The media trying to tell us how to feel about health care

I sent an e-mail responding to Ms. Heller's article on phillynews.com (click title to link to article if you'd like to read).

Since I can't copy and paste, I'll highlight my points I wrote to her:

First, shame on you for falling into the liberal propoganda that "people aren't really angry about Nationalized Health Care. These protests are orchestrated." People are angry. Most people believe there should be some reform. But most are also against a National Health Care. That's fact.

Her article states that a public plan would be a more efficient competitor, to which I responded:

Two questions. One, how much more overhead/administrative paper work/bureaucratic red tape will there be if government is involved, and two, efficient competitor? When has the government ever run anything efficiently or effectively?

Finally I stated that I, like many, believe that all people should have the ability to go to the doctor. But more government involvement and more taxes is not the answer. My solution:

Less intervention. The problem is insurance companies, not free market. 20-30 years ago, before PPO/HMO, it was $30 to go to the doctor's office. You paid it right there. No overhead. No searching for paper work to figure out which insurance covers what. Insurance was for hospitalization. Right now, doctor's can bill an office visit at a high rate, knowing you won't care because insurance will pay most and you might pay a $10 co-pay. If we took insurance out of office visits, price would go down because we would be paying and they would have to compete with other offices for your business.
I also stated that it might help with these taxes Obama wants to put on things that are bad for us, like soda. People might actually take better care of themselves if they were paying out of pocket for every trip to the doctor's office.

I'll let you know if she responds....