In his article “A health reform plan that actually works” John Carlson promotes two models for health care reform. Neither can be taken seriously.

The first is the “Whole Foods model.” The idea is to reduce the quality of medical benefits by giving employees a huge deductible and thus motivating employees to seek the cheapest health care. Somehow this is supposed to drive market prices down.

Ridiculous! One of the main problems with our “health care” industry is that insurance companies control prices as an oligopoly. Consumers shopping for bargains won’t drive costs down — if it did, the 47 million people currently without insurance would already have driven market prices down.

The second model he proposes is Singapore’s. Actually, Singapore dictates health care through price controls and rigid control of care services (the number of clinics, hospitals, specialists, MRI machines, etc.). Is Carlson suggesting that we institute price controls, or heavy government regulation of medical services and providers?

Contrast these systems with the health systems of other First World countries. These countries enjoy better health by any objective measure at less than half the cost of ours. For example, Canadian approval of their National Health Plan — notwithstanding all the Republican propaganda that we hear — varies from 70 to 95 percent.

People need to wake to the fact that our model of having middle-man-for-profit insurance companies is inherently unethical because 1) they make the most money by denying the most care, and 2) they add an unnecessary layer where dollars that should go toward care are directed toward excessive profits, CEO salaries and bonuses. It’s no surprise that decades of this model in the U.S. proves that it’s also the least cost effective for society.

The health insurance industry is spending $1.4 million a day to defeat a public option. If they win it will be at the expense of the American people.

Dorene Robinson, RD CDN, Bellevue