Quantcast
Utah

Mitt Romney details birth of RomneyCare

Comments

Return To Article
  • standfortruth MARAMEC, OK
    June 1, 2011 12:01 p.m.

    The Constitution does not provide for a FEDERAL healthcare program. The program was admittedly designed to eventually become a "single payer" system (gov't controlled healthcare). I do NOT want the gov't. involved in controlling/determining my health care choices!

    MA's 70-page healthcare compared to Obama's 2000 page plan filled with ALL KINDS of gov't interference, control, fees, charges, etc., etc. cannot be compared the same way for very long!!

    Come on, people!

    I'm just wondering about all of those people who support the big gov't. "redistribution" whether health or $$................how CHARITABLE are you? I'm NOT talking taxes paid. That's NOT charity. I'm NOT for gov't. enforced charity to the extent the gov't. has gone!

  • rnoble Pendleton, OR
    June 1, 2011 11:27 a.m.

    page three

    after having said all that regarding health care and rights versus goods and the way insurance and overcharging contributes to healthcare costs, it still remains a right to pursue the best healthcare which i can obtain and if that means i can convince others in my society to pay for it through taxation or government largesse or government regulation or even through joining a group that will help pay (insurance) then i guess that is one means of accomplishing the best for me and my family

  • rnoble Pendleton, OR
    June 1, 2011 11:22 a.m.

    page 2

    in regards specifically to our healthcare system and costs there are two issues---1) who should get our healthcare dollars---2) how large should we allow the disparity in income to get---

    1)---money spent for my own healthcare should actually go to those who provide the care---i recognize those providing the care are supported by people also involved with administration activities but in a well integrated medical office that would be a small percentage of time and effort---insurance creates an extra layer of administration that not only has nothing to do with my health, but also increases the percentage of time and effort used in administration---

    2) it really irks me when i see medical professionals who enjoy an accumulation of material goods so large that they first begin to close their office half-days and then retire early to pursue leisure activities---if they are able to do that then they have over-charged for their services or have worked/payed their staff unfairly or both---

  • rnoble Pendleton, OR
    June 1, 2011 10:54 a.m.

    regarding john adams commentary

    i see in your list of rights a comment about property---i wonder if property should be considered a good in your arguments---one of the problems with the difference between rights and "other" is that it becomes easy to get properly defensive regarding rights and then want to continue that defense improperly as it relates to anything that we are involved with or feel ownership of like property or issues we feel strongly about---for example if one feels that it is his right to own, then he might decide to own improperly by stealing, cheating, and/or manipulating, or properly by buying and/or making---obviously in civilized societies, there are various methods used to deal with the use of those methods---it becomes then a "regulation of method" by which said society determines what is proper---in our american society, amassing great wealth has become a goal and various methods are employed, including charging various rates for goods and sevices---as a society we are constantly changing how we deal with those methods when we might be better served to address the goal itself---what is proper?---(go to page 2)

  • Jash Clearfield, UT
    June 1, 2011 10:41 a.m.

    Re: Pagan

    Did you even read Walker's ruling?

    I did. I thought it was very well reasoned.

  • John Adams Miami, FL
    June 1, 2011 9:28 a.m.

    Part 3

    When this argument is made Big Government supporters come back with, Well, if people dont have health insurance, they will just go to hospitals and we will end up paying for them anyway. We dont let people steal food from a supermarket or an apartment from a landlord or clothing from a local shop. Why do we let them take healthcare from a hospital without paying for it? The Big Government supporters contend thats charity.

    Wrong! It is impossible to be charitable with someone elses money. Charity comes from the heart, not from government spending your money. When we pay our taxes and it gives that money away, thats not charity, thats welfare.

    When the government takes more than it needs to secure our freedoms, so it can have money to give away, thats not charity, thats theft. And when the government forces hospitals to provide free health care to those who cant or wont care for themselves, thats not charity, thats slavery. Thats why we have constitutional chaos, because the government steals and enslaves, and we outlawed that a long time ago.

