Deseret News | Reader comments: Employer insurance falling fast

Reader comments
Employer insurance falling fast

Bob G | 4:08 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

In a state that has Right to Work laws(employer rights) and the works have no right to assemble or bargain for workers benefits. An employer has complete control of what benefits and employee gets. Assisted health care being one benefit and cost of health care uncontrolled then it is one of the victims of employees benefits. Then when you add the illegal alien in to the mix the number of employees elligible for health care insurance declines, the cost go up with the decline in the number of legal employees. The bulk discounts from insurance companies decline with fewer eligible employees. A health care insurance tax or taxpayer funded insurance is not the answer, it breeds corruption and fraud and not health care. The government should be investigating out of control cost of health care and insurance company policies and fraud and not be feeding the fire of cost. The americans that can get health care insurance are also supplementing the international cost of health care for illegal foreign nationals. IHC and other health care providers overcharge patients for services provided. A $10 aspirin is not reasonable pricing. Health care is not a right but a government responsibility to regulate.

Mac | 4:20 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Insurance premiums up 70% and medical pay down. I wonder which of the insurers are making the big bucks.

Chad | 7:01 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

I work at one of the "60%" companies that still offers health insurance. In fact, as insurance goes, it is very good -- no deductible, 90/10 copays, $10 doctor visits and for generic prescriptions -- and the employer covers the large majority of the premium.

THAT SAID, contrary to what the reporter wrote, I do NOT think that everything is "just fine." I fully agree that the system is BADLY BROKEN and needs a radical fix. I think the Republican and Democrat leaders in our state and country need to stop treating their party platforms as holy writ and just pass laws that make sense based on the set of facts that are actually before us -- instead of on the sets of "facts" that their "evangelists" are forced by party orthodoxy to preach.

Comments continue below

Joe | 7:03 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

I wonder why.

Bobbi | 7:10 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

This from our "family friendly" state!

Dave | 8:03 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

as an employer I routinly asked my employees, do you want health insurance or the money? They always chose the money.

Time for a change | 8:21 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

This is a disgrace and it's time we took steps other than more hand-wringing and the predictable bleating about the superiority of the "free market."

There's no such thing as a free market where health care is concerned. No better proof of this exists than the news article itself.

It's time for a nationwide single-payer health care system. Go ahead and hyperventilate about "socialism" for a minute and then when you get that out of your system and calm down, give some serious consideration to the realities of our predicament.

We spend more per person on health care, yet have _worse_ overall health care than any industrialized nation in the world.

We have phenomenally more health care bureaucrats per patient than any nation in the world.

Our economy is suffering because employers can't afford to fund health insurance, and employees don't move to jobs that match their skills because of health insurance concerns.

Our health care system is predicated on maximizing the profits of hospitals and insurance companies, not the well-being of patients.

Anything short of a national single-payer system is simply more of the same system of failure.

Alan | 8:30 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

As fewer people are in the insurance pool, cost for those remaining will continue to rise. Especially if those who are leaving are healthier than those who remain. Insurance works best when everyone has coverage. Cost would still rise, but not at the same rate. When government requires coverage for all as it does with auto insurance, cost will not rise as fast. Unfortunately, that will also cost either employers or government more money. We have to make a national decision whether Health care is a right or a privilege.

Blame ourselves | 8:44 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Why do we blame our congressional leaders on our health care woes? Point the finger out ourselves; obesity, drug abuse, insurance fraud, just to name a few. We abuse the system and expect uncle sam to bail us out. It's a classic case of supply and demand. Let Adam Smith's "invisible hand" work and stave off more government regulation.

Jater-CA | 8:54 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Isn't this somehow the Mormon's fault!? Jesus and Satan are brothers? Anyone? C'mon people don't let me down! This could be the first thread not to complain about the LDS church. Where are all the haters?

Fine, it's all George Bush's fault then.

Keith | 9:02 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

You do not need to look far to find the single largest factor in the ever increasing cost of medical care and medical insurance: Trial Lawyers.

