Comments about ‘In our opinion: Unhappy anniversary’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, March 25 2011 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Esquire
Springville, UT

This partisan editorial would be more useful had it addressed how to deal with the underlying problems. The legislation is conceded to be far from perfect, but it is a step in the direction of action, rather than inaction and protecting the status quo. The American people need this resolved, and the critics offer nothing. There will certainly be pain in the implementation process, but positive can-do spirit, followed by constructive action to make modifications, is what is in the interest of the American people, rather than the interests of special interests.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Esquire | 6:47 a.m." the problem is that this bill does the complete opposite of what it was supposed to do.

It makes healthcare more expensive, and pushes people into government programs.

In the end, it will put more people's health insurance into the hands of the government. With so many people's care at the hands of government officials, who will be there to protect people from the government?

John Charity Spring
Alloway, NJ

The Founding Fathers believed that the government had no business getting involved in social welfare programs. The Fathers knew that this Country would be stronger if its people were expected to provide for themselves, because the people would become stronger.

In World War II, there were many who thought that Uncle Joe Stalin was a benevolent genius because he proposed a system in which the people would have every want and need, including health care, provided by the government. History has proven that Stalin was neither benevolent or a genius, and his political system has since collapsed in failure.

The question arises: who should patriotic Americans follow, the Founding Fathers or Josef Stalin? The answer should be obvious, but it is apparently not obvious to some.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'It makes healthcare more expensive, and pushes people into government programs.' - Redshirt1701 | 8:08 a.m.

False.

Healthcare was going up BEFORE hand.

To claim that was the RESULT of healthcare reform is false, as...

the other side has offered zero things to bring the cost of healthcare...DOWN.

To support my point:

'Health costs double for workers over decade' - MSNBC - 09/15/09

Line:
'According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average premium for a company-provided family health insurance plan rose from $5,791 in 1999 to $13,375, a 131 percent jump.'

*'Only in America: Bankruptcy Due to Health Care Costs' - James E. Dalen, MD, MPH - 08/04/09
'...health care expenses were the most common cause of bankruptcy in the United States in 2007, accounting for 62% of US bankruptcies compared with 8% in 1981.'
- American Journal of Medicine

I realize you will 'counter' this by saying medical bankrupcies 'only' account for 1% of all bankrupcies...

and then, as always, fail to expalain where that number comes FROM.

With your many, many alias', of course.

Great job moderator.

I guess that 'limit to x4 comments' dosen't apply to Redshirt.

Hellooo
Salt Lake City, UT

Add one more cost the 104 billion hidden in the 2010 budget that is being spent every week that the continuing resolution is in place. This law is the worst of all worlds it increases costs, adds unnecessary beaucracy, and encourages more inefficiency in the delivery system all just to say we did something.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

re:JCSpring

In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.

In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Under the act, the federal government gives annual lump sums to the states to use to assist the poor. In turn the states must adhere to certain criteria to ensure that those receiving aid are being encouraged to move from welfare to work.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

re:Helloooo
Thank you for reminding us of the $104 billion nonsense from Michelle Bachmann.

From politifact:
The spending provisions were in the plain language of the bill; they did not vary dramatically from past congressional practice; and the bill was made public for 72 hours before the vote.

Additionally, the CBO extensively analyzed the bill and reported its findings.

What are the components of the $104 billion?
$40 billion, went to the state Childrens Health Insurance Program, to fund it for 2014 and 2015.
A new Prevention and Public Health Fund -- a state-based effort aimed at preventing chronic disease -- got the second biggest chunk, $15 billion over 10 years.
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation got $10 billion over 10 years to test payment and service-delivery models that might reduce health care spending and improve care.

ljeppson
Salt Lake City, UT

Well there is a lot a could say in reponse to this typically right wing editorial. I won't say much, but instead let me point out that you folks at the D-News have NO solution to the health care crisis faced by the majority of Americans - you only offer vague state - level fixes which are non-starters. You people talk a good line about personal responsibility. Well, to the degree you get your way and inflict suffering on millions of people via your opposition to the act, you should accept personal responsibility. I intend to see that you do so!

louie
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The Editorial Board characterizes the democrats as manipulating in order to pass a bill that will cost us more. At least there was discussion, debate and deliberation. But the Editorial Board endorsed the House meaningless vote on repeal without any discussion on replacing or improving the healthcare reform bill. Furthermore if the Editorial Board is going to quote polls on healthcare they need to properly characterize the results of the polls. The polls have been consistent and show a majority of Americans want it kept in place or improved. A minority of Americans want it repealed and not replaced or replaced with a GOP version.

