Deseret News | Reader comments: Doctor wants health reform on ballot

Reader comments
Pushing for health-care referendum

Stats | 7:05 a.m. May 27, 2009

I find some of the stats in this article interesting: we spend 2 times as much as any industrialized nation, our citizens rank no better than 37th in general health; we spend 5 times as much as any other industrialized country in overhead and administration.

My healthcare costs are going up much more than 2 times the rate of inflation. In fact I have about a 20% increase every year in healthcare premiums with a corresponding reduction in benefits. All of this is from the "not-for-profit" IHC. The system is going to break.

Where are the Drs.? | 7:39 a.m. May 27, 2009

Where is the AMA on this issue? We hear about the insurance, pharmaceutical lobbyists what about the Dr. lobbyists?

This is a moral issue | 3:13 a.m. June 8, 2009

Denying anyone who is ill the health care they need is morally reprehensible. Do you think Jesus would deny healing the blind because of a pre-existing condition? Or maybe because they didn't have the necessary money for the deductible? I'm just asking.

Comments continue below

It's a monopoly | 4:50 a.m. June 8, 2009

Health care providers have become a monopoly across the US and they are the ones creating the crises. Although insurance has become too self serving and denying coverage and claims, they don't set the health care costs. We don't need this as a ballot issue to create more socialism and give government more controls and mismanaged departments. We need regulatory laws and controls on the medical industry at all levels. It will be impossible to socialize health care and make it another tax burden without socializing every aspect of the industry. If we socialize health care then we can eliminate the insurance companies, they will serve no purpose. This country was founded and exist because it is forbidden to socialize and become a country of socialism. No country, state, or city has to this day shown that socializing health care is beneficial to anyone. What must be done is break up the monopoly of health care and medicine. Adding more tax burdens on citizens is regressive and not supportable.

Re: It's a monopoly | 6:52 a.m. June 8, 2009

If that is your plan, you had better add TORT REFORM. The lawyers are the only ones with the money to sponsor the Jazz. They are the only ones getting rich in the current system.

Anonymous | 6:59 a.m. June 8, 2009

"Jarvis echoes fellow primary-care physicians here and around the country who say that reformers once again are going through the motions of real reform, and the sad fact is that for a country that spends twice as much on health care as any developed nation, it ranks no better than 37th in the general physical health of its citizens."

Poor argument. The general physical health of its citizens is not solely dependent on health care. In a country with a high obese population who loves fast food and hates the gym of course we don't have the highest general physical health. Of course this leads to spending more on health care. Medicine can help fix your diabetes, back problems, lung problems, heart problems, depression, foot problems, blood pressure problems, etc that can come from being overweight. However, medicine cannot fix the root of these problems.

Yes, there are many many people with health problems are in great physical condition but as a general rule create a healthy lifestyle and decrease your trips to the doctor.

Anonymous | 9:15 a.m. June 8, 2009

Seems like we could legislate law suits against doctors & hospitals or at least the amount of the judgement - no law suits, no liability insurance, lower medical fees. Medicare has an amount that it will pay for a certain procedure - doesn't that mean that the amount is at least close to what it should be instead of the 3 to 5 times higher of the billed amount. Or does the provider bill more because they know it is going to be decreased? How about some honesty & integrity from all of us. How about no pharma reps to doctors offices to convince them to recommend their product & let the doctor use the internet & his medical knowledge & experience before dispensing a too quick prescription to a too demanding patient. No prescription ads on TV would be good, so patients aren't asking for a product that they know nothing about except that if you have kidney or some other disease(which you probably don't know) or if you are allergic to their product(which you don't know) are if you are pregnant or might get pregnant(which covers half the world) you shouldn't take - Fran

Anonymous | 10:49 a.m. June 8, 2009

No reform short of a single payer system (yes the government) is going to solve the problem of millions of uninsured, leaving millions of patients getting primary care in specialized emergency settings. We need to face the fact that our current system of providing Mercedes Benz (Rolls Royce) health care to members of Congress, while we provide no care to millions is an abject failure. The current payment system, run by insurers and drug companies for insurers and drug companies, means that America subsidizes drug development for every other country in the world. Without a single entity negotiating reasonable prices, we won't solve this problem.

gameUtah | 11:13 a.m. June 8, 2009

Dr. Jarvis and the article state the truth: the health insurance companies have tremendous incentives to cover the healthy and deny claims aggressively whenever possible. I personally know of the tragic consequences of this insidious system. My friends and family who live in other systems (Canada, England, Germany, France, Japan, Sweden) are amazed at our inept and cruel the US system is. Let's get real and go beyond the propaganda promoted by the health insurers.

RedShirt. | 11:56 a.m. June 8, 2009

For being a Dr. that has done some amazing things, he really didn't have much to say in this article.

It is obvious to say that something should be done to lower the costs, but what? Does he want tort reforms to curb lawyers and increasing malpractice insurance costs?

Does he want healthcare clinics setup for government insurance recipiants so that private doctors don't have to include administrative charges to cover unreimbursed costs?

Does he want to make insurance like a buffet where you choose your coverage?

What is his plan? There are so many ideas about how to reduce costs while maintaining quality and innovation.

CougarKeith | 12:13 p.m. June 8, 2009

It seems so many want "Free Health Care", but they don't think about WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT! The simple fact is, all these countries with Government Health have MAJOR TAXES! Not what we have, we are talking 60-70% to run all these Programs! It's socialism at it's finest! Think about it, The Government gets Nationalized Health, and everyone goes to the "Doctor" for everything, why not, it's free! Soon limitations are set, Only X amount of Cancer care available in each State for treatment. Your Grandmother gets cancer, and so does a 30 year old male with 3 kids and a wife. Who is going to get the care first? Grandma or the stranger with 3 kids and a wife? I got news for you, Say GOODBYE TO GRANDMA because guess what, there isn't money in the health care budget of your county to treat her! She dies! Simply put, this is only ONE of the MANY problems with Government run Health Care! Look it up on the web, this happens in these countries! It could happen to Grandma, and one day it can happen TO YOU! THINK ABOUT IT??????

RedShirt | 12:54 p.m. June 8, 2009

To "CougarKeith | 12:13 p.m." do some research, using the median income for the US, and the tax rates from the UK for healthcare, it is cheaper to have US private insurance.

They have an 11% tax, which only covers about 70% of the cost for healthcare. In addition to that tax, many people get supplemental insurance for about $75/month. Once you run the numbers and compare that to what a healthy 36 year man with a wife and 2 kids can get through IHC or Bluecross, that family would save money every year on the US system.

So, for less than 50% (there is a point where the UK tax system would equal private insurance costs), many of those people are already on government insurance, possibly up to 30% of the US. So, the "Free Health Care" system really only covers the 1% (or less) of the population with chronic or severe health problems and the portion of the population that could afford health insurance but doesn't want it.

JT | 4:44 p.m. June 8, 2009

Bravo Dr.!

ChangeItNOW | 6:49 p.m. June 8, 2009

Put it on the ballot ... let the people speak. Let the voters have at some say in this reform. The GREED of insuance empires, drug companies, lawyers, congress and other parties MIGHT then listen. But I'm not sure ... its going to take CITIZENS to bring the changes needed in our health delivery system. Health is not a commodity; It Health Care, not Health Insurance. No one should be making a profit from my family's health problems nor making money by denying treatments we need. Let me decide - let me VOTE.

RedShirt | 7:00 p.m. June 8, 2009

To "ChangeItNOW | 6:49 p.m." if you don't think people should profit from your family's health problems, should they profit from your family's hunger? What about their need for clothes? Should a company profit to help you put a roof over their head? What about the profits for the electricity/gas going to your house?

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.