other industrialized countries, it has got to be apparent to even a novice, that our system is not working for the people, but rather for the businesses that benefit from the status quo. Time for a change.

[Helen Schuenemann]

So it looks to me like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce assigns credibility to the idea that the U.S. Constitution authorizes Federal intervention in the healthcare of American citizens.

It looks like it is Constitutional if the plan agree's with the position the Chamber takes.

If this is the case the Chamber has come a long way from the principles of real Free Enterprise Capitalism.

[Leonard C. Tekaat]

We are in the mist of a national debate about health care, yet nobody is talking about personal responsibility. We used to save for unforeseen emergencies, like illness and financial crisis. The government has create such a huge social rescue network that people can spend all they have without any concern about the future. This lack of planning by many people puts their responsibly onto all of the other people in society. It starts with not getting an education, early pregnancy, and finishes with increased crime and relatives and government (taxpayers) paying for healthcare, long term care, and final disposition of people that didn’t plan for the future.

I believe much of this came about because of the Great Depression. During and after that period of our history the reluctance of people to spend money freely and go into debt, the government created an income tax system to encourage debt creation and a social rescue network to increase people’s confidence to spend more of their money and save less.

We are again going through a Great Recession and the government is once again creating programs to relieve people of their responsibility.

The following is what I believe should be done to stabilize the cost of insurance premiums and health care cost. Even if we end up with a government insurance option, this is the insurance policy platform we should adopt.

If this country wants affordable health care, we need to change the way we encourage people to buy health insurance. Eliminate the tax deduction for health insurance premiums and make annual maximum out of pocket health care expense of the insurance policy tax deductible, when put in a Health Savings Account.

RESTORING THE HEALTH CARE MARKET SYSTEM

The Private Sector Can Do It With The Correct Guiding Policies

The private medical health care system is not broken. It provides excellent care for patients. What is broken is the cost of the service.

Before health insurance use became wide spread, the market determined prices. The doctor would determine what price he could provide the service for. The patient would determine if he/she was willing and able to pay the price. When a third party became involved, such as an insurance company or the government, the price rose to the amount of the third party’s ability to pay.

The government decided to increase the number of people that were purchasing health insurance. Lobbied by the insurance companies, business and the medical industry the government decided to make the health insurance premiums tax deductible for businesses and individuals. Of course this set off a flurry of creating health insurance policies that had very low deductibles.

The problem of higher medical cost each year is created when the insurance companies are able to rise insurance premiums each year to pay for the higher prices of the medical establishment. Higher medical cost are also caused by low deductible insurance policies.

When the patient uses the insurance policy’s benefits, he/she is not concerned about the price of the medical services, only the fact that they are proud of themselves for making the wise chose of purchasing health insurance and that he/she is getting their money’s worth. This attitude of the consumer, allows prices to increase. If they have chosen a low deductible insurance policy and it is totally or partial paid for by the employer, they are even further disconnected from feeling the cost of the medical expense. The fact that he/she or the business is allowed a tax deduction, equal to the amount of the annual premiums, takes away from the premium payer any desire to comparison shop.

It would be better to increase the deductible amount and encourage the use of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). The maximum out of pocket health care expenses each year of the insurance policy should be tax deductible to encourage people to purchase health insurance. The government created HSAs to encourage people to save money for future medical expenses and encourage the use of high deductible health insurance policies. Health insurance premiums should not be tax-deductible by employers and private citizens. To level out the cost of the health insurance premiums, the private citizens and the self-employed should pay the same amount as the employers and employees of large businesses. The insurance companies should be encouraged to make this change so more people would buy health insurance and the insurance companies could lower premiums by spreading the risk over a larger number of people. When insurance premiums are no longer tax-deductible people will purchase Health Saving Account insurance policies. They should own the policy. The employer should not provide the health insurance. The person can then take the policy with them if they become self-employed or are employed by another business.

With insurance premiums not being tax deductible, the employers, private citizens and the self-employed will be more likely to comparison shop for the best deal on health insurance premiums and policy benefits. It will encourage the insurance companies to be more diligent in their negations with the medical industry, because the purchaser of the health insurance would be more sensitive to the price of the premiums. As more people purchase health insurance, the insurance companies would be at less risk of having to pay out money for benefits, therefore would be able to lower health insurance policies premiums. HSA health insurance policies should be used all across the country, so we do not repeat the same mistakes of the past. Preventive care benefits should be available without the payment of a deductible amount.