  • John Adams Miami, FL
    June 1, 2011 9:28 a.m.

    Part 2

    What is a good? A good is something we want or need. In a sense, it is the opposite of a right. We have our rights from birth, but we need our parents when we are children and we need ourselves as adults to purchase the goods we require for existence. So, food, shelter, clothing, education, a car, legal representation, and access to health care are goods.

    Does the government give us goods? Sometimes it takes money from some of us and gives that money to others. You can call that taxation or you can call it theft; but you cannot call it a right.

    When you look at health care and the US Constitution for what they are, when you look at the history of human freedom, when you accept the American value of the primacy of the individual over the fleeting wishes of the government, it becomes apparent that those who claim that healthcare is a right simply want to extend a form of government welfare.

  • John Adams Miami, FL
    June 1, 2011 9:27 a.m.

    Part 1

    In the public discourse over proposals for federally-managed healthcare, government progressives have tricked us. They have been promoting the idea that health care is a right.

    In promoting that false premise, they have moved the debate from WHETHER the feds should micro-manage health care to HOW the feds should micro-manage health care. This is a false premise. Health care is not a right; it is a good.

    What is a right? A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity. Thinkers from Thomas Aquinas to Pope John Paul II have argued that our rights are a natural part of our humanity. We own our bodies, thus we own the gifts that emanate from our bodies.

    So, our right to life, to think as we wish, to say what we think, to worship or not worship, to defend ourselves, to use our own property as we see fit, and our right to be left alone, are all rights that stem from our humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with. The government doesnt give them to us and the government doesnt pay for them.

  • FDRfan Sugar City, ID
    May 31, 2011 5:15 p.m.

    "I know this is going to get a lot of conversation, but the health of the people in Massachusetts is more important to me than the health of my political prospects." This is a great statement and this is a good man. I'm glad that he is getting more like is father. Utah ought to set the example for state health care but something is amiss. Why not examine Dr. Deb Richter's plan in Vermont? We are talking about health care insurance not health care. Get the greedy hands of private insurance companies out of this.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2011 4:38 p.m.

    @rifleman

    "When Obamacare hits the US Supreme Court it appears that it will be a 5/4 victory for those opposed to socialized medicine. "

    Those corporatists on the court love handing corporations power so badly (see: Citizens United) that they might just rule Obamacare constitutional since after all, health insurance companies love having millions more people required to purchase something from them. They like that part, it's the part where they have to spend at least a certain percentage on actual healthcare that they don't like. Nor do they like the pre-existing condition part. Nor do they like the public option or Medicare buy-in (both of those were of course blocked). But they love the mandate.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2011 4:26 p.m.

    @seer
    "Socialized medicine will never be effective and affordable. Without the invisible hand of competition, our health care will be just like England's....a rationing of care and a "who you know" system."

    Effective = europe has just as good a life expectancy as the U.S.
    affordable = western european nations spend 8-12% of GDP on healthcare, U.S. spends 15% of GDP on healthcare
    rationing = we already have that since insurance companies choose what they will and won't cover, socialized medicine has the benefit of not having a need to worry about profit margin
    "who you know" = no worse than current system since we're talking about insurance, private or public it's run the same way... except private has a profit margin they want to maximize

  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    May 31, 2011 4:04 p.m.

    TAMI,, Your problem with the heathcare bill is the way it was passed?? By majorities in both houses is the way it was passed. The senate passed it first 60-40. Then the house took it up after all the wailing and gnashing of teeth , it was passed by a majority. What problem do you have with the way our government works? Just because you didnt like the results, Too Bad. Thats called democracy.Courage is what President Obama has shown passing the healthcare bill, and restoring the economy. Flip Flopper Mitt has No courage, He will say whatever it takes to get elected. I got news for you Tami,, Mitt will never be president. He isnt crazy enough to get the nomination. Plus he has no integrity.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2011 3:19 p.m.

