Reader comments
Readers' forum: Letters: Single-payer system best
77 comments | Read story
John C. | 2:33 a.m. July 9, 2009
I know what I will say will fall on a lot of deaf ears, but I got to put my two
cents worth in. As some one who has experienced government controlled medicine
while 3 years in the army I can tell you, you put your life and the life of your
family at risk each time. The Military and VA are good models of how our
government would run things. “They can’t”. I admit there are
problems with the insurance industry when they charge parents here in Utah
almost twice as much for child delivery cost then outside the state. Or some of
the ways they reject peoples claims. The other end is caused by us when we get
sue happy and we no longer see restitution but $ signs and greedy lawyers. That
has run up the cost of insurance more then anything I believe. Our own
selfishness.
So stop dreaming that socialized medicine is free. It’s not and it has more problems then you want to listen to. Do some honest research. Don’t buy into this “We deserve this and it should be free.” That is all smoke and mirrors.
So stop dreaming that socialized medicine is free. It’s not and it has more problems then you want to listen to. Do some honest research. Don’t buy into this “We deserve this and it should be free.” That is all smoke and mirrors.
Nick | 5:55 a.m. July 9, 2009
Move to Canada, you seem to be convinced and I would say its time for you to get
out of Utah for 2 years and live the "high" life in a social
environment. Good luck!!!
Comments continue below
Mom in MO | 6:05 a.m. July 9, 2009
Time to be told what you can eat, because your food choices will make
everyone's health-care costs go up. Time to be penalized (read taxed) if
you don't exercise. Time to give government control of your life and
one-seventh of the national economy, which they will, of course, make ruinous,
just as they did with Freddie and Fannie. If you think health care is expensive
now, wait until it's "free".
Clark | 6:10 a.m. July 9, 2009
Do people actually have any original thoughts anymore? Whenever I read the
newspapers or the Internet, it's nothing more than parrot talk.
I defy any Republican hater to speak an entire sentence and not use the words "Limbaugh" "Hannity" "O'Reilly" "Beck" "neocon" or "Fox News" even once.
At the same time, I defy any Democratic hater to speak an entire sentence and not use the words "liberal" "socalist" "exteremist" "wacko" or "tree-hugger" even once.
Not very easy is it?
As for health care in general, you'd have to be pretty stupid to think we don't need some kind of reform in this country. But instead of just looking at England and Canada, EVERYONE needs to also look at countries like Taiwan, Switzerland, New Zealand and Hong Kong. Not only that, why does Congress always insist and biting off more than it can chew?
This whole idea of "No Compromise" or "My way or the highway" will lead to nowhere except "status quo."
I defy any Republican hater to speak an entire sentence and not use the words "Limbaugh" "Hannity" "O'Reilly" "Beck" "neocon" or "Fox News" even once.
At the same time, I defy any Democratic hater to speak an entire sentence and not use the words "liberal" "socalist" "exteremist" "wacko" or "tree-hugger" even once.
Not very easy is it?
As for health care in general, you'd have to be pretty stupid to think we don't need some kind of reform in this country. But instead of just looking at England and Canada, EVERYONE needs to also look at countries like Taiwan, Switzerland, New Zealand and Hong Kong. Not only that, why does Congress always insist and biting off more than it can chew?
This whole idea of "No Compromise" or "My way or the highway" will lead to nowhere except "status quo."
Dave | 6:39 a.m. July 9, 2009
I have no doubt the Gov. can give us 'cheap' healthcare. I also have
no doubt, it will be more expensive.
Anonymous | 7:40 a.m. July 9, 2009
Thanks Clark. We do need reform, but lets not jump into a system that we know
will fail in the long run. Having choices is a good thing. The government run
VA is a crock. I trained in a VA and saw first hand how inefficient the system
operated. In our present system a large percentage of the health care dollar
goes to sales of insurance plans. This must not continue. Doctors need to
police their own without fear of counter suits for claims of restraint of trade
and defamation of character. Attorneys should not be able to sue without fear
of paying if their suit is lost. These are the changes that will lower costs
and continue to provide the best healthcare in the world. Nick, quit spewing
quotes that you don;t understand. If the American population were transferred
to another nation with "superior healthcare" their ranking would
plummet. Obesity is rampant. Too much McDonalds. As other nations adopt our
poor food choices among other issues, their health will suffer.
To Clark | 7:45 a.m. July 9, 2009
Just so's you know, status quo is what we want. If not compromising
assures status quo, that's a win-win.
I don't have to speak to or compromise with liberal, socalist, exteremist, wackos and tree-huggers, AND I get to keep the best health care system in the world intact.
Ah, the smell of victory!
I don't have to speak to or compromise with liberal, socalist, exteremist, wackos and tree-huggers, AND I get to keep the best health care system in the world intact.
Ah, the smell of victory!
uncannygunman | 7:49 a.m. July 9, 2009
I think a single-payer system is somewhat of a gamble, but the current system is
not working either.
