Published: Thursday, Sept. 27 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT
The article is alarmist in its call for alternative plan before repealing the
Affordable Care Act. Such a declaration would only be a political football for
those that want politic advantage rather than solutions. Repealing the Act
would at least rid the nation of the many features of the Act that are
contributing to rising care costs already even before it is fully implemented in
2014. Repeal the law, and there are many alternatives that can be used to
moderate the cost of care, and promote methods to provide care in cost effective
ways to all citizens of the country.
Who else but this paper would take a foolish comment of Romney which is contrary
to his prior positions for who knows what reason, and turn it into a
"warning" that we need to act? Why does it hurt you so much just to say
that the Democrats are the only ones who have tried to address this problem and
the Republicans have done everything they can to stop them. The GOP wants the
status quo, which you decry, yet you refuse to call out your political party. As
for Romney, he has surrendered any leadership authority on reform that he earned
as Governor of Massachusetts by his repulsive pandering to the far right.
I'm sorry, but this editorial is like something out of Alice in Wonderland.
Romney supported ObRomneyCare when it was his plan for MA. He supported
reducing the need for Emergency Room care and saved tons of money for the state.
His plan will have the same impact on health care at the national level, yet,
he has to flop on this one because it's the only way he can get the votes
of the heartless right.A homeless woman died in jail last week after
being arrested for refusing to leave the ER until she got adequate treatment;
which she obviously never got. Some health care alternative that.
"many features of the Act that are contributing to rising care costs
"And what features would those be, Hellooo? "Repeal the law, and there are many alternatives that can be used to
moderate the cost of care"And what would those alternatives be,
Hellooo? "promote methods to provide care in cost effective
ways to all citizens of the country."And what would those
methods be, Hellooo?
Here are just a few ideas to help reign in health care spending. Tort reform,
expansion of health savings accounts, tax employer sponsored health insurance
and allow customers to buy insurance across state lines. We need to incentivize
people to purchase their own health insurance outside of their employment.Health care consumers need to make better choices about the price of
care. When the consumer is paying the bill, that provides incentives to try and
If our politicians would -come to the table without preconceived
solutions-be open to all solutions-address the problems in a
businesslike manner-put solutions and people ahead of lobbyists and
contributors-make their ONLY goal to craft a good, workable solutionWe would have a better solution.This is the way a good
businessman would approach the problem.This is the way Romney would
approach the problem if his hands were not tied politically.This is the
way Romney DID approach the problem in Mass.This is how Romney was able to
find a good, workable solution in Mass.No businessman who looks at
the problem would conclude that poor people should get healthcare from the
This is spot on. Before we repeal the mandate we need to figure out what
happens to those who are uninsured because we DO have a de facto system but it
is very high cost.BTW, I think Romney will be smart enough to not
simply repeal with nothing in its place.
First line from the article: "Republican nominee Mitt Romney was criticized
by several media outlets........."When DOESN'T the media
criticize Romney?When will the media consider criticizing Pres.
Obama for passing a healthcare bill that the majority don't want?
So Mitt wants those of us who are paying for our insurance to continue paying
for care of those who, for whatever reason, don't have the luxury of
insurance?And I used the word "luxury" deliberately because
for far too many Americans, health insurance now is an unaffordable luxury.Despite all its faults, the Affordable Care Act will help make it much
more affordable. Republican claims to the contrary are simply more Republican
Our health care system is financially motivated, inefficient, too costly and in
many cases dominated by conflicts of interest. A critical look at health care
delivery is necessary by whomever. Current plans either in place of anticipated
have made inadequate