Here’s my column today and a couple of e-mails in reply:

E-mail:

Subject: Health Exchange
We already have the basis of a health exchange. It is called Medicare Advantage and, while not perfect, it works. Part C of Medicare can be expanded without the need of a public option to allow for placing some of the uninsured under a base health plan within Part C. Public Options and Cooperatives are platforms to phase the nation into a single payer system and if the left is open about wanting this result.
If cooperatives want to exist then they need to compete fairly in the market place and they need to raise money in the capital markets. As long as insurance companies have to accept people with preexisting conditions then the cooperatives have to file their plans and compete either under Medicare Part C or under state insurance laws dealing with capital reserves and liquidity. When government attempts to be the insurance company, it fails as a business. This is the lesson of comparing the USPS with FED X and UPS. We do not need a FannieMed or Government Sponsored Health Insurance (GSHE). There would be too much political meddling and interest group intrigue. There would not be enough office space in D.C. to house the lobbyists attempting to feed at this trough…

E-mail:

Reading your column this morning reminded me of something: If we can cut a half-trillion dollars from Medicare and Medicaid to pay for health insurance reform but if, as looks to be the case, healthcare reform won’t pass, why not just cut a half-trillion dollars from Medicare and Medicaid anyway? Yes, I know the cuts are a hollow promise and that Democrats don’t want to talk about those cuts without a trillion dollars n new spending, but our side should ask the question and try to make them talk about it. “If you think you can make those cuts without negatively affecting seniors and the poor, then let’s go ahead and make the cuts. Then we can talk about new spending later. Let’s prove the cost savings are practicable before we dive into another huge government spending program based on mere promises of theoretical budget cuts. Put your money where your mouth is…”