Reader comments
Joe Cramer M.D.: 3 good reasons to support federal health care
41 comments | Read story
so | 6:34 a.m. Sept. 19, 2009
You want everyone to have that type of insurance because it helped your family?
Joe, the medicare system is going bankrupt in 2017. You should know how this as
a physician. So you wish to create a big monstrous debt for the government? Or
will children like your grandson be condemned? This is a nation that aborts
children just because it get in the way of a responsible lifestyle. If we
don't have the money it will be cheaper to abort or terminate children with
"complications". Furthermore, you give an example of an insurance that
is in place for those who are poor. Why force all into that system? As a
doctor, I would expect more depth in your thought process.
Anonymous | 7:28 a.m. Sept. 19, 2009
I know of someone who didn't have insurance a legal immigrant that had a
premature baby and him and his wife worked tow and three jobs made arrangements
until they paid for the bill themselves. Now that is integrity not a sob story.
If you use a service do all you can to pay for it don't expect government
it's not there job. Roosevelt, Johnson and to some extent Bush was wrong
on there government help to people who did not pay for what they used.
Dr. Cramer's Common Sense | 7:37 a.m. Sept. 19, 2009
"When two adults elect to marry and start a family, it seemed natural that
they would become responsible for their decisions."
Dr. Cramer: Tell the above statement to students at BYU and the U who marry, breed like rabbits, and expect Medicaid to pay for it. The church needs to take more responsibility in teaching the young people to be more responsile having children. The day's are long gone when students can marry, work fulltime through school, and pay their own health insurance.
Dr. Cramer: Tell the above statement to students at BYU and the U who marry, breed like rabbits, and expect Medicaid to pay for it. The church needs to take more responsibility in teaching the young people to be more responsile having children. The day's are long gone when students can marry, work fulltime through school, and pay their own health insurance.
Comments continue below
Mike Richards | 7:54 a.m. Sept. 19, 2009
That's a good story with a happy ending.
Let's look at another possibility. What if that young couple's community realized that a medical emergency had occurred in the lives of two of its citizens? What if that young couple's community passed the hat, set up donation jars, solicited door to door for small donations from each of the other citizens of that community? What if the doctors and the hospital reduced their charges to the same rate they would have accepted had that young couple had health insurance?
Why would anyone expect the people of Nevada, or Colorado, or Mississippi, to have an interest in that young family living in Utah? Why should it be necessary for the Federal Government to demand taxes from Indiana, or New York, or Alabama, to pay for a medical emergency in Utah?
Are we not capable of helping our own? Are we not caring enough to care for our own? Are we so lazy that we'll let strangers in other States pay our bills for us?
Has America become the land of the public dole?
Let's look at another possibility. What if that young couple's community realized that a medical emergency had occurred in the lives of two of its citizens? What if that young couple's community passed the hat, set up donation jars, solicited door to door for small donations from each of the other citizens of that community? What if the doctors and the hospital reduced their charges to the same rate they would have accepted had that young couple had health insurance?
Why would anyone expect the people of Nevada, or Colorado, or Mississippi, to have an interest in that young family living in Utah? Why should it be necessary for the Federal Government to demand taxes from Indiana, or New York, or Alabama, to pay for a medical emergency in Utah?
Are we not capable of helping our own? Are we not caring enough to care for our own? Are we so lazy that we'll let strangers in other States pay our bills for us?
Has America become the land of the public dole?
rsp | 8:37 a.m. Sept. 19, 2009
So you're asking us to support Medicaid? Hello! We don't have a
choice. We already pay for it.
This is a strange argument for Government healthcare and actually illustrates why it's such a bad idea. The good Doctor writes that he didn't feel it was his responsibility to fund his son and daughter's healthcare (and I agree with that)but hen when they actually need insurance who should be responsible? The taxpayer of course!
If you are ever old and destitute for some reason maybe your children will say " it's not my responsibility to care for him- it's the Government's" and thus the nanny state carries on
This is a strange argument for Government healthcare and actually illustrates why it's such a bad idea. The good Doctor writes that he didn't feel it was his responsibility to fund his son and daughter's healthcare (and I agree with that)but hen when they actually need insurance who should be responsible? The taxpayer of course!
