A recent letter to the editor by Sandra Orr Tompkins ["Obama's new proposals need a closer look," Aug. 4 letters] undoubtedly echoes the feelings and frustrations of many individuals in both the Lampasas community and the national community at large. What is most unfortunate is that these feelings are often based on misinformation.

Neither of us would profess to have all the answers, but we have tried here to utilize the best evidence available to the public to reframe the debate in terms that are not couched in divisiveness. That is, by divorcing rhetoric, dogma and predispositions from the issues at hand, we hope to demonstrate that a more objective and honest picture of both the Obama Administration and the recent health care reform legislation can emerge.

Many of the fears surrounding the impending health care reform stem from the belief that the main intent of H.R. 3200 (the health care bill) is to establish a single-payer health care system, a system in which a single payer (i.e., the federal government) provides payment for a nation's health care. Contrary to various rumors spread throughout the media, President Obama does not support a single-payer, or "government-run," health care system. In fact, the president has made a point of excluding advocates of a single-payer system from the current debate, with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) declaring that "(such a program) is not going to get even to first base in Congress."

The assertion that the new health care reform legislation has anything to do with some sort of euthanasia program is a common albeit baseless rumor and a misinterpretation of section 1233 of H.R. 3200, which defines the term "advance care planning consultation." According to the bill itself, "such consultation shall include ... an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders." An AARP press release from July 24 refers to various claims that the bill would enable physicians to pressure seniors into prematurely ending their lives as "rife with gross — and even cruel — distortions."

Unfortunately, the anticipated consequences of H.R. 3200 cited by its opponents -- such as waiting lists for medical care, debilitating red tape and loss of doctor autonomy -- are not catastrophes waiting in the future but characteristics of the present system. Since private insurance companies are ultimately profit-driven, they often inhibit the ability of physicians to issue medication and treatment, and in some cases they prevent customers from seeing a physician at all to optimize their margins.

According to Congressman Tim Murphy (R-Pa.), "one of our big frustrations with insurance companies is [that] they control the market place, they control what's done, [and] a lot of times doctors [are] not the ones making the decisions." According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, health insurance premiums for the average family have more than doubled since 1999, all while health insurance companies such as UnitedHealth Group, Wellpoint and CIGNA have posted quarterly profits close to $1 billion in recent years.

Another fear expressed in the letter, that individuals "too costly" to keep alive would be denied care under a government system, is already a mechanism in the private health insurance business model. In the status quo, individuals with certain pre-existing conditions or "risk factors" are denied coverage by companies fearing that they may pay more to treat these individuals than they will receive from them through premiums.

In a similar vein, age discrimination against the elderly leads many insurers to charge seniors substantially higher premiums.

The health care reform bill, rather than altering our medical system so as to render it unrecognizable, is simply correcting many of the present system's ills. One of the bill's purposes is to ban the use of pre-existing conditions and various risk factors as a means by which to deny coverage. Another measure is the creation of a national Health Insurance Exchange, which would allow for individuals, families and small business owners to select their insurance from a variety of private and public options.

While not everyone may have the time or ability to read the health care reform bill and understand it in its entirety, having some faith in a piece of legislation endorsed by the American Medical Association, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, American Association of Retired Persons and American Nurses Association, when one considers their disparate interests, seems like a reasonable course of action.

Even as Mrs. Tompkins' letter puts a major spotlight on the health care reform debate, it also provides a thorough evaluation of the Obama Administration. Many of the criticisms leveled against the president in this letter could easily be applied to any number of his predecessors. In fairness, this letter does mention, in its criticisms of the bailout, that those efforts were started under President Bush. The failed realization here is the fact that, not only were such efforts a necessary sort of realpolitik, but they probably did not go far enough to avert the credit crisis that developed as our major financial institutions froze their loan-granting arms.

The behavior of investors after the failure of Lehman Brothers demonstrates this to some degree. This letter sees federal control of major corporations receiving TARP money as a bad thing but, debatably, much of the financial meltdown could have been avoided with greater financial control and regulation in the first place.

The stimulus bill (or the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) was another painful yet arguably necessary measure taken by the federal government. I am not entirely sure what the objection in this letter is to the bill itself, but it is far from the liberal "kids in the candy store" scenario that is created for us. In fact, pertinent to the interests of many in Lampasas, a full $280 billion of that bill is projected government revenue losses in the form of tax cuts.

Further, the letter seemingly fails to remember what economist and Judge Richard Posner points out: "The Bush Administration established a precedent of $500 billion annual federal budget deficits... ." In fact, the national debt doubled during President Bush's tenure in office.

Traditionally, one of the best ways to combat federal budget deficits has been an increase in taxation but, despite the misgivings of many about our deficit spending, fewer still want to see an increase in the taxes that they pay. Paradoxically, many of these same individuals still want high-quality government services that are, nominally at least, funded through the returns collected under the Internal Revenue Code.

Along with a fear of the national debt spiraling out of control, the letter expresses a fear of "huge inflation." This is a common but currently irrational fear. We are presently experiencing a soft economy, or, as we might say more colloquially, a "buyer's market." In fact, the Consumer Price Index, the way economists measure inflation, has shrunk by 1.4 percent over a 12-month period. Further, the costs of energy, a major concern expressed in the letter and throughout our community, have actually decreased by 25.5 percent nationwide. With unemployment above 9 percent and with the concurrent decreasing aggregate value of goods, the U.S. Treasury could, in theory, easily increase the money supply without seeing a noticeable debasement of the dollar.

It is difficult to achieve a complete lack of bias as even assessments that may work at being evenhanded frequently fail to realize flaws in their reasoning. Case in point: This letter is quick to praise the military of the United States, its members and its rate of success. This is perplexing because our military is run by the same criticized federal government, and those soldiers are directly employed by the same institution, being really no different than the bureaucrats condemned in the letter.

We are not calling for out and out faith in all government measures or actions in this letter. Similarly, we do not wish to come across as heavy-handed or condescending. It would be an unforeseen irony if, as we criticize using second-hand information to form opinions, anyone were to rely on our statements here as proof of fact. Rather, what we hope is that each reader will take it upon himself or herself to use the information presented here as a starting point to more fully investigate the policies and legislation coming out of Washington, D.C.
David Matthew, Waco
Trevor McGuire, Lometa