The hospitals need to pay for malpractice insurance. The doctors and nurses do the same. No one pays these costs out of their own pockets. They just pass them along to the consumer. Tort reform would go a long way in reducing malpractice insurance, which would bring the cost of care, and medical insurance, down.

But do you really think we will ever see elected officials (mostly lawyers) ever introduce legislation to bring tort reform into our system?

Jane | 9:24 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

One of the major factors from people I know, is ABUSE of their benefits. If their nose runs, they go to the doctor. I know a couple that have appointments every week and many of those appointments just may be unnecessary.
If workers would stop abusing the system and take care of themselves and leave the big things for insurance, we'd all be better off and they would probably be healthier by not taking so much medication.
One of my favorite phrases is "Give doctors half a chance and they'll kill you!"
How much better off we would be if we "doctored ourselves" and weren't always running to the doctor for a cure. They've become gods to our society.
That said, I have coverage but my husband and I rarely go to the doctor. We average once every 3-4 years. We like knowing it's there for us when needed but we never abuse it.

Keith | 9:30 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

For everyone that thinks that Nationalized Health Care is the way to go, all you need to do is look at Canada or the UK to see what a horrible idea it would be to head down that road. Those people come to the USA to get the medical care they need because the lists for the care that they require are so long, and their health failing so quickly, that they either choose to die or go where they can get the care they need.

And if you think our government does a good job at anything they do, look no further than Social Security.

DonM | 9:33 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

The answer is not a nationwide single-payer health care system.

The answer is to move away from traditional and HMO style health plans to High Deductible Health Plans with Health Savings Accounts (HSA). The premium savings is significant. Users can put this money in their HSA and spend it as needed on their health care needs. When they reach their deductable cap (usually around $2,000), their health insurance kicks in to pay most if not all of the rest. When they are healthy and don't use it, the money builds up in their HSA and they can use it later when needed.

People are much wiser consumers when they are paying for services out of their own public.

Health Insurance should be like other insurance - to transfer risk of high cost events. Auto insurnace would be much more expensive if it also included the cost of fuel and maintenance.

HHMMM | 9:40 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

It IS a big problem. A very big problem. So big, how does one start to reform it? A good start may be watching decorating budgets in administrators offices. Leather chairs, trips to Europe to pick out the art work, etc. Also, the distribution of thousands upon thousands of booklets with tender pictures of happy people all the while stating the corporate "mission". The production of those booklets must have cost many thousands of dollars in paper, printing, not to mention the several committees salaries that it swallowed up. Put the money back into the health CARE part of it. We don't need the fancy marketing.

Girl | 9:44 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Dave
I am on the other end from you. I was promised insurance (which was why I took the job) and it didn't happen. My health situation changed (after I was supposed to have insurance) and now I am uninsurable or they ask ridiculous amounts (which my employer can't pay) and my employer has given up on getting me the promised insurance and is ready to hand me the money. I'd rather have insurance.

Smallbizowner | 9:44 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Just wait until we get a socialist in the white house, and then as small business owners we will have to cut coverage for our employees altogether because we will get our butts taxed off. NOT looking forward to that!

Marc AZ | 9:45 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Well, Congress won't do anything becuase the large insurance lobbys put a stop to it. Congressmen and women are more interested in lining their own pockets - what's new!! Also, attorney's have made the medical providers ultra paranoid of law suits. A minor error can lead to a huge lawsuit. Look at how many attorneys are being graduated every year. There is not enough legitmate legal work to go around so they look for ways to sue other people or businesses. Combine all this with the greed of insurance companies,sick politicians and you have a system that is out of control.

Bunch a Wing Nuts... | 9:47 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

I'll tell you why,

Drive around and look at the ridiculous homes that people that have money build in Utah. Rameumptum homes, set up on the hill to show off their success and wealth. It is all around us. Drive an Escalade, drive a Lexus, drive a Hummer. You employ people? You see yourself as one of these line your pockets type people? You taking away health insurance from your employees? How big is your house? How many toys have you? There. You have it.

I have a friend who heard a leader in the church, as they drove around looking at the homes, say, "What are the members thinking?"

