Add to favorites Examiner Bio

Health care: One Dent opponent responds

Here is Jake’s press release:

***

 

Jake Towne, running as an independent private citizen for United States Congress in Pennsylvania's 15th District encompassing the Lehigh Valley and parts of Berks and Montgomery counties challenged Republican incumbent Charlie Dent, and Democrat challenger John Callahan to a public debate on the issues facing the district and the nation.

 

In his letter, Towne noted a great need for a healthy public debate on topics ranging from our health care, the wars abroad, the economy, and the stability of the dollar.  He related that many people in the district are hurting financially, and they want answers from their candidates for government now.

 

Towne is a Lehigh Valley native raised in Nazareth and holds a chemical engineering degree from Lehigh University.  He returned home earlier this year from a nearly 4-year stint in Shanghai, China working in the semiconductor industry to run for Congress.  His experiences living abroad have given him a deep appreciation for America's freedoms and quality of life.  

 

Towne strongly believes that the actions of career politicians in Washington, DC, are leading our country down a path of both moral and economic ruin.  He has created a novel-yet-simple plan of transparent and accountable government called the “Our Open Office” concept which can be read in detail at the campaign website, www.TowneForCongress.com. 

 

Last week Towne raised over $2700 from 74 donors in a single day in an online “money bomb” created by grassroots supporters not affiliated with the campaign.  This week he will be interviewed by Judge Napolitano at the FOX News studios in New York.  Two weeks ago, Towne was part of a panel of FOX's Freedom Watch show taped on the campus of Drexel University.  Towne extends an invitation to any local group to invite him to meet their members, listen to their concerns, and explain his campaign.  Talks given to past groups can be viewed at http://towneforcongress.com/lots-more/campaign-speeches-and-talks.

 

 

November 8, 2009

Dear Congressman Dent and Mayor Callahan -

 

I respectfully challenge either of you to a debate concerning our congressional race.  I am open to either one-on-one debate or debating both of you at the same time.  

 

While I can understand a reluctance on your parts to a debate so early before the November 2010 election – and that since you both are members of political parties that use the optional primary system so additional challengers are still possible – there is a great need for a public discourse on the troubles facing our nation.  We are the only three candidates currently registered with the FEC. 

 

The times we live in are not normal.  The dollar is in crisis and unemployment is rampant.  Civil liberties are restricted more with each passing day.  We have apparently endless wars continuing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.  I am traveling the district and the people are hurting.  Congress's solutions of more spending through the stimulus plan and more taxation via the Cap and Trade bill on energy and even our health care seem dubious at best.

 

Regardless of our differences in views as candidates, we owe it to the public to debate on these issues.  Mayor Callahan, per the FEC you began your campaign on July 31, 2009.  As of today, your website only contains an email sign-up.  Why have you been unable to provide a website to the people with your stances on the critical topics facing our nation after 3.5 months as a candidate?  

 

Congressional races should not be similar to sports teams duking out a popularity contest, we should have a healthy debate on the issues – for the good of the PEOPLE.

Reply if you like by simply confirming whether you are open to one-on-one debate with me, or a group debate between the three of us FEC-registered candidates, or both.  After the next ten business days, I will deem no reply as a negative to both questions.

 

***

So, whether you agree with Towne or not, his campaign is noteworthy because he is (a) running outside the two parties at a time when more and more of us this the parties have failed us and (b) although we are 52 weeks from the election, each party, without benefit of a primary, seems to have a candidate, and (c) unlike Callahan, he is taking positions.

Towne told me in an e-mail “I do not approve of the Democrat health care bill, nor do I approve of Congressman Dent's options.”

Well, on the score we agree. I still have severe constitutional angst over the Pelosi plan and I hate any federal mandate that says you MUST get insurance. I am all for a program that makes insurance available for anyone who wants it but I don’t like the idea of mandatory insurance. Before the response that auto insurance is mandatory comes, that isn’t true. There is no state that requires you to insure YOURSELF with auto insurance. In fact, you don’t have to get auto insurance to cover third parties if you can show proof of financial responsibility. So, this would be a first—a requirement that you insure yourself in any way.

I don’t like the Republican options because they don’t go far enough to ensure that anyone who wants insurance can get it. We need a robust high risk pool (subsidized if needed) for those whose conditions make them insurance risks. 

I also don’t like any program that forces and insurer to cover people with high risk that does not isolate those risks from the general rate payers. If you simply drop those with pre-existing conditions into the general insurance pool, the rates for everyone else go up. We need to insure the high risk other than on the backs of the normal risks. We don’t ask the normal risk insureds to pick up the cost of the higher risk auto pool. 

We need to remember insurance is a contract, a business arrangement. Every form of insurance is priced based upon exposure and risk. If you are a higher risk, if you eliminate caps, if you cover more items, then costs go up. Understand there is no free lunch. Pelosi and her gang talk as if you can add the pre-existing condition population, eliminate lifetime caps and cover more exposures for the same cost. It doesn’t work that way. 

Just as you pay one amount for basic liability for your car and a little more to add collision and more to add comprehensive and more to ensure a more expensive car for collision (safety and theft ratings being equal), you’ll pay more for health insurance.

Jake Towne and I agree on one thing—health care is not covered by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Pelosi mandates, I believe, are unconstitutional. I wrote about that back in August—go to the health care links.

Towne’s health care plank is on his website. He vows not to take the Congressional health insurance. Pelosi, of course, would not give him a choice.

