Kreider

I’d like to respond to Grant Darrow’s Aug. 23, 2023, letter to the editor: “Universal health care would mean ‘Medicare for no one.’” Mr. Darrow makes several claims about the Universal Health Plan (UHP) in Oregon, including that it is not equitable, affordable, comprehensive or high quality. I would like to address these claims.

Claim 1: You will not be allowed to opt out of “universal health care” or keep your current Medicare-based health insurance.

This is not accurate. The UHP would be a single-payer system, which means that everyone would be automatically enrolled. However, there would be a provision for people to opt out if they wanted to keep their current private health insurance.

Claim 2: Private insurance will be illegal if it competes with this plan.

This is also not accurate. The UHP would not make private health insurance illegal. However, it would likely make private insurance less affordable, as the government would be able to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs and medical services.

Claim 3: You will shoulder additional income, payroll and a new sales tax to make up for the difference.

It is true that the UHP would require new taxes. However, these taxes would likely be offset by the savings that people would realize from no longer having to pay for premiums, deductibles, and copays. Additionally, the UHP would likely lead to lower overall health care costs, as the government would be able to negotiate better prices for prescription drugs and medical services.

Claim 4: There is no objective projection of the actual cost of this socialized health care program.

This is not true. The Oregon Health Authority has released a report that projects the cost of the UHP to be $22 billion per year. This is a significant amount of money, but it is important to note that it is less than the current cost of health care in Oregon.

Claim 5: There is no Plan B once the current system is gutted.

This is a valid concern. If the UHP is implemented and it does not work as well as expected, there would be no easy way to go back to the old system. However, it is important to remember that the current system is not working well for many people. Millions of Oregonians are uninsured or underinsured, and many people struggle to afford the high cost of health care. The UHP is a risky proposition, but it is also a necessary one if we want to ensure that everyone in Oregon has access to affordable, quality health care.

Claim 6: The plan will pay for abortions and suicide as an option to health care.

This is true. The UHP would cover abortion and suicide prevention services. However, it is important to note that these services are already covered by many private health insurance plans. Additionally, the UHP would not require anyone to use these services if they did not want to.

Claim 7: Participating providers will be severely limited in the care they offer through state licensing and certification and will be paid before services are rendered.

This is not accurate. The UHP would not limit the care that providers can offer. However, it would require providers to be licensed and certified by the state. This is already the case for most providers in Oregon. Yes, the UHP would pay providers before services are rendered, but that is the standard practice for most health insurance plans.

In conclusion, the letter to the editor makes several inaccurate claims about the UHP. The UHP is a complex issue, and there are valid concerns about it. However, it is important to base our opinions on facts, not misinformation.