That says a lot. My mansion is bigger than yours, I have 4 73" TV's, a home theater, I have a cabin as big as my house, and I have two boats, a house boat at Powell, I have 10 condos, and we spend winters on cruises.

But my employees have no insurance.

NOT Efficient | 9:51 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

I would be all for government health care, but I've worked in the government for years and it is by far the least efficient mechanism to get anything done. The money and time spent by most government agencies to even accomplish simple tasks (a committee to decide which toilet paper dispenser is best for example) would make you sick. Knowing what I do about government run programs, it absolutely terrifies me to think of them taking over medicine. I agree the current system is corrupt beyond repair and needs to be totally revamped. Perhaps the government could play a hand in cleaning house with health care "providers" (not sure what they actually provide) but keep things private.

paintmequick | 9:54 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

I think that if Dave paid more than minimum his employees would give him a different perspective in regards to health insurance.

How much does the employee pay for the low wage type health insurance that you offer?

And oh, by the way, how much do your employees make per year and what kind of business are you in?

Bob in Petaluma

Guaglione | 10:03 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

It's about time Utah started leading the way in something.

Concerned Business Owner | 10:25 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

As a small business owner, I am committed to providing health insurance for my employees and their families.

But in the last 6 years, my health insurance rates have increased by 10-15% annually. That is certainly faster than my revenue per employee is rising.

It certainly threatens my ability to offer fully-paid insurance to my workers. And it definitely reduces the pay increases I can offer my employees each year.

Debbie | 10:30 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

The system is broken because it is tied to employment. This is outmoded; jobs are never secure. People get laid off with normal ebb and flow. A person gets ill, takes time off for serious health care needs (loss of limb, cancer, heart surgery, whatever). He/she loses job because can't work, then loses insurance (can't afford Cobra even if it is offered because there is no income). If they don't get well, they can't return to work. Then if the person seeks insurance again they are denied because they now have a pre-existing condition and in order to buy insurance they must be well; not sick, or previously sick. Seems like a vicious cycle to disaster. Those in the 60% should be scared. We never know when it will hit us and it has probably already hit our loved ones. The self-employed and small businessman is out of luck, even though this is the driving force of capitalism in the U.S. For those worried about a single payer system being socialism, they may want to consider what is happening to capitalism. Are we forcing everyone into government jobs (maybe the last with benefits)? Clean water, air, basic health care.

insider | 10:46 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Most people have no idea how insurance companies make money. They make money off pooling all the premiums together and making investments. For example an auto insurance company will usually have a loss ratio of 100%. Generally for every dollar paid in about .65 cents are paid out in claims and .35 cents are operating expenses. Investing the .65 cents and collecting the investment income derive insurance profits.

As fewer companies apply for and/or maintain group health insurance, rates will go up in order to offset the loss of payers into the system. This is an attempt at keeping the money supply the same so that the investment income is also relatively the same. Eventually there will be an implosion of the system as the cost of insurance escalates to universally unaffordable rates.

We are currently seeing the onset of this phenomenon. The insurance companies operations are too fat and will not be become too costly as policies are cancelled. Just as Ford Motor Co. and GM were too fat to keep up with falling demand and forced into restructuring.

Healthcare and tort reform are desperately needed.

MominMO | 10:52 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

I've heard people complain about health care costs for 25 years. No one I know has health insurance who isn't employed by a company. Self-employed? Not insured. This is only the tip of the iceberg. In the coming years, auto insurance will be handled the same way. Only those with jobs will have it. And soon after that, only those with government jobs will have it.

Verdict is in.... | 10:53 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

The verdict is in: The "health care system" in the US is deteriorating rapidly and the consequences are much shorter lifespans and much more suffering. Proponents of the free market system have missed the problem: the health care system currently in place is either monopolistic or oligopolistic and therefore requires government control (as we do with utilities, for example). We can debate HOW this should be done, but we cannot continue with what we have much longer.

