Reader comments
Better health system needed

Here we go again… another person believing they are entitled to something. Just what are you people thinking. You have some idea that if we get the government involved it becomes free. You don’t get anything for free. It is a plane fact that if government takes over health care our taxes will increase dramatically in order to pay for the system. The government has proven they can’t run Medicare or social security. So you want to give the government more power?
Ask anyone who has dealt with military medical care including the V.A. and most like my self will tell you horror stories.
Yes there are problems with our medical system but getting the government more involved is as smart as putting a pitch fork through your own foot.

Now Mike Leavitt talks on how the Health Care system needs to be reformed.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't he Secreetary of Health,Education and Welfare and were not the Republicans a majority in Congress and the Senate? Did theycontrol the Presidency? Were they not at that time able to do what ever they wished regarding Health care reform?

Why did they do nothing?

It is my feeling that they are content with the status quo of health care.

Another example would be our Senator Hatch. He talks about lowering the costs of health care for the masses but did he not insert into legislation for the medicare prescription drug program a provesion that prohibited the government from negociating reductions in prices from the drug companies. Most large insurance companies routinely negociate reductions in prices from the drug companies because of their volume. Tell me Senator Hatch why did you not want the government to do this also? Would it not lower costs to the government. You know paying wholesale rather than retail?

Is he protecting the medicare reciepents or the drug companies?

Poor Albertus doesn't seem to be able to differentiate the issues here.

With business we have a CHOICE whether to buy their products and services, or not.

With government you have NO choice. You are FORCED to comply with the THEFT of your earnings.

People choose employers based on many factors, including the compensation package. Employers who offer health care can attract better employees, who in turn increase efficiency and lower the costs.

Either way, people are going to buy health care. If they by it themselves they will ask for higher wages. If their employer pays it will be factored in to the overall cost of employment. In the end it will be a zero sum game for the business...

I think the missed the bus to reality. The letter writer said said "The unemployed or uninsured are thus helping pay for the health-care benefits of the employed" On May 29, 2009 USA today, and many other papers ran the story "Study: Insured pay 'hidden tax' for uninsured health care." The article included the following statement:

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., in a May 11 statement announcing policy options for expanding health care coverage, said: "The cost of that care is paid by every American with insurance in the form of a hidden tax of more than $1,000 a year in increased premiums."

Apparently it is again the insured paying for the uninsured. We could cut the insurance costs by around $1000 per year if we sent the uninsured to government clinics paid by Medicare/Medicaid.

Would the letter writer force say, a sixty year old cancer survivor to try to buy health insurance on the open market? Because he wouldn't be able to.

The way I see it, everybody needs health care, and one war or another, most everybody gets at least some health care and most everybody pays and shares the costs of health care for everybody.

Our capitalist nation needs fair competition betweens businesses one of the things we could do to foster this is to remove health care from the competition of business. Business should pay for the work of their workers in cash, not an assortment perks and extras that blur and hide the true pay.

If health care can be totally removed from the capitalist competition, business runs better, and more people have real health care.

Albertus asked:"Isn't everybody entitled to health care?"

No.

Especially not if you steal from me to pay for it.

The entitlement comes only after you pay for it through your own work.

If you can't afford it (even after you sell your new car and big screen), then maybe I'll consider giving some charity care.

NOTE: there is no such thing as entitlement to true charity.

To "Ultra Bob | 8:32 a.m." the way I see it, everybody needs food, clothing, housing, transportation, electricity, heating in their house, dental care, and vision care. So does that mean that everybody is entitled to it?

Did you know that the reasone why we have all of the "perks" added to our paychecks was because during the Depression government put price caps on wages. So, for businesses to attract anybody to leave one company to come to theirs, they had to do something since they couldn't offer them higher salaries. To bypass the wage restrictions companies began to offer health benefits and other "perks" to attract workers.

If businesses should have to pay for the work of the workers, shouldn't that apply to government too. Rather than giving us hidden tax increases by calling them "fees" or taxing businesses on income from US sales. They should eliminate the income taxes on businesses and start a national sales tax. That way you know just how much of your money the government is using.

@Roland Kayser | 8:23 a.m.:

"Would the letter writer force say, a sixty year old cancer survivor to try to buy health insurance on the open market? Because he wouldn't be able to."

Under Obama's plan (may Allah smile kindly upon him and his kin), you could be a sixty year old cancer patient with $50,000 worth of medical procedures facing you, and you could go out that day and get insurance to cover it. From either a private company or a government created plan. Preexisting conditions discrimination would be outlawed.

Also under his plan, if you were considered to be on your last leg, so to speak, and nothing seemed to work, he encourages you to just go home and take a pain killer rather than run up any more medical bills.

Health care is neither an entitlement nor a right. It is, in fact, a luxury in global and historical context.

