To get true health care reform, politicians must hear from people

The current system in the United States is not really health insurance, it's profit insurance. Insurance and pharmaceutical company profits come way before you and your family's health.

Health insurance companies (really health insurance casinos, since the house never loses) have found a way to make huge profits providing health care to the American people. Why can't the government use the same tactics?

Where is it written that the government should not make a profit, or at least break even, providing health care to its citizens? We should have learned by now: Privatizing essential services and needs does not work.

Look at what privatization did to our prison system and for-profit universities. Some things are better left to the government or nonprofit organizations, particularly when the issue affects all Americans.

Government-sponsored health care need not be an enormous financial drain on our country's budget.

Even if the program ended with a zero-sum result, at least people wouldn't be denied the care they need while our government makes one futile attempt after another trying to solve the problem.

The only important issue Obamacare addressed was exposing the insurance casinos and their scam about preconditions. Doesn't every business like to cherry-pick its customers to avoid those who are less profitable?

One major task the government would face is restructuring the fee schedules doctors and hospitals charge. They have expenses and overhead that must be covered, and physicians should make a reasonable profit. But I also think some of the prices charged are outrageous.

I'll give you two examples.

My wife and I both had cataract surgery, which usually means slipping an artificial lens into the eye. Our procedures began with a nurse who gave us a mild sedative. The surgeon did the procedure in 20 minutes. The bill for both procedures was more than $30,000.

Another example was when my wife received a cochlear implant to help solve a serious hearing issue. Again, the procedure took less than 30 minutes; the fee was more than $165,000.

Both procedures greatly enhanced our quality of life and were a blessing to us. But neither entitled the physician, hospital or clinic to extract that much money from our insurance.

Perhaps the answer is for physician and hospital fees to be on a cost-plus basis.

The public is being taken to the cleaners on health care. No other business enjoys the protection of, or employs a higher markup than, the health care industry. Although it's far from perfect, the system used by Great Britain and Canada seems to be working much better than what we have.

Much, much worse are the prices pharmaceutical companies charge for their drugs.

If we continue to allow the pharmaceutical companies to establish the costs for saving a human life or relieving human suffering, we only have ourselves to blame.

Yes, they have major upfront costs in developing a drug, but that's one area where the government could help reimburse them before they try to extract it from the pockets of sick citizens.

Motive, means and opportunity, the three criteria for committing a crime, have been utilized by the health insurance casinos and pharmaceutical companies with great success.

Who says crime doesn't pay?

Their only motive is to make a profit. Their means are political contributions to greedy politicians, which gives them the opportunity to continue the status quo. Pharmaceutical companies are entitled to a profit but, as recent events have shown, some of the profits are simply obscene.

That could be why the major reason for personal bankruptcies in the United States is medical expenses.

There's no argument that the United States is built on capitalism. Where is it written that our government cannot engage in it? It has the money, it has the market and it has the means to communicate to that market.

One major purpose of our government is to help provide a decent life and the pursuit of happiness to its citizens. One way to do that is to make good health care and drugs available at reasonable costs to everyone.

If the health insurance casinos can do it, why can't the federal government do it and make a profit as well?

One reason why: The people charged with solving the problem don't have a clue what the problem really is. Political figures receive the finest health care in the world, often at no cost to them. Why should they be expected to understand the problems of people who don't?

Until we convene a panel of ordinary citizens who have faced the issue of inadequate health care, Congress will learn nothing.

The panel I'm suggesting would consist of people with young families from all segments of our society, elderly people, people with disabilities and just some ordinary middle-class people. Within a very short period a solution would be found, and it wouldn't require handing out large campaign contributions to members of Congress.

We hear a lot about one group or another "sending a message" to Congress. This is one time we should insist the message be delivered.

Don't wait for another election cycle, because nothing's going to change. Contact your local congressional offices.

Just keep bothering them until they put the desire for political contributions aside and start thinking about the people they are supposed to represent.

Ed Dugan of Woodburn is a retired president of Indiana Tech.