SLC Native | 11:03 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

I don't understand why we as a society assume that our employers should be responsible for providing health insurance to us. Our employer does not make us responsible for anything more than our required jobs. If more people would focus on how much they make rather than give up pay to get healthcare, they could make more money and pay for insurance them selves. I negotiated a pay structure for myself that took health insurance off the table but paid me the $800 each month that my employer estimated it would cost to provide me with insurance. Then in return, my wife and I were able to get insurance from a very reputable company for less than $500.00 each month, and we have 4 kids. So I am ahead $300.00.

Jane and DonM | 11:17 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

So far, Jane and DonM are winning this discussion. Their points about not abusing the system, living healthier, and utilizing HSA's all seem like partial solutions that will help solve this huge problem.

Personally, I purchase a private policy because I am self-employed. I always choose the plan with the lowest monthly premium, highest deductible, and that still covers catastrophic maladies because my family hardlly ever visits the doctor, but we'll still be covered in a worst case scenario. Right now I pay $217/month for me, my wife, and one child. That includes dental and maternity coverage. I live in CA where health care is supposed to be expensive for guys like me. But $217/month doesn't seem too high.

RetiredMD | 11:27 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

For Keith re: medical malpractice insurance. Your statement is incorrect. Medical malpractice cost is approximately 1% of the cost of medical care. The rise in cost of malpractice insurance was not based on increased law suits or awards, but on financial losses of the insurance companies when their holding in stocks went bad during the dot-com bust. They are just making profits back by overcharing doctors for malpractice insurance.

Texas which passed a cap of malpractice insurance awards is now facing an influx of new doctors of dubious credentials and many doctors now no longer carry malpractice insurance, because it is cheaper to cover those expenses themselves.

This is a false argument used to maintain insurance company profits. It is the insurance companies and other industries that finance the campaigns of the politicians who make policy.

Word to the wise. Research positions before forming final opinions.

fred | 11:30 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

It may be hard on those of us living in the transition, but there is a good chance that our kids will benefit when the medical indestrey that has to deal directly with the coustmer. Instead of the coustomer not knowing what the cost really is, we will shop for the best deal and the medical indestrey will reply with better prices.

One payer medical insurance has a history of failing. The cost we would pay is only transfered to our taxes. Look at Canada where they are having a hard time getting new docters, so the rest of then are getting more and more backed up. They may get good health care, after the wait and wait and wait.

fred | 11:33 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Oh ya, I forgot to mention that our government already has one payer health care for the military and the vets. Any one for sick call?

Stop the insanity | 11:52 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

The comments of the last poster are right on. At a previous company they wanted to raise the premiums but we convinced them to raise the deductibles so those who did 'abuse' the system were the ones who paid. Also, too many ER visits when you just need to go to the DR office, if that.

Why can't we have health insurance like car insurance? I think if we had it that way then insur. companies would have to compete with their prices. Right now, they really don't have to too much. Change jobs? no worries. the health insurance goes with you.

For those screaming National Health Care, please take a really close look at Canada and Europe. They are disastrous and horrible models. Also, please get off the 'the government should provide everything for me' bandwagon. Your grandparent's would be horrified with comments like that!

me | 12:10 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

just wait 10 years

daisy | 12:14 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

The problem of all of this mess is greed.
Seems funny the CEO's of big companies can make millons, far more than a good Dr.can, but want to cut or put more cost on the employee. And you say $217/month isn't much. What about the unimployed and un imployable that has an income of under $1,000 or less. Just reading the article tells you how many of these people there are. Unless the Gov. is ready to slap the insurance business in the face, it will only get worse.

dh | 12:21 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

A national health care system available to all legal citizens of this country. This is an issue being raised by "the evil" Hillary Clinton and others who want to take away our freedoms and place us in bondage to the Federal Government. Just ask all the out of touch and "clueless" Republican leaders of this country as well as their millionaire radio talk show hosts like Hannity and Limbaugh. Yes sirree, ya don't want a national health care system UNTIL you are left with out health insurance and have HUGE health care needs. Oh how the table turn when you are the one without insurance and have to try and fund your own on the open market - suddenly, a national health care system sounds pretty darn good.

