Explain, Jim
This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2009, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

I agree with Tom Metcalf -- it is time that Rep. Jim Matheson address in print in detail his reasons for opposing a public option in the House's health care reform bill ("Matheson, please explain," Forum, Nov. 16). After all, "government-run" health care (Medicare) is good enough for Matheson's lovely mother, Norma. And I imagine that his wife, Amy, is grateful that her pediatric patients have government-run Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program as opposed to no coverage at all. It is time for Matheson to educate the public on the good things that government does instead of pandering to the right wing.

Like Matheson, I too am disappointed that the House's health care reform bill doesn't go far enough in containing costs. However, the cost of doing nothing is more expensive. If the Blue Dog Democrats are truly serious about containing costs, they should champion a single-payer health plan to eliminate the 30 percent overhead in current insurance companies.

If the Blue Dogs like Matheson truly cared about reining in health care costs, they should return all the donations they've received from the health care industry. Where does Matheson think that money comes from?

Christine B. Helfrich

Salt Lake City

Article Tools

Enter a search phrase.

Specify a Range

From  to

 

 
Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.