HMOs and government run health programs are slow to provide services because a medical board or primary doctor must first approve medical procedures. Other countries central run medical programs have shown this to be true.

The insurance companies should not be allowed to deny medical insurance to a patient with preexisting conditions. It is best to include the entire population into the medical insurance system, in that way the risk is spread over the largest amount of citizens.

Since the deductible amount will increase with this plan, instead of the government paying directly for 100% of the medical expenses of the working poor, it should match dollar for dollar, each dollar placed in the HSA by the person or family, up to the maximum out of pocket amount. The same policy should be applied to the insurance premiums. The money could only be removed, with a debit card, used by an approved and willing medical office with the approval of the patient. Both the patient and the medical facility would have to enter their pin number to have the money removed from the HSA.

If a person does not have an immediate life threatening illness or injury, the hospital should be allowed and be encouraged to deny the patient medical attention after being seen by a doctor, intern or nurse in a screening room. The hospital should then give the patient directions and availability information of the nearest urgent care unit. Advice to see a doctor the next day usually is not good advise because of the appointment system doctor’s use.

Computers can also be created to send vital signs to a doctor or nurse so they can determine if there is an emergency.

With the patient responsible for paying the bill, out of their HSA, because of the high deductible, they will be encouraged not to abuse the system and seek help at the appropriate facility. Hospital emergency rooms would then be available for patients that have a life threatening illness or injury.

The treatment of non-life threatening illnesses or injuries in the hospital emergency rooms is a major money stream for hospitals. Hospitals should be denied payment if they do not follow this policy change.

Unless all people involved, from the patient, doctor, to the hospital, have a little “skin” involved, the price of health care will continue to rise at a faster rate than other cost in the economy. A perfect example of this is the home mortgage industry. The banks, mortgage brokers and financial institutions were not exposed to the risk and the eventual cost of the housing bubble after they sold the mortgages to investors and government supported agencies.

The cost of insuring the uninsured would also be partially paid for with this plan. Currently health care premiums are tax deductible. Health care insurance premiums can be as high as $ 12,000.00 to $20,000.00 per year. The deductible amount for high deductible health insurance is approximately $5,000.00; with a maximum yearly out of pocket expense of $7300.00. The deductible amount is about 3 times less, thereby increasing the government’s revenues and leveling out the amount each person can take as a deduction.

This plan would also encourage people to save for medical emergencies.

People should be allowed to fund their HSA with a transfer from their IRA or similar retirement account.

Health insurance should be be affordable and people should be encouraged by profitable means to obtain it. It should be unprofitable if they do not obtain it.

[ARM]

The United States Chamber of Commerce should be ashamed of their faceless and cowardly TV advertisments. Instead of being truthful in their arguement, they use the guise that they care for the American taxpayer. Instead they are afraid of what reform might do to the billion dollar profits of health care conglomerates who play God with our loved ones everyday to keep their pockets fat. They are also afraid of the government making employers do the right thing: make healthcare available to their employees who make their organization what it is. This debate is about more than profits, and it is definately about more than protecting the interests of corporate greed that has created this injustice.

[AJD]

This universal healthcare is going to not only put health insurance companies out of business, there will likely be cutbacks for medical providers since the government program will pay merely Medicare prices. And to compensate for the 'cheap' healthcare-- taxes go up. For small business-- too much for employee health coverage so more out of business. There are talks that our own Congress and Senate have people that are highly qualified to make reforms to the healthcare issues that will not break banks all over this country. If we want this country to go back to a country we can be proud to live in again, we need to start by the age-old idea of "if we make the powers that be live the way they are making us live, things would change". If the president, representatives, and formers had to be on the universal healthcare, and be fair at it- there would likely be modifications to the bill. If they did not receive the 'golden fleece' post-representation benefits- that we pay for and pay for and pay for- that they get (i.e.- if they got the same social security that the rest of us are fighting for) things would change for all of us. We have selfish representation on Capital Hill. There is much greed and less concern for the affected voters. I understand that it is difficult to please everyone, but babysitting those who don't work and are coming into this country and receiving free benefits (i.e. social security that the rest of us have been working for)- we can consider this handicapping those who are not contributing. We could save this country some money by limiting government assistances. Also, why did WE need to spend $200 million to re-sod the national mall lawn that was destroyed during inauguration for this term-- I know plenty of local businesses that would have done it for around $2000!!! Now- why are we in a national debt? Hmmm- I don't know why the politicians are saying there is no other ways. Disappointed- the best word that comes to mind.