If there are perceived problems with a single-payer system, why don't try to we fix them instead of just avoiding the system altogether? I also think we need to realize that universal health care would likely make things much better for the uninsured and poorly insured, even if it might make things somewhat worse for people with "good" insurance. That might be a trade-off that society as a whole is prepared to make, even if it will have some negative effects for some people (and I'm not sure that it would).
If there are perceived problems with a single-payer system, why don't try to we fix them instead of just avoiding the system altogether? I also think we need to realize that universal health care would likely make things much better for the uninsured and poorly insured, even if it might make things somewhat worse for people with "good" insurance. That might be a trade-off that society as a whole is prepared to make, even if it will have some negative effects for some people (and I'm not sure that it would).
lost in DC | 7:58 a.m. July 9, 2009
Clark, how's this? no meaningful health care reform can be enacted without
tort reform. You'll have to tell me whether or not limbag, shammity, beck
or oreilly has said it since I don't bother with them.
Nick, you want a single-payer system? I nominate you to be the single payer
Nick, you want a single-payer system? I nominate you to be the single payer
Nick too | 8:18 a.m. July 9, 2009
Great letter.
US health care costs us more per person than anywhere in the world, yet Americans as a whole a in worse health than most other developed nations.
Look at the stats - infant mortality, life expectancy, number of surgeries, you name it, Americans lag behind. And yet we pay vastly more per person for health care.
We've got to get beyond the knee-jerk reactions and face this issue in a calm and sober manner.
Health care is _not_ a "free market" and never can or will be. We already have "single payer" health care for many Americans - it's called medicare/medicaid, and it works well for them.
Our current system of health care is bankrupting us and making us sicker. We need a nationwide single-payer health care system NOW.
US health care costs us more per person than anywhere in the world, yet Americans as a whole a in worse health than most other developed nations.
Look at the stats - infant mortality, life expectancy, number of surgeries, you name it, Americans lag behind. And yet we pay vastly more per person for health care.
We've got to get beyond the knee-jerk reactions and face this issue in a calm and sober manner.
Health care is _not_ a "free market" and never can or will be. We already have "single payer" health care for many Americans - it's called medicare/medicaid, and it works well for them.
Our current system of health care is bankrupting us and making us sicker. We need a nationwide single-payer health care system NOW.
KM | 8:18 a.m. July 9, 2009
Why do people think the government is the be all and end all? They are not.
Why would you trust govt. when they have bankrupted SS, Medicare, etc...
they are not efficicent at all, and more, they are not compassionate at all.
There used to be a sign by the side of the road which read, "The government is our enemy." I thought it was some crazy fool who put the sign up, but now I think he was ahead of his time.
they are not efficicent at all, and more, they are not compassionate at all.
There used to be a sign by the side of the road which read, "The government is our enemy." I thought it was some crazy fool who put the sign up, but now I think he was ahead of his time.
Grover | 8:26 a.m. July 9, 2009
The devil you know...everyone would rather take that choice than any other.
BUT...
1. We finally have met the issue which makes us make a choice for a change. We can't afford to go on the current track for more than about 5 years and then:
A. The government goes broke. That means no medicare, medicaid, or veterans insurance.
B. Employers drop health plans to stay in business and be competitive with countries that pay less for healthcare (that would be EVERY country).
C. The current 50 million uninsured becomes 100 million or 150 million at which time the game really changes.
Now I don't know what the answer is but I do know that the majority of businesses, insurers and Americans know that we will have change. The only question is what kind of change? Stop posting what will happen and start posting solutions.
1. We finally have met the issue which makes us make a choice for a change. We can't afford to go on the current track for more than about 5 years and then:
A. The government goes broke. That means no medicare, medicaid, or veterans insurance.
B. Employers drop health plans to stay in business and be competitive with countries that pay less for healthcare (that would be EVERY country).
C. The current 50 million uninsured becomes 100 million or 150 million at which time the game really changes.
Now I don't know what the answer is but I do know that the majority of businesses, insurers and Americans know that we will have change. The only question is what kind of change? Stop posting what will happen and start posting solutions.
sutton | 8:28 a.m. July 9, 2009
I don't know why some people think Government is the "be all end
all"... why do others think it is the Scourge of the earth????
The only thing I understand is that something has to be done about health care in this country... And I do *kinda-sorta* trust the Government more than I do Multi-billion dollar conglomerate companies.
The only thing I understand is that something has to be done about health care in this country... And I do *kinda-sorta* trust the Government more than I do Multi-billion dollar conglomerate companies.
RedShirt | 8:32 a.m. July 9, 2009
To "uncannygunman | 7:49 a.m." there are ways to improve our system
without destroying the quality.
We can enact tort reform similar to Canada. They have judges that also understand science, so they can understand the cases being presented. It is quite difficult to sue for malpractice there. Tort reform would lower malpractice insurance costs for Doctors and healthcare providers, which would lower their prices.
