Letters to the Editor - Nov. 5, 2007

Key question in health coverage: Who needs insurance but can't get it? - Health insurance creates its own drawbacks for patients, physicians - For organ donation, eminent domain argument fails morally and ethically

Key question in health coverage: Who needs insurance but can't get it?

Regarding "Uninsured count jumps to 47 million" (Article, Sept. 17): The figure of 47 million uninsured people is receiving widespread publicity. But I have read elsewhere that millions among this 47 million are not U.S. citizens, another large segment are young and healthy and may not need health insurance, others are just between jobs and some have just not signed up for programs for which they are eligible.

It seems to me the relevant question is not how many people are uninsured in the United States but rather how many citizens need insurance but cannot get it. I suspect this may be a much smaller number than 47 million and provide a more rational basis for discussing major expensive and coercive (if everyone is required to buy health insurance whether they need it or not) changes to our current health care insurance system.

--Everest A. Whited, MD, Pflugerville, Texas

Health insurance creates its own drawbacks for patients, physicians

I present a dissenting view on the uninsured and insurance. Health insurance is not the answer. It's the problem.

Those of us who deal daily with denials of payment, delay tactics, declining reimbursements and increasing premiums know that insurance companies do not operate for the benefit of patients or their doctors.

Insurers add many layers of cost to the doctor-patient relationship. But their interests are not aligned with those of the patient. Rather, they are aligned with the interests of shareholders and management. This explains why insurers behave as they do. And government has a public interest in public health (disease surveillance, sanitation, etc.), but not in individual health care, which is a private interest.

So let us be very careful what we wish for.

--Jeffrey Kalenak, MD, Milwaukee

For organ donation, eminent domain argument fails morally and ethically

Regarding "The government should claim organs for donation by eminent domain" (Letters, Sept. 24): Letter writer David Behar, MD, Bethlehem, Pa., is entitled to his opinion that corpses are chattel with market value, and that it is superstitious, religious people who could think otherwise.

This opinion suggests to me that people can become property, a belief that is repugnant on a moral, ethical, and human level. AMNews should seek comments by medical ethicists on the appropriateness of the government claiming organ donation by eminent domain.

--Ingeborg Damstra, MD, Newtown Square, Pa.

Vote refines AMA stance on health reform
The AMA House of Delegates rejected attempts to rescind support of a U.S. House health reform bill and any new government-sponsored health insurance plan during the 2009 Interim Meeting.
Story - AMA House - Slideshow