    'When Obamacare hits the US Supreme Court it appears that it will be a 5/4 victory for those opposed to socialized medicine.' - Rifleman | 3:03 p.m. May 31, 2011

    Well, so long as Republicans aren't using an agenda to manipulate the judicial process.

    WHAT was all that about federal judge Walker?

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    May 31, 2011 3:03 p.m.

    Re: Pagan | 10:05 a.m. May 31, 2011

    When Obamacare hits the US Supreme Court it appears that it will be a 5/4 victory for those opposed to socialized medicine. And no, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas isn't going to recuse himself from hearing the case as the Democrats are demanding.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    May 31, 2011 2:19 p.m.

    It's all a grab by the insurance companies anyways. Require everyone to have insurance and they suddenly got a huge influx of new customers.

    Socialized medicine is the ONLY WAY to make sure that everyone is treated fairly. Thus why every other modern nation in the world has it.

  • JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt Beverly Hills, CA
    May 31, 2011 1:39 p.m.

    Requiring people to have health insurance...Thanks Romney! Completely Constitutional!

    Got to love how many ways Romney lovers will try to explain away and parse tiny details of how different the plans are but they are essentially arguing the trim level of a car, still the same car.

  • Jash Clearfield, UT
    May 31, 2011 12:46 p.m.

    The biggist issue with Obamacare vs. Romneycare is the concept of Federalism.

    Romney's correctness in touting his plan and condemning Obamas hangs one one simple question: Did Obamacare expand federal power outside of the bounds set by the consitution.

    We will see how the courts rule in 2012.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2011 12:39 p.m.

    seer: "If you write the rules for something, dictate how funds are spent, and control the hiring/firing, and organizational structure of said industry, you have socialized it!"

    That's not the Webster's definition of socialism. What you described is called "regulation". We have regulation in many industries, so why should health care be any exception? Yes, There can be "too much regulation", but in general those are in place to protect public safety and prevent price fixing.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2011 11:54 a.m.

    'C'mon Pagan, look at England for heavens sake! There teeth are bad...' - seer | 11:18 a.m.

    How, exactly, did we go from a debate about socialisim...to racism as justification for a evident double standard in regards to 'RomneyCare' vs. 'Obamacare?'

    Regardless, healthCARE reform, was needed.

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

    *'Utahns with HIV, AIDS upset with Legislative committee's indecision on federal grant program' - By James Thalman - Deseret News - 04/14/10

    *'Only in America: Bankruptcy Due to Health Care Costs' - James E. Dalen, MD, MPH - 08/04/09
    '...the The American Journal of Medicine documents that 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.'

    *'Uninsured ER patients twice as likely to die' - AP - 11/16/09

    * 'Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance' - By Nancy Lofholm - Denver Post - 10/12/09

  • seer kaysville, ut
    May 31, 2011 11:43 a.m.

    I repeat..

    If you write the rules for something, dictate how funds are spent, and control the hiring/firing, and organizational structure of said industry, you have socialized it!

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    May 31, 2011 11:43 a.m.

    Obama details own birth two years later...

  • New Yorker Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 31, 2011 11:42 a.m.

    Tami, I disagree with you. Harry Reid is to be honored as the hero of the decade for getting anything through and forcing the country to deal with the problem. Of course it needs fixing, but at least everyone is forced to deal with the question of what is really needed for health care in the country. The debate now is great! Generations of Bushes and both Carters couldn't pull this off. Now Obama and Reid have gotten it on the table to really talk about. America really wants great health care. Socialization doesn't work. The private health insurers are behaving like the bankers did. Can we shame them into behaving better or will they have to be clawed down so that America can have quality and good value health care delivery. Folks, we have to deal with this and not try to make it go away. Thank heavens it is now on the table, and I have great confidence in our politicians to deal with it when they are forced to. Otherwise they behave as badly as the bankers and worry only about their next election during their whole term. Way to be, Harry Reid!