Next, you could take all of the Medicare/Medicaid/VA medical money, pool that together, and set up a government healthcare system. Those that choose not to buy insurance will have to fend for themselves and find Doctors who will work out payment plans. This could lower insurance premiums by up to $1000 per year. This would also get more Doctors into specialties, further lowering medical costs.
Follow that up with eliminating some of the feelgood state mandated coverages, and allow insurance policies to tailor coverage to the individual or the age group.
There you go, 3 things that could lower costs, without lowering quality. Or, you can buy yourself a game console when you are older and break your hip so you have something to do for 3 months while waiting for surgery.
We can enact tort reform similar to Canada. They have judges that also understand science, so they can understand the cases being presented. It is quite difficult to sue for malpractice there. Tort reform would lower malpractice insurance costs for Doctors and healthcare providers, which would lower their prices.
Next, you could take all of the Medicare/Medicaid/VA medical money, pool that together, and set up a government healthcare system. Those that choose not to buy insurance will have to fend for themselves and find Doctors who will work out payment plans. This could lower insurance premiums by up to $1000 per year. This would also get more Doctors into specialties, further lowering medical costs.
Follow that up with eliminating some of the feelgood state mandated coverages, and allow insurance policies to tailor coverage to the individual or the age group.
There you go, 3 things that could lower costs, without lowering quality. Or, you can buy yourself a game console when you are older and break your hip so you have something to do for 3 months while waiting for surgery.
RedShirt | 8:41 a.m. July 9, 2009
To "Grover | 8:26 a.m." I hate to tell you, but according to the US
Census, 38% of uninsured could afford insurance.
Next, the Kaiser Commission, did a study that says that 58% of uninsured make less than $41000/year. It just happens, that if a family makes less than $41000/year they qualify for Medicaid or Medicare, and SCHIP plans.
So, if you take the 50 million uninsured, and remove the 38% that can afford insurance. Then, remove the families that make less than $41,000/year you probably have taken care of nearly all uninsured.
The problem isn't really that people are not covered. The problem is that people either don't want insurance or else don't want to fill out the Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP forms. How do you propose to fix that?
Next, the Kaiser Commission, did a study that says that 58% of uninsured make less than $41000/year. It just happens, that if a family makes less than $41000/year they qualify for Medicaid or Medicare, and SCHIP plans.
So, if you take the 50 million uninsured, and remove the 38% that can afford insurance. Then, remove the families that make less than $41,000/year you probably have taken care of nearly all uninsured.
The problem isn't really that people are not covered. The problem is that people either don't want insurance or else don't want to fill out the Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP forms. How do you propose to fix that?
Anonymous | 8:48 a.m. July 9, 2009
There isnt a 'free market' when your life is on the line. Never has
been. You cant shop around when you are sick. You end up battling corporate
stooges who want to NOT pay for your care. The people who complain about freedom
of choice are fooling themselves, they have no choice. They get what their
employer offers and what treatment their insurance company is willing to pay
for. Why do people insist on going against their best interest?
Single payer is the future.
Single payer is the future.
time for fresh start | 8:50 a.m. July 9, 2009
The ystem here is broke. We are told we have the best health care and the
insurance companies tell us that and equate it with words like freedom and
choice. Upon further review I found that the Chech Republic has a much longer
life expectancy than does a US citizen.
The lies that are foisted upon us by large insurance companies would have us believe we are being looked after and have the best care. After checking I found out 36 countries have longer life expectancies
so we are getting far from the best care.
It is sad but nobody but the government is big enough to break the insurance companies hold on the industry.
I went and lived in Canada for 5 years, and there are many rumors promoted here that are simply not true. My family members visited the emergency room 3 times and each time were handled immediately and professionally.
American hospitals were up there recruiting, and doctors chose stay there.
I am fortunate to have insurance here but in no way shape or form does it meet the needs of the people. Change is needed, there are better options.
The lies that are foisted upon us by large insurance companies would have us believe we are being looked after and have the best care. After checking I found out 36 countries have longer life expectancies
so we are getting far from the best care.
It is sad but nobody but the government is big enough to break the insurance companies hold on the industry.
I went and lived in Canada for 5 years, and there are many rumors promoted here that are simply not true. My family members visited the emergency room 3 times and each time were handled immediately and professionally.
American hospitals were up there recruiting, and doctors chose stay there.
I am fortunate to have insurance here but in no way shape or form does it meet the needs of the people. Change is needed, there are better options.
RedShirt | 8:55 a.m. July 9, 2009
To "sutton | 8:28 a.m." here is a possible anser to your questions.
Those that are in favor of it usually say that it will give coverage to everybody, and that it is fair. Some claim that it lowers costs, but I don't believe that.
Those against universal care usually talk about the lower quality, and long waits for procedures.
As for trusting the government, have you looked at their track record for running businesses? AMTrack receives money from the government to pay for operating costs. It was originally meant to be self sufficient, and not require tax money, that was in the 1960's.
Next, the senate cafeteria in Washington DC ran million dollar deficits when it was run by the government. They finally turned it over to private contractors.
Look at your local garbage collection, who's logo is on the side of the truck? Most likely it is a private company, if not, you live in one of few cities around that still has city employees collecting garbage.
