DONALD K. SWITZER BA, JD

Free-Lance Essayist

E-Mail: DLDSwitzer@Cox.Net                   2739 White Oak Drive                            Tel.: (479) 936-8893

                               Rogers, Arkansas  72758                            

WWW.PoliticsandWhimsey.Com

November 24, 2009

Hon. Blanche Lincoln

United States Senator

Senate of the United States

355 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C.  20510

Re:  Healthcare and Statesmanship

Dear Senator Lincoln:

I was most pleased by and quite proud of your vote to allow debate upon the issue of healthcare reform. It occurs to me and many others I am certain, that this vote is a clear signal to the Public at large and your Constituency that you are possessed of great leadership skills and that your heart is in “a place” where you will be seriously considering the welfare of the Nation as a whole, as opposed to the temporal and ephemeral voices of a narrow constituency. Personally, I could not be more proud of your courage.

You and I have not met, and I believe it is important that I give you the barest of my personal background so that you will recognize that I do know whereof I speak in this regard. First of all, I am a graduate of Dartmouth College (eighteen years before Secretary Geithner!) and of Vanderbilt Law School, having attended those fine institutions after growing up in Crossett, Arkansas. My Dad was the perhaps infamous yet most highly-thought-of bootlegger of Ashley County; and my brother is the famous former football coach of the University of Oklahoma and the Dallas Cowboys. I had a legal career of over thirty-five years, which included stints as Vice President and General Counsel of The American General Life Insurance Companies in Houston (purchased by A.I.G. subsequent to my tenure) and also as Associate Insurance Commissioner and Counsel of the Texas Department of Insurance—in the Administration of George W. Bush as Governor. Some day, if you wish, I can give you a list of the other significant posts I have held of over my career, both Public and private.  I must note, however, that insurance, and health insurance particularly, has been among my more significant foci over the years.

          Also, I was once a Republican; it took me only the period of over-exposure to Governor and then President Bush (and Messrs. Cheney and Rove!) for me to remember who I was in my heart and to “officially” become a Democrat—dedicated to restoring the real values of the Country, pride in most of this great Nation’s past accomplishments and, certainly, its future potential, and the opportunity for equality for all citizens. But most important to me, is the restoration of the high ideals of our People for compassion and caring for the well being of all peoples of our Country, regardless of economic condition or the color of their skin. Also, I have come to understand that the United States has been and is also concerned for the condition of other oppressed peoples everywhere—and in helping them to the extent of our realistic abilities to do so. Obviously, there are such logical limits in all areas as to what we can do as a Nation—depending upon the state of our economy and other exigencies with which we might be presented.

It is with all of this in mind that I urge you with all of my being to work with your fellow Senators to piece together a workable form of healthcare reform that will benefit our Nation and all of its People, and bring to those People the promise of humanity which are the very premises the “Fathers” (I always include President Abraham Lincoln in such a list) had in mind for all of us (their “progeny”) in the founding and establishment of what has been and is the greatest Nation on Earth.

 For a long time now I have been enormously concerned, again and again frankly, as to why the greatest Nation on Earth has not been able to rise above the more base inclinations of some of its citizens, a minority of all of us, yet still a political force. There are obviously many examples I could point out in other areas of law and policy, but specifically in the healthcare area, I call your attention to the travesties encouraged by the government (and the “do nothing” crowd) in refusing to do anything about such horribly damaging matters such as i.)  the irrational and much too extensive patent protection period (by at least two-thirds), as well as price subsidies given to “Big Pharma,” ii.) the anti-trust exemptions and lack of coordinated practices attention given to a primarily monopolistic and price-gouging health insurance industry and, iii.)the multitude of dangers related to “conflicts of interest” caused by the practice of “corporate” (as opposed to person to person) medicine posed to our People as a whole and as individuals. It is for the rectification of problems such as these, that I fully believe the Administration of President Obama is dedicated.  It to those same ends that I have dedicated my greatest efforts. (In this regard, if you have an “extra” six or seven hours, you might want to glance over some of my essays posted at www.politicsandwhimsey.com, many of which have been published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, The Daily Oklahoman, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and The Northwest Arkansas Morning News. Many others have been run on the websites of publications such as the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post.) 

It is in the grand tradition of the United States that great issues be decided by the best interests of all of its citizens—rather than by the “chest-pounding”, loud, discordant and irrational noises and passions of the moment. The raucous sounds with which you are constantly bombarded with on healthcare reform are, in large part, a direct result of the most expensive non-election advertising campaign in the history of the United States. There are times when I believe that alone, without even thinking about the merits of the ads (they are devoid of any!), emphasizes the vacuity of the positions which they espouse; and I ask myself, “If it were otherwise, why would they need to spend so much money and make such foolish, transparent arguments?  And “Why is it so important to them that the most defenseless classes in the Nation be denied one of the rights that fifteen of the other fifteen democratic, industrialized nations of the world recognize?”  That is, the moral obligation of the Nation itself to make certain that all of its people have access to healthcare in some reasonable fashion! When I ask myself this question, I find myself answering that it has to be in the protection of the vast profits their enterprises would lose if the inhumane system as it exists were tampered with! If you were to study the history of the accidental “marriage” of healthcare and capitalism in the United States you would quickly see the reasons this human tragedy all came about—and why, in the interests of all of us, it must be changed. (See Money-Driven Medicine by Maggie Mahar; and my own paper on the topic at http://www.politicsandwhimsey.com/?p=2327.)