If you are ever old and destitute for some reason maybe your children will say " it's not my responsibility to care for him- it's the Government's" and thus the nanny state carries on
Ain't broke..... | 8:56 a.m. Sept. 19, 2009
So the current system provided happy outcome?
Then why destroy the current system.
Many of Obama's horror stories about lack of care are demonstrably false.
This is not about providing care, but it is all about increasing government power which will destroy the wonderful health care we have today.
Socialism is bad, and socialist medicine is worse!
Polls show that up to 45% of current doctors will simply change jobs rather than become serfs on the government welfare plantation. Who will provide treatment then?
Then why destroy the current system.
Many of Obama's horror stories about lack of care are demonstrably false.
This is not about providing care, but it is all about increasing government power which will destroy the wonderful health care we have today.
Socialism is bad, and socialist medicine is worse!
Polls show that up to 45% of current doctors will simply change jobs rather than become serfs on the government welfare plantation. Who will provide treatment then?
Wrong | 9:03 a.m. Sept. 19, 2009
The current system works. The anecdote proves it.
The federal proposal won't work. Massachusetts proves it.
The federal proposal won't work. Massachusetts proves it.
All Knowing | 9:17 a.m. Sept. 19, 2009
"We could have subsidized health insurance for them as a family obligation,
but frankly it never really dawned on us that paying for this pregnancy was our
duty."
Of course it didn't dawned on you. Why should it as long as you can get someone else to pay the bill? Why not ask the taxpayer to cough up most of the premiums and all of the expenses incident to the pregnancy so you can continue to line your pockets? Such a deal.
Of course it didn't dawned on you. Why should it as long as you can get someone else to pay the bill? Why not ask the taxpayer to cough up most of the premiums and all of the expenses incident to the pregnancy so you can continue to line your pockets? Such a deal.
Doug G | 9:20 a.m. Sept. 19, 2009
Or, what if families in colorado or nevada or mississippi were content in
knowing that the people of utah, and all the other states, were all in this
together and that if they needed medical help they could get it? It can work, if
we look beyond ourselves and our communities and see ourselves as a society and
nation.
One reason alone | 9:24 a.m. Sept. 19, 2009
Doctors have one (bad) reason for supporting health care: to keep the price of
health care high by making it a requirement for all, with the penalty of a nasty
fine for dissenters.
This will keep doctors busy and rich. I'm starting to believe in the greedy doctor syndrome. They will rob us of our property and freedom at once and it's just fine as long as they continue to prosper.
Selfish doctors.
This will keep doctors busy and rich. I'm starting to believe in the greedy doctor syndrome. They will rob us of our property and freedom at once and it's just fine as long as they continue to prosper.
Selfish doctors.
@ Mike Richards | 10:09 a.m. Sept. 19, 2009
"What if?"
Well, they haven't. People are selfish animals, who want "their's" and forget the rest. If the charitable wishes of your personal utopia were to be found in the real world, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Besides, I thought you were against folks knocking on your door, asking for help.
Well, they haven't. People are selfish animals, who want "their's" and forget the rest. If the charitable wishes of your personal utopia were to be found in the real world, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Besides, I thought you were against folks knocking on your door, asking for help.
KM | 10:11 a.m. Sept. 19, 2009
One reason to not support Obama on health care; More government control.
Joe Cramer | 10:39 a.m. Sept. 19, 2009
To Mike Richards, while there is a certain nobility in the community rallying
around each other paying for a health care system by garage and bake sales seems
like a poor way to finance a system. Is not America a community therefore what
happens to a young family in Nevada does effect us all? To common sense:I
wouldn't call my son and his wife rabbits, but without the data I
don't know if the LDS students where ever they attend school use Medicaid
more than non-LDS unmaried high school drop outs.To SO, thank you for your high
expectations for me as a physician in my thinking but nowhere did I advocate
this is the only way to finance health care, but it does show there could be a
place for some. Also one of the reasons it is going bust was implied by the
description of the misadventurs. Until physicians are including in the solution
and made accountable for their expensive interventions there will be more
runaway costs. Braedon's bill was unnecessary with one excessive therapy
lead to two more costly complications. We can't expect every single
individual to pay for millions.
Two Nations | 11:10 a.m. Sept. 19, 2009
@Doug G
There are two nations in the USA: the givers and the takers.