One final piece to think about is this. How can the government be trustworthy, if it is filled with untrustworthy politicians?
Those that are in favor of it usually say that it will give coverage to everybody, and that it is fair. Some claim that it lowers costs, but I don't believe that.
Those against universal care usually talk about the lower quality, and long waits for procedures.
As for trusting the government, have you looked at their track record for running businesses? AMTrack receives money from the government to pay for operating costs. It was originally meant to be self sufficient, and not require tax money, that was in the 1960's.
Next, the senate cafeteria in Washington DC ran million dollar deficits when it was run by the government. They finally turned it over to private contractors.
Look at your local garbage collection, who's logo is on the side of the truck? Most likely it is a private company, if not, you live in one of few cities around that still has city employees collecting garbage.
One final piece to think about is this. How can the government be trustworthy, if it is filled with untrustworthy politicians?
dave | 9:10 a.m. July 9, 2009
KM. Are you saying that a large corporation is more compassionate than the
government?
Lew Jeppson | 9:12 a.m. July 9, 2009
There is no evidence whatsoever that the right wing talk jocks support any kind
of health care reform. For that matter, there is no evidence that the
Republican Party favors any sort of health care reform, leaving many to die
uninsured - and this is the party of Christian (LDS) values?????
Expanded concierge model | 9:30 a.m. July 9, 2009
Return healthcare to its proper role of focusing on healing patients by
eliminating insurance companies altogether (they are completely unnecessary) and
also removing governmental interference with what should be arrangements between
patients and healthcare providers. Every layer of bureaucracy, private or
public, increases costs.
Form blocs/cooperatives (businesses, counties, states, etc) with their own negotiators to negotiate contracts with healthcare providers (physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, etc) to provide whatever services are necessary to enrolled persons, with no additional out-of-pocket expenses whatsoever above and beyond the monthly premiums paid into the cooperatives and disbursed to the contracted healthcare providers (who would in turn negotiate with their suppliers). Monthly premiums paid into cooperatives would be much less than our current monthly insurance premiums because we would no longer have to support the insurance industry with its obscene payments to CEOs, etc., while still allowing healthcare providers to make a good profit. The savings that would result from not having to submit any insurance claims would be astronomical.
The only role the government should play is to insure that medical costs cannot exceed a certain percentage of the median income and, of course, make payments into these cooperatives for the poor.
Form blocs/cooperatives (businesses, counties, states, etc) with their own negotiators to negotiate contracts with healthcare providers (physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, etc) to provide whatever services are necessary to enrolled persons, with no additional out-of-pocket expenses whatsoever above and beyond the monthly premiums paid into the cooperatives and disbursed to the contracted healthcare providers (who would in turn negotiate with their suppliers). Monthly premiums paid into cooperatives would be much less than our current monthly insurance premiums because we would no longer have to support the insurance industry with its obscene payments to CEOs, etc., while still allowing healthcare providers to make a good profit. The savings that would result from not having to submit any insurance claims would be astronomical.
The only role the government should play is to insure that medical costs cannot exceed a certain percentage of the median income and, of course, make payments into these cooperatives for the poor.
RedShirt | 9:40 a.m. July 9, 2009
To "Lew Jeppson | 9:12 a.m." if you believe that something should be
done, please state what you believe needs to be done to reduce costs in
healthcare.
First step | 9:45 a.m. July 9, 2009
The first step is to eliminate the status quo. Get rid of the private health
insurance protection racket.
Then let's sit down and decide whether we're better off with single-payer or with individual cash-for-services payment. (I favor single-payer, but in the end, EITHER of those options would be a vast improvement over what we have now.)
Then let's sit down and decide whether we're better off with single-payer or with individual cash-for-services payment. (I favor single-payer, but in the end, EITHER of those options would be a vast improvement over what we have now.)
The Facts | 9:55 a.m. July 9, 2009
A study conducted by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that
medical malpractice contributed less than half a percentage point to medical
costs.
The U.S. also logged 50 percent more malpractice claims per 1,000 people, at 0.18, than the United Kingdom and Australia, and 350 percent more than Canada.
But the study's authors found malpractice payments in America are lower on average than in Canada and the U.K. The U.S. average as $265,103 per settlement or judgment to Canada's $309,417 and the U.K.'s $411,171. The U.S. average was higher than Australia's $97,014
However, defensive medicine - in which doctors order unnecessary tests to protect against lawsuits - accounted for 9 percent of health care spending in America, according to the study.
The U.S. also logged 50 percent more malpractice claims per 1,000 people, at 0.18, than the United Kingdom and Australia, and 350 percent more than Canada.
But the study's authors found malpractice payments in America are lower on average than in Canada and the U.K. The U.S. average as $265,103 per settlement or judgment to Canada's $309,417 and the U.K.'s $411,171. The U.S. average was higher than Australia's $97,014
However, defensive medicine - in which doctors order unnecessary tests to protect against lawsuits - accounted for 9 percent of health care spending in America, according to the study.
ds | 9:57 a.m. July 9, 2009
The insurance companies are parasites. The do nothing to improve health care.
