Deseret News | Reform would cut costs

Reader comments
Readers' forum: Reform would cut costs

GTO | 1:15 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

The idea that Obamacare will reduce health care costs is a lie! The real goal behind this is some Americans cannot wait to put the costs of their health care onto the backs of their neighbors! Democrats cannot even be honest with themselves!

Great letter | 1:57 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Thank you. I couldn't agree more.

John C. | 2:12 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

As for me, Having watched the government make a debacle out of Medicare and Medicaid. I’m not in favor of them getting into the insurance business.
After all and simply put it is unconstitutional. And would bring us into the world of socialism more fully. More government control of our lives which our founding fathers didn’t want. Back when we didn’t have insurance 7 years ago. I never heard the cry that is going on now since Obama used it to get elected…that health care in the U.S. was broken. We had to pay cash for our doctor visits. Wasn’t easy but we did it. I’m tired of all the baloney and hysteria going on over this. Are there problems? Of course there are. Dose it require fixing? Yes…but very minutely by the federal government. Insurance companies shouldn’t be allowed to drop people for getting sick or injured, or hiking up their rates. And people shouldn’t be denied because of pre-existing conditions. And we need to stop these large payments on mal practice suits. That’s my two cents worth…

Comments continue below

cool | 6:04 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

I like ponys, unicorns, fairy dust and lifesized barbies dolls. I am sure BO can get me that for free too AND balance the budget

Lower costs? | 6:13 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Lower costs for small businesses by adding a new $546 billion dollar tax on small businesses? Sure, maybe (and this is a stretch) health care will be cheaper for small businesses to provide, but the new tax will more than make up for any savings. Cheap presidential rhetoric a good policy does not make. Saying it is one thing, actually hammering out policy that does address costs is another. So far, policy to cut costs in health care do not exist in the House health care bill. So far, the President has been the health care reform chearleader but has left the actual formation of the bill to Pelosi.

Dave | 7:23 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

I've got a bridge in New York I'd like to sell you.

Anonymous | 7:39 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Ibrahim, you must be young and naive. Insurance companies have to compete for business. The reason costs are up is because health care is more expensive. If insurance A raise premiums then people will go to another company if there are no barriers to doing so.

The government has made barriers and created other issues which lead to increased costs. The government can't provide "quality" and affordable health care for all unless it is rationed. They can't lower costs without decreasing care provided or diminishing the quality of care provided.

If you don't understand something how can you make an educated judgement.

Mike Richards | 8:34 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Was America built on the idea that the people would look to King George for all of their personal needs?

What, then, is the difference between our freedom loving ancestors who dumped King George"s tea in Boston Harbor and the whining wimps that prostrate themselves before Mr. Obama and pray that he will be merciful to them and give them their health?

What is the price of freedom? Does it require a little PERSONAL effort? Does it require a little blood, sweat and tears? Does it require that we wean ourselves from the Government teat?

Our ancestors saw the folly in following England and Europe, why can't we?

The principles that enabled America to become the greatest nation on earth were not founded on social welfare and handholding.

The whiners had better get a grip on reality. The government has to take before it can give. What makes the whiners think that the government will not take everything they own? What kind of dolt would receive stolen goods, even if the Government were the "giver"?

@Ibrahim | 8:40 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

I sure wish our government wasn't spending billions in Afghanistan and Iraq, but first I wish that middle eastern enemies had not been attacking us for the past 30 years.

Your economic analysis is childish.

ustraveler | 9:52 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

I believe there are some mis-understandings of the industry. In actuality, there is a lot of competition for your health insurance business. As a consultant, I work with firms like these a lot. They spend an obscene amount of money complying with various government regulations. HIPPA for example required in some cases a complete re-write of existing mainframe systems. Medicare regulations just to sign up for coverage are obscene and time consuming. Forcing the companies to cover mental health, family planning, and a whole host of other conditions also adds to the cost. Those costs have to get covered somehow.

I don't want to defend horrible acts of insurance companies. They do occur. I do want to point out that these insurance companies are not acting completely unfettered. I personally would love to be able to tailor my health insurance to fit my needs. Cut the family planning, up the deductible, etc. However, regulations don't give me that flexibility.

Bottom line, there's blame for government, employers, and insurance companies. it's wrong to think the government had no hand in this debacle and wrong to think the public plan will magically fix it.

words | 10:11 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

As a good buddy of President Obama once said: "words just words." If you believe Obamas words that the govt. could actually do something and save the taxpayer money, then they have fooled you big time! The govt. doesn't do anything cost effectively, and as you and I are taxed more and more, we become slaves to the same government.
Note to writer...The govt. is not the answer to all lifes woes. Obama, the community organizer, will do and say anything for money and power. He is not interested in you and your life. He has proven that the only thing he is interested in is "fundamentally transforming America."

Hypocrisy | 10:59 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

"I sure wish our government wasn't spending billions in Afghanistan and Iraq, but first I wish that middle eastern enemies had not been attacking us for the past 30 years.

Your economic analysis is childish."

Afghanistan attacked us? I thought Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Queda terrorist group did.

Iraq attacked us?

So using this logic, why aren't we in N. Korea, Russia, Cuba, heck even Mexico. This swine flu is an attack upon the American people!

Your logic for justifying those two wars is severely flawed.

@GTO | 11:19 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

If you don't think you are already paying for your neighbors healthcare, think again.

@Hypocrisy | 1:39 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Dude, you pick your battlefields. Did we immediately go at Germany? No. Did we immediately go at Japan? No. Study a little war science. Dude.

Laugh of the Day: @Hypocrisy | 4:20 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

@ @Hypocrisy - Thank You... for probably the best laugh I'll have all day. War Science? You call Afghanistan and Iraq war science? Aside from the fact that neither are 'wars,' please explain where any studying of combat advocates engaging two nation-states for the better part of a decade when they are not the immediate enemy? Or, help us less studious citizens understand where our next move is according to your 'science!' What a riot! The sheer fact that you are comparing US wars with nation-states, against whom we had embargoes for years prior to attack, and declared war immediately after attack to independent fundamental religious groups truly speaks to your studying of 'war science.' Again, for someone alleging war science knowledge, you did poorly in picking your 'battlefield.'

@ GTO, sorry to ruin your fantasy but, statistically, democrats are more educated and make more money than their republican counterparts. We are paying for you. States that vote democrat have higher wages, larger economies, less unemployment, lower crime, lower rates of obesity, more per capita college graduates, and we pay more federal taxes which support your weak states. Sorry, we are the ones that drive this nation forward.

Hypocrisy | 4:30 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

"Dude, you pick your battlefields. Did we immediately go at Germany? No. Did we immediately go at Japan? No. Study a little war science. Dude."

Uh? Wait, so using your logic, we're attacking Iraq to really attack N. Korea(a country that actually does have WMDs)? Or are we attacking Iraq to really catch Osama Bin Laden?

Wow, that sure does make sense! I bow to your superior intellect. You should appear on Meet the Press and inform our populace. Explain to them how we're benefiting by spending billions per month in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bottom line is, we're wasting money in black holes such as Afghanistan when it could be used building up our own country. Stop making excuses for the government's poor choices.

Paul Macfarlane | 4:40 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

The high prices we now pay for health insurance and health care are the direct result of government intervention in the health care market and the health insurance market, going back 60 years at least. For example, Medicare and Medicaid grossly distort cost structures by underpaying the actual costs of the services, thereby shifting a major portion of the costs onto other paying customers, as does forcing hospitals to care for indigent individuals at no cost. There is no free lunch. Government cannot change what it costs to provide the services. By forcing down the costs, it will also force down the quality of service. By expanding the service and forcing those to pay for those who cannot or will not pay, it can only increase what everyone else must pay. Can more government involvement really solve the problems of too much government involvement in the first place?

Pam | 4:42 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

To @ Hypocrisy -
"...sorry to ruin your fantasy but, statistically, democrats are more educated and make more money than their republican counterparts. We are paying for you. States that vote democrat have higher wages, larger economies, less unemployment, lower crime, lower rates of obesity, more per capita college graduates, and we pay more federal taxes which support your weak states. Sorry, we are the ones that drive this nation forward."

What nonsense! You think because you've had these staements printed in the newspaper - we'll all believe you! I'd like to see you prove even one thing on the list.

Re; Pam | 5:11 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

You are right! Need proof, look at California! Bankrupt, a moral cess pool and more welfare, drugs,unemplyment rampant, prisons overcrowed, more AIDS that any other state and more problems than they can possibly pay for. I live in Idaho and all of my neighbor are ex-californians who escaped the Socialist Republic of California and are so glad they did!

A little history | 5:23 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

The concept of health insurance companies started back in the 1920's when Drs. and hospitals began charging more than people could easily pay. The administrator of Baylor Hospital in Dallas created a system that caught on elsewhere and eventually evolved into Blue Cross. The Blues were essentially nonprofit health insurers who served local community organizations like the Elks. In exchange for a tax break, Blue Cross organizations kept premiums reasonably low.
The Blues, in their early days, charged everyone the same premium, regardless of age, sex, or pre-existing conditions. This was partly because the Blues were quasi-philanthropic organizations.
Blues were created by hospitals and therefore interested mainly in signing up potential hospital patients. They were sufficiently benevolent that when Harry Truman proposed a national health-care scheme, opponents were able to defeat it by arguing that the nonprofit sector had the problem well in hand.

Laugh of the Day: @Hypocrisy | 10:54 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

@Pam

Not nonesense, truth. Compare states using the national census info online. Sorry, you're wrong.

And a chicken in every pot | 11:14 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

The problem with liberal ideas is that they sound great in theory and fail miserably in practice. Why? As Margaret Thatcher aptly said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

The facts are that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that health insurance costs and premiums will RISE, not fall.

This letter writer is living in a dream world that will soon enough be shattered.

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.