What you are saying is that the givers should be less greedy and give ever more to the takers.
That is not good logic and inherently unjust.
Unlike mercy it is not twice blessed but twice cursed: it curses he who is robbed and he who receives the stolen goods.
There are two nations in the USA: the givers and the takers.
What you are saying is that the givers should be less greedy and give ever more to the takers.
That is not good logic and inherently unjust.
Unlike mercy it is not twice blessed but twice cursed: it curses he who is robbed and he who receives the stolen goods.
Le w Jeppson | 11:18 a.m. Sept. 19, 2009
We found out we were all in this together when the previous administration
bailed out the big banks of necessity. If we can do that, we can take care of
each others' health.
Abominous | 11:41 a.m. Sept. 19, 2009
@Two Nations
The givers are often ordinary people who pay healthcare premiums for years, only to be denied coverage or have their policies rescinded when they actually need benefits.
The takers are the insurance companies that make obscene profits based on systematic exclusion and denial of coverage.
It's amazing to me how the people crying "socialism" seem to be so appalled at the notion that we should take care of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens, while defending the right of the wealthiest to maximize their profits without any accountability.
Our current healthcare system is like a legalized protection racket. And the right wing seems perfectly happy to "Pay up, or something bad might happen to your family."
The givers are often ordinary people who pay healthcare premiums for years, only to be denied coverage or have their policies rescinded when they actually need benefits.
The takers are the insurance companies that make obscene profits based on systematic exclusion and denial of coverage.
It's amazing to me how the people crying "socialism" seem to be so appalled at the notion that we should take care of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens, while defending the right of the wealthiest to maximize their profits without any accountability.
Our current healthcare system is like a legalized protection racket. And the right wing seems perfectly happy to "Pay up, or something bad might happen to your family."
non-LDS | 11:58 a.m. Sept. 19, 2009
I would never get help from LDS since I'm not a member. Their response to
people like me is 'if you don't like it you can leave'.
I want public health care.
I want public health care.
To Lew | 12:14 p.m. Sept. 19, 2009
To expound on your thoughts;
Also begun by the previous administration was the saving of the auto industry. GM has started paying back it's taxpayer-funded loan.
Meanwhile, the Big Banking industry sits on it's collective hands, neither loaning nor paying back it's loans, the loans that saved their butts.
They are thumbing their comfy noses at both the American people, who made them wealthy beyond compare, and the two government administrations that bailed them out, on the dime of the people.
I have little trust in the capitalist healthcare industry's ability to move from profiteering to patient care. They have shown time and again that they cannot act in good faith. They MUST be held accountable, and that is what our democratic government can do for us.
Also begun by the previous administration was the saving of the auto industry. GM has started paying back it's taxpayer-funded loan.
Meanwhile, the Big Banking industry sits on it's collective hands, neither loaning nor paying back it's loans, the loans that saved their butts.
They are thumbing their comfy noses at both the American people, who made them wealthy beyond compare, and the two government administrations that bailed them out, on the dime of the people.
I have little trust in the capitalist healthcare industry's ability to move from profiteering to patient care. They have shown time and again that they cannot act in good faith. They MUST be held accountable, and that is what our democratic government can do for us.
Mike Richards | 12:21 p.m. Sept. 19, 2009
@ 10:09,
Why would you think that I would automatically turn away someone who "asked" for help? I'm almost embarrassed to admit that my family is known as being a "soft-touch" when it comes to fund raising and special needs.
What I object to is being "forced" to participate in an un-constitutional program. "Force" is the operative word.
@ Dr. Cramer,
With all due respect, your family faced a special, non-typical circumstance. The ideal solution would have been that your children took responsibility, before the crisis, to obtain insurance.
Most young couples realize that with marriage comes children and with children come medical bills. Most young couples, realizing that they can't pay for those medical bills choose to buy insurance. In fact, the two times in life when medical expenses are the norm, and not the exception, are when children are being born and when us old fogies face the natural end-of-life health issues.
Why force all Americans to provide for the unwilling or the unwise? Decisions have consequences. Communities are willing to help for the extraordinary problems, but individuals and family should handle the ordinary expenses of life.
Why would you think that I would automatically turn away someone who "asked" for help? I'm almost embarrassed to admit that my family is known as being a "soft-touch" when it comes to fund raising and special needs.
What I object to is being "forced" to participate in an un-constitutional program. "Force" is the operative word.
@ Dr. Cramer,
With all due respect, your family faced a special, non-typical circumstance. The ideal solution would have been that your children took responsibility, before the crisis, to obtain insurance.
Most young couples realize that with marriage comes children and with children come medical bills. Most young couples, realizing that they can't pay for those medical bills choose to buy insurance. In fact, the two times in life when medical expenses are the norm, and not the exception, are when children are being born and when us old fogies face the natural end-of-life health issues.
Why force all Americans to provide for the unwilling or the unwise? Decisions have consequences. Communities are willing to help for the extraordinary problems, but individuals and family should handle the ordinary expenses of life.
Pig in a poke . . . | 12:26 p.m. Sept. 19, 2009
That's what Obamacare is... It all sounds good. "Reduced Costs"
"Everyone is covered" "even the poor get access to great health
care" etc. etc. The Problem? The above statements are all misleading.
Obamacare is a "con job." The government cannot reduce costs while at the same time increasing coverage for things like pre-existing conditions even if they did not include "everyone' in the system. Adding more people will increase costs even more. It is a proven fact that government cannot run effective heath care. Look at the VA - most vets will not even enter a VA hospital unless they have no choice. Look at Medicare and Medicaid. They pay Providers 20% less than the private system (some Doctors have to limit how many Medicaid patients they will take) yet Medicaid is said to be $$38 trillion dollars in the hole (unfunded mandates).
On top of that, please realize government overhead will be many times the "obscene" 8% average profit insurance companies make.
There is a solution lets eliminate the bad tax and regulatory policies that created our current system and make it truly a free market system. We can subsidize the poor and still save money.
Obamacare is a "con job." The government cannot reduce costs while at the same time increasing coverage for things like pre-existing conditions even if they did not include "everyone' in the system. Adding more people will increase costs even more. It is a proven fact that government cannot run effective heath care. Look at the VA - most vets will not even enter a VA hospital unless they have no choice. Look at Medicare and Medicaid. They pay Providers 20% less than the private system (some Doctors have to limit how many Medicaid patients they will take) yet Medicaid is said to be $$38 trillion dollars in the hole (unfunded mandates).
On top of that, please realize government overhead will be many times the "obscene" 8% average profit insurance companies make.
There is a solution lets eliminate the bad tax and regulatory policies that created our current system and make it truly a free market system. We can subsidize the poor and still save money.
Mike Richards | 12:38 p.m. Sept. 19, 2009
Where are all of those profits that the big, bad insurance companies are
collecting? What percent of revenues goes to salaries? What percent of
revenues goes to general overhead? What percent of revenues pays the doctors
and hospitals that are (usually) under contract to accept less than optimum
payments for their services?
If you pay an insurance company a fee, and then that insurance company pays a doctor and/or hospital for the services, and if those fees are discounted because the insurance company negotiated a discount for those services, and if you end up paying LESS because of the insurance company, why are you complaining?
The stories about insurance companies refusing services that are guaranteed in writing within the policy are false. Unless the customer lied in his application and misrepresented his health, the insurance company is obligated by law to provide all guaranteed services.
The customer knows before he has paid even one cent to the insurance company whether he will be covered.
The fear mongering stories are just that - stories made up and presented to rile up the ignorant.
The State licenses all insurance companies. Talk to the State if you have a complaint.
If you pay an insurance company a fee, and then that insurance company pays a doctor and/or hospital for the services, and if those fees are discounted because the insurance company negotiated a discount for those services, and if you end up paying LESS because of the insurance company, why are you complaining?
The stories about insurance companies refusing services that are guaranteed in writing within the policy are false. Unless the customer lied in his application and misrepresented his health, the insurance company is obligated by law to provide all guaranteed services.
The customer knows before he has paid even one cent to the insurance company whether he will be covered.
The fear mongering stories are just that - stories made up and presented to rile up the ignorant.
The State licenses all insurance companies. Talk to the State if you have a complaint.
Mike Richards | 1:03 p.m. Sept. 19, 2009
@ 11:58,
I know of no prohibitions that keeps you from donating to the LDS Church for their world-wide relief efforts.
