Rick Notkin: Transparency would go a long way toward lowering cost of health care

To The Daily Sun,

Ms. Hebert (Feb.25) seems to believe that some sort of sexual harassment seminar for the N.H. House (or anywhere) is beneficial. Does anyone have any evidence that such trainings actually reduce real harassment? I’m sorry if I don’t view a male worker complimenting a female coworker as a “sexual assault”. Women frequently compliment women, so it needs to be more to count. She also assumes that only females can be harassed. Not true.

Mr. Joseph (Feb. 25) declares that health care is a right. First off, I’m truly empathetic to his medical situation. It can be frustrating to manage one’s care.

Still, can he name another right that requires taking resources from one person (or group) and giving it to another person (or group)? He disparages medical, drug, and insurance companies for desiring to stay in business. Does he believe that innovators will spend years to develop a medicine, device, or treatment out of the kindness of their hearts? How will they and their families eat and live?

Let’s say that the government takes over the medical care industry (more than they already have with the ACA), where do they get the money? Increased taxation? That takes from people who work. Quantitative easing (aka inflation)? That devalues everyone’s money.

The very concept of insurance companies (you are betting that you’ll need them to cover expenses that you can’t cover and they are betting that you won’t) has been subverted. Obamacare requires even the bronze plans to cover many conditions that the insured doesn’t need. For example, I’m fairly sure that I won’t need maternity care. And yet, the ACA forbids companies offering significantly lower cost “major medical” plans, which I remember from when I was young.

I believe that medical customers need to be able to ascertain the real costs of the treatments that they may need. A system that had much more transparency would go a long way to reducing medical care costs. As the expression goes: when health care is “free”, you’ll get what you pay for.

The snippet from the Nashua Telegraph (also from Feb. 25) nicely illustrates some of the uselessness of most (if not all) gun control proposals. It supports a three day waiting period, reduced from seven days. That demonstrates that the number is arbitrary. Just like magazine capacity.

It also states that the waiting period “would really do no harm.” If that’s the case, why are there exemptions? And please, please retire the worn-out trope “if it saves one life.” Lives have been lost due to people’s inability to acquire a defensive tool in a timely manner (c.f., Carol Bowen in N.J.).

Lastly, I was interested to see that Guam residents were being compensated for the trials they endured in WW II — until I read that it’s our government was providing the money. If I recall correctly, it was the Japanese who invaded the island. Why aren’t they paying?

Rick Notkin

Gilford