Deseret News | Obama's health proposal certainly doesn't qualify as 'reform'

Reader comments
Robert J. Samuelson: Obama's health proposal certainly doesn't qualify as 'reform'

JCM | 12:52 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Another rambling "why we shouldn't" ...."why this won't work .... ! This is a REAL ECONOMIC crisis for our country to deal with - let's just forget about the 'moral issue'. Any suggestions other than "this won't work" ? That's all we hear from the critics. "We don't like this. This isn't good. This won't work." It's always the same tune, throughout history, from those who lack vision and courage to take necessary risks to, at the very least,. begin the slow shift out of the sludge of the mighty "status quo"

Elwood Johnson | 4:46 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Mr. Samuelson,

Where were you when Bush and his buddies where spending 2 billion a month on a ginned up war. You guy's amaze me with your anti government stance.

Dixie Dan | 6:52 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Dump this plan and let's go with the 1994 proposal that the Republican Party put forth as they promised they would do. Now tell me where to find it.

Comments continue below

Brother Chuck Schroeder | 7:34 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Here's why the GOP Moderat's HIDE from Healthcare Reform, until 2010 passes. They are scared to death of Sarah Palin, Look at the charges that surfaced against Palin during the past election, and then look at how they played out. It was alleged that she was a member or supporter of the Alaska Independence Party (AIP), that she had been an endorser of Pat Buchanan's "Reform" Party candidacy in 2000; that she was a skeptic about man-made global warming; that she thought God was on our side in Iraq; that she favored the teaching of creationism in schools; that she attended a wacko church where exorcism of witches was enthusiastically celebrated. Later fact-checking modified a number of these allegations–Continetti is on better ground here–and we can now say that Palin did no more than attend a couple of conventions of the AIP, of which her husband was a member, and send it one friendly video message while she was governor of the state in question. It further turns out that she attended that Buchanan rally, wearing a pro-Buchanan button, only because she thought it was the polite thing to do.

Lew Jeppson | 7:44 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

"Sure, many Americans would feel less fearful about losing insurance; but there are cheaper ways to limit insecurity." Well, such as? People are scared stiff over losing their coverage.

Anonymous | 7:44 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

So what is your idea of reform, Samuelson? Do nothing? Good grief, at least Obama is trying. It's too bad the GOP is trying to stop progress and offering nothing.

Tim D | 7:45 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

To JCM: Your solution - "Do something even if it is worng!"

To Elwood Johnson: What has this got to do with Obama spending 10 times Bush's amount on a ginned up crisis?

To Dixie Dan: There have been several Republican alternatives put forth. Where to find them? It won't be in the media, or on a congressional committee agenda. Both are controlled by the same ideology and keep anything they don't like from seeing the light of day.

Kool Aid drinkers | 8:05 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

I'll drink what Tim D is drinking. Thanks!

Ultra Bob | 8:05 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

I cannot even begin to understand why, after promising us Health Reform, Obama allowed the Health Industry itself write its own reform. And then call it “Obama’s health proposal“.

I can only believe that someone was holding a knife to the presidents throat to cause him to accept failure over success.

Sally in England | 8:06 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

I think with Obama it is about social reform. I don't honestly think that he is out to get the rich guy. The more I read about Obama the more I understand that these have always been his ideals. He has seen poverty, he knows that everyone in life does not get the oppertunity to be financially independent and he is trying to make health care fair for all. I have heard people say that they work hard for their money and nobody is going to take that away from them. The truth is that every where in the world there are good, honest people who work their socks off, who just don't get the breaks. There are people who just can't work through no fault of their own, due to illness or layoffs. These are the people that Obama is trying to help, he just wants to help those who are unable to help themselves. Trust me, those of you that are worried, have nothing to fear. We have socilaised medicine in England and it is good. It is right and just that everyone is entitled to good medical care, rich or poor.

RedShirt | 8:10 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

To those that say we need this solution, take a look at the countries that have universal care. They all have one or a combination of the following problems:

Long waits to get into doctors
Lack of current technology
Underpaid/overworked medical staff
Budget shortfalls
Resistance by the people to increase spending for healthcare
Limits on number of doctor visits

What people who want a universal health care system in the US are asking for is a system similar to Switzerland. A system that covers everybody, has health care providers competing against eachother, and has the latest medical advances available. Guess what, their system is the second most expensive system in the world.