Almost all European countries have a form of government sponsored health care insurance. They have done it for years and none have backed off on their programs and many respects they are better off than we are. In contrast those of us in this country who are advocating a healthcare system that is more along the lines of survival of the fittest or wealthiest is not helping our future.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Pagan | 9:40 a.m." health insurance prices have gone up faster thanks to the HC bill. You probably don't want to believe that, but what do you think is going to happen when hospitals, doctors, suppliers, and medical device manufacturers are hit with more taxes or fees? Also, what effect do you think adding the pre-existing conditions mandate to insurance will do to the cost of insurance, along with keeping kids up to the age of 26 on your insurance? Will those drive up the cost faster than what would happen without them? Be honest.

Lets look at what has happened to mandates since 1999. Back then there were about 1200 mandates on health insurance companies. By 2007, there were over 1600, by 2010 there were 2156 mandates on insurance. So, you have an increase of 80% in the total number of mandates. Even if each additional mandate only averaged $5 per policy, that adds up very quickly.

Plus you need to factor in the extra overhead that Doctors charge because Medicare/Medicaid don't reimburse enough to cover their costs.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'...and then, as always, fail to expalain where that number comes FROM.' - Pagan | 9:40 a.m.

Redshirt1701 | 11:17 a.m. post.

Example:
'...health insurance prices have gone up faster thanks to the HC bill.'

Thanks for supporting my point about your 'facts' Redshirt. It's true...because you say it's true.

Not because it is.

Your not upset about 1200 madates, but not with 1600? 2007 was BEFORE healthcare reform!

Also, where did these mandates come from? What are they? Who authorized them?

Don't you ever get TIRED of posting your opinions as facts?

Before healthcare:

* 'Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance' - By Nancy Lofholm - Denver Post - 10/12/09
'"I could understand if we could control what he's eating. But he's 4 months old. He's breast-feeding. We can't put him on the Atkins diet or on a treadmill," joked his frustrated father, Bernie Lange...'
4 month old?
Alex Lange

*'Wellpoint Drops Coverage For Some Women With Breast Cancer' - By Mary Ellen Egan - Forbes Magazine - 04/23/10

* Insurer revoked HIV Patients coverage Reuters 03/17/10
Person? Jerome Mitchell.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Pagan | 9:40 a.m. " now, as for the bankruptcies, lets go over the numbers on that one.

According to various sources there were 1,593,081 bankruptcies filed last year. If 50% of them were due directly to healthcare expenses, that means that 796,541 people filed bankruptcy last year because of healthcare expenses. That number of people represent 0.259% of the US population. Now, to give you the benefit of the number of families effected, lets say that the average family size is 4 people. That means that 1.037% was effected by bankruptcy last year.

So, what you are saying is that the entire healthcare system should be overhauled because 1.037% of the population has a problem. Why would you radically change the healthcare system because of 1% of the population?

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

re:RedShirt
"So, what you are saying is that the entire healthcare system should be overhauled because 1.037% of the population has a problem?"

No, we should change the system because we spend more than any other industrialized country without significantly better results in most areas.

Republicans haven't offered a plan which increases access to healthcare for the uninsured, and believe taxpayers should not pay for the uninsured, YET our current system we all pay for the uninsured, regardless of state/fed programs. Why aren't Republicans passing laws to limit healthcare to only those who have the means to pay? Only then would their policies match their rhetoric.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Keep your capitalist hands off my health care!

That's all I can say!

I'm one of millions of Americans, and the majority of Americans, who are happy with what was done! The minority who preaches NO and TORT REFORM who want to place our health care into the hands of those on wall street who gambled our retirements away and then gave themselves millions in bonuses have lost.

Sorry guys! You lost! We won! And we'll all benefit now, not just those who can AFFORD health care.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Pagan | 11:29 a.m." you are really obstinate aren't you. I try to make a valid comparison between the 1999 numbers that you gave, and the number of mandates. The total number of mandates is out of control, and if cut in half would restore insurance to an affordable level for most Americans.

See "ObamaCare Brings Insurance Rate Hikes" at The New American. Depending on the state, insurance rates will increase by 5% to 17% as a direct result of the new mandates given by the HC law. So, if you think about it, without the law insurance would be cheaper than it is with it.

