Comments about ‘In our opinion: Putting 'Affordable' into the Affordable Care Act’

I wish people would stop comparing costs with other countries. It cannot be done and is meaningless. I.E. in other countries a baby is not considered alive until they are as much a 1 year old. How can you compare their statistics with ours? You can't. Go to a foreign country and you will not see a deluge of TV ads begging you to sue your doctor, hospital or a pharmacutical company, who do you think is paying for that?

DN, you spend the whole first page detailing how Americans are nor getting the best outcomes in health care, yet spend more than anyone else in the world for that privledge. Then blast government involvment in health care. You do realize that all those other countries that get better outcomes for less money, are countries where health care is run by the government?

Pretty much all Americans can see that we have problems in delivering healthcare.

Neither Republicans or Democrats "won" on thurs.

Hopefully, BOTH sides can get together after the Nov. election and actually work towards some possible solutions.

If that doesn't happen, BOTH sides will provide a huge amount of antagonism, but few solutions!

Sometimes I wonder if both political parties do their best to keep us divided against each other?

I keep hearing conservatives say we need free market solutions to bring down healthcare costs. Yet every country in the developed world has far lower costs and far less of a free market in healthcare than we do. The countries with the lowest costs are those, like Britain, with the most government control. I'm not in favor of replicating the British healthcare system, but I've yet to hear a conservative discussion of this issue.

Health care is not an 'entitlement'. That's just a hot button word. If we put our resources into front line health provision and removed insurance companies from the picture entirely, there's enough in the system to make it work and more.

In the example of buying meat, consumers can compare prices and product quality. Insurers often pay hospitals a per diem rate. That would simplify things tremendously. And insurers could disclose a range of prices charged by a given physician for a procedure being pre-authorized without disclosing patient info.

There should be some way to enable consumers to compare prices.

And in a free market anyone who could afford the cost involved should be able to become a doctor after passing the licensing standards. Then competition might at least restrain the huge percentage price increases we see year after year.

And there should be a way to bring malpractice premiums in line with the amount actually paid in claims. I'd like to see the state medical association pool together as that would provide an incentive to act to remove doctors from areas where they have far more bad outcomes than the best practitioners.

I'd also like to see practitioners take some responsibility for cases where procedures need to be repeated.

We are blessed with many excellent doctors along the Wasatch front, but many still lack access to affordable care.

"...Republicans talk about repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, but the party has yet to define how it would craft a replacement...".

Rest assured, Frank Luntz, Minister of Republican "Crafting" is working OT placing the finishing touches on the Koch Bro., Grover, Karl, Rush, Sean, Marc, Laura, Bill, Sarah, Mitch, John, Eric Michael, FOX News, RNC, approved replacement.

More, after the 11/4/12 election as well as the presumptive 1/21/13 coronation.

Let's all ask the "great white father" what's best for us, for our families and for society.

Take a few hours and travel to eastern Utah and visit with the Utes who live there or talk to the other tribes in Utah. Ask them what they think about "top down management" from Washington. Drive up to Idaho and ask the Shoshoni, the Bannock, the Nez Pierce, and the other tribes what they think of Washington's meddling in their lives and Washington's "providing" for their needs.

You don't have to go far to see how Washington's "help" has been the greatest stumbling block in the lives of those people.

Ask those who have been "lifted" out of poverty by FDR, LBJ and the other's who thought that Washington was the answer to our problems. How many of them are better off with Washington's "help".

There is evidence all around us that Washington has never "fixed" anything. They only "control" things.

Is that what we want, more control?

Health care can never be administered from Washington, at least if we want to be healthy.

The Democrats have provided a framework for health care reform, now if the Republican House would step up to the plate and propose beneficial changes to that law, maybe we can finally get good, affordable, and accessible healthcare here in the United States.

Comparisons and analogies are of little value. The demographics, heterogeneity and geography of the US are unique. Saying anyone in the world has the best health care is unsupported. We must have a US solution for the ACA. It is incomplete in scope and funding and trying to fully implement Romneycare in Massachusetts has been a financial quagmire. Either party that thinks they won a victory will misjudge other things too.

re:1conservative
Agree. The biggest problem we have is a dysfunctional govt. I don't see that changing do you? We have only ourselves to blame--electing idealogues from the extreme fringe and punishing moderates who dare compromise.

It hasn't been important to Republicans to address the problems of our healthcare delivery system, despite skyrocketing medical costs, and an increasing number of uninsured people. Democrats adopted a reform plan based on ideas put forth by Republicans (current and past Congress' and a Conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation). The blueprint for ACA was the plan passed and lauded by Gov. Romney. Romney has argued in favor of the mandate. Many Democrats would've preferred a single-payer system. Not even a "public" option was included. Republicans talk about "personal responsibility" yet they resist a plan that requires that. Republicans favor continuing the current system where the uninsured get medical care, the costs of which are passed onto the insured, driving up costs for everybody.

ACA should help level the playing field so to speak. Once the health exchanges are set up in each state, people should be able to make apple-to-apple comparisons for each insurer.

I'm glad the editorial correctly noted that costs rise when consumers don't do the paying. But I'm also glad at least one reader noted that you can't compare statistics from other countries - for example as noted infant mortality is measured differently than many other countries, where babies who die before age 1 are NOT counted, but in the US, we count them. Also, quality of health care does not equal life expectancy. Rates of car crashes, or rates of homicides also figure into life expectancy. Whatever plan is finally decided upon, I hope it is passed in a much more open way, without bribes, kickbacks, etc., and that everyone who votes for it has actually read the bill. And remember that the more complicated the plan (Obamacare is extremely complicated with numerous boards etc.) the more subject it is to fraud, abuse, dictatorial control, and to unintended consequences.