So, if what we want is already being done, and is the second most expensive system out there, why don't we just keep our system, and remove the government caused problems that add to the cost of health insurance?

Interesting Omission | 9:36 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

I find it interesting that no one ever mentions that Samuelson won the Nobel Prize in economics years ago for ground-breaking research into economic development. This is a very smart guy

Florida, the other Red State | 10:06 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Re: RedShirt | 8:10 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009
To those that say we need this solution, take a look at the countries that have universal care.

When YOU talk this trash, does "The Kool-aid Man" pitcher, come out of the wall to?. The majority of American people who want a universal health care, wants a system in the US that's the best, no matter what it costs,and are asking for this system here, if YOUR so gung ho political then run for Office, and change it, if not, turn off your AM Radio, it's driving you nuts. I HOPE this is most expensive system out there and the RICH pay for it with YOUR monies to. Plus tax to death everything that has sugar fat and salt in it, for more add on's to the plan. Like you love to do with tobacco product's. We need this Healthcare Reform now, not after the 2010 RE-election's in Congress. No matter what YOU or Glenn Beck has to say. That's my view. And none of my comments are found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words either.

@Sally in England | 10:08 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Haven't I read in your posts that you are a school teacher? Have you ever made any money that didn't come from the government? Have you ever created any wealth on your own? Have you ever started a company? Have you ever risked your home, your family's wellbeing? Government paid posters or little paycheck grinds like you assume that wealth is some magically money tree. You are incapable of understanding the world around you. Keep sleeping.

@Sally in England | 10:17 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Been to your country. Your birthrates are low because your children have no hope. Your treasury is being drained by the immigrants you have let into the country. Don't think I care for your lecturing.

RedShirt | 10:18 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

About this healthcare, on the other end of the age spectrum are Gen Yers, who are often cheaper to hire and heralded for their coveted high-tech knowledge, even though many Gen Xers consider themselves just as technologically savvy in Utah, they still need this universal health care system as badly as I do to, no matter what it costs. I change my mind, let's all go for it now. The GOP had their chance. It's now our turn.

@Florida | 10:39 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

You can have your healthcare, and you will have so much time to spend sitting in the doctor's lobby, because you and everyone else will be out of a job. Maybe you can get some oxycontin to cope with the pain.

Sterling | 10:41 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

The only "reform" that I see is that other taxpayers get to pay healthcare costs for citizens who REFUSE to give up their boats, cell phones, cable tv, etc.

MormonConservative | 10:47 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

BREAKING NEWS, this just in, the astronauts are now strapped into their seats in the space shuttle Atlantis for a big delivery flight to the International Space Station, to get it ready and clean it up, so when Obama's health proposal, that the GOP are saying, certainly doesn't qualify as reform without their own version in it as well, start their "few GOP man" riot's in Congress, after it passes and is signed into law before Turkey Day 2009, the Demo's, Klingon Joe Biden and President Obama, will stay up there until it cools off back on earth, and, proves it's gonna work, no matter why think's it should fail. More news at 11. Stay tuned.

RedShirt | 10:50 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

To "Florida, the other Red State | 10:06 a.m. " actually if you watch the recent PBS Frontline show titled "Sick around the world", (last I checked PBS was not talk radio) they showed that if you want the current level of care that you can get in the US, it will cost nearly what we are paying right now.

Go and read the transcript, which is available through PBS or watch it from their web site. The problems that I listed are the various problems that they have around the world. Switzerland has eliminated most of those problems, but their system runs at nearly the same GDP as the US system.

Plus, think about this, if you tax the rich to pay for everything, what happens when the rich are too poor to pay for everybody?

Why are you so anti-rich? Don't you know that if it wasn't for the rich, you wouldn't have a job?

RedShirt | 10:53 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

To "RedShirt | 10:18 a.m. " you need to fix the way that you post. Come up with your own alias and put that into your coments so that people know who you are and can link your posts together.

2 bits | 10:55 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

I agree. I don't see how this is considered to be "REFORM" if the old system is allowed to stay the way it was and just a bunch of government regulations and a government option is added.

What part of this is "reform"?

I hope it works and years from now we are praising this plan and not cursing it and wishing we had the insurance rates, options and benefits we USED to have in the good-old-days.