MedicallyBroke | 12:34 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

I'd like to know what Hat DonM pulled that deductible cap number from - when I was on an HSA plan, the deductible cap for my, my wife and two children was $5400 - and that's money I had to pay on TOP of the monthly premiums. Medical expenses while on that plan came to about one third of my annual salary. HSA's, while nice for some, are STILL not the answer for more than a small percentage. And yet trying to insure myself, my wife and my two kids was going to cost us about $1200/month if we self-insured because the insurance companies consider my wife uninsurable. And yet at most, my wife goes to a doctor once, maybe twice a month. I go a couple of times a year. And my two small children go once every couple of months.

veedub | 12:43 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

People generally don't want to pay for insurance until they need it, mainly because people never think they will need it.

Few think they will have a car accident, or their house burn down, but because it is required by law and/or their lender, most people have it. It's part of the cost of owning a car or a home.

Few think they will get sick, or have an accident, or need an operation. It's not required, so unless their employer offers it, they don't have health insurance. Also, insurance companies aren't required to give coverage to everyone, so they can pick and choose who are the best risks. So people who need insurance the most, can't get it, outside group policies through their work.

I'm not a supporter of "socialized medicine", but this will just get worse until we make it a law that people have health insurance, with a requirement that insurance companies have to cover everyone, and supplemental help for those who are "uninsurable" or who can't afford the premiums.

A high percentage of those who file for bankruptcy do so because of medical costs. Quality of life aside, is that good for our economy?

open minded | 12:43 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

My family is on our own insurance. We actually get better rates then our employers can get for us. We are not tied to a large group, we do not worry about others over use. We do not have to except the employers options available. It is not expensive. We have lived in three states and the best plan was an HMO.

Our nation has issues.

We are obese whose general health is the worst of all nations.
We expect procedures that might not be necessary.
Our health care has regulations other nations donï¿½t.
The US leads most of the worldï¿½s medical research spending.
we could do a better job in regulating our health care fees.

We donï¿½t want a health care system that makes social security look like a financially brilliant idea. Social security is on the verge of bankruptcy, we donï¿½t need another public money pit.

Our HMO in Virginia was rated one of the best providers of heath care in the nation as well as one of the most profitable. The business of health care can succeed if we push it to. Be a consumer, be healthy, give your congressman ideas. public is not always best.

Insanity indeed | 12:56 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

In looking for a new job I had 4 job offers from local companies and 2 from companies outside of the state. 2 of the locals offered health insurance, as did both national companies. this figured heavily in my decision. When I notified the ones who had made an offer that I was turning them down one asked what influenced my decision. I think they were having problems getting the employees they wanted to hire. I told him point blank it was because of no insurance.

fr1nk | 2:27 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

We need a single payer system...soon. This lie about people coming to the US from Canada and Europe to get heath care needs to stop. A more likely thing to see these days is someone from the US going to Canada to get health care. The thing that is driving the exponential growth of the dollars required to receive health care in this country is the ever increasing numbers of middlemen trying to squeeze in.

Brian | 3:35 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

That employers should not provide insurance is the right thing to do to reduce theirs and their employees liability. We should all be out buying our own private insurance. However, employers, as they scale back their programs, should also be plowing back into salaries much of that money they were spending on premiums.

missy | 3:47 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Yes you can get your own health insurance but you can get dropped just as soon as you have a major medical probleem that becomes chronic. Or your rates can go up. Also its running about 500 give or take to cover a family of 6. Add RX dental--if its available and vision and you are well over 700 a month. The out of pockets are generally higher. Get a grip people. One major medical problem can put you in jepardy. DO NOT TELL ME i dont know what I am talking about. We pay taxes obey the law and support our goivernment but before I went back to work I had to debate whether to take my kids to the DR. My spouse is self employed and we enjoy a good life but I am frugal and were still finding it hard to pay for self insurance. THIS IS A PROBLEM! We need to find a solution and quit whining. I was lucky I got a job with insurance but what about others that arent so lucky. Compassion isnt a dirty word.