If the single payer system drives them all out of business, I say GOOD and good
riddance.
Anonymous | 9:59 a.m. July 9, 2009
" I do not want some Washington keyboard jockey deciding whether or not my
wife gets cancer treatment."
But you prefer someone at the Insurance co? They are looking for a profit and if it has to be at your expense, so be it.
What is the difference?
But you prefer someone at the Insurance co? They are looking for a profit and if it has to be at your expense, so be it.
What is the difference?
Anonymous | 10:01 a.m. July 9, 2009
" The government run VA is a crock. I trained in a VA and saw first hand
how inefficient the system operated."
Have you been to a VA lately? The SL VA is one of the highest regarded systems in Utah. They have been consistantly rated higher than IHC in patient satisfaction for the last few years.
You are behind the times. The VA has improved greatly under Pres Bush's Secretary and has become a leader in medical services.
Have you been to a VA lately? The SL VA is one of the highest regarded systems in Utah. They have been consistantly rated higher than IHC in patient satisfaction for the last few years.
You are behind the times. The VA has improved greatly under Pres Bush's Secretary and has become a leader in medical services.
Anonymous | 10:03 a.m. July 9, 2009
There is a movement in Congress today to tax those making over $200,000 per year
to help subsidize payments to the wealthy doctors and dentists.
In the game of LIFE we always get to use our "Share the Wealth" card (one of my personal favorites).
In the game of LIFE we always get to use our "Share the Wealth" card (one of my personal favorites).
RedShirt | 10:06 a.m. July 9, 2009
To "Expanded concierge model | 9:30 a.m." so you basically want all
insurance companies to be like Intermountain Healthcare.
Anonymous | 10:10 a.m. July 9, 2009
Anyone on Medicare...are you happy with it or would you like to go to a private
health insurance co?
Redshirt, are you going to take medicare when you are old enough or will you pay for personal health insurance?
Veterans...are you happy with the service that you are getting from the VA? Would you like to go on a private insurance contract?
These are government run meidcal entities. Do we like what we are getting?
Redshirt, are you going to take medicare when you are old enough or will you pay for personal health insurance?
Veterans...are you happy with the service that you are getting from the VA? Would you like to go on a private insurance contract?
These are government run meidcal entities. Do we like what we are getting?
No wait in the U.S.? | 10:13 a.m. July 9, 2009
A patient was bleeding from her mouth and crying out in pain while she was
forced to wait more than forty-five minutes in the lobby of the emergency room
at Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital (in California) According to news
accounts, family members tried to call 911 to receive timely medical care and
transport the patient to another facility. Unfortunately, dispatchers refused to
call paramedics after learning about her location. According to news accounts of
the breakdown in patient care. The patient died after suffering from a
perforated bowel which according to the coroner, could have been surgically
repaired if it had been caught in time.
Steve (the actuary) | 10:14 a.m. July 9, 2009
I disagree with some of the ideas you are presenting in your 8:32 post.
1. You can pool the money and create a sigle system instead of medicare/medicade/va. How? As someone who has worked for multiple private insurer's over the last 25 years, and the last 20 I have worked calculating statistical liability and setting premiums i fail to see how your plan will save money. Realistically the only way to cut costs from the insurance side is to cut benefits. Whether it is by increasing deductibles, copays or just not covering more procedures. The other options is to cut overhead, but that is not the main place where money is paid out.
2. cutting federal mandates, agreed, that will cut costs, because like I mentioned in point#1, the best way to cut costs is cut benefits. But I think that very few insurer's will tailor individual benefits because it will create a lot more overhead along with that doctors already have difficulties determining what each individual insurance covers on each of their 5-20 different plans.
3. Tort reform:yes, it is long overdue.
1. You can pool the money and create a sigle system instead of medicare/medicade/va. How? As someone who has worked for multiple private insurer's over the last 25 years, and the last 20 I have worked calculating statistical liability and setting premiums i fail to see how your plan will save money. Realistically the only way to cut costs from the insurance side is to cut benefits. Whether it is by increasing deductibles, copays or just not covering more procedures. The other options is to cut overhead, but that is not the main place where money is paid out.
2. cutting federal mandates, agreed, that will cut costs, because like I mentioned in point#1, the best way to cut costs is cut benefits. But I think that very few insurer's will tailor individual benefits because it will create a lot more overhead along with that doctors already have difficulties determining what each individual insurance covers on each of their 5-20 different plans.
3. Tort reform:yes, it is long overdue.
Clark | 10:19 a.m. July 9, 2009
Ok a whole sentance without Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.
If we want costs for medicine to go down, go to your physician and tell him you would like to pay him directly for his services. Agree on a price and then pay it. Back in the day, that is what was done. Doctors charged reasonable prices for office visits. No middle man, no insurance. Let's get back to that system. It would save money in the long run.
If socialized medicine ever comes into being, there will be a black market health care system based on pay as you go.