         Your particular constituency, and mine as a citizen who has retired among them, is composed of a strange brew of beings. There are those who are against everything the National Democratic Party proposes—based upon their irrational presumption that “if they like it, I must be against it.” Then there are those who have direct financial interests that would be severely damaged by the establishment of a fair and rational healthcare delivery system. My paper regarding the unnatural “marriage” of healthcare and capitalism lists those persons and interests. My feeling about this particular minority of persons is that they are giving vent to wrong yet honestly-held feelings which are not to simply be cast aside at whim. They are the ones who need education, e.g., “social policy” to protect “the little guy” is not the same as “Socialism!”

I speak, of course, of such matters as the enactment of the anti-trust laws, establishment of the public service commissions, the enactment of National and State securities laws, the establishment of insurance commissions in all fifty states, as well as the completion of creation of such huge “public” works projects as the great interstate highway system created at the initiation of President Eisenhower, and the fantastic Hoover Dam and Lake Meade which, candidly, make viable the very existence of much of California, are all in the interest of everyone.  Although the word “social” be used to denote the public and societal nature of each of these legal and public works endeavors, it is critical that our constituency understand that laws of a capitalistic and democratic country that be enacted to protect and benefit society as a whole against the human frailties of the sometimes over-bearing economic power of the very wealthy, or to do things that the People themselves could not do, is NOT “Socialism.” The latter is a not very successful form of Government that involves ownership of the means of production and of the distribution of all of the produce of that production the people of the affected country. A common “word root” is the only problem; but so many of us need to understand this distinction.

Those persons who give me the greatest difficulty, and the same to you, I am sure, are those who shout inanities such as, “…if they wanted a job, they would get one,” or my favorite, “…those ____’ers don’t deserve any of our tax dollars ‘cause they haven’t paid any…”  You certainly know the mindset—they are the same people that were organized and sent out by Dick Armey and “FreedomWorks” back during August of this year to Democratic Town Hall Meetings—some with automatic weapons—for show obviously.  We have bunch of people of this nature in our beloved state. There are more of them up near where I live that where you live!    

        I must say to you that the House Bill sent to the Senate, which I have studied, is a travesty—not in its goals but in its lack of precision and of understanding of what needed to be done. I know almost nothing of Senator Reid’s draft other than that it contains a “robust” public option. If I had the time to study it line-by-line and reference-by-reference (you understand why THAT is what makes its study so difficult!), I believe I could correct it—as the Congress can over the period of three or four years before the law is even visualized as being effective. More practical minds can be brought to bear in that period of time. But now is the time in which the Senate must act to make all of this, all of this critical public policy deliberation and creation, as well as the voting to eventually make it working public policy, must take place. I would state that if not now, it will not happen in either of our lifetimes; and how many of those not able to access healthcare will have unnecessarily died in that horrible, avoidable interim?

One thing I would like to share with you is that I am viscerally opposed to the “robust public option” as currently proposed, inasmuch as if it were passed in such a fashion as to create a “government insurance company,” it would be but another government albatross hanging over the necks of the People, i.e., under funded, staffed by the lowest paid and least competent people that can be found, and it would, in a word, be yet another inept public bureaucracy under-serving the People. I have shared with Representative Boozman, and he has expressed interest in the  second aspect of the particular manner in which these dangers can be avoided.  And that is in the combined requirement (originally proposed by the American Health Insurance Council and subsequently forgotten by all), of: i.) the use by all insurers of universal actuarial morbidity rates for health coverage in return for the opportunity afforded the companies by the new “market” of over forty million persons—meaning competition between them will be based upon who has the better service, the lower overhead and other matters and considerations applicable to almost every other business in America; and ii.) the currently uninsured be covered under a simple “assigned risk” plan whereby those not covered be assigned to existing companies on a pro rata formula based upon per cent of premium written in controlling jurisdictions (whether it be State or Federal). In this manner no new bureaucracy would have to be created, except for a new division in the U.S. Department of Human Services that would be in control of the “assignment” of risks and rate and practices oversight such as that performed by the S.E.C. and current state insurance departments–and other such functions as may be found necessary.

       I truly hope that you will take a continuing leadership role in this debate; and considering the time, the place, the urgency of what is needed, and the obvious “statesmanlike” opportunity to cement your own legacy, I believe it will all fall into place. And, in the end, all of the People will show their great approbation.

Sincerely yours,

Donald K. Switzer