Reader comments
Readers' forum: Better use of money

Anonymous | 12:25 a.m. July 6, 2009

I wish we were the best. We have the best doctors and the best technology. Oh, but we are ranked #37 in health care just under Costa Rica... why is that?

Ranking | 12:59 a.m. July 6, 2009

The low ranking is because we don't have a national health care plan, it's meaningless in regard to the actual health of the citizens, it is for a political purpose. Look at ranking of cities for liveability, it's all subjective, so is the health care ranking.

FixTheCause | 3:38 a.m. July 6, 2009

Well, maybe we should look at what other countries are doing about it that are ranked higher than us?

Maybe they are treating the cause instead of the symptoms?

Maybe they are interested in prevention?

Maybe its the quality of care for their people instead of the payouts to the elected officials like in the United States.

How about some answers? Anyone...

What happens if we do nothing about the problem? Where do we end up?

The American privatized auto industry did nothing and where did they end up?

How about being humble and learn from other systems that are working better than us and apply them?

What do you think?

Comments continue below

Stalwart Sentinel | 5:22 a.m. July 6, 2009

Come on Anonymous, give the repubs some slack. Don't you know, 37 is the new 1? (It helps the repubs sleep at night)

@Anonymous | 7:05 a.m. July 6, 2009

If you understood the variables that the UN uses to estimate the rankings, you could better understand our position. Our country is exceedingly wealthy. Because of our wealth we exercise less and eat more. That leads o morbid obesity which abounds in our country, but is much less common in other developed nations. That is the primary reason we rank so low.

Ridiculous letter | 7:47 a.m. July 6, 2009

Why does the DN publish letters like this -- there is no evidence that Daddy Huntsman paid anything to Obama.

Regarding healthcare, Obama simply wants to add a non-profit government plan to compete with the for-profit private insurance/HMO oligopoly so that health decisions are made with the patient's health in mind rather than profits for stockholders.

I can think of so many industries that run successfully with government competition -- from postal service and FedEx and UPS to our military, which uses the services of private military companies, like Blackhawk, to PBS with the private cable networks. Why is it that other industries continue to operate profitably with "government competition"? Why would healthcare be any different?

Anonymous | 8:21 a.m. July 6, 2009

We spend the most on health care and get terrible results. Any other business would be gone with those results. The stock price would tumble and the board and executives would be fired. So much for efficient capitalism....

But really, linking Huntsman's appointment to helath care reform is just off the wall nuts.

RedShirt | 8:22 a.m. July 6, 2009

To "Anonymous | 12:25 a.m." you haven't actually read what has been said about the US healthcare system. In those reports that list the US as #37, they also state quite clearly that the US has the most advanced medicine available in the world.

Accordign to CBS news, the US ranks 17th in the WMRC's Health of Nations survey. It also found that the US "is the most technologically and pharmaceutically advanced country in the world."

The study found Britain to suffer "from three decades of under-investment," adding that "continental levels of health and healthcare are unlikely to be reached until the end of this decade at the earliest."

Do you want to give up the technology and available procedures for cheaper less advanced alternatives like the rest of the world?

Anonymous | 8:37 a.m. July 6, 2009

Why is it the uninformed always talk the loudest?

Hypocrisy | 9:00 a.m. July 6, 2009

I don't get this, why do neocons complain that the government is trying to dictate to us where our money goes and yet, they do the exact same? Let Huntsman spend his money where, when, and how he likes. Stop trying to force him to pay into something you want, that's like the same principle as socialism.

Why do neocons hate America so much?

RedShirt | 9:29 a.m. July 6, 2009

To "Hypocrisy | 9:00 a.m." because the neocons aren't cool enough to be completely liberal.

However, fiscally conservative people such as Powell, Reagan, and JFK, and others would have wanted you to spend your money, rather than have the government spend it for you.

fishie | 10:10 a.m. July 6, 2009

Redshirt: Having advanced medical technology is different than providing advanced medical technology. How many Americans have a primary care physician? What percentage of the money spent on "health care" is for medical treatments? America has advanced treatments, but those treatments are not available to all. My wife spent at least one full day a week at her job at a Doctor's office trying to get the insurance companies to fulfill their contracts. The insurance companies' first move was to deny every claim. We may have good medicine, but insurance companies deny access and our money is spent on the bureaucracy rather than medicine. And then if you or your employer purchased the wrong insurance policy, you may never have the right to the best treatment. Doctors don't get to decide who gets what treatment. Bureaucrats do.

Jud | 10:23 a.m. July 6, 2009

Did Jon Huntsman Sr. actually donate 2x as much to Obama as to McCain? does anyone actually know the answer to this?

RedShirt | 11:12 a.m. July 6, 2009

To "fishie | 10:10 a.m." so, what is your solution. Which Bureaucrats do you want to deal with. The ones at a private company, which you can leave, or the ones at a government run company?

There are about 40 million Americans without insurance, of which, 38% can afford insurance. According to the Kaiser institute, 2/3 of the families that are without insurance make less than $41,000/yr. That income level just happens to be the minimum to qualify for Medicaid. So, of the 40 million without insurance, 26 million don't have insurance because they have not filled out the paperwork to get on Medicaid or SCHIP programs.

Next, you run into the people that can afford insurance, but choose not to buy it. According to the Census Bureau, 38% of people without insurance, can afford it.

So, judging from the numbers researched by Kaiser and by the Census Bureau, ALL Americans could be covered if they chose to be covered.

Who says taht the advanced treatments are_not_available_to_all?

What percentage of a Doctor's bill goes towards malpractice insurance? What percentage goes to un-necessary tests that are requested only because it will avoid malpractice?

RedShirt | 11:55 a.m. July 6, 2009

To "fishie | 10:10 a.m." sounds like a business opportunity in the making. There may already be companies out there that do what I am thinking could be done, but here goes.

It sounds like you, or somebody should set up a company that takes the billing information from the doctor's offices and deals with the insurance company. That way, rather than having a Doctor's employee working out with billing with the insurance company, you would have a company who can build up a reputation with and have an indepth knowlege of the insurance company for billing.

Fishie | 12:21 p.m. July 6, 2009

to "Redshirt|11:12 a.m." The government has to be loyal to the people. Private companies are loyal to shareholders. The private system has no loyalty to the people who pay their insurance premiums. If you lose your job, you have lost everything you have paid towards your insurance. Good luck finding complete coverage if you found out you had an illness before losing your insurance. Private companies love to disqualify "pre-existing conditions". Who says advanced treatments are not available to all? Didn't you read my previous comment? My wife spent >20% of her time requesting that insurance companies provide the care that their contracts committed to. She would have preferred to spend time with patients rather than be a member of the bureaucracy. The reason that people who can "afford" insurance don't buy insurance is that "affordable" insurance doesn't pay for much when you're an average healthy citizen. With a government plan, insurance would work the way it is supposed to: EVERYONE pays an average cost, and the premiums would be less because everyone is insured in the same system. Medical treatment should be decided by Doctors, not by insurance companies.

fishie | 12:30 p.m. July 6, 2009

To "RedShirt | 11:55 a.m." that's part of the bureaucracy that I'm talking about. Our money for medical care is already going to pay for the overhead and employment expenditures to provide for insurance interpreters. Couple that with the insurance company policy of "deny first" and there is good job security in that field. I wish my medical insurance went to pay for medicine, rather than administration.

RedShirt | 12:54 p.m. July 6, 2009

To "Fishie | 12:21 p.m." the government should be loyal to the people, but it isn't. Here is the big difference.

I will use an example from my life here. I used to have my Homeowner and Auto insurance policies throgh Allstate. Eventhough I have no claims agaist me and a clean driving record, they increased my premiums by over $100. So, since they showed me no loyalty, I left them, and went to State Farm, where their rates were lower and I got the same coverage.

Now, if the government is the provider for health insurance for the nation, and you are not happy with their coverage, what are you going to do?

As for Pre-existing conditions, that is done to protect the business against fraud. What do you think would happen to a company if they didn't have that in there? You could have somebody get diagnosed with cancer on monday, sign up for insurance on Tuesday, get treatment, then drop the insurance once treatments are done, and end up costing the insurance company lots of money.

RedShirt | 1:00 p.m. July 6, 2009

To "fishie | 12:30 p.m." If you want more of your money to go to pay for medicine, rather than administration, you can get into Health Savings Accounts. Think of it as a mini-insurance company.

From what I have seen, many of HSA's provide office visits, and some lab work. Other than that, you can save and invest money into a HSA and use it for whatever medical procedure you need. You may want to ask your wife how the billing works for one of those.

Steve (the actuary) | 2:51 p.m. July 6, 2009

@Redshirt
So you don't have an HSA? Let me guess your employer pays a big chunk of the premium and you have a great plan. So basically your having a let them eat cake moment.

Steve (the actuary) | 2:54 p.m. July 6, 2009

Also, to the letter writer. Maybe Gov Huntsman got the ambassador job because he speaks fluent Mandrin Chinese and is very well qualified for the job. You make this sound like some sort of political payoff when he is obiously qualified for the job.

@Fishie | 3:24 p.m. July 6, 2009

Wait til your wife has to fill out government forms and jump through government beauracracy, she will be spending 100% of her time on it. We have a health savings account. Makes our premiums low and we save up the money. When we needed an emergency visit for swine flu, we had all the money necessary to pay for it. We have a card that withdraws the money to pay directly to the medical service. One reason people don't want health savings accounts because they falsely believe they can get something for nothing with regular insurance. I have suggested to people that they get a health savings account and their eyes glaze over and they say they can't afford to put the money away, I say baloney. One person said to me that when Obama's medical plan came in they would be happy to pay more taxes to get free health care. It's not free, you will pay premiums to the government, people are stupid. If you are under the income limit you can have medicaid or schipps.

RedShirt | 4:00 p.m. July 6, 2009

To "Steve (the actuary) | 2:51 p.m. " this isn't a "let them eat cake" moment. It is a "look at the choices" you have moment.

Fishie doesn't seem to like the administrative costs with insurance policies. He also doesn't like the red-tape involved with getting payments made. So, I wasn't saying "let him eat cake" I was saying, if you don't like what what's on your plate now, go back to the buffet of choices and find something that fits your tasts better.

As for my benefits, I don't have a preminum package. I have a high deductible, and office co-pays, and benefit the most when going to preferred doctors.

fishie | 1:43 a.m. July 7, 2009

Redshirt:
First things first, the biggest problem with your arguments is that insurance companies are not interested in providing medical care. Insurance companies want profits for the shareholders, and medical needs of the the insured are always second place or worse.
Next, all insurance types are not equal. With Auto and Home insurance a person knows how much they paid for their property, and has the means to at least estimate the current value of those properties. The cost of insurance can be compared easily to the value of your assets. How do you evaluate your potential medical bills? I'm impressed if you can compare medical insurance coverages as easily as auto insurance. I'd be impressed if you have options to compare. Most people have to accept the insurance their employer provides. The only other option is private insurance where the costs immediately go up because you are not part of a larger group where insurance premiums and medical costs can be evened out and their is no bargaining power for the individual.
With medical insurance there is not a buffet of choices. If there were, why are so many people tied to their employer's insurance?

fishie | 2:11 a.m. July 7, 2009

Redshirt: As for insurance fraud, your point helps my argument. Not everyone chooses when they lose their insurance policies. In this economic time period we should recognize that jobs (and corresponding insurance policies) are lost independent of how good of an employee a person is. If we can be dropped from insurance policies beyond our control, then these protections against insurance fraud work against honest men and women. If a system is set up where EVERYONE pays and no-one is dropped then it would be easier to provide medical care for the entire population. The insurers can do better risk analysis, and paying during the times of health should be offset by benefits at a later time (not to mention the benefit of more preventive medicine). We all expect medical care, so we should expect to have to pay into the system.

"@Fishie | 3:24 p.m."
My wife worked in the same work setting in Alberta before she came to Utah. There was one insurance provider, one chart to read for co-pays amounts, and one chart to read to know what each person can receive for treatment. Not perfect, but workable.

RedShirt | 8:08 a.m. July 7, 2009

To "fishie | 2:11 a.m." you can't estimate your medical costs, but, you can look at your age, and guesstimate how much you may need to use your insurance.

With government healthcare, their goal isn't to serve the general public. It is to passify them.

If we have government supplied healthcare, are you prepared to have the same problems that other countries face. Such as Japan checking your BMI to reduce government costs? How about England, that denies treatment to smokers who need medical treatments directly related to smoking.

As for insurance fraud, if you look up the statistics, private companies are much better at preventing fraud than the government. Private companies lose about 10% per year to fraud, and medicare loses about 20% per year to fraud.

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.