See "The True Effects of Comprehensive Coverage: Examining State Health Insurance Mandates" by the Batton Rouge Area Chamber for data up to 2007 concerning the number of state mandates.

The Council for Affordable Health Insurance has a paper titled "Health Insurance Mandates in the States 2010" in table 2 of that paper, they list out the mandates. The total is 2156.

"Medicare denies a brain tumor drug after a patient moves" - Kevin MD

"Medicaid cuts: teeth pulled, transplant called off" DN

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

"Medicare denies a brain tumor drug after a patient moves" - Kevin MD - Redshirt1701 | 12:42 p.m.

You've used these before. Let me present the FACTS of them, again.

Paula Oertel's medicare was NOT denied because of a brain tumor. Rather, it was mistakenly removed due to a address change.
It was given back AND Medicare now covers the cost of her interferon beta, which runs about $8,000/month.

Her brain tumor is now in remission.

"Medicaid cuts: teeth pulled, transplant called off" DN

Republican Gov. Jan Brewer (Az) CUT the funding to Medicaid for this Liver Transplant.

Not Medicaid itself.

She has gone on RECORD being against goverment healthcare.

*'Gov. Jan Brewer: No funds for transplants' - by Mary Jo Pitzl - Az Central - 12/11/10

*'Two Dead Since Arizona Medicaid Program Slashed Transplant Coverage' - By JANE E. ALLEN - ABC News - 01/06/11

'Two Arizona Medicaid recipients denied potentially life-saving organ transplants have died...(sic)
...that the state's GOP governor, Jan Brewer, and GOP-led legislature said they could no longer afford.'

This will be my last post for the day.

Because UNLIKE Redshirt/1701, I ADHERE the the DSNews rules.

the truth
Holladay, UT

There is nothing civilized about demanding some else pay for your healthcare,

There is nothing honest and good about demanding someone else labor for you.

There is nothing honrable or progressive about taking people's choice and agency away.

But this is what the left demands.

Grow up and take care of yourself.

there is catastrophic heralthcare insurance to take care big things, that is waht insurance is for, NOT for daily care,

you take care of the rest.

there are family, church, and charitable organzations, fund raisers, for those who need it.

It is childish to demand other take of you,

Ther is not enough money, even when it is forcibly taken via taxation and fees, in the world to pay for everyones care, everyons retiremen, and all the other social programs, these left wingers demand.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Pagan | 1:52 p.m. " you are really funny. You accuse me of posting the same thing over again, yet you did the same thing.

What really made me laugh is the fact that the DN story that I listed only alludes to a liver transplant in AZ, but does not mention the specific incident. It also states that "In Illinois, a pharmacist closes his business because of late Medicaid payments." and "In California, dentists pull teeth that could be saved because Medicaid doesn't pay for root canals."

And what do you think happens to all of the claims that Medicare denies 6.85% of all climes while industry averages 3.88% of claims. As you have pointed out before, Medicare insures more people. So, doesn't that mean that Medicare is causing more harm to the public because they are denying more care to the people who need it the most?

So, basically, you are in favor of a system that puts more people in harms way through denial of claims.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "The Real Maverick | 12:40 p.m. " um.....you are wrong. CNS news found that 60% of Americans want the HC law repealed. Gallup found that 46% want it repealed and only 40% want it to remain the same. Even a CBS/NY Times poll found in January 2011 that more Americans want the HC law repealed.

Um, last election didn't a bunch of Democrats lose their seats in the House? Didn't enough lose their seats that the House is now Republican controlled? Also, in the Senate didn't the Democrats lose their supermajority? Also, didn't many states vote in Republican Governors to replace Democrat ones? Wouldn't you call that Democrats losing?

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Pagan,
yes, insurance and health care costs WERE going up before Obamacare. Obama promised he would fix that and bring costs down. Since costs are still going UP after Obamacare, BO lied and Obamacare is a failure.

We've heard your two stories of the fat kid and the woman with breast cancer. I guess you missed the part of the article that talked about people LOSING their insurance as a direct result of Obamacare.

Why don't you fill us in on the numerous breadwinners who can't get life insurance because they are sick or dying and how devastated their families will be financially when the breadwinner dies without life insurance so BO can pass Obamalife and force us all to buy life insurance?

Why don't you assail us with stories of how devastated we will all be if we don't eat enough vegatables so BO can pass Obamabroccoli and force us all to buy and eat broccoli?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments