Comments about ‘Insurance exchange not faring well’

"Price has been problematic for proponents of the exchange who have been working since 2005 to promote it is as a way to get a handle on health care costs that even in Utah's low-cost/great-care niche nationally will reach more than $25,000 per year per family in about 12 years."

What kind of a sentence is that? I thought only lawyers and Congress were allowed to run on so! Ease up Mr. Thalman...it's OK to stop and take a breath.

It's really strange how anything that might hurt the insurance companies is having a hard time on an issue that both sides say needs fixed.

This is just a mini version of the Obama national plan and what we can expect from it. Doomed to fail.

I keep telling people its not insurance that is the problem, its the high profit corporate monopoly of the health care providers that are costing too much. We can do without insurance, its what the corporate medical businesses are doing to health care costs.

At one time insurance plans were created by organized labor with insurance companies, businesses, and employees. Well, organized labor no longer has the voice it once had. Organized labor held costs of insurance and medical care under control, now there are no controls and not even government plans can work. Everybody loses in health care now that government is trying to take control of a system they cannot control.

The insurance exchange is not what is in the Senate or House bills. It is however what Hatch and Bennett have said they would prefer over a public option. I think it is clear that the insurance companies are not capable of policing themselves. They are businesses that want to make a profit. I don't begrudge them that, but when there are no other options it makes it very difficult for those who can not afford their premiums to obtain insurance elsewhere.

Secret sauce? It's nothing surprising that a small group can't provide rates that are a good as a large group. Large insurance companies have their advantages.

We are all getting distracted from the real problem. No one talks any more about how to bring costs down. We are all just talking about how to get more and better coverage to more people.

The laws of economics cannot be violated. We try, we die. Costs must come down. Look at the extreme: an MRI for every person once a year would save lives. This is undeniable. But we cannot afford it, so we don't do it. Every day we are living a less extreme but similar reality in our health care. We simply cannot afford to access every available service.

We must reduce defensive medicine, and develop a system where healthcare service providers are not paid more for prescribing more (because, surprise, they'll keep prescribing more!), but are paid more for finding the best solutions, health-wise and price-wise.

THAT would be true reform. Not this budget-busting, entitlement-growing Pandora's box snaking through Congress.

does anyone even know what insurance is? Buy definition it is a "transfer of risk" with the state portal having a guarentee issue the rates jump significantly, because the carriers have to take on the risk. Do you also know that BCBS and Select Health are both none profit and both write of millions every year in non collected bills. How about take a look at how much the insurere carriers pay out in a year and how many lifes they save. Take responsibility for yourself and if you want to transfer some cost for health risks to a insurance company then do it, if not then don't

So there are 66 plans competing for 13 businesses? My guess is that the remaining 13 businesses are all owned by the state legislators who can't let go of their bad idea.

If the objective was to lower costs and expand coverage, they should have gone with single payer.

@Dan

You touched on the reason why is is necessary for health insurance purchasing to be mandatory if costs are ever going to come down -- people do not take responsibility for their actions. When people without health insurance are sick, they seek treatment regardless of whether they can pay for it. If people who don't purchase health insurance would cease seeking treatments that they cannot afford and just go away and die, then costs to the rest of us would decrease. Obviously, if we want to retain our humanity, then we should not let sick people die just because they cannot afford treatment. But costs will not come down in the insurance market unless healthy young people are paying into the system. Sure, that is unfair to the healthy young people WHILE THEY ARE HEALTHY AND YOUNG but eventually they will become old and sick, so it will all balance out.

You touched on one of the reasons why mandatory health insurance is so wrong - well, there are a few reasons, but let's just hit the highlights.

#1 - The only people who don't have health insurance are the unemployed/underemployed - in other words, they can't afford it. What on earth good does it do to fine these people? They're not going to be able to pay their fines either! This is just making a bad situation worse.

#2 - Choice - this is America - the only thing that should be forced in this country is taxes, and we all disagree on how those should be managed as well. If someone chooses to not have health insurance, that should be their choice. This is not the government's job to micro-manage everyone's lives!

Unfortunately, neither of your "highlights" are true.

1. There are plenty of people without health insurance who can afford it. They just choose not to because it is not a good investment for them.

2. While I may agree with you in principle here, the country forces many other things upon us besides taxes: car insurance, property rights, how we behave, and a host of other laws.

The exhange may have a chance to work if the state would open it up to more people than just businesses. Right now it is only available for small businesses. If it was an option that could compete with those who do not have jobs, or are employed by larger companies, you may see an increase in enrollment into these plans.