This is in response to the April 24 editorial regarding the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and the current news surrounding the bidding process for home medical equipment.

One of the worst concepts in medical care and this newspaper could not take a stance for or against it?

In 2010, when the ACA was rolled out, President Barack Obama wanted the public to know that it would cost only $938 billion in the first 10 years. I guess that ensuring that the cost was less than $1 trillion in the Congressional Budget Office estimates was a litmus test for support.

What the administration failed to tell people was that in the first two years, 2010 and 2011, there would be virtually no cost incurred, as the program would be phased in beginning in 2012.

The CBO now reports the true cost to be closer to $1.76 trillion for the years from 2013 through 2022. That’s almost double the cost the administration wanted the public to believe.

Given the higher true costs, we can see why some think a bidding process is the best option but, in fact, it has significant flaws, not the least of which is the question: Do people want their medical care provided by the lowest cost provider, regardless of quality?

Would we really want to put a large number of suppliers out of business and lose jobs? Are you aware that even though the equipment might be at the lowest bidder, it is possible to underbid, knowing you’ll make more money on related supplies and repairs?

Will they next accept bidding for hospital or nursing home care?

The same result could have been achieved by reducing reimbursement to all medical suppliers. Let the market decide if  it wants to participate, even at reduced reimbursement.

If you really want to control health costs, take a stand against bad planning. Take a stand against wasted money in advertising for health care — including the recent glossy insert in the newspaper.

As a recipient of medical care, some of my copay helped pay for that ad.

Robert Reed, Lewiston