Republicans say market principles will lead to competition and lower cost. How? I do not see how the market can bring down prices of healthcare because it is an exclusive market. In a true market I have the ability to either shop around or choose to with hold my purchase because I do not like the price or selection.

In the healthcare market I may be able to find some savings by choosing the University of Utah over IHC or vice versus, but I doubt the hospital or surgeons are offering discount Tuesday surgeries or offering price match or beat their competitor by ten percent. Also in the healthcare market I can't with hold my purchase because I do not like the price. If I need heart surgery or cancer treatment I am at the mercy of the healthcare system and they can pretty much charge what ever they want.

Shaun, people shouldn't have to explain what has existed prior to consumers relying heavily on insurance, Medicaid and other government programs which have driven up costs of health care in the U.S. Health care is not an exclusive market even though it seeks to be and there are non-traditional alternatives. The reason they are not offering discount Tuesday or price matches to beat their competitors is because there are no competitors. If we were to use the same model with grocery stores which allowed people to buy stuff without having to think about the price because they have food insurance then the costs would go up for everyone including those without food insurance. Government would then step in and say "everyone must purchase food insurance so grocers can continue to raise prices or pay a fine." At this point people are going to buy the insurance instead of pay the fine. Quality of food would go down and cost would go up because no one thinks about quality/cost. This is what the ACC does in health care. Making worse what government caused.

Truthseeker, our founding fathers were not moderates and the Constitution is not neutral. The problem isn't "electing ideologues" instead it's electing too many moderates who wish to compromise on fundamental first principles. The reason that it hasn't been important to conservatives to address the problem of our healthcare delivery system is because they know the reason it is so bad is because of government. Once this system is fully in place there won't be any checks on prices or quality and anyone who does not want to be part of it will still pay for it. As long as insurers and providers meet the federal guidelines they can do what they want to do. Who cares if they charge more? Insurance will pay for it and if the uninsured don't have insurance they will be taxed to pay for the higher cost, lower quality care that meet minimum federal guidelines.

"Once the health exchanges are set up in each state, people should be able to make apple-to-apple comparisons for each insurer."

Why should I? I will pay the tax and let daddy Obama decide my care for me.

Sorry, DN, but health care is not a workable market and so will not respond to market forces. A huge number of consumers are so naive as to go and spend huge sums on health foods. Another group are tied up spending their money on various therapies fringe therapies that are about as useful as the psychic hot line.

Many in the middle are disenchanted with science because after the media gets done covering it no one can really distinguish good science from bad science. Unexpected spectacular results from a small study are given more attention than consistent findings in large studies.

Those who wish to avail themselves of the best of science and the best of doctors are hampered because they are not really the consumer in the equation. Instead, their employer, their labor union, their HMO, their insurance company are bargaining with the health care providers for opulent buildings (hospitals), DRGs and package care plans.

The American health care system is not now, nor ever will be a workable market. Market solutions will never work.

That said, does someone have a suggestion as to what will work instead of market forces?

I generally agree with the DN house editorial but I did not like this one. They assume in the column that the healthcare of a nation of 300 million people can be successfully micromanaged by bureaucrats in Washington. They made some good points but the underlying principle that cannot be changed is this: when you fundamentally change the relationship between citizen and state so that the state is responsible for the citizen's healthcare then you fundamentally change the nature of the State. Can anyone who posts here honestly say that your vote on the direction of your County, State, Country will not change despite what kind of healthcare candidates for public office promise for not you but more importantly your children? Is that not important? I mean Canada is not de facto guaranteeing our National defense but we are guaranteeing theirs along with many other "sovereign" countries. Where does that all end when the US can no longer do that? Maybe a good place in a perfect world but we all know there is nothing perfect about this world

The editorial suggests that free market healthcare programs are the best way to go and that government involvement will only make it worst. OK I give up, just point out to me where free market health care systems are really effective in solving society problems. The problem is .. no modern country has a free market based health care system. So what does that say?

I was shocked when I reached age 65 while still working to find that starting at that age you are prohibited from participating in Health Savings Accounts that have been designed to allow individual health care consumers to make intelligent choices about how they spend their dollars. It seems to be one or many steps aimed at forcing one off of a private insurance plan and onto a medicare-based plan, whether you wish to or not. I do now have a good medicare plan, but there are few incentives there for me to reduce expenditures. Could this sort of thing be part of the problem of our high overall cost of health care and the impact that has on total government spending?

@Dwayne. You are insinuating people that have insurance do not care about the cost of procedures and only if they had to actually pay for the service they would shop around. Where exactly were would they go? If the University hospital says a heart surgery is 50k and IHC says the same surgery will cost 50k, what should the person do? In a true market if something cost too much then either a person does not buy it or they go somewhere else. Where else should/can they go. Nowhere. Can they just not get the surgery? Sure but they may die and that is where the healthcare system gets away with charging outrageous prices.

Your argument about food insurance is comparing apple to oranges. I agree some savings may be realized in having more competition between insurance companies but only true cost savings would come if almost anybody could open a hospital or if anybody could become a doctor. Just like anybody can open a grocery store or grow their own food or raise their own animals. I wish I could perform heart surgery on my self if I needed it.