I Didn't Read It All, But...

Senators Nelson and Lemieux,
Let us review your health care bill. There is no public option, there is no Medicare buy in, there is no tort reform, there is no freeing up of private insurance across state lines, and as yet, there is no guarantee for the rights of the unborn. What does that leave us? How about almost 700 uses of the word grant.

Let us define the word "grant" as it applies to the bill.

grant-a sum of money given by the government or some other organization to fund such things as education or research (we shall see how this applies momentarily).

I will now go to a passage or two in the bill regarding grants.

Under Subtitle C-Creating Healthier Communities, Section 4201 Community Transformation Grants, (c)(2) and I quote:

(A) IN GENERAL.—An eligible entity that receives a grant under this section shall submit to the Director (for approval) a detailed plan that includes the policy, environmental, programmatic, and as appropriate infrastructure changes needed to promote healthy living and reduce disparities.

Is this not a state's responsibility? Why do we need your fingers in our lives? Would you like to see some of the control, oh, did I say control, how about input over our daily lives?

How about "developing and promoting programs targeting a variety of age levels to increase access to nutrition, physical activity and smoking cessation, improve social and emotional wellness, enhance safety in a community, or address any other chronic disease priority area identified by the grantee; (iv) assessing and implementing work site wellness programming and incentives; (v) working to highlight healthy options at restaurants and other food venues; (vi) prioritizing strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities, including social, economic, and geographic determinants of health; and (vii) addressing special populations needs, including all age groups and individuals with disabilities, and individuals in both urban and rural areas."

Did you see where I can get an appointment with a doctor anywhere in there? Or are you looking at a community based organization that will be using my tax dollars to direct my life, from how I eat and where, to my daily exercise, not to leave out my ethnic issues when it comes to eating certain foods (I am part Italian). This has nothing to do with seeing my doctor when I need to, does it Senators. You want my money and control over my every breath.

Senator Nelson, I had written you in the past regarding the need for more doctors to support the addition of 1/10 of the U.S. population who either cannot afford or do not want health care. Many, many pages of this bill, and the word "grant", are used to educate and pay for new health care providers that will be subject to the federal government. I was unable to locate the baseline grading which would allow your new employees to continue working. As a retired Navy vet and a civil service employee I understand the problems associated with letting someone go due to poor performance. What performance standards are being set and what tools are you giving the school and the employer to let the person go when it becomes necessary and how am I going to get my tax dollars back from his/her education?

On a separate note, with a federally employed doctor who just murdered 13 of my brother vets fresh on my mind, whose poor performance was overlooked because of his beliefs, what safeguards are you putting in to prevent a person from doing harm to his/her patients because of the caregiver's beliefs? In reading the bill I get a sense you will be providing segregated service to patients depending on their ethnicity and religious beliefs. How inclusive of you.

One other question that came to mind while reviewing your bill was in the area of malpractice suits. I attempted to find how a patient's rights are protected when dealing with a federally employed caregiver. As a vet I learned quite quickly a military caregiver has some protection under the law when it comes to poor performance. I found nothing. My question is where in this bill do I have the right to sue the United States for educating and employing a substandard caregiver who caused me physical and/or mental harm or stress? Or is your idea of tort reform to prevent patients from suing. But wait, I take back my comment that there is no tort reform in your 2000+ page bill. I actually found the word "litigation" in your document 4 times, the first on page 1858. I am so proud of you! On the other hand...

SEC. 6801. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE.
"States should be encouraged to develop and test alternatives to the existing civil litigation system as a way of improving patient safety, reducing medical errors, encouraging the efficient resolution of disputes, increasing the availability of prompt and fair resolution of disputes, and improving access to
liability insurance, while preserving an individual’s right to seek redress in court; and Congress should consider establishing a State demonstration program to evaluate alter natives to the existing civil litigation system with respect to the resolution of medical malpractice claims."

Do you see any federally sponsored tort reform? Lip service is there, for sure. No, instead you drop the issue on the states to resolve. Oh, did you notice the word "grant" in this section? Strangely, of the almost 700 times the word grant was used it didn't make it here so the states are on their own to work this one out.

In closing, I am against this bill. You in Congress have screwed up Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, home loan financing, oh let's be honest, just about everything you try to control. Your batting average is in the tank, what makes you think you are going to hit this one out of the park? Let the free market run, without controls, without needless inclusions on health care policies, where doctors get paid depending on their abilities and patients have a right to choose.

With the respect due your office,
Edward Rodda