|Monday, October 5, 2009
MR. HERNANDO’S OBJECTIONS TO THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE PLAN
This posting is in reply to the following column in the Springfield News-Leader: Yes, 'reproductive health care' means abortions
Read what others are saying about Charlie's article on health care by clicking here
We hope that Mr. Hernando (News-Leader October 3, 2009) is correct and that the proposed changes to the medical industry being debated in congress will include coverage for women’s reproductive health care—which under law should include abortions! Radical anti-abortionists are not opposed to abortion just in principle but radically in particular. They do what they can to circumvent current law permitting abortion under certain limited conditions and aim by all means to get between a woman and her doctor by making it difficult or impossible to secure legal abortions. This kind of strategy works primarily against the very poor, minimum wage earners, and the out-of-work, who have neither medical coverage nor the available financial resources to secure legal abortions.
Mr. Hernando hopes to limit a woman’s freedom under law to secure a legal abortion. He and other one-issue activists set themselves up as moral watchdogs seeking to prohibit abortions—including those permitted by law. Such activity prompts the reasonable question: why shouldn’t legal abortions be covered by medical plans? Anti-abortionists, however, will accept no compromises—not even that reached in the current law. We can only hope that the single-issue moralists in congress will not be successful in circumventing the law, and more rational minds in congress will produce a balanced compassionate plan providing coverage for all Americans.
The Obama administration is urging that we need a public option in health care to make it possible for every American to be covered by a medical plan—including the very poor, minimum wage earners, and the out-of-work who simply cannot afford the high premiums charged by private medical insurance companies. The theory is that the public option will eventually result in a reduction in medical costs for everyone—it is a logical conclusion. If congress can agree on a public option then everyone benefits. Mr. Obama’s plan is not seeking to do away with private health care as Mr. Hernando’s essay suggests. He implies that the Obama plan aims to convert the nation to “socialized medicine,” by his comparison to countries that have such plans. That is simply not the case.
The medical industry as currently configured “rations” health care. People must wait weeks—if not months, to see a specialist, for example. Under certain conditions the insurance companies limit what they will pay on a claim, particularly if the physician or dentist is not approved by the insurance company. What that means is that people cannot go to the physicians or dentists of their choice unless they are willing to accept less money than their policies allow. In other words the insurance pays less if you go to a non-participating physician or dentist. And sometimes the amount is considerable.
It is high time that the strident voices subside, calm rational discourse begin, and we begin thinking about the needs of the less fortunate—good Christian principles wouldn’t you agree Mr. Hernando?
Charles W. Hedrick
Posted by Charles Hedrick at 2:06pm
The Springfield News-Leader declined to publish Mr. Hernando’s response to Charlie’s letter. Mr. Hernando's original correspondence has been shortened to accommodate available space.