I also know of no prohibition within the LDS Church that restricts help to members only.
It seems just a little far-fetched to think that all natural disasters, world-wide, where the LDS Church is immediately on the scene, only involve members of the LDS Church. When hurricane Katrina hit, did the LDS Church ONLY provide assistance to its members? That's not what was being reported in the Deseret News.
The LDS Church helps as many people as it has resources to help, regardless of religious affiliation.
Facts are so easy to check that there is no excuse to write false and misleading information.
Now, if you're saying that you want a Church to support you financially, when you should be handling your own needs, that is another problem altogether. One of the main purposes of a church is to help people grow and develop and become better people. Feeding someone who is perfectly capable of feeding himself does not make that person better.
I know of no prohibitions that keeps you from donating to the LDS Church for their world-wide relief efforts.
I also know of no prohibition within the LDS Church that restricts help to members only.
It seems just a little far-fetched to think that all natural disasters, world-wide, where the LDS Church is immediately on the scene, only involve members of the LDS Church. When hurricane Katrina hit, did the LDS Church ONLY provide assistance to its members? That's not what was being reported in the Deseret News.
The LDS Church helps as many people as it has resources to help, regardless of religious affiliation.
Facts are so easy to check that there is no excuse to write false and misleading information.
Now, if you're saying that you want a Church to support you financially, when you should be handling your own needs, that is another problem altogether. One of the main purposes of a church is to help people grow and develop and become better people. Feeding someone who is perfectly capable of feeding himself does not make that person better.
Dan Cramer | 1:38 p.m. Sept. 19, 2009
@Mike Richards
I appreciate your thoughtful comments on the issue. As more background for you, my wife and I were "responsible" and had looked into a lot of different insurance options before we even thought about having kids. We had insurance through the school program and then purchased additional riders to offset a planned pregnancy. Medicaid was not even looked at in this initial planning process. We planned the best we could and thought that we would be fully prepared for a baby.
Then we had twins along with the described health complications. At the end, even with insurance, our bill was more than we were able to handle at that time. We were pointed to the Medicaid office as a potential source of help.
While I understand the hesitation to 'force' people into supporting others, I'm very glad that the resource was there when our planning didn't adequately cover our situation.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments on the issue. As more background for you, my wife and I were "responsible" and had looked into a lot of different insurance options before we even thought about having kids. We had insurance through the school program and then purchased additional riders to offset a planned pregnancy. Medicaid was not even looked at in this initial planning process. We planned the best we could and thought that we would be fully prepared for a baby.
Then we had twins along with the described health complications. At the end, even with insurance, our bill was more than we were able to handle at that time. We were pointed to the Medicaid office as a potential source of help.
While I understand the hesitation to 'force' people into supporting others, I'm very glad that the resource was there when our planning didn't adequately cover our situation.
Hmmm | 2:19 p.m. Sept. 19, 2009
As one who makes a bit more than the ceiling for medicaid, and can't afford
$1400 a month insurance premium due to a preexisting condition, my last health
crisis cost billed me $30,000. Sure, the providers negotiated with me to repay
them, for $1500 a month or they would take me to court. I filed bankruptcy, so
all of your premiums are going to go up. Nice system you have here, eat cake!
Both sides want a good outcome | 2:41 p.m. Sept. 19, 2009
Both sides want a good outcome on the healthcare issue. Democrats need to get
over their self-reightous attitude that only THEY want a good outcome. The
other side does too, they just disagree with how to do it. We need to work
together to find a solution. Cramming it down our throats just means we have to
wait 3-7 years to change the majority and then cram YET ANOTHER system down your
throats.
Unless there is REAL bipartisan support for this solution it is just a temporary solution... and the next time there is a political swing.... the FIRST item on the agenda of the new administration will be... To exercise their wrath and wipe all the stuff Obama crammed down our throats off the books (sort of the way the Democrats are treating their recently won majority).
We need to work TOGETHER!
Unless there is REAL bipartisan support for this solution it is just a temporary solution... and the next time there is a political swing.... the FIRST item on the agenda of the new administration will be... To exercise their wrath and wipe all the stuff Obama crammed down our throats off the books (sort of the way the Democrats are treating their recently won majority).
We need to work TOGETHER!
Mike Richards... | 3:41 p.m. Sept. 19, 2009
...is wrong.