He opposes government run health care. I, of course, still think a state-run system (versus federal) might be workable if you made it simple: all FDA-approved treatments are covered without preauthorization. No rationing. No approvals. Just you and your doctor.

I think the states have the power to cover health care under the Constitution. I think the 10^th Amendment gives them that power. I also think the states have the absolute power to govern the contents of insurance policies written within their states. The Supreme Court has allowed Congress to govern the business of insurance (anti-trust) but never has the federal government been involved in the regulation of insurance or by analogy health care. While the FDA governs drugs and the like in commerce, states determine licensing and fitness standards.

Towne says that rationing and price controls lead to lower care and higher cost. Just compare the British system to the Dutch system and you see that. 

The Dutch have mandatory insurance but not state run medicine. We can’t do that perhaps from a Libertarian point of view, but even if you accepted mandatory coverage, there is no need for the federal system. That is being added as a major payback to the SEIU and the other union pals of the Democrats. The Pelosi bill has two aims (1) universal coverage and (2) more government jobs. You can have the first without the second.

Towne also correctly points out that insurance coverage does not mean health care. There still needs to be an available doctor and facility. Nothing has been done to address the high cost of medicine or the barriers to practice (the risk of liability).

Rather than attack the high cost of medicine which leads to the high cost of health insurance, Pelosi has attacked the insurers while leaving the trial lawyers and the unions fat, dumb and happy. If anyone things the Pelosi bill will lower health insurance costs, they are mistaken. Oh, you may pay less for your insurance on a direct basis in some cases but we’ll be paying through the back door for the taxes that subsidize the program. The real problem in this country is that medical care costs so much more than everywhere else. It is the product itself that is overpriced not the insurance on that product.

What would Towne do? This is from his website:

***

If citizens are in favor, I would introduce tax relief legislation to allow individuals and families to reduce their federal income tax nearly dollar-for-dollar by the amounts they spend out-of-pocket on private health care premiums. This would help make private health care a more affordable option for everyone.

 

I would introduce a bill to reduce federal income taxes dollar-for-dollar by amounts spent out-of-pocket by parents for their children with terminal illnesses, major disabilities or cancer. How silly is it that the government helped finance the housing boom through mortgage credits, but has no mercy when it comes to a truer form of wealth, our children? Parents in such situations would greatly benefit from such a tax relief.

 

Similarly, I would introduce a bill to suspend the obligation of individuals suffering from terminal illness or cancer to continue paying the Social Security tax on their income. What could be more heartless than forcing a person to continue paying Social Security money they will never see while they are sick and need every dollar to survive?

 

While I condemn frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits, there are certainly sad cases where individuals are harmed physically, mentally, or economically either by health care providers or insurance companies. However, liability and contract law are the responsibility of the state Congress of Pennsylvania, not DC. Of course, the right of individuals to seek recourse in state courts should not be infringed, but it is the responsibility of the state Congress to determine how best to discard frivolous lawsuits and procedurally balance the rightful reparation for plaintiffs with the need for reason in judgments against defendants.

***

I’d disagree on a few points. I do think that tort immunity could be extended to any FDA approved drug or treatment. Unknown risks could be assumed in using the treatment.

Also, the tax credit model doesn’t help the truly poor who have no taxes nor even income to cover their costs. We do need expanded use of SCHIP and Medicaid by all who are eligible. And there is no provision for the high risk pool or other way to cover those who are actuarially uninsurable. There are many cases where you need to go beyond forgiving taxes and actually help the poor. Whether health care is a right or not, I don’t think there I any question that a state government can voluntarily supply coverage.

Finally, Towne gives a great analogy for the issue,

***

Imagine for a moment you own a candy store. You work hard to find all the best suppliers and employees and to make your prices competitive so you can increase the size of your business and profit.

However, several people eat way too much chocolate and start getting health problems. After several lawsuits, your candy store is faced with two choices: either increase your prices, or go out of business. You choose to increase the cost of your chocolate.

The government decides that you are overcharging people for chocolate. They decide that the best thing to do, is to open a new candy store which will guarantee cheaper prices. They lower their prices to an amount that is well under what you are now able to charge since you got hit with all those lawsuits. 

Very shortly, most people decide to buy chocolate from the government-run candy store because it is cheaper. Whether someone sues the government store or not is immaterial; it will not fail. A government-run business can go way past a state of bankruptcy and has no potential of being beaten. It can keep prices down until it is the only option left. Then, with no competitor, they can carry any quality of chocolate they wish. If they want to balance their budget, they can simply offer a much lower quality of chocolate because they have no competition.

In short, if anyone wants chocolate they are now stuck with only the government candy store, who has no reason or motive to provide quality chocolate.

Is this healthy competition? No, this is a serious problem. We are not dealing with chocolate. We are dealing with people's lives. Once this system is in place, it will be nearly impossible to destroy the nationalized, socialized medicine program without hurting millions of Americans. Even worse is the fact that millions of Americans will be hurting more WITH it in place. This is what is called a "lose-lose" situation.

***

Nice analogy! I lived under the UK system. That is what is being described.

 

NOTE:  IF YOU LIKE THESE ARTICLES, HIT SUBSCRIBE ABOVE AND YOU WILL GET A SHORT E-MAIL LINK EACH TIME I WRITE.

 

CONTACT ME DIRECTLY AT: PETRINIKR@AOL.COM