Sample letters to the Editor
Dear Editor:
I am writing in support of Tacoma’s Proposition 1. We all know how powerful the insurance and pharmaceutical industries are. Those of us on the local level must take a stand on health care reform and give our local, state and federal lawmakers the political cover they need to make real change. If Proposition 1 passes, the City government will be required to lobby our state legislators and members of our federal Congressional delegation to put in place programs designed to make everyone as healthy as possible, not structured to make health insurance companies as profitable as possible. Proposition 1 is the first step all of can take to begin real health care reform.
Dear Editor:
Passage of Tacoma’s Proposition 1 would require the City Council to take up Resolution []. This Resolution encourages the City to implement better health care policy and programs locally. It also requires the City to convene an expert panel to look at how the uninsured in Tacoma could be better served. Finally, it requires the City to work on a state and national level to improve health care policy. It calls to mind the environmental organization that encouraged us to think globally and act locally. Health care reform requires a federal solution, but the shape of that reform begins on the local level.
Dear Editor:
After an exhaustive study, the W.K. Kellogg, Packard, and Robert Woods Johnson (RWJ) foundations realized the obvious: significant health reform will not occur until there is “an organized consumer voice . . . that [advocates for] protecting or expanding health care access.” Seems odd that they needed a “rocket scientist” to tell them what is well apparent to all of us. Until we stand up and let our voices be known, our healthcare crisis will deepen. I strongly support passage of Tacoma’s Proposition 1. It would be the “organized consumer” voice that is the first step needed to make quality healthcare a reality for all of us.
Dear Editor:
I support Tacoma’s Proposition 1. Here’s why: Policy shapes programming. Passage of Proposition 1 on the City’s November ballot would require the City to take up Resolution []. Resolution [] directs the City to review its health care programs to make sure they meet the requirements of accessibility, availability, quality and appropriateness found in international law. These standards constitute good policy. They should underlie the City’s health care programming.
Write your own letter.
If you want some ideas, below are some points you can use in your letter.
1. How does a policy statement actually improve health care coverage?
Policies shape programs. Once proper policies are in place, the types of programs that emerge are better designed, more efficient, and more effective.
Why are local policy statements regarding health care necessary or useful?
Local policy statements are important.
Such mainstream foundations as W.K. Kellogg, Packard, and Robert Woods Johnson (RWJ) all realize that significant health reform will not occur until there is: “an organized consumer voice . . . that [advocates for] protecting or expanding health care access.” In a report funded by Kellogg, it was noted that health reform requires local, community efforts that can:
analyze complex legal and policy issues in order to develop achievable policy alternatives that will attract broad support;
build a strong grassroots base of support;
design and implement media and other communications strategies to build timely public and political support for reform and to weaken opposition arguments;
build and sustain strong broad-based coalitions and maintain strategic alliances with other stakeholders;
develop and implement strategic health policy campaigns; and
generate resources from diverse sources to build organizational infrastructure and maintain core functions and implement campaigns.
As recognized by the foundations listed above, change will not come from the top down. Like all social movements, a fundamental change in health care programming will require local action and advocacy.
What can a City do to impact federal healthcare policy?
Pressure on the state and federal governments from cities is real and powerful (which is probably why members of the state legislature and the federal Congressional delegation support Proposition 1; they want the city to provide them with political “cover.”). Cities deal directly with the challenges of the uninsured as well as the challenge of paying for employee benefits and the like. Just as in the case of the Kyoto Protocol, cities can move the country forward in a real way. This effort is not unique to Tacoma. The question is, will Tacoma part of this effort?
What should our healthcare policy be?
The fundamental policy should be: make everyone as healthy as possible. Seems simple, but that’s not the underlying policy of our current system. Instead, health insurance profits take first priority – maintaining the viability of the private insurance industry is perceived as either a laudable goal or an unfortunate reality that can’t be challenged.
The first step toward refocusing health care reform efforts is to change this current priority. Resolution [], which the city would take up if Proposition 1 passes, does this. It states that Tacoma views improving the health of the community as the foundation of health reform, not the profitability of the insurance interest — or any other concern.
What does Resolution [] provide?
The language used in the Resolution comes from international law. This language is currently being considered and adopted across the country on the state, county and city levels. It is useful for government bodies to use the same language and provide a consistent message to the federal government.
Using these international policies makes sense. They are the result of years of discussion, debate and consideration among the 192 nations that are members of the UN. They represent the closest thing we have to a global consensus on what it means to protect and encourage community health.
How would adoption of the resolution change Tacoma operations?
Currently, the City contributes to the running and funding of the Pierce County Health Department. Adopting the explicit standards regarding accessibility, availability, quality and appropriateness would mean that all health care programs the City contributes to and/or administers could be subject to evaluation based upon these standards. These would not significantly change current city policies, but would make them more comprehensive – and thus, better.
Are there jurisdictional issues that prevent the City from taking action on health care?
No. The adoption of a policy regarding what the priority of the health care system should be does not interfere with the operations of the Pierce County Health Department.
As noted above in response to question no. 4, to the extent the City adopts the international standards and it contributes to and/or administers health care programs, the City can choose to use the accessibility, availability, quality and appropriateness standards to design, implement and evaluate health programs. It could also ask the County to consider designing and evaluating its programs using these standards (in addition to those already on the books).
The City can delegate the activities described in the resolution to the Dept. of Health. For example, the City can ask the Dept. to convene an expert panel or to prepare reports and the like. To the extent to which some of these activities are already being done by the County, the City can make a special effort to publicize the findings on its web site, through city publications, etc.
How would the adoption of international standards affect people who already have insurance?
The international standards ask governing bodies to make everyone healthier in the most efficient and effective way. To the extent to which the uninsured receive more appropriate, high-quality care, the less expensive it will be for everyone. Right now, many people avoid seeking treatment for chronic conditions or avoid preventive care because of the expense. This lack of care often leads to emergency (and expensive) treatment at hospitals and clinics. There is little follow-up care in these situations. So more money is ultimately spent and it is paid for by either higher premiums or higher taxes. Those who already have insurance coverage would benefit in the form of lower premiums, lower co-pays, lower deductibles and a more rational, straight-forward system (Currently, approximately 30% of every insurance premium dollar is not spent on health care. It is spent on administrative expenses, marketing, and salaries). Also, if the system were less bureaucratic, physicians could spend more time with patients, spend less on administrative expenses and could then pass that savings on to patients.
Are these policies in place elsewhere? Are they working?
Yes. Out of the 37 industrialized nations in the world, the US is the only one without universal health coverage.