However, the capital "D" News refuses to post my rebuttal. Look up "rescission." Insurance companies deny paid-for coverage all the time.
However, the capital "D" News refuses to post my rebuttal. Look up "rescission." Insurance companies deny paid-for coverage all the time.
Feeling Used | 3:54 p.m. Sept. 19, 2009
Dr. Cramer, health department records do in fact bear out that young Mormon
couples attending BYU have the majority of babies that force the parents to go
on Medicaid. Thousands of babies every year.
I am personally outraged that you think it is my responsibility to pay the taxes that allowed your child to be an irresponsible sheep following the dictates of your church to "go forth and multiply."
And you as a physician didn't think it was your job as a parent to help pay. It wasn't, but it was certainly more yours than mine.
I am personally outraged that you think it is my responsibility to pay the taxes that allowed your child to be an irresponsible sheep following the dictates of your church to "go forth and multiply."
And you as a physician didn't think it was your job as a parent to help pay. It wasn't, but it was certainly more yours than mine.
@both sides want a good outcome | 4:04 p.m. Sept. 19, 2009
Neither side wants a good outcome. They have become so corrupt that the only
thing they want is power and more power!
All Knowing | 4:06 p.m. Sept. 19, 2009
@ Mike Richards... 3:41 p.m.
"Insurance companies deny paid-for coverage all the time."
Then find a lawyer and sue.
"Insurance companies deny paid-for coverage all the time."
Then find a lawyer and sue.
Anonymous | 4:11 p.m. Sept. 19, 2009
We like the current system: we get to insure the healthy and offload the sick to
taxpayers.
How so? When any one of the 47 million uninsured Americans need care they go to the emergency room — at 5 times the cost of a doctor’s visit! — Taxpayers are already footing that bill nice and quietly everyday. And hospitals get to charge full market rates while we only insure wealthy, healthy customers. It’s a win-win! Well, maybe not for taxpayers…
Sick people are bad for good profits.
We’re a business. We have to cut the weak links in the chain. Sick
people are those weak links.
Some people say the healthcare system is broken. But it works for us.
Just like Congress.
Just imagine all of the new businesses or creative energy people would invest their time and true talents in if they weren’t chained to a job they hated just for “healthcare benefits”. My gawd, ask anyone at the country club — there are way too many nouveau-riche already!
How so? When any one of the 47 million uninsured Americans need care they go to the emergency room — at 5 times the cost of a doctor’s visit! — Taxpayers are already footing that bill nice and quietly everyday. And hospitals get to charge full market rates while we only insure wealthy, healthy customers. It’s a win-win! Well, maybe not for taxpayers…
Sick people are bad for good profits.
We’re a business. We have to cut the weak links in the chain. Sick
people are those weak links.
Some people say the healthcare system is broken. But it works for us.
Just like Congress.
Just imagine all of the new businesses or creative energy people would invest their time and true talents in if they weren’t chained to a job they hated just for “healthcare benefits”. My gawd, ask anyone at the country club — there are way too many nouveau-riche already!
Abominous | 5:10 p.m. Sept. 19, 2009
Sounds like Anonymous at 4:11 works in the insurance industry. I've done a
lot of work in and for the healthcare information systems industry. There are
armies of people using sophisticated software programs whose only job is to find
reasons to deny claims and minimize payments. They don't do anything to
help people get well. Their job is to keep Wall Street happy.
A woman recently testified before Congress that her policy was rescinded because she had neglected to report on her insurance application that she had been treated for acne as a teenager. She needed a double mastectomy. By the time she was able to lawyer up and get the insurance company to cover the procedure, her tumors had doubled in size.
Is that what you call "lying" on the insurance application, Mike Richards? Do you think it's just an aberration? I've seen first-hand the tactics and procedures the insurance companies use to deny coverage to people who have paid thousands of dollars into the system for years, just when they need the services they've been paying for.
Disgusting. A moral society takes care of its people, preexisting condition or no.
A woman recently testified before Congress that her policy was rescinded because she had neglected to report on her insurance application that she had been treated for acne as a teenager. She needed a double mastectomy. By the time she was able to lawyer up and get the insurance company to cover the procedure, her tumors had doubled in size.