  • seer kaysville, ut
    May 31, 2011 11:18 a.m.

    To all who replied:

    Churchhill once said, Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth; Socialism is the equal distribution of misery!

    I agree that the current health care system needs to be tightened with cross state coverage and pre-existing condition broadening, but a government take over with a 2,700 page "how to" manuals is always a bad idea. Does anyone honestly think that the living organism of goverment healthcare will not grow into a monstrosity of inefficiency? Post office, Amtrak, Fannie/Freddie, even Congress.

    C'mon Pagan, look at England for heavens sake! There teeth are bad and there wait for average health-care is miserable. If you dictate the rules of healthcare, you own it! And by the way....they do have rationing in the U.K. Do each of you think that you can rid the system of inequalities...does the queen of England and her family have a better health-care provider than the average dole recipient...hhhhmmmm. Does Congress have a better provider than you...of course so. Inequalities will always exist....so will the grab for power!

  • Tami Herriman, UT
    May 31, 2011 10:54 a.m.

    Half of my problem with Obamacare is the way it was passed. No one really knew what was in the bill and it was pushed through in such an underhanded, rushed way that it makes everyone wonder even more what was in the bill. I have never heard anything about Romney's bill being shoved down the throats of the people of Mass that way.
    I'm glad that Mitt is sticking to his guns about this. It takes courage to do that, the kind of courage we need in the White House for someone to make the hard decisions about our budget we need to make.

  • armyvet48 cottonwood heights, Ut
    May 31, 2011 10:34 a.m.

    Seer...the itemization you show is exactly how healthcare bills look you get from any hospital today. This did not nor will it start from the health care bill passed a year or so ago. Waste and fraud plague our healthcare system now and have for many years, not just since the Healthcare Reform Act was past. We do indeed need to "fix" our healthcare system. No one has presented a good program to do it as yet but the Healthcare Reform Act was a start. Our country at present is not getting the level of healthcare the rest of the industrialized world enjoys and we pay more than they do for what we do get. Look at the studies and statistics. Just pointing fingers and spouting platitudes will not improve our healthcare situation in America. Healthy ideas and debating them, exploring them will. Let's move in that direction.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2011 10:17 a.m.

    seer:
    Luckily, Obamacare is not socialized medicine. It is insurance reform. Medical bills are paid through private insurance. Hospitals are not government owned. Doctors are not government employees. The entire model revolves around private industry and capitalism.

    Republicans should love it. They should honor Republican Mitt Romney for getting the ball rolling. They should be glad a moderate Democrat implemented the Republican idea nationally.

    You may not like the solution. You may think it doesn't address rising health care costs. But one thing Obamacare is NOT, is socialism.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    May 31, 2011 10:10 a.m.

    The problem with healthcare in America is that it's a for profit business. Disease = dollars & convalescents = customers. It should not be that way.

    Insurance is what's driving up the cost of healthcare in the first place. It wouldn't cost a couple hundred bucks to go see the doc about a cough if it weren't for insurance.

    Why?

    Because insurance skews the market and throws the laws of economics out the window.

    Traditionally, goods and services are priced at a level that the customer can afford. Which is why an oil change for your car costs $20. However you throw insurance into the mix and costs skyrocket.

    Why?

    Because when insurance is paying the doctors can charge the insurance company whatever they like. The insurance company just ups the rates to its customers and the trend continues.

    Now I'm not saying get rid of insurance. It does serve a valuable purpose in protecting people from catastrophic circumstances. HOWEVER basic things like checkups or office visits for a cold should not be covered.

    Health insurance should be like car insurance. It's there if you get in a wreck but does not cover basic maintenance.

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    May 31, 2011 10:09 a.m.

    Mitt needs to be proud of his accomplishment with health care in MA. Just need him to stay firm on that and quit bashing Obamacare that is patterned after it. Of course there are differences but when Mitt goes around bashing and promising to overturn Obamacare you have to wonder what little differences are making him so angry.

