Rationing already being done by insurance firms

I am all for thoughtful debate over health care reform. The problem is that opponents do not want to have a serious discussion; they would rather engage in fear-mongering and misinformation.

Trudy Cram's letter (Aug. 8) is one of a line of letters suggesting that the current proposal would deny coverage to the elderly as a way to stabilize costs.

The truth is, the proposal encourages private doctor-patient discussions of end-of-life care (which already takes place and is important; wouldn't you want your doctor to know your wishes?), but this does not equate to some kind of euthanasia program.

The opposition claims that the options are private insurance completely funding treatment on demand or government insurance that will ration treatment. We already ration treatment to those who have insurance rather than those who don't. But even if you have insurance, not every procedure is covered.

Brad Shettler (Aug. 11) perpetuates this same misconception: He asks if we would rather have a government bureaucrat or a doctor making the decision of what will be covered. But it's never the doctor. It's the insurance companies themselves, those in the business of making big profits, and they will deny every procedure they possibly can.

Even a major medical condition that's supposedly covered can easily bankrupt a family. And yet we defend these companies as trustworthy and non-rationing? Please.

Glenn Freeman

Cedar Rapids