Is that what you call "lying" on the insurance application, Mike Richards? Do you think it's just an aberration? I've seen first-hand the tactics and procedures the insurance companies use to deny coverage to people who have paid thousands of dollars into the system for years, just when they need the services they've been paying for.
Disgusting. A moral society takes care of its people, preexisting condition or no.
Ultra Bob | 5:35 p.m. Sept. 19, 2009
To Mike Richards | 7:54 a.m.
Let’s look at another possibility. What if there were 500, or 5000 young couples, plus some old folks and even some out right bums. And new ones everyday. All with disastrous medical emergency problems. Do you really think that the community would voluntarily come to the aid of those medical emergencies? I don’t.
The reason that we expect the people in Nevada, or Colorado, and Mississippi, to have an interest in a young family in Utah with a medical problem is because we are all Americans. And have pledged to help each other and share the overall burden of citizenship in the United States of America.
Let’s look at another possibility. What if there were 500, or 5000 young couples, plus some old folks and even some out right bums. And new ones everyday. All with disastrous medical emergency problems. Do you really think that the community would voluntarily come to the aid of those medical emergencies? I don’t.
The reason that we expect the people in Nevada, or Colorado, and Mississippi, to have an interest in a young family in Utah with a medical problem is because we are all Americans. And have pledged to help each other and share the overall burden of citizenship in the United States of America.
Lew Jeppson | 8:11 p.m. Sept. 19, 2009
@Mike Richards: Obviously people in medical distress should respectfully beg
for help. Nonsense! Are we a community or a pack or ravenous dogs?
True | 9:02 p.m. Sept. 19, 2009
Three bad reasons to want government style health care: 1) Death wish, 2)
Death and taxes should be more painful, 3) Death from neglect at a government
hospital is more certain than death while waiting at the government DMV.
Keith Cavanaugh | 11:12 p.m. Sept. 19, 2009
Some good comments here, but I want to make an extremely important point. Why
is it that it now costs about $10,000 for a 24-hour hospital stay compared to
$100 around 1970? I and my generation are the guilty parties! We fell for the
lure of employer-provided "full coverage" health insurance. This
really got going in the early '70's, and the results were disastrous.
With "someone else" paying essentially all the bills, we paid almost
no attention to skyrocketing health care costs for about 35 years.
In short, we abandoned basic economic principles. For the first 35 years of my life, health care costs were reasonable because we took PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for our health care and held providers ACCOUNTABLE for the quality and the cost.
We still abide by those powerful principles regarding other necessities such as food, clothing, housing, cars, etc. As a result, those costs have just gone up with inflation.
The last thing we need is more government bureaucracy. As citizens, we need to get back to basic economic principles in regard to health care--then we can get the costs back to reasonable levels.
In short, we abandoned basic economic principles. For the first 35 years of my life, health care costs were reasonable because we took PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for our health care and held providers ACCOUNTABLE for the quality and the cost.
We still abide by those powerful principles regarding other necessities such as food, clothing, housing, cars, etc. As a result, those costs have just gone up with inflation.
The last thing we need is more government bureaucracy. As citizens, we need to get back to basic economic principles in regard to health care--then we can get the costs back to reasonable levels.
Thunderbolt | 9:09 a.m. Sept. 20, 2009
The Doc. ought to know that anecdotal stories do not make good evidence for a
case. They are just stories.
Great point, Keith | 10:23 a.m. Sept. 20, 2009
But for one thing.
The "providers" are so intertwined with the government at this point, with contributions, and so massive in big business, that only government intervention can reel them back in.
Unless consumers stop paying them, but I don't see that happening. They have forced our dependence on them, at this juncture. They dictate the terms of health-care in this country, the only country that they can do so in.
The "providers" are so intertwined with the government at this point, with contributions, and so massive in big business, that only government intervention can reel them back in.
Unless consumers stop paying them, but I don't see that happening. They have forced our dependence on them, at this juncture. They dictate the terms of health-care in this country, the only country that they can do so in.
Thinkin' Man | 5:13 p.m. Sept. 20, 2009
What Dr. Cramer should really support is cheaper health care, not taxpayer
subsidized health care. If prices were low, insurance wouldn't matter.
We need to work on lowering cost, which everyone except Congress and the President knows how to do.
We need to work on lowering cost, which everyone except Congress and the President knows how to do.