DonM to MedicallyBroke | 3:54 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

An HSA plan with a $5,400 deductable is at the high end. My employer has this and a ~$2,000 option with a slightly higher premium. While premiums for the HMO option have gone up 10-15% every year for the past 3 years, my premiums for coverage with the HSA add-on have stayed flat. I save the amount I am not paying in premiums in my HSA and take the money out for medical when needed.

People that are heavy health consumers do not do as well with HSAs as low users, but the idea is to make health insurance coverage for catastrophic needs and make people responsible to pay for normal costs. I am sure it is no fun to max out paying the first $5,400 out of pocket, but if you use a lot more services than paid for by your premiums, you are asking someone else to pay for your needs.

It's always easier to spend other people's money. If my son is a bad driver, I should expect to pay more than others for auto insurance.

No insurance for me | 7:00 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

I used to feel that everyone could have insurance and live the american dream. I was wrong. I recently have been laid off of work twice. In my line of work I am considered self employed and have made really good money in the past. Now I have been forced to find a job that offers health insurance to its employees because my wife has spine issues and pregnancy issues and depression. My son would have cost me over $300,000 alone. If I didn't have insurance I would be bankrupt and have caused more problems with other creditors.
Being able to find an insurance company that will touch us is not even an option, I am forced to change fields and earn significantly less because employers that will pay insurance benefits pay less. How is this the American Way? I am forced to be employed by a company that will not pay me what I am worth. We do need to change our health care system. If you dont think we do, your just not with it.

Anonymous | 7:00 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

If conservatism is great why do people living in conservative states earn less, get less benefits and the average citizen has a lower net worth?

Gretzky | 8:54 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

there is a great new idea on the horizon for Utah. it is the Utah Insurance Interchange. it will have parts of the Mass. plan where all citizens are "required" to have insurance and all insurers must come to the table and lower their prices with more insureds (everyone essentially) in the pool. those who really can't afford to participate will have provisions through medicaid administered throught the state and not the Feds (like Hillary Clinton wants). there will be one hangup and that is IHC Select Health plans (IHC health plans) may not want to be a part of the process as they will not be able to "force" their insureds to go to their hospitals. they will have to finally act as a real insurance company rather than hide under the IHC 7 company umbrella. anyway, the Interchange will help you and me who need insurance barter for better plans and if we lose a job etc we can take our insurance to the next job at the same rates.

rokinutah | 11:17 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

How come so many people can have large homes, new autos, boats, atv's etc etc etc.....then complain because they cannot afford the health care ? We have become a people of hand outs and poor prioritizing. Why not ? The government seems to bail us out !! It is time to tell the people of America to roll up your sleeves, get to work and take care of yourself.

David Johnson | 8:41 a.m. Nov. 2, 2007

Utah's 8,000 lawyers don't improve heath care outcomes. Our educational system produces doctors who must be rich and live in million dollar houses. Ameridan drink pop, eat candy, eat meat, donuts,and french fries like its a right,watch TV, sit around, smoke SUV tail pipes all day, and expect their neighbor to pick up their medical tab thru a shared health care cost pooling system--health insurance.

There is no health care system that can support the American Lifestyle, nor the American business model of nothing for something.

Americans will spend thousands on pills only to wash them down with soda pop.

The American Diet is not sustainable even with socialized medicine which is what health insurance is.

Open minded? | 12:10 p.m. Nov. 2, 2007

I hope "open minded" wasn't saying that the US being the world's biggest spender on medical research is a bad thing. That's the reason why our best medical care is the best in the world.

The problem is, as so many people here have rightly pointed out, that the system by which we pay for medical care is sloppy, leaves out far too many people, and is becoming unsustainable.

Too many businesses have to choose between their own survival and their employees' health care. Too many people just aren't able to get coverage.

Universal coverage--meaning EVERYONE having access to quality health care, whether they're rich or poor--is vital to the individual, societal, and economic wellbeing of our country. I'm not saying the government has to step in and give handouts to everyone, but this situation has to be fixed somehow.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.