Dear Editor,

Upon reading Sen. Cantwell’s comments on her MEDIC Act proposal, I immediately called her Washington, D.C. office to respond with the following observations.

Almost three-quarters of the American people want to see some form of public option choice in whatever health care reform legislation is put before President Obama to sign. That includes 87 percent of Democrats and at least half of Republicans.

Secondly, there are only two industries that are exempt from anti-trust monopoly regulation in this country. One is major league baseball. The other, and this is the kicker, is the insurance industry, which was given that exemption in 1945.

While I am not exactly an economist, I cannot fail to understand that perhaps a major component of the U.S. government’s inability to control medical costs has as its core reason the fact that this industry does not *have to* abide by the same laws and restrictions that govern nearly every other economic activity in our country.

If Cantwell’s true intention is to broaden access the affordable health care and to lower costs, it seems to me that the two most obvious ways to bring this about are to repeal the insurance industry from anti-trust regulation and to provide a strong public option choice when it comes to medical insurance providers.

To Cantwell’s credit, my research shows that she has taken no money from the health insurance industry. Whatever hesitation she shows to committing to a public option choice must come from conviction and principle.

We prevail upon Cantwell’s strong desire to improve her constituents lives that the best way she could do so would be to commit to single-payer health care. Absent that, we need a strong public option choice for those of us who no longer with to do business with an unregulated, monopoly industry like the insurance industry.

Hugh Geenen
Seattle