Dear Editor,

Amid all the talk of should the government be working on health care policy and is it overstepping its bounds to do so, something has gotten lost. That is the simple fact that the old system did not work for many of us. As someone who was denied group private coverage because of a preexisting condition, I am appalled that anyone in this country of opportunity for all thinks that that is all right and should not be addressed. Limited government is fine, but a government “of the people, for the people and by the people” should make sure all of the people get a fair shake, and when a person is denied the opportunity to have assistance paying medical bills to expensive to pay out of pocket by being unable to purchase health insurance, we do not all get a fair shake. I would hazard a guess that no one who opposed health care reform before it happened or thinks that it should be undone now that it has happened has ever gotten a letter like the one I got from Golden Rule several years ago canceling my coverage because I got hit by a car in 1984, even though I have not been an even one night patient in the hospital since 19985, when I had the plate removed from my leg that they put in to make the bone grow back correctly in 1984, so my overall medical history does not mark me as likely to cost more than other patients. However,even if I was likely to cost more than others, that is the whole point of insurance. A life insurance company wouldn't tell a diseased person's loved ones 'if we knew they were going to die, we wouldn't have issued the life insurance policy', nor would a car insurance company say 'if we'd known you were going to get in a wreck, we wouldn't have sold you car insurance', so why should it not be illegal for a health insurance company to say 'if we'd known you might need medical care at some point, we wouldn't have given yo health insurance'? How can anyone say that children should be allowed to die to save their insurance company money? Or that it is okey for life and death decisions to be made with more consideration given to money than to people? Are such things not practicing 'the love of money'? And how can a society that claims to be the land of opportunity for all “yearning to breathe free” support such a position? For further evidence that the old system did need reform and or to respond to these questions, check out my parables and commentaries at avoiceinthewilderness-wildvoicenet@blogspot.com.

Sincerely,

Matthew L. Beckett