If we want costs for medicine to go down, go to your physician and tell him you would like to pay him directly for his services. Agree on a price and then pay it. Back in the day, that is what was done. Doctors charged reasonable prices for office visits. No middle man, no insurance. Let's get back to that system. It would save money in the long run.
If socialized medicine ever comes into being, there will be a black market health care system based on pay as you go.
now is the time | 10:32 a.m. July 9, 2009
We know it needs repair.
We have learned in the last 8 months that the businesses who are safe and know so much such as GM and AIG are not as stalwart and strong as they appear. The government seems to be.
If I had my druthers I know who I want to fund to pay my bills and sorry Bernie Madoff it is not you or GM or some insurance company.
@ RedShirt | 10:34 a.m. July 9, 2009
No! I don't want any insurance companies at all. I want patients/consumers
to have the power (it is our health and our money afterall) and for healthcare
providers to compete for our business by offering excellent services at the
lowest costs. In essence, they would assume the same risk as insurance
companies now do (it is evident insurance companies now make billions of dollars
despite assuming this risk). Healthcare providers could make a handsome profit
while patients would be out a lot less money.
Quality and availability of care would be increased because providers would no longer have to spend so much time on the administrative work involved with dancing through the hoops of insurers.
When we hire a plumber or electrician do we necessarily need a middle man? I don't think we need middle men when we hire doctors or hospitals either.
Power to the people who are actually paying the bill, not to the government or the insurance industry! Money talks. However, government and insurance companies have been "talking" with our money for years. It's time for us to take control and make our money "talk" for us.
Quality and availability of care would be increased because providers would no longer have to spend so much time on the administrative work involved with dancing through the hoops of insurers.
When we hire a plumber or electrician do we necessarily need a middle man? I don't think we need middle men when we hire doctors or hospitals either.
Power to the people who are actually paying the bill, not to the government or the insurance industry! Money talks. However, government and insurance companies have been "talking" with our money for years. It's time for us to take control and make our money "talk" for us.
@Clark | 10:35 a.m. July 9, 2009
If it was like other countries with universal health care there would be nothing
wrong with you paying for services not covered, it's not like they will be
banned, you could pay as you go, you just would be silly because the insurance
you are already paying for(through taxes) would be wasted. I don't see why
there would be a black market.
RedShirt | 11:10 a.m. July 9, 2009
To "Steve (the actuary) | 10:14 a.m." it will cut costs, according to
the Deseret News article "Hidden health tax rising for insured
Americans" by James Thalman. He said "An automatically applied
surcharge on patients with private insurance to make up for patients who
don't have it has topped $1,000 per family per year, according to a
national health-care research and advocacy group." So, by puting the
government insured into a situation where the private doctors do not have to
worry about uncompensated care, will lower the costs for those with
insurance.
This is a cost savings at the Doctors office.
This is a cost savings at the Doctors office.
Lew Jeppson | 11:13 a.m. July 9, 2009
Contain costs by allowing Obama's public health insurance option. This
will keep private insurers honest and force down their economic profits to a
more reasonable level. Affordability will allow peoples' chronic health
problems more immediate treatment which will further reduce costs.
When I listen to Sean Hannity he fills be with dread and terror, i.e. there will be no health care reform. Increasing numbers of people will be left without access. If health care reform doesn't come I'll know just whom to thank - the broadcast combines who support the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh and Beck - Fox, Clear Channel and Bonneville International.
When I listen to Sean Hannity he fills be with dread and terror, i.e. there will be no health care reform. Increasing numbers of people will be left without access. If health care reform doesn't come I'll know just whom to thank - the broadcast combines who support the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh and Beck - Fox, Clear Channel and Bonneville International.
Anonymous | 11:19 a.m. July 9, 2009
"When we hire a plumber or electrician do we necessarily need a middle man?
I don't think we need middle men when we hire doctors or hospitals
either."
When I cannot afford a plumber or electrician, I try and do it myself or do without, even though it may be unsafe.
Do we really want so many Americans "doing it themselves" or doing without?
What is your solution, Redshirt?
When I cannot afford a plumber or electrician, I try and do it myself or do without, even though it may be unsafe.
Do we really want so many Americans "doing it themselves" or doing without?
What is your solution, Redshirt?
RedShirt | 11:28 a.m. July 9, 2009
To "@ RedShirt | 10:34 a.m." but IHC is a nonprofit insurance company.
Isn't that what you wanted, except you wanted to call it a co-operative.
Hey Nick | 11:28 a.m. July 9, 2009
If you don't like to participate in a for profit system, join a co-op.
Note: The USA treats cancer, rather then telling the patients that it is their patriotic duty to just shut up, go home, and die quietly. That is why the USA spends more on health care than other countries. It is also why the USA has some of the highest cancer survival rates in the world!
And finally, a question: "What happens when the single payer goes broke?"
PS:
The USA also treats more transplant patients, replaces more bad joints giving patients many more productive and pain free years, and we treat premature infants when many other countries don't.
