Get today's headlines via email
Afternoon edition
Deseret News Family Deals
In Opinion
Across Site
- Jay Evensen: On second thought...
- Readers' forum: No nuclear waste in Utah
- In our opinion: New nuclear plants...
- Readers' forum: Price of freedom
- Robert Bennett: A brokered...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: The...
- Readers' forum: A changing Constitution
- Michael Gerson: Egypt's craziness is...
- George F. Will: Is it bribery or just...
- Mackenzie Eaglen: Obama's proposed...
In Opinion
Across Site
- Robert Bennett: A brokered...
- In our opinion: Editorial: Protecting...
- Charles Krauthammer: The Gospel...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: The...
- Evangelicals and Mormons: Can we talk?
- In our opinion: New nuclear plants...
- Readers' forum: A changing Constitution
- My view: The climate is right to tear...
- Readers' forum: Price of freedom
- George F. Will: Is it bribery or just...
In Opinion
Across Site
- Evangelicals and Mormons: Can we talk?
54 - Letters: Bush's failed policies
53 - Letters: A changing Constitution
41 - Editorial: Rights of conscience
40 - Letters: Teachers not overpaid
32 - Letters: Home equity loans
28 - Editorial: New nuclear plants
28 - The Gospel according to Obama
27 - Letters: Rights of conscience
26 - GOP no longer leads on defense
24












Also, there is no guarantee that those that are happy with their current plans will be able to keep them. Chances are that their employers will switch over to the cheaper government option, resulting in a lower quality of care.
On August 20, 2009, the Huffington post ran the article "New Poll: 77 Percent Support "Choice" Of Public Option" showing that 77% want a public option.
According to the Rassmussen report on Nov 2, 2009 titled "Health Care Reform" only 42% of Americans support the current health care reform bill being push by Obama and Pelosi. And that support is continually falling.
How do you explain the 77% that want it, yet 42% support what is being proposed?
We did already.
Obama (and health care reform) won.
Most people don't want the reforms being pushed by the Democrats.
There's nothing contradictory in those two statements. Both are very sensible and reasonable.
The smart thing to do would be to VETO any medical reform bill that takes more than one sheet of paper and simply says:
The Government of the United States will pay all necessary and proper health care charges for all people in and of the United States of America.
Nothing in this legislation prohibits or inhibits any freedom that a person has for adding to his personal health care from other means and sources.
The cost of government sponsored health care shall be borne by the people of the United States in the manner of the personal income tax.
American wants and needs health care reform. But not a lot of gobbledygook created by unscrupulous businessmen.
Read my post at 9:37 a.m. There you will find the answer to your question.
Previously you ask “What rights do you see the US losing by puting the government 100% in control of the healthcare industry”.
I do not and don’t know of anyone who has proposed putting 100% of the control of health-care in government.
The reform that America needs would be for a single payer, not a single provider.
Health care would still be provided by private doctors and hospitals and other private means.
Only the payment would be controlled by the government which is us, not the private insurance companies.
No rights would be taken away from the public in general, however certain doctor unions and other organization may lose the right to restrict the number of doctors and health services to artificially cause high prices.
If you read the current health care reform bills, the proposals being made will add to the cost of healthcare. Right now government mandates account for 20% to 50% of healthcare costs. Forcing insurance companies to accept people regardless of pre-existing conditions will add to costs, along with the other proposals that are included in the 1900+ page bill.
I agree, America needs a single payer system. In my point of view it should be us, the individuals. Once the government gets control of something they rarely let go. For an example of this, look at what happened when the citizens of Utah wanted to get rid of sales tax on food. The government said that they couldn't allow that because they may need to rais that tax again. Also, once the government controls payments, they also control what gets paid for, and that would be bad.
You seem to be saying that each individual person should pay in total for that persons health care.
That would be a good thing if health care was more equally distributed among individuals and in each persons life he could expect to pay out about the same as all other individuals.
There would be no need for insurance or other group sharing. However, health care costs can vary astronomically hence we do need group sharing.
We don’t buy insurance for food cost because each person’s cost is nearly the same. There are no unforeseen astronomically large food bills and so there is no need for group sharing.
All this is simply penny ante compared to the real war that is going on in our nation.
While we are distracted and argue about things we call rights and freedoms, the corporations and big business is at war with our Constitutional government for total control of America.
If the corporations win we will really have enslavement by our government (corporation).
As horribly bad as it is, the federal income tax is probably the most fair tax there is.
If health care becomes a federal government “entitlement” we expect that the federal government will in effect act like a giant insurance group that shares the total cost back to its members.
To me the most fair way for all of us to share in the total health cost bill is to share in the same proportion as income tax.
Despite your insult to my character, I will tell you that I have paid income tax every year since 1953. I have never been audited because I simply pay what is asked.
I feel very lucky to pay so little for the good life that I have as an American.