The pre-existing clause has nothing to do with gaining coverage. It is used once someone who was previously uninsured gains coverage to exclude the insurance company from paying claims in the first 6 months to a year. And a 60 yr old cancer survivor could get coverage in the open market. They would just pay out the nose to get it.

To Redshirt.

I don’t know about all that other stuff, but the answer to the question: “So does that mean that everybody is entitled to it” is absolutely, simply, and forever YES. Just like it says, All men are created equal and endowed by their creator ... Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

To "Ultra Bob | 12:26 p.m. " if we are entitled to food, clothing, housing, transportation, electricity, heating in their house, dental care, and vision care, why isn't the government doing something so that everybody will have equal access to those things.

Did you know that there are some foods that are too expensive for most americans to enjoy regularly? Why won't the government subsidize my Kobe Beef?! What about caviar, I don't make enough to afford that, so the government should buy it for me too! As for clothing, I am tired of not having enough, after all, why should a leather jacket cost $200, that is unacceptable, the government needs a program to make leather coats affordable for everybody!! What about housing, me, my spouse, and 5 kids need a bigger house, surely you don't see a problem upgrading my 1800 sq ft house to a roomier 2300 sq ft house, after all, I am in sub-standard housing. Since I live away from the bus routes, the government should buy me a car, how else can I get to my medical appointments and pick up governmetn provided food!!

Conservatives love "entitlement." The health care plans, I read are based, in part, on increasing those who pay. Under Obama's plan people will pay. They just have more affordable options because the payer base is created.

As it it today, if people without insurance don't pay their cost is borne by those who pay.

Calling this an entitlement is what Limbaugh would call "disingenuous."

Being a liberal, I believe American who get off welfare should pay something back. People need help sometimes. When you get back on your feet, you should try to repay.

To "Anonymous | 12:47 p.m" the one question that people don't ask is "Why do we need a government sponsored insurance company if there are already many different private companies?"

Lets look at it by assuming that the government system would not be supplemented by money other than what is paid into the program by it's participants.

Up to 20% of the budget for Medicare is lost to fraud. Then, you have an additional 5% Medicare administration overhead cost. Then, up to 25% Federal Government overhead. So, worst case scenario, you lose 50% of your money before any care is given.

Now, for a private insurance company, you may have up to 10% loss for fraud. Their overhead plus profit costs at 15% to 20%, which means, that the worst case scenario you have 30% lost before you get medical work performed.

So, knowig that, why would government want to enter into the healthcare business? There are ways of cutting the cost of insurance and care without creating new government programs.

To "Anonymous | 12:47 p.m." if "Conservatives love 'entitlement.' " Why is it that some of the biggest entitlement programs were created under Democrat presidents, such as Social Security and Unemployment Insurance programs by FDR, and Medicare and Medicaid by LBJ. I don't know about you, but if I based by belief in who likes entitlement programs based on the size of entitlement programs they created, I would say that Liberals love entitlements way more than conservatives.

There are only two legitimate ways to lower health care costs to society as a whole. Increase doctors and nurses and medical facilities,(supply/demand), or limit certain expensive questionable procedures (ie cancer chemo and radiation)and certain classes of patients, (ie. smokers, obese, aged). The bureaucrats are great at sifting out and elimating the "unworthy". And hopefully the patient won't be to sick to fill out the papers or to be humble enough to get the glass eyed bureaucrat to help. In the first instance, we are unlikely to increase the supply of medicine, if we cut back on payment for it. Less doctors will be the outcome. So we are left to the rationing option. Obama's recent statements make it clear that is his objective.

To Redshirt.

You are already the recipient of many governments services. Hundreds maybe thousands and probably some that you don’t even know about. It all comes down to where do you draw the line and whether or not you will let the line move. The only difference between health care and the other services is that the philosophy of capitalism has embedded itself so deep into the health care industry.

The reason that we do not have an all providing government is that the species of Human Beings has not yet evolved very far from the jungle and we are not ready to let go of the emotions of selfishness and individuality. It may be that someday the human beings will catch up with the Bees and have a totally selfless society. We already know how to clone and be selective in birth, why would the future human beings allow undesirables to live.

To "Ultra Bob | 1:30 p.m." wow, you have hit an all time low. Do you realize that by saing "why would the future human beings allow undesirables to live." You are saying that you believe in eugenics. So, in the future who would determine who the "undesirables" are that should be killed.

Killing off the "undesireables" goes against the belief that you stated at 12:26 p.m. when you said "Just like it says, All men are created equal and endowed by their creator ... Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

So, which is it, are all men equal and have the right to life, or is there somebody in a government office who is going to determine who is worthy of life, and who is desirable.

Check back five years to the percentage of employers providing coverage for workers and/or families. Now look at that same number today. So what say we just sit on this problem for another five years or until we have more uninsured in the country than insured. Is this an example of the free market to the rescue? What number would it take before we admit we need a fix that only the government can provide?