Deseret News | Bennett's health bill allows market competition

Reader comments
Jay Evensen: Bennett's health bill allows market competition

Answer | 8:30 a.m. Aug. 30, 2009

Jay asks:
"Which brings me to a somewhat uncomfortable question. If you are a self-professed free-market lover who opposes any type of health reform, just exactly what is it that makes the current system market-driven?"

The answer is nothing. That is what is broken and needs to be fixed. The current proposals don't really address this. If we could bring market forces back to health care, then the whole industry would rapidly reform itself.

My solution? The single most important thing that can be done is to outlaw any insurance company from paying greater than 80% of the reimbursement. If a doctor discounts for a patient, he will discount for an insurance company. If a patient is responsible for 20% of any health care bill he runs up, he will then control it far greater than any death panel ever could.

confused | 8:35 a.m. Aug. 30, 2009

Why has it taken so long to get some kind of health care reform? At least could not insurance have been portable? Why couldn't we have had all health insurance taxed or not taxed the same way whether for an individual or company?

CJ3 | 10:36 a.m. Aug. 30, 2009

Number 2 would be a victory, for the people. As it currently stands "providers" make policy decisions that are profit-driven, not geared toward patient-care.

Saying the Wyden-Bennett bill offers more choice is somewhat misleading. You will have NO choice in the matter when it comes to getting coverage, under penalty of law, if you don't pick one of the federally-backed plans.

All funds will be funneled through the federal government, and only those deemed worthy, as in those with the deepest pockets, will be providing your "choices."

Since "providers" already give billions of dollars of your policy money to political leaders, hoping to sway them this way or that, before long only a handful of the richest companies will dominate the market. The status quo will be intact, as far as they are concerned.

Comments continue below

Oh, and... | 10:44 a.m. Aug. 30, 2009

The Wyden-Bennett bill also contains a provision whereby employers will have to hand out mandatory raises to cover the costs of the proposal.

What do you think will happen when the time comes for an employer to deal out a mandatory raise to an under-performing employee?

Why, he'll probably choose to lay off that employee, instead.

The bill unintentionally promotes unemployment.

Oh Please | 11:50 a.m. Aug. 30, 2009

Health insurance is a business like any other. What sane business person takes on a client he knows will cost him more than he can bring in? That's why they won't insure sick people. That's why we need a high-risk insurance pool. And I can't imagine why a private insurer would want to participate in such a pool. The only answer is a non-profit or government option. Mr. Bennett's bill is neither and will cost vast sums -- much vaster according to the CBO -- than anything Obama has proposed.

Ammon Hennacy | 12:19 p.m. Aug. 30, 2009

No one should profit from sickness. To insure profits, private insurers ration care or fling high-cost patients into the abyss. We need a government option, on a level playing field but without exorbitant salaries for CEOs, outrageous administrative costs, stock dividends. If the government option is modeled on Medicare, that model needs fixing, but we need it for competition. Although the VA hospitals get the best ratings of any hospitals, that is because our hospitals are not, as the slogan purports, "the best in the world." I went to two of Chaffetz' town halls & except for tort reform & a government option, he is saying pretty much what President Obama is saying about health care reform. Those are big, but not irremediable differences. Throw Senator Bennett's proposal into that mix & let's get the health care that we currently pay for but don't receive.

CJ3 | 2:31 p.m. Aug. 30, 2009

Well spoken, Ammon.

Professor Leonard Schaeffer had a good point on the need for Medicare to modify itself.

"Medicare can play a significant leadership role. Other public and private payers will adopt changes in Medicare's payment structure, creating a dynamic to fundamentally transform the underlyingh delivery system.

Under a reformed payment system, quality providers willing to improve their performance have nothing to fear.

'Rationing' is a red herring. The growing unaffordability is the true problem."

Congressional Budget Office | 3:33 p.m. Aug. 30, 2009

The CBO has scored this bill as not costing the country a dime. No other plan can say that.

Mike Richards | 4:57 p.m. Aug. 30, 2009

Why is Congress interfering in private contracts?

Our Senators know that their responsibilities do not extend into the private sector. The Senators are not charged with regulating commerce between you and your health-care provider.
Our Senators need to restrict themselves to their Constitutionality allowed responsibilities.

Any Senator who does not understand his responsibilities has no business representing our STATE.

@CBO | 6:07 p.m. Aug. 30, 2009

As previously stated, it may not cost more in terms of taxes, but it's ramifications are far-reaching, and will be expensive in a multitude of other ways.

On another note; Mike Richards and CJ3 agree on something? What's this world coming to?!

rsp | 7:55 p.m. Aug. 30, 2009

I understand why we have a V.A. and I appreciate what they do despite the shortcomings they have. Other than the V.A. I have not heard a rational explanation for the Federal Government being involved in healthcare. There is no constitutional mandate. Can we simplify things for them?A stable currency and a strong National Defense/National Security (FBI,CIA). That's all I ask. JAy - I think you're headed off the reservation - I thought you were in favor of health reform at state level. I'm ok with that. This Country is way too big and unmanageable for the Federal Government to even get in involved with healthcare. K.I.S.S. principle!(keep it simple stupid)

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.