The current emphasis for pushing for immediate passage of health care reform proposed by President Barack Obama is to ensure coverage of individuals without exclusion of pre-existing conditions and to control the increase in health insurance premiums.
Are insurance premiums going up, such as the recent 39 percent increase in California, strictly as a result of seeking more profits or higher salaries for executives? Or instead are premiums going up because the cost of medical care is going up? That still needs to be made clear.
If auto insurance rates were going through the roof, would there be a bill to control those insurance companies? Or would we first ask why the rates were going up and see if the costs to repair damaged autos or provide for medical payments under such policies were going up? If the latter was the case, would we instead focus on why repair costs were going up and propose legislation to control those increases?
As for providing coverage for pre-existing conditions, will such provisions cause the cost of reimbursements under such policies to go up? While we agree with the reform, we have to ask what will keep rates from going up.
We wonder why the proposed bill does not address the costs of doctors, hospitals and other medical providers rather than the people insuring for those costs.
We will repeat previous observations along these lines. Health insurance is so expensive because medical care is so expensive. Why not reduce the cost of health care and see what happens to insurance premiums?
There are problems and there are symptoms of problems. Let’s focus on the problem in the search for solutions.
Opinion
In our view: Questions that need answering
- Opinion
-
-
Our View: Santorum's Achilles' ear
Rick Santorum knocked everyone for a loop this week, not just with his victory in Missouri but with the landslide size of the thing.
-
Our View: Are school loans next 'debt bomb'?
The late American middle class struggled for decades to keep pace with an American dream slipping from its grasp.
-
Our View: A better way of limit terms
A Missouri House committee on Tuesday endorsed a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow lawmakers to serve 16 years in the state Legislature, either the House or the Senate.
-
Your View: Is it our fault?
When did coveting things and money take over character? What happened?
-
Your View: No way to run a school
All throughout the state of Missouri, you’ll hear much discussion about teacher tenure and the indefinite contracts that go along with that. Most — if not nearly all — jobs in the private and public sectors have no such career protection.
-
Your View: Prime suspects
If it’s too cool in the house, you can turn up the heat if you think you can afford it.
-
Our View: Worldwide concern
There is growing concern worldwide that Israel might launch an attack on Iranian nuclear plants.
-
Other Views: FAA deal up in air five years
The Federal Aviation Administration bill was delayed 23 times, but the agency finally has a law giving it $63 billion and full operating authority for the next four years.
-
Don Ray, columnist: Obama's pipeline excuse an election-year cop-out
On Jan. 18, President Barack Obama announced he was rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline project — a project that had its beginnings some 40 months ago (September 2008).
-
James Whitford, guest columnist: Broken people or broken system?
Are the people broken or is the system broken? If you walk into Watered Gardens, our rescue mission, it may seem the people are broken. But it’s a rescue mission. It just feels that way. And sometimes, it just looks that way.
- More Opinion Headlines
-