[Z Paladin]

Universal health care funded by a truly progressive tax system or Single Payor ie. extend Medicare to all best.

Affordable public option essential. No fine/tax penalties for refusing to buy from private insurers. No health policy is written fairly. Rich would be throwing their money away. Poor can't afford premiums, deductibles, and co-pays even with tax credits. Health policies should be written like whole life with a growing invested cash value.

Better to direct payroll tax to personal IRA/HSA which can be pledged to local hospital and it's physicians in exchange for total care. Pledge is transferable and sufficient alone even for unemployed. Only pay FICA checks from general revenues to SSI qualified.

[Frank in Florida]

This administration cannot stand for anyone to have a negative comment about anything they are doing. For all those folks out there, business's equal jobs. Big Business is not the demon in all of this. Without them we will all be in the unemployment line. C of C, you keep doing what you are doing. Watching out for us. Hope you get this before they take over the internet!

[Katty]

Do any of you work in the medical industry? I work directly with private insurers, and believe me, Medicare and Medicaid have got to be the worst systems ever created. Don't think for a minute that everything's gonna be paid for, ask Medicare recipients...because the new Public Option is going to be just that - like Medicare. Why else do you think the gov wants control of your checking and savings accounts, because they won't need it? Just a precaution? BS! And that's in the bill, by the way. Read it.

By the way, for those who don't know who the US Chamber of Commerce represents - it's business...not individuals. Go back to civics classes.

[Ron Stinner]

Your organization is sick. We need health care reform with a public option. The US needs to think beyond 6 months, and so do you. I will never support Chamber again.

[Karin Govoni]

YOUR ADS FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM ARE AN INSULT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. YES, WE ARE A COUNTRY RUN BY BUSINESS AND NOT BY THE PEOPLE!

[Charles]

The legislative proposals regarding health reform that I have seen contain an "employer mandate" forcing employers to pay a large percentage of employees' insurance premiums. Today, over 60% of businesses in the US cannot afford to pay for employees' insurance premiums. Not all businesses make enough money to pay for insurance premiums, and in fact, tens of thousands of businesses will go bankrupt if compelled to pay insurance premiums under an "employer mandate" provision; a point that seems lost on Congress. The "one size fits all" approach is clearly nonsensical and will be a job killer. Note, none of the proposals tie an "employer mandate" to a company's ability to pay. The number of employees a company has, or the amount of its payroll have no bearing on whether a compnay makes a profit, much less whether the company can pay these premiums.

Have you studied how many thousands of businesses cannot afford the "employer mandate" and have you studied how many hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of jobs will be lost?
Will the government refund the hundreds of thousands of dollars I have invested in my company when it goes bankrupt?

Will the government pay off my business loans when I default?

Will the government make good on my 29 commercial leases when I can no longer afford the rent?

Why is it up to the business owner in America to foot the bill of this so called reform effort?

[SK]

I find your commercials about Health Care Insurance reform to be offensive & missleading. Who do you represent? Cigna? United Healthcare? Its not small businesses who are struggling and failing under the current system. Your organization is out of touch with working Americans. But I bet you have lots of Profit that you are protecting for them. Pitiful-

[Dan Hofer]

Let's talk about the tax affect. I currently pay around 20% federal income tax. I pay 15% for both sides of social security as I'm self employed. I pay 5% state and local income tax. That brings me up to 40% of my income. I pay at least another 10% of my income on health care. That brings me up to 50%. I believe that if I paid the money in taxes to a federal plan that I currently pay to the insurance companies I'd be better off. We owe it to each other to make health care within reach for ALL. I'm willing to pay into such a plan in the same way I pay into social security.

Don't complain about the cost - we're already paying the price. Rather than the coverage being extended to all, the resources are being siphoned off as excessive profits to the insurance and health 'care' industry.

[Dan Hofer]

I own a small professional services firm. We now pay $ 21,000 a year for a $ 5,000 deductable HSA plan. We have 3 families and 2 individuals insured. Our rates were just raised 29%. My premiums will now exceed $ 27,000 annually. The rates were raised double digits each of the last 2 years prior to this. Did I mention we're relatively healthy?