I fully agree here as well | 11:03 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

@Sally in England - For all you "DITTO-HEADS", Obama it is about social reform. I don't honestly think that he is out to get the rich guy. The more I read about Obama the more I understand that these have always been his ideals. He has seen poverty, he knows that everyone in life does not get the oppertunity to be financially independent and he is trying to make health care fair for all. I have heard people say that they work hard for their money and nobody is going to take that away from them. The truth is that every where in the world there are good, honest people who work their socks off, who just don't get the breaks. There are people who just can't work through no fault of their own, due to illness or layoffs. These are the people that Obama is trying to help, he just wants to help those who are unable to help themselves.

Healthcare Reform now | 11:08 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Florida - The Other Red State, is 100% right.

The GOP had their chance the past 9 years, and did NOTHING.

When YOU so called conservative Utah people talk trash, ask yourself, does "The Kool-aid Man" pitcher, come out of the wall to?. The majority of American people who want a universal health care, wants a system in the US that's the best, no matter what it costs,and are asking for this system here, if YOUR so gung ho political then run for Office, and change it, if not, turn off your AM Radio, it's driving you nuts. I HOPE this is most expensive system out there and the RICH pay for it with YOUR monies to. Plus tax to death everything that has sugar fat and salt in it, for more add on's to the plan. Like you love to do with tobacco product's. We need this Healthcare Reform now, not after the 2010 RE-election's in Congress. No matter what Limbaugh or Glenn Beck has to say. That's my view. And none of my comments are found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words either.

LOL @ RedShirt | 11:10 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

RE: RedShirt | 10:50 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009
To "Florida, the other Red State | 10:06 a.m. " actually if you watch the recent PBS Frontline show titled "Sick around the world.

First off, I don't watch sissy garbage like PBS, I watch hardcore porn movies.

@ RedShirt | 10:53 a.m. | 11:12 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

RedShirt, get some oxycontin to cope with the pain.

RedShirt | 11:26 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

TO "Healthcare Reform now | 11:08 a.m." you are right that the GOP did nothing, and actually made things worse. But, why should we continue that smae practice? If the GOP was bad for its choices, why is the DNC good for making the same choices?

To "LOL @ RedShirt | 11:10 a.m." and people wonder why people are so uneducated on political matters.

Anonymous | 11:36 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Conservatives have a solution for those with no access to health care: death. Conservative's solution is multifaceted it can work as a solution to homelessness and poverty too.

Lew Jeppson | 11:51 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

" I find it interesting that no one ever mentions that Samuelson won the Nobel Prize in economics years ago for ground-breaking research into economic development. This is a very smart guy." Might you be confusing PAUL Samuelson with this guy.

RedShirt | 12:16 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

TO "Anonymous | 11:36 a.m." actually conservatives have offered solutions for health care that do not involve death.

They have suggested tort reform.

They have suggested allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines.

They have also suggested significant reductions in government mandates.

All of those would reduce the cost of healthcare from 20% to 60%.

The problem is that people want the same access to doctors and medical technology that they have now, but at half the cost. That is impossible, as the countries around the world can show.

Economic Historian | 12:56 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Samuelson is wrong. The wild increases in insurance premiums are driven by actuarial considerations, i.e., the population is aging. The proposed bill calls for spreading an equitable share of the costs of health care into the youthful fourth of the population that currently pays nothing. The natural result will be falling prices. It's called spreading the risk, and is the same logic behind the funding of any common community interest, e.g., highways, schools, etc.

@ Economic Historian - 12:56 p.m | 1:42 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Actually, from an economic perspective, there is a substantial difference between health insurance and highways, schools, etc. Risk spreading has nothing to do with highways and schools. Those programs are justified (rightly or wrongly) based on public goods arguments or positive externality arguments, or in limited cases both.

In the case of health insurance, it is true that requiring everyone to purchase insurance spreads the risk, but that won't necessarily (or even probably) result in falling prices. The reason it likely won't is that increasing third-party payer coverage of individuals leads to increased utilization of the product. When that happens, demand rises and prices rise, unless there is a corresponding increase in the supply of the product. I would be interest to know if you believe that the proposed reform would result in an outward shift in the supply curve. I can't see any legitimate argument that such would occur, but if you've got a good argument, let's hear it.

@ "Lew Jeppson | 11:51 a.m." | 2:41 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Lew Jeppson | 11:51 a.m.

WHY would anyone mention that he's a Nobel Prize winner? Do you think that prize means he's real smart?

