Health care reform debate, Part III

In my previous letter, to which Mr. Mize reacted with such hysterically funny rants (Letters, 8/27), I very specifically did not ascribe any political position to those who chose to use force or intimidation at the town hall meetings, I only pointed out that this was an organized, corporate-sponsored Astroturf movement. So let’s look rationally at the issue that seems to have put such a knot in Mr. Mize’s intellectual Snuggies.

Socialized medicine. This is a system where all of the hospitals and clinics are owned by the government and all of the doctors, nurses and staff are government employees. The United States has a well-developed and robust socialized medicine system. It is called the Veterans Administration, or VA for short. And it is pretty good, ranks very high in all customer satisfaction surveys, and is recognized as a world leader in some fields, including prosthesis. I guess Mr. Mize doesn’t feel the troops deserve this world-class service.

Single payer health insurance. This is a system where a government-sponsored entity serves as the primary health insurer for a large class of citizens. The United States has a well-developed and robust single payer health insurance system, it is called Medicare. And it is pretty good, too. It has kept millions of elderly Americans active, healthy and independent through their senior years without the penury, which results from increasing medical expenses with advancing age. This system ranks highest in customer satisfaction of all health care insurance providers in the United States,  plus it has an overhead rate of just 3 percent, compared to the 21 percent of the average private insurer. I guess Mr. Mize doesn’t feel the elderly should benefit from such world-class service.

Now to the actual health insurance reform bills being worked on in the House and Senate. VA, no change. Medicare, a few minor changes focusing on preventive medicine to reduce crisis care. Employer-provided health insurance, no change to existing plans. For those millions of Americans who have no health insurance, the bills will provide an insurance exchange where they can shop the various plans and options. The plans will all have to meet some general criteria, including no cancellation for actually incurring medical care, no annual or lifetime caps on benefits, and insurers must accept all legally qualified applicants regardless of any prior medical condition. The exchange will include a public option, a government-sponsored, self-supporting insurance plan. I hope “option” isn’t too big a word for Mr. Mize to understand; it means subject to the buyers choice! Finally, the bills will require all to secure health insurance, for the insurance companies have said specifically, they can’t accept the no-preconditions requirement without universal coverage. Otherwise, the freeloaders would opt not to buy coverage until they incurred a major medical crisis, then buy insurance, passing all of their newly developing medical bills onto the insurer.

That’s it.

Norm Rodewald, Moorpark

The fallacy of an oil severance tax
Re: “Oil companies should pay severance taxes” (Power to Speak, 8/27)

The author’s call for higher taxes on California oil production through a severance tax on oil extraction relies on emotional buzzwords and political rhetoric rather than sound economic logic.

Versions of the oil severance tax proposal have been debated for years and have been repeatedly defeated by California voters and legislators, because this tax would be bad for California’s energy supply, economy and consumers.

From a taxpayer perspective, the question is: Why impose a higher, punitive tax rate on any specific industry, which in this case happens to be petroleum? And why attempt to justify such a discriminatory rate by alleging that “excessive profits” make more taxes acceptable? It’s elementary that the higher the profits any industry earns, the more taxes it already will pay.

Petroleum companies’ profits are in line with the average earnings of all industries — meaning some business sectors enjoy much higher profitability while others have lower earnings. Should those industries with even higher earnings also be subject to punitive taxes because they earn more profits than others?

That is flat wrong.

Perhaps more important to taxpayers are the impacts that a severance tax would have on California consumers — the folks who already pay the highest combined taxes on gasoline in the country, and who pay retail gasoline and diesel prices that are also among the nation’s highest. Imposing additional cost on production will translate to increased prices for consumers at the pump.

Increasing the cost of in-state oil extraction will lead to decreased production here — a victory for environmental idealists but a loss for consumers. Less California production will mean more imported oil, which creates higher product prices than manufacturing with oil produced in California by California workers.

That ultimately means less tax revenue for the state and for local governments, and fewer jobs for workers in California, where we are already suffering with 11.9 percent unemployment. These effects are nothing to sneeze at since the oil industry employs 10,000 workers in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties alone, and provides much-needed health care and retirement benefits to those men and women and their families.

It’s easy to attack a politically targeted industry, and the tax promoters do it cleverly. What’s hard is to make the case that an oil severance tax would actually be good for consumers, jobs or the economy in a state already struggling with record-high unemployment and persistent fiscal instability.

This latest proposal would drive gasoline prices up and eliminate jobs. It would be bad for California and deserves the same fate as its failed predecessors.

Don Facciano, President/CEO, Ventura County Taxpayers Association

The Right Persuasion and intellectual honesty
I wanted to drop you a line and let you know how much I appreciate your “Right Persuasion” columns in the VCReporter. I also applaud the Reporter for the guts and the intellectual honesty to give space to a person of such political leanings, and I respect the publication all the more for doing so. I happen to share the same belief system as Paul, and I feel the Reporter has a lot to offer anyone with a true open mind and cares about the people and activities in our community.

Bruce Reed, Ventura

Support for Gibson and Tracy
I am supporting Mike Gibson and Mike Tracy in the November Ventura City Council election. Mike Gibson is a man of integrity with an agenda to change the same-old, same-old at City Hall. He is staunchly opposed to the new city sales tax measure and will be the fiscal watchdog we are currently lacking on the City Council. We need Gibson on the City Council to change the direction for the better in our city government.

Former City Police Chief Mike Tracy is a quality individual with strong leadership and administrative skills. He has proven these skills as the highly successful leader of our Police Department for six years. Like Gibson, he is a fiscal conservative and will help carefully manage the city budget in a time of financial constraints.

I will not be voting for any of the incumbents. They have been leading us down a path of peril for the last few years, mismanaging our tax dollars, loading additional fees and charges on to us at every turn, and making very questionable decisions, including the disastrous 911 fee.

Jim Monahan has been on the Council for far too long. He has served the City well over the years, but we need new blood at City Hall. He has rested on his laurels for many years now. 

Neal Andrews is too anti-public safety for my liking. He also feuds openly with his fellow Council members and cannot seem to come to agreement with them on important issues. 

I don’t think I need to say much about Brian Brennan and Ed Summers. Their records speak for themselves.

Please join with me in voting for change in November. Vote for Mike Gibson and Mike Tracy. They are the highest-quality candidates of the bunch!

Shiv Vyas, Ventura