Mike Richards | 2:12 p.m. Sept. 21, 2009
alias,
Ebenezer Scrooge
Archie Bunker
Ebenezer Scrooge
Archie Bunker
Red | 3:03 p.m. Sept. 21, 2009
so: "If [Evil Socialists take over medical care] it will be cheaper to
abort or terminate children with 'complications'."
It's cheaper *now*, with medical care controlled by Patriotic Super-American Insurance Oligolopies, to abort than to deliver.
With or without "complications."
Your point?
Mike Richards: "The ideal solution would have been that your children took responsibility, before the crisis, to obtain insurance."
Been there.
Tried that.
BZZZT! Pre-Existing Condition! (lived too many years; showing signs of "wear and tear")
The current Profitus Maximus health care oligopoly ain't interested.
That's one of the major, major reforms we need -- even if you don't make it mandatory that everyone carry insurance, at least make it possible.
Feeling Used: "health department records do in fact bear out that young Mormon couples attending BYU have the majority of babies that force the parents to go on Medicaid."
I'd like a source on this.
Given the population imbalance, I'd be surprised if California (or, for that matter, even just metro Los Angeles) doesn't have more "medicaid moms" than BYU has moms!
Let alone the whole country (what, somewhere under 2% LDS?) --
It's cheaper *now*, with medical care controlled by Patriotic Super-American Insurance Oligolopies, to abort than to deliver.
With or without "complications."
Your point?
Mike Richards: "The ideal solution would have been that your children took responsibility, before the crisis, to obtain insurance."
Been there.
Tried that.
BZZZT! Pre-Existing Condition! (lived too many years; showing signs of "wear and tear")
The current Profitus Maximus health care oligopoly ain't interested.
That's one of the major, major reforms we need -- even if you don't make it mandatory that everyone carry insurance, at least make it possible.
Feeling Used: "health department records do in fact bear out that young Mormon couples attending BYU have the majority of babies that force the parents to go on Medicaid."
I'd like a source on this.
Given the population imbalance, I'd be surprised if California (or, for that matter, even just metro Los Angeles) doesn't have more "medicaid moms" than BYU has moms!
Let alone the whole country (what, somewhere under 2% LDS?) --
Daniel | 1:16 p.m. Sept. 23, 2009
So Joe, rather than taking responsibility and helping your children when you
could have; you let other people who were possibly struggling and poor, pay for
your children with their tax money. I know that not all parents have that
ability, but shouldn't they all try?
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.
- Woods says he let family down 10:12 a.m.
- Recount in Atlanta mayoral race 9:54 a.m.
- Jurors defend verdict in Texas 9:52 a.m.
- New York charges don't stick to Gotti 9:51 a.m.
- Provo police seek 5 in robbery 9:50 a.m.
- Blackwater founder cutting ties 9:49 a.m.
- Blood found in Yale suspect's home 9:48 a.m.
- Allen Iverson signs with 76ers again 9:48 a.m.
- FDIC: bank access lacking for poor 9:23 a.m.
- Publishers strengthen 'pay walls' 9:22 a.m.
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game
- Witness: Mitchell wanted attention
- BYU says Hall incident resolved
- Max Hall: a fixture in rivalry lore
- Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?
- Find joy in life, Bishop Burton says
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan
- McCoy to resign from Utah Senate
- Cougars, Utes on list of MWC honorees
- BCS just keeps dirty laundry on spin
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
907 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime483
- Hall reprimanded by MWC404
- Max Hall issues apology388
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal351
- Utes won't respond to Hall276
- BYU says Hall incident resolved240
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game164
- BYU is champion of the state143
- Religion in politics is tiresome135
Latest comments
Why? Because BYU can't deal with its real character. No ignore one's failing...
"Miles has potetial" CJ shows "climpses or has moments" I`m still trying to...
A strong public option is a step in the right direction, but only a tiny...
This is the "good war", right?
I fail to understand why the news reports put so much emphasis on what Zelaya...
The powers that be, Congress and the President don't have to get rid of...
I'm going to be sick. The manipulation by so-called "reality stars" and what...
I Wonder why?
I thought I told the American Public that the war was already lost YEARS ago...
What we need is a candidate who will commit to helping bring Congress back...
Advertisements