We all know now that the prize requires no actual ACOMPLISHMENTS... The main requirement is that you tow the line for the Progressive Left. Other than that... all you need to do is give some good speaches and get a lot of media attention that the committe sees as good propoganda convincing even more people to lean even FURTHER left in the future.

The Nobel Prize doesn't mean what it used to mean.

@elwood johnson | 3:16 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Bush was spending 2 billion a month? Do you realize how insignificant that is compared to the professional spender in chief we have now? We now deal in TRILLIONS not BILLIONS! Get with the program! you are so lost in yesterday.
I love the first paragraph of the article. What we should be doing. Exactly right!

nobel | 3:51 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Well the Nobel does lean eft. But that's because science and peace are not conservatives favorite topics. Economics, well spend some time on econmic forums and thing you will find out some weird stuff such as nobody really knows everything the banks do. Banks are making dollars out of nothing with derivitives and whisking those psudo-dollhars around the globe out of sight of any regulators.

The country is being destroyed by money changers. Banks and insurance companies. There have always been enough taxes for all these programs but all of our personal federal income taxes go to pay interest to the reserve's private banks. (And BUSH bailed them out) How were the banks ever broke? They take our income taxes, 80% of most paychecks go to interest for mortgage, car, credit cards. How are they they ones that were broke?

RedShirt | 4:07 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

To "nobel | 3:51 p.m." wow, what a rant. This country is being destroyed by the very government that is supposed to protect it.

Because of banking regulations beginning witht he creation of the Federal Reserve, the government has been playing with the bank industry. All we typically have seen was the puppet show, not the puppeteer. Thanks to the near collaps of Freddie and Fannie, we have seen that the puppeteer was the Federal Government.

It wasn't just Bush that bailed them out. Obama and most of the Democrats currently in office bailed out the banks.

I don't know what bad financial decisions you have made, but 80% of a paycheck going to interest is a little unreal. Assuming 25% of your gross is taken by taxes and benefits, and the 80% you refer to is from your take home pay, that would mean that a person is living off of 15% of their gross pay. So a person making $4000/month would be living off $600/month. That seems a little bit unreal.

Forum Reader | 4:46 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

@RedShirt

I don't think many of the posters on these forums are interested in someone cutting through the spin. They prefer to blindly follow a progressive ideology, not matter where it takes them.

Abe Lincoln | 4:56 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Anonymous | 7:44 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

just because something is new it does not mean it is progress. to claim such would be close-minded. progress means improvement, and i fail to see how we're improving anything. there a very few people who are against health-care reform. we are just saying that obama's is not what we want. the majority have spoken it. if they had the public support for this, they would have passed it much faster.

and to 2 bits

the reform is the government having control of your health. then it makes it much easier for them to decide who lives and dies. sure, they don't want to kill thier grandma, they want to kill those who disagree with them.

watch "obama killer song" on youtube. it's awesome!

ASH | 10:01 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

To: Everyone of you(except Abe Lincoln 4:56)
Why are all of you calling this "health care reform"? You don't get health care from your allopathic physician, you get disease management-treatment.
Referring to today's MD as a professional "health-care provider" is just a propoganda statement.

Anonymous | 10:18 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

The only people who are for Obama care are students who are brainwashed by their lib professors. Or those who have not read the bill. And what can I say about the dems who wrote it?

Pain and simple | 11:20 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Medicare for all, then give all people the options for Medigap or advantage plans for supplemental care. problem solved, all people would have affordable care while still containing cost through a robust options for private insurance. All people would have the options that suit them best, Win Win.

Re "Pain and simple | 11:20 p.m. | 3:02 p.m. Nov. 17, 2009

Pain and simple | 11:20 p.m.

You're partially right in my opinion... it would be a pain, but it wouldn't be very simple.

Have you ever had to deal with Medicare and Medigap? What a PAIN! As long as you don't have any complex medical needs or perscriptions they don't like or want to talk to a human being who can make actual decisions and not just quote procedure and refer you to the online rules booklet... it CAN be simple. But IF you need any of these... It can be hell.

And getting TWO insurance plans to agree on who pays for what without driving YOU and the healthcare provider crazy... Good luck!

It IS a "pain" but it is NOT "simple".

You also ignore what a pain for the healthcare provider. Not only does he not get paid a fair price for his services, because the government always wants to mandate artificially low reimbursments for Medicare patients (many of our best Doctors already dont take Medicare patients for this reason) but on top of that now he has to fight with both the Government agency AND the insurance company to get paid.

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.