Presently in Fort Wayne, IN we've built 3 new hospitals that were not needed. I just dumped my doctor of 25+ years due to the 'high-end' office he just built.

I have a family member living with me due to their difficult financial times. He has significant medical issues that we can't get addressed due to his lack of insurance.

Health care in America is capitalism out of control. I for one am sick and tired of the status quo. A change is needed. The government must step in and take control.

[John M. Sweeney]

You are supposed to be representing American business but all you seem to be is a front for the insurance agencies and the complainers. I run a small business and we need a comprehensive health care reform bill passed and signed now. What are you doing toward this goal? Are you going to be part of the problem or part of the solution?

[Stanley M. Boyes]

I am sick and tired of the 24/7 TV negetive ad campaign about Universal Health Care. If you don't have anything constructive to say then please use your ad money to precisely tell the public what "The Right Way" is.

Right now the U>S>Chamber of Commerce has offered nothing costructive except to create tax fears, major deficit fears and confusion about what the Congress is doing in the health care proposed legislation. Just plain bitching won't do! Be specific and constructive!

[D.Ware]

The Chamber's position on this issue and many others makes me wonder who they really represent. They certainly don't represent this small business owner!

BTW MJ, is that kind of language really necessary? If you don't love your neighbor then you don't love God.

[M J]

Shaw and other pinheads, please understand that business CAN'T compete with government despite the assertion by OUR president that FedEx and UPS compete with the USPS......not true. Not to mention that our government isn't effective at running much of anything. Medicare, social security, USPS and Amtrak. They all receive substantial government funding yet they fail to thrive. Why might that be? Government is NOT the right answer.....better, intellectually honest, fair and forthright self managment is. There is work to be done....but the government isn't the answer.

Socialism at face value isn't a failed model until you run out of other people's money. Perhaps Shaw can loan uncle Sam some MORE of his.

Regards,

M.J.

[Shaw]

I'm adding my voice to this: you are based in Washington, and you are a government office. How then can you possibly argue that Washington should "stay out of it"? The current administration is taking steps to make insurance affordable to everyone, and if private insurance companies can't compete, so what?? They go out of business! As they should, since they won't be needed. Why don't you people focus on figuring out job creation, since you are supposed to be involved on business...

[William Lister]

This public option is like "free lunches". There is NO SUCH THING as a free lunch, people. I'm not sure what planet any of these others posters are from, but it makes me ill to think I will be taxed (yes, taxed!) to the extent that these irresponsible clowns in DC want to tax me.

[JZA ONE]

Healthcare should be a universal right for all humans if we are able to provide it. We don't have to house and feed everybody, but if we can't tend to the injured or sick at the very least, they will never ever have the means or ability to provide for themselves. So many people say "not on my dime" but so many have never or will never have had the opportunity to make their own dimes because of their struggle to stay or get healthy.

[Thomas T. Tarbox]

I cannot help but see your ads on television. With your economic power you have the ability to present your views more frequently and more loudly than many others. However, when I see the ads I am always angered. It seems we are in an era of “no” to everything that is not to our personal benefit—or at least that is what I take away from your ads.

You suggest that “Washington” is in our pockets and moving too quickly to change the laws about health care.

A good many Americans, as worthy and hard working as any of you, have empty pockets already, while health care professionals, doctors and insurance company pockets are full. As an attorney I see both categories: I have done estate planning for doctors and I have filed bankruptcy for broke patients. So, I conclude you don’t really care if pockets are empty, you just care whose pockets those are.

Is Washington moving too fast? Not if you are sick and without the money to treat your illness. Not if you have been waiting since the Clinton administration or before for reform. Not if you are a working person. Not if your insurance is too expensive to buy. Not if you cannot treat your illness because you can’t afford the deductible without skipping the utility bills, or school specials for your children.

Oh, and this diatribe against “Washington”? Where is your office?

[Jim]

The Chamber's ads opposing healthcare reform are fearmongering at best. They do nothing to provide real information or foster a reasonable debate. Lastly, they pose no alternative to the corporate bureaucrat death panels that deny coverage and skim off 30% of all our premiums.
They just protect the status quo of higher costs, and middle class bankruptcy.

[bummer]

Can anyone tell us what good an insurance company is?

What do they bring to the table?

Why should they skim the money off of the top?

What do they contribute to health care?

[Erin Stewart]

I've seen your ads on "Fast sell of Health Care Reform". What a load of crap. Your ads are ridiculous and false. You should be ashamed. The American people deserve health care coverage. People of all ages and walks of life should be able to walk into a doctor's office and leave without the worry that they'll be paying for that visit for months or years to come. Shame on you.

[Matt Smith]

I am disqusted at the TV ads about healthcare reform. Those ads have completely ruined any positive image the US Chamber of Commerce had in my mind and the minds of many Americans. What a discrace to see that such an instution has become a pawn of the healthcare and medical corporations using fear tactics and misleading information. The US Chamber of False Advertising!

[Margaret Lawrence]

I saw one of your ads re. health care this morning and was appalled. Your advertisment is blatantly false and as a citizen, I demand that you take it down. You may as well shout out, "you lie" along with that fool Joe Wilson. Your tactics and disregard for the truth are sickening.

[Russell Breedlove]

The current crop of ads the Chamber is running are irresponsible, fostering fear and doing little else. You don't offer a plan; and it is very important to get something in place. It can be revised later, much as medicare/medicaid has. The status quo is NOT an option. Your cynical ads have lost my respect for your organization; you have become no more than a schill for the insurance companies.

[EP_VET]

By the way, the Chamber of Commerce staff gets employer provided healthcare.

Also, congress members get to retain their government insurance even when they retire and can choose from over 200 health insurance options.

[EP_VET]

When will the Chamber publish their plan for solving this crisis?
The government runs the largest hospital system in the nation (VA) and has implemented electronic medical records so that specialists can see the medical history and test results and not have to repeat tests and procedures. The government operates the largest health insurance system in the nation with Medicare and would have been able to negotiate reduced drug and procedure prices if congress had not specifically prohibited it.
I changed HMOs from George Washington to Kaiser and the best that GW could do with my medical record is to print and give me a computer printout of over 600 pages. I tried to give them to Kaiser and they asked "What do you expect me to do with this?" Therefore, my medical life began in 2001 instead of 1947.
We have the infant mortality rate of a third world country, worse than Cuba and a tie with Slovenia? Also, 41 countries have better longevity than the US, including Jordan, the Caymen Islands and Guam. To top it off, our health care costs over twice as much as the NEXT highest country in the world.
This is a growing crisis, what's your plan?

[Jeanne Crawford]

First, I would like an HONEST answer to this question: How much funding does the US Chamber of Commerce receive from insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and the AMA? Then, as a small business owner for over 20-years who cannot afford health insurance, how about this? What have you done to make this available to business owners? hmmmm I'm afraid the answer to the second questions is nothing. How dare you influence the less knowledgeable citizens of our country with your obviously biased propaganda? I was in Europe during the fall elections and I was delighted with the joy I witnessed with the results of that election. As the US Chamber of Commerce, who are you to take partisan sides and continue to divide our country with your obvious "paid for" views? Get a grip....the citizens with brains are not buying it!

[Dorothy Merritt]

Citizens in 9 out of 10 nations enjoy a longer and healthier life with National Health Care. You folks have enough monies to blast a health care plan why don't you pay my medical bills for a year. Why don't you create an a health plan that works. This administration is "trying" to do something to help all peoples and you are doing nothing but helping big business and insurance with your rhetoric.

[Donna Glasco]

Judging from the amount of advertising you have purchased, you have a large budget. Can you include in your messages any action you have taken to help improve the health care situation. According to World Health Organization, citizens in 9 out of 10 nations with National Health Care enjoy a longer life and lesser infant and maternal mortality rate, at less cost than the US currently spends for health care. Obviously we are doing something wrong. What are you doing to help solve the problem? Anything?

[P.Jonnal]

Capitalists and Free marketers (mostly Republicans) do not even know what is good for their cause. I can’t believe the entire Chamber of Commerce is influenced by the health industry, just 16% sector of the total GDP. GDP has been high jacked by GOP! SUCH GULLIBILITY!
A universal health coverage will not only provide a healthy work force, but will lower the production costs and help US Exports to compete better internationally. After all these years of loosing market shares, I would have thought the CEOs would have learned something from Japan & Europe and support universal coverage. I do not understand why they are not pushing for Universal Coverage.
It is a sad moment in history, in the name of Christ the Right wingers are not satisfied until the last manufacturing job is exported.