    Mitt is too sensitive about healthcare because of MA and even if he won he would not be able to help this country with healthcare due to that over-sensititivty.

    I am glad he is now decided to re-trench and stick to his guns about his healthcare choice. He has admitted it is not perfect and yet he would want people to overlook the imperfections. He is not willing to do the same for the current federal healthcare program even though it is based upon the one he instituted.

    Were he to get elected we would have to watch closely to see if we were getting up on the forgiving side of the bed or not.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2011 10:05 a.m.

    'If Obamacare were to run McDonalds, here is what your bill would look like for a hamburger...' - seer | 9:34 a.m.

    I disagree.

    If Private Insurance ran healthcare like McDonalds, you would be DENIED your hamburger entirely...after paying for it due to 'Pre-existing conditions.'

    *'Wellpoint Drops Coverage For Some Women With Breast Cancer' - By Mary Ellen Egan - Forbes Magazine - 04/23/10
    'Yesterday, an investigation by Reuters revealed that Wellpoint routinely drops coverage of women with breast cancer. According to the report, Wellpoint used a computer algorithm that automatically targeted...'

    But isn't the article about 'RomneyCare?'

    Oh! Wait! That's right!

    It's ok if a Republican does it!

  • windsor City, Ut
    May 31, 2011 9:42 a.m.

    Would like to ask what would be the problem with a sliding scale plan for paying for individual health care/insurance? If everybody paid SOMETHING, there would be less need to pay for those who now pay nothing.


    For those on welfare, they would be required to pay a percentage of what they receive too. If they showed responsibly in using selected doctors/clinics/urgent care specified for them, instead of jamming hospital ERs, they would see considerable savings. And if they chose to use the ER for things other than a true emergency, then they'd get a great big chunk taken out of their entitlements.

    20 years ago, we went to a doctor who used a sliding scale for his patients. He was compassionate, but EVERYBODY paid SOMETHING. Those who truly could not afford to pay at time of service paid something monthly, without interest.

    Worked Great. Everybody was made responsible. The students with young families, many of which didn't have insurance, could have never made it without him.

    Thanks Doctor Wells! :)

  • seer kaysville, ut
    May 31, 2011 9:34 a.m.

    If Obamacare were to run McDonalds, here is what your bill would look like for a hamburger...

    Lettuce.....5 cents
    spray of water....2 cents
    burger patty.....49 cents
    burger flipped by certified burger practitioner......35 cents
    splash of mayo.....13 cents
    mayo splashed by condiment server in training......13 cents
    mayo container recycling charge..........7 cents
    tomato.......16 cents
    bun.......17 cents
    sesame seeds....7 cents
    sesame seed sprinkler specialist....12 cents (with time and a half for weekend work)


    And remember, healthcare will not be expensive because the democrates will weed out waste, fraud, and abuse..LOL

    You get my drift....are am I being too obtuse!

  • seer kaysville, ut
    May 31, 2011 9:18 a.m.

    Socialized medicine will never be effective and affordable. Without the invisible hand of competition, our health care will be just like England's....a rationing of care and a "who you know" system. We can start by uncovering the prices that are charged by doctors and hospitals. Then, let the American people shop around for the best and most affordable care and coverage.

  • New Yorker Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 31, 2011 8:50 a.m.

    Isn't it a strange, strange world where a person can work to get health care to the people and others can make that into a bad thing. It is a great humanitarian accomplishment to get health care to the people, but there are those bought and paid for by the armaments war industries and corporate big money interests who scream it is bad. First we need to make sure everyone is getting health care, then we work out the details for organizing it. You all understand the drill, start the war now, get the details later. As a people we have no civil way to debate an issue and then move ahead. Instead we need to commit to what should happen and then work out the details. Health care is the right thing to have a available for all. We need to move forward with health care (including Medicare) and Social Security and not backwards as the right wingers would have us do. Yes it's expensive, but it's worth giving up pointless wars to have a social system that works--not welfare--but something that really works.