Note: The USA treats cancer, rather then telling the patients that it is their patriotic duty to just shut up, go home, and die quietly. That is why the USA spends more on health care than other countries. It is also why the USA has some of the highest cancer survival rates in the world!
And finally, a question: "What happens when the single payer goes broke?"
PS:
The USA also treats more transplant patients, replaces more bad joints giving patients many more productive and pain free years, and we treat premature infants when many other countries don't.
RedShirt | 11:33 a.m. July 9, 2009
To "Anonymous | 11:19 a.m." why should I come up with any additional
solutions, when industry already has. For reducing healthcare costs, see my
8:32 a.m. post.
If you want to get back to paying cash for everything, you can always opt into a Health Savings Account. Unlike flex spending, HSAs grow over time and the money in them does not have to be used up in a given year. You can use that money for any medical related thing you want. You decide what is covered and what isn't. Some HSA programs provide for wellness visits.
If you want to get back to paying cash for everything, you can always opt into a Health Savings Account. Unlike flex spending, HSAs grow over time and the money in them does not have to be used up in a given year. You can use that money for any medical related thing you want. You decide what is covered and what isn't. Some HSA programs provide for wellness visits.
To RedShirt at 11:28 a.m. | 12:03 p.m. July 9, 2009
The balance of power still is with the various IHC health plans rather that the
consumers who are actually paying the bills. There is no equality here.
Patients are still told what procedures they can have or what medications they
can take after forking over their hard-earned money despite what their
individuals doctors think they need and have ordered.
Healthcare, once a noble profession, needs to return to focusing on patients rather than the bottom line, which IHC still does. Contracts that are realistic and fair to both sides could be worked out if greed were taken out of the equation.
Healthcare, once a noble profession, needs to return to focusing on patients rather than the bottom line, which IHC still does. Contracts that are realistic and fair to both sides could be worked out if greed were taken out of the equation.
RedShirt | 12:24 p.m. July 9, 2009
To "To RedShirt at 11:28 a.m. | 12:03 p.m." you almost have it.
Actually it is the State government that says what the minimum coverage is to
be, not the insurance agency or the consumers.
From what I have seen, the contracts save a lot of money, assuming that the hospital's bills are correct. For example, when one of my kids was born, the hospital bill showed that it typically charges about $5000. However, the negociated price through the insurance company was $2500 or so. So, the contract worked well, and cut a lot of the greed out of the system.
If you want to have the freedom to have whatever procedure you want, why not go for a HSA? From what I understand, doctor offices are quite willing to give discounts for people that pay cash.
From what I have seen, the contracts save a lot of money, assuming that the hospital's bills are correct. For example, when one of my kids was born, the hospital bill showed that it typically charges about $5000. However, the negociated price through the insurance company was $2500 or so. So, the contract worked well, and cut a lot of the greed out of the system.
If you want to have the freedom to have whatever procedure you want, why not go for a HSA? From what I understand, doctor offices are quite willing to give discounts for people that pay cash.
Darrel | 12:34 p.m. July 9, 2009
John Locke stated that governments job as part of a social contract was
to protect life, liberty and property (I think the ordering of them says a lot).
The Declaration of Independance says that our unalienable rights are life,
liberty and the persuit of happiness.
Now, I am not sure that this single payer system is the best solution, but it addresses the government's requirement to protect life. No one should be denied health care because of monetary reasons. That is just plain wrong on every level.
Now, I am not sure that this single payer system is the best solution, but it addresses the government's requirement to protect life. No one should be denied health care because of monetary reasons. That is just plain wrong on every level.
wallofvoodoo | 12:39 p.m. July 9, 2009
RedShirt, IHC/Select Health is about as non-profit as Wal-Mart. They are simply
exploiting a loophole allowing them to earn money tax free. Like the
"non-profit" credit counselors.
I am shocked that you didn't dismiss a government plan out of hand & actually sort of supported it. Are you sure you are feeling okay......?
BTW RedShirt, 95% of all statistics are made up. That 38% sounds made up or at best subjective. What are the criteria & how is it applied. According to the government if you have a car newer than 10 years old, you can in their eyes afford insurance no matter what you make.
I am shocked that you didn't dismiss a government plan out of hand & actually sort of supported it. Are you sure you are feeling okay......?
BTW RedShirt, 95% of all statistics are made up. That 38% sounds made up or at best subjective. What are the criteria & how is it applied. According to the government if you have a car newer than 10 years old, you can in their eyes afford insurance no matter what you make.
Captain Kirk | 1:01 p.m. July 9, 2009
Oh my. Government destroys our health care system and now people want them to
take it all over.
Doesn't make sense to me.
Of course, the big problems are:
1.People don't know that it was the government that destroyed it.
2. People don't understand economics.
3. People don't understand government
3. People would prefer "safety" over liberty.
The people who do understand are not in favor of more government but less government. They know that prosperity follows liberty.
Doesn't make sense to me.
Of course, the big problems are:
1.People don't know that it was the government that destroyed it.
2. People don't understand economics.
3. People don't understand government
3. People would prefer "safety" over liberty.
The people who do understand are not in favor of more government but less government. They know that prosperity follows liberty.
Writer Delusional | 1:10 p.m. July 9, 2009
This writer is delusional if he thinks a single-payer, government-run health
care system will improve our health care or access to it. It will only waste
much of what is spent now on additional overhead and bureaucracy. It's
time for liberals to take their heads out of the sand and see that their
pie-in-the-sky liberal ideas do not work in the real world.
I'm not denying that there are problems with our health-care system. There are. But they will not be solved my putting the government in charge. (Think heavily subsidized U.S. Postal Service and Amtrak, which perpetually cost billions in subsidies for worse service.) Actually, it is too much government, not enough, that contributes to our problems with health-care. Government created the system we have now. It won't solve it.
The market for elective services, such as lasik and plastic surgery procedures, is proof positive that the market will work. The quality of such services has gone up and the price has come down, making it better and more affordable for everyone. Why? Because the federal government stays out of it and lets market forces work.
I'm not denying that there are problems with our health-care system. There are. But they will not be solved my putting the government in charge. (Think heavily subsidized U.S. Postal Service and Amtrak, which perpetually cost billions in subsidies for worse service.) Actually, it is too much government, not enough, that contributes to our problems with health-care. Government created the system we have now. It won't solve it.
The market for elective services, such as lasik and plastic surgery procedures, is proof positive that the market will work. The quality of such services has gone up and the price has come down, making it better and more affordable for everyone. Why? Because the federal government stays out of it and lets market forces work.
RedShirt | 1:12 p.m. July 9, 2009
To "wallofvoodoo | 12:39 p.m." read my 8:32 AM post. That is what I
would prefer to see the government do.
Better yet, to quote Homer Simpson “Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.”
If you want to see what the people who are on 100% medicare/medicaid/va would be in for, look at "Individual Private Health Insurance: NHS Waiting List Guide" at AVIVA (UK private insurance company). They have a neat list where you can see the average wait time for simple things like tonsils is 62 to 152 days, depending on where you live. Hip replacements are done after waiting 3 to 7 months on a waiting list. Yea, sounds like lots of fun in the UK!! But, it is a "fair" system, that is unless you have private insurance or lots of money.
Better yet, to quote Homer Simpson “Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.”
If you want to see what the people who are on 100% medicare/medicaid/va would be in for, look at "Individual Private Health Insurance: NHS Waiting List Guide" at AVIVA (UK private insurance company). They have a neat list where you can see the average wait time for simple things like tonsils is 62 to 152 days, depending on where you live. Hip replacements are done after waiting 3 to 7 months on a waiting list. Yea, sounds like lots of fun in the UK!! But, it is a "fair" system, that is unless you have private insurance or lots of money.
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.
- USA Today poll: U. 14th, Y. 22nd 11:51 a.m.
- TCU 4th in AP poll; U. 16th, Y. 22nd 11:32 a.m.
- Tough road ahead in Senate for bill 11:05 a.m.
- Afghan vows to keep out corruption 10:35 a.m.
- Anti-Taliban mayor killed in Pakistan 10:27 a.m.
- Dalai Lama visits town near Tibet 10:26 a.m.
- Some saw trouble ahead for Hasan 10:21 a.m.
- China pledges funds, aid to Africa 10:20 a.m.
- 40 dead in El Salvador flooding 10:19 a.m.
- Dixie campus briefs 1:10 a.m.
- Gay advocates trek to LDS office
207 - Dirk does dirty work in Dallas190
- Lobo suspended173
- House passes health care bill148
- Cougars crush hapless Cowboys141
- Speed has never been BYU's game136
- RSL rallies to advance102
- Thousands protest health bill100
- Provo company innovating engines98
- BYU cuts Women's Research Institute87
Advertisement
Latest comments
I agree. Definitely too much greed going on.
Dear Utah, Congrats on your win. Its a real big deal seeing as how New...
Do you not think the BYU Utah game will have anything to do with the title if...
So the state title game is going to be meaningless? A 50 Point thrashing you...
re Patriot What better way is there to honor American Children than to...
I think the Clippers will beat us this year!
Does Utah even have a chance in this game? I just don't see how Utah can beat...
These guys are Pathetic!
Jazz are done!
Jazz are in the LOTTERY!
Advertisements
Just because the current system is bad does not mean that anything different will be better - particularly a system that cannot possibly be better for those of us that already have insurance. I do not want some Washington keyboard jockey deciding whether or not my wife gets cancer treatment. Even Pres. Obama showed that he does not believe that his proposal will provide the best care when he indicated he would not want to rely on a single payer system if it were his family.
Also, do you really think that kids will still want to be doctors when they no longer have any control over treatments, scheduling, pay, staff, etc? For that matter, do you really believe the best docs will stay in practice? If you think so, try explaining why they would do that.
In short, the proposed cure is worse than the disease. You don't kill the patient to cure the disease.