Deseret News | Fear of government hinders health-care reform

Reader comments
Fear of government hinders health-care reform

Interloper | 5:13 a.m. Sept. 29, 2009

Leavitt did nothing in that position in the Bush administration. So, it is not surprising that he is counseling that nothing be done about health care insurance reform.

Freedom Fighter | 8:05 a.m. Sept. 29, 2009

Agreed! It's long past time to end the government's insane, price-increasing monopoly granted to the medical doctors and their pharma pals have over our lives. Libertarianism now!!!

Earl | 8:06 a.m. Sept. 29, 2009

You're dang right that fear of government "hinders" health care reform! Government is the reason it's in such a mess now! More government will only make it worse. Fear of government is the basis of the U.S. Constitution, for heaven's sake! The Constitution was put into place to put chains on the temptation toward more government power. Government regulation has chosen winners and losers in the health industry and made the winners incredibly rich and powerful. The ability of other businesses to compete is almost nil because of those regulations.

Comments continue below

rvalens2 | 8:57 a.m. Sept. 29, 2009

Majorie it's interesting that you provided the solution for health care reform in your article, perhaps without even realizing it.

Competition.

"... The demonstration project revealed huge savings could be achieved through this process ..."

Health care costs are high because of government's interference in the process.

Your own words prove this.

"... industry representatives start pressuring members of Congress to pull the plug on the pilot project, which they did."

And yet, you want to turn the process over to a government that was a major cause for the steep rise in health care costs?

Bad idea.

There are better ways to lower health care costs for all. But turning it over to the government isn't the solution ... it's the problem.

Government Out! | 9:47 a.m. Sept. 29, 2009

OK. Let's totally lift all regulations for health care. The free market will go crazy and our costs for health care will plunge downward to the point that most Americans will be able to afford health care if (and only if) they care to buy it. While we are at it let's get government out of prescription meds. The market will decide which medicines are helpful and safe. Let's quit wasting money on tests and trials. We'll know sooner rather than later which products are safe. Drug companies will let us know with increased advertising. If we deregulate everyting we'll soon solve all our problems and the deficit will be gone . . .just like that!!!

Oh Please | 9:59 a.m. Sept. 29, 2009

Mikey Leavitt is an expert at smiling and doing nothing. His tiny little experiment ran into trouble with five fat Republican Congressmen from Texas, and instead of standing up to them, he caved. Those Repubs were big beneficiaries of medical-device company donations, e.g. Sen. John Cornyn. Leavitt is not only a wimp, he's a Republican wimp.

Joey | 10:00 a.m. Sept. 29, 2009

Insurance companies, doctors, drug companies, etc. have had DECADES to form a solution. When may we expect some action? In another fifty years? Government isn't the problem ... democrats, republicans, insurance companies, drug companies, etc. ARE THE PROBLEM.

New Idea | 10:10 a.m. Sept. 29, 2009

You hire a medical broker to find the best price and the best performance in medicine, he gets paid a fee. Bet the price would come down to less than 50% of current controlled market. Why should I be paying for the birth of babies, or viagra or rehab from drug addiction or social work counselors? I have specific interests and a superior healthy lifestyle. There are many many better solutions than the government intervention in the medical market. The needy have their medical care taken care of. Take the chains off and let free enterprise work.

Gimme a Break | 10:14 a.m. Sept. 29, 2009

"Competition"
What has stopped health insurance companies from competing before now? Oh, the Republicans think the solution is to open up competition across state borders. Yet, the trend in our economy is consolidation--which is how we've got too many companies who are "too big to fail." This proposal also ignores the huge additional complexity which will fall on the shoulders of Drs. who are already spending 40+ hrs/wk dealing with various insurance companies and different plans within those insurance companies.

Why are we listeing to Republicans anyway? Aren't they the ones who crafted Medicare Part D--the giveaway to Pharma that wasn't paid for? Now they're whining about the changes proposed for Medicare Advantage--a giveaway to private health insurers who are ripping taxpayers off.

right | 10:55 a.m. Sept. 29, 2009

the government needs to prove they can run medicare and social security before they embark on another massive entitlement program - so far they have not done so.

I think she gets it... | 11:19 a.m. Sept. 29, 2009

I actually think Marjorie gets it! That's AMAZING for someone in the media to actually get this.

Of course it's about people fearing (or better put... not wanting to be controled by.. or regulated by) the Government.

We don't want to give the Government control of too much of our life because THEY DON'T ALWAYS AGREE WITH US. We want the freedom to make our own decisions, our own mistakes, it's the only way we can achieve our own success!

And even IF I feel the government is doing a good job today... Things will always change. People who think/act like me will not ALWAYS be in power. Obama will not ALWAYS be in power. Some day the Republicans (and by proxy the religious_right) will be controling this same Healthcare monopoly you are begging for. THEN what are your chances of getting increased abortion rights funded by the Government???

From my life experience, the government can only understand and support about half of the population's concerns at any given time. TODAY it's the Obama people's agenda. But in a few years, who knows?

I think she gets it... (2) | 11:28 a.m. Sept. 29, 2009

The same control/power over your life you give the government today... will eventually be in the hands of people you DON'T agree with. THAT, is a certainty.

So you need to ask yourself... When the Obama administration is gone, and even heaven forbid, when a Republican or an independent or gasp, even a fiscal reformer should be in power and having to cut the Gov healthcare plan to save the country from bankruptcy... Will you be just as happy?

In the future... your employer no longer provides any healthcare benefits (That was a bygone idea outlawed by Obama YEARS ago). And FURTHER into the future the Gov decides it can no longer afford to provide these benefits... So... what do you do now?

Personally I don't want to turn this part of my life over to the government permanently. Today I may like what they are doing. But current performance is no guarantee of future performance. You never know WHO will control the government in the future or what their agenda or focus will be.

They may not agree with you (politically, socially, morally, etc) your values, your family concerns, your family needs, etc, at all.

wk4chng | 11:33 a.m. Sept. 29, 2009

I was taken aback by Michael Moore’s observation in “Sicko” that industrialized countries fear upsetting their citizens; but most Americans fear their government. After all, this is the Land of the Free, not Iran.
In the example Secretary Leavitt cited, the process was not arbitrarily invented and imposed by some external regime. It evolved from and for local citizens’ expectations for the safety of their lives and property. We have the power and access to the means for changing what doesn’t work. Fear and suspicion of government intervention, like most fears, is exacerbated by the average American’s civic ignorance and laziness. This is overlooked by media and politicians who stress the ‘you can’t beat city hall’ sentiment. WE are the Government.
Our food supply, our economy, our safety, etc. were compromised due to this sentiment. We’ve been at the mercy of politicians who used claims to ‘get the government off our back’ to mask their ineptness at managing public entities. We have to protect our privacy, safety and independence by holding them and civil servants to high standards. They, in turn, need to find better ways to communicate with us.

What did I say wrong this time | 11:35 a.m. Sept. 29, 2009

How about competition in ideas?

Not only for health care, where there is at present a virtual "take it or leave it" attitude in the government, despite talks of bi-partisan input, but also for posts o the subject - on this thread for example.

Yet again I can't get my view expressed in the online print.

I kept all the rules DesNews (my favorite paper out of a bad bunch). My! My! What did I say wrong this time?

Monopoly = Competition? | 11:39 a.m. Sept. 29, 2009

How does giving the government a monopoly to provide healthcare increase competition?

I know that isn't what THIS bill does. But we all know that Obama (and MANY Democrat leaders and Union Bosses) have said that they want a single payer system in the United States (that's a monopoly).

They've backtracked on this in the public eye recently, but there are plenty of recorded speaches from the past and some even today, where Democrat leaders and Union leaders have expressed that they won't be satisfied until we have a single payer system, and they see this bill as just the first step.

Most Doctors and Leftist leaders/organizers realize that this plan will eventually colapse the free-market healthcare system... and we will have no other choice but to rely on the Government to provide it.

They know we will be BEGGING the government to take over healthcare when private insurace rates skyrocket to accomodate the new laws. The system will colapse and the government will be the last man standing. That's the strategy. How does that increase competition?

Reason | 1:56 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

It’s GOOD to have a “fear” of government — or at least a basic skepticism. It’s part of our duty that the founders implied when they said that “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” That vigilance applies to threats from foreign enemies, of course. But — less obvious — it also applies to internal threats from those who would expand the power and reach of government, which always results in higher taxes and loss of freedom.

Interloper | 2:53 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

It should be noted that Michael Leavitt is a lobbyist being paid by the insurance companies, drug industry and for profit hospitals to oppose health care insurance reform. His most prominent lobbying role has been as a proponent of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Now, after that 'success,' he is shifting his energies to preventing any meaningful reform of this country's health care mess.

I urge readers to refresh their memories of who Leavitt is and what he has done by at least reading his Wikipedia entry.

Corporate vigilance | 2:57 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

Of course we should maintain a sense of skepticism in order to arrive at the best solution. I read/hear a lot of skepticism about govt. What about corporations? Corporations goal is to make a profit--satisfy their board members. Most often these goals are short-term. Health insurance companies since at least 1994 knew health care reform was a possibility. Have they changed anything to head-off govt. intervention? No. They have continued to operate in a way to increase their stock price and CEO salaries at the expense of those they insure--the sick and dying--who pay for services.
You bet we need a public option. It is the only thing which will help hold down costs. Costs will continue to rise without it. Health insurance companies are going to gain as well--with more new customers once insurance is mandated. Right now the Federal Govt. already covers the most costly segment of the population in regards to healthcare--the elderly.

Eichendorff | 3:07 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

And of course Wikipedia is the great and absolutely unimpeachable source of information.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Eichendooff | 3:33 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

Yah, Who gets information from wikipedia when everybody knows the Daily Kos is the only source of unbiased truth out there!

@Eichendorff | 3:40 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

So please point out the flawed information in the wikipedia entry for Mike Leavitt.

Wikipedia is a good starting point. It is easy to check out the references they use in their articles.

Anonymous | 9:20 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

FALSE

SINGLE PAYER GOVERNMENT SYSTEM GIVES US LESS FREEDOM THAN THE CURRENT SYSTEM.

FACT
OTHER countries with a public SINGLE PAYER healthcare option system have private healthcare available too. HAVING A SINGLE PAYER GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE SYSTEM OPTION ADDS FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

RE: Anonymous | 9:20 p.m | 10:40 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

YOU can imagine your own facts all you want.

But you know darn well the ultimate goal is to take healthcare out of private hands.

and ALL the bills that have any semblance of a public plan nudges and pushes, or outright leaps towards that.

It is government meddling in health care that has done the most damage to healthcare,

and now you want to claim they are the answer?

Do ALL you liberals just blindly believe and repeat everything your liberal leaders, or your liberals information sources tell you?

Dave | 10:51 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

"Hysteria" would seem more apt in describing the rush to get this thing shoved down our throats without even being able to read the actual legislation!

Absolutely fear! | 11:07 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

The government already confiscates about 50% of my income (all taxes I pay). Shouldn't I fear them?

Almost every government run program is full of corruption, horrible ineffeciences and stacks of bureacracy. This is truly something to fear!

Interloper | 11:41 p.m. Sept. 29, 2009

Health care insurance reform has been studied for more than 40 years. It was last attempted during the Clinton administration and undermined by many of the same corporate interests fighting it now. The predictions made then have come true. The health care industry absorbs 16% of the Gross Domestic Product. Its greed, if not stopped, will continue to grow.

Mike Leavitt's tenure in the Bush administration is remarkable only for its absence of any effect on improving health care or the environment. People should really reconsider whether they want to treat a lobbyist's biased claims as facts.

Debbie P. | 9:41 a.m. Sept. 30, 2009

The competitive bidding process was stopped because the system was flawed. Some companies awarded the bid did not have licensing to supply those goods, others did not have a presence in the city they were supposed to be servicing! People were being delayed from hospital release because of delays in DME delivery..and what did THAT cost? Competitive bidding will take away ALL competition, and in 3 years when bidding is re-done, the few companies left will be the only ones left to "rebid"...and do you not think that they will bid up their prices to much higher levels? After all, who's left to bid lower against them? Many small DME companies are the backbone for keeping people out of the hospital and at home. With the new bidding system, there's no requirements for delivery times - and with no competition, why should the company that wins a bid rush to offer any kind of customer service? It's like expecting your electric company to care about customer service! No competition equals zero customer service. The government can set realistic pricing for items - let the dealers decide if they want to supply items at that price.

Re "Anonymous | 9:20 p.m." | 11:29 a.m. Sept. 30, 2009

Anonymous | 9:20 p.m. has really been gulping the coolaid if he thinks it's a "Fact" that a single government payer system INCREASES freedom of choice.

Does his assertion make sense to ANYONE out there? That going to a single government payer system gives us MORE freedom than we have now?

Sometimes I think "Anonymous | 9:20 p.m." thinks just because he can rationalize it in his own mind and type it, makes it a "Fact".

robellen | 11:47 a.m. Sept. 30, 2009

totally agree with Debbie P. Competitive bidding will only put thousands of people out of work, eventually raise the cost of supplies and create a monopoly. Worst idea ever. If you don't get a contract, you're out of business. And Medicare is keeping the number of contracted suppliers down to the bare minimum. Good luck to everyone on Medicare! Good luck finding another job in this economy. Can't believe Congress can't see the long-term effects of this program - they only see the immediate $$$ savings. Can save the same money by reducing what Medicare pays without closing down almost every supplier.

Fear and Government | 1:19 p.m. Sept. 30, 2009

Tyranny is when when the people fear the government.

Freedom is when the government fear the people.

Anonymous | 6:54 p.m. Sept. 30, 2009

"What if all the hysteria over health-care reform isn't about health care at all? What if it's more a deep-seated fear of government interference in our lives?"

It is, and justifiably so. Those of us who have been up close and personal to the dark side of government know that it should be feared and always watched and weighed against the constitutional checks and balances.

As Ronald Reagan said, government is not the solution, government is the problem. You don't don't fix your personal family problems by going down the street and asking your dysfunctional neighbor for a solution. You fix them yourself through experience and by arming yourself with knowledge founded in principles.

Only unprincipled people and philosophies are doomed and ironically they are the first to run to a dysfunctional government for solutions.

Anonymous | 5:24 a.m. Oct. 22, 2009

If they present information from outside the proffered alternatives, they may be called wrong or simply inappropriate or irrelevant. ,

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.