Diana Hsieh’s letter to the Commission charged with socializing reforming Colorado’s healthcare system:

Dear 208 Commissioners,I wish to express my profound disappointment with the Commission’s choice of
healthcare reform proposals to evaluate.  All four proposals are basically
the same: all would significantly increase the already-overwhelming burden
of government regulations, mandates, and entitlements in medicine.  If
implemented, the results would be exactly the same as in other countries and
states, i.e. runaway costs, rationing of services, and declining quality.
The only difference between these four proposals is the speed with which
each would destroy the high quality of medical care now available in
Colorado. You could have chosen to give a serious hearing to something genuinely
different, namely the free-market approach of Brian Schwartz’s “FAIR”
proposal.  Instead, you’ve decided that only plans that inject tons more
government force into medicine will be considered. 

What a farce. 

Diana Hsieh
Sedalia, CO 

 

…and Hannah Krening’s letter…

To the 208 Commission,

As a Colorado taxpayer, breast cancer survivor and one whose first husband lost a long battle with cancer I want to tell you that your choices of proposals to evaluate all add up to one thing for me:  I hope I never have a life threatening condition again in Colorado if any of these proposals become reality!  And I hope that nobody I love, like the dear friend of mine who is now dying of brain cancer, has to be subjected to the rationing, waiting, and other debilitating results of what you evidently believe are the best of intentions.

Bringing more government involvement into health care “reform” is not a solution.  It is a recipe for disaster.  Of the proposals you considered, only one reflected my views: the “FAIR” proposal.  Only by reducing government involvement in health care will we get the kind of justice that will bring about the best care for all at the best possible price.  But we must remember that health care is not and cannot be free:  the skills of doctors, researchers, technology companies must be fairly compensated.  The alternative is slavery: of the few taxpayers who will foot the huge (unworkable) bills, and of the providers of health care who will ultimately leave the profession in order not to be enslaved by it.

This is not regulation on some dispensable part of our lives.  This concerns everyone’s survival to some degree; nobody will be untouched by your recommendations.  We have a lot to lose!   I hope you will reconsider your slant toward more government power in the area of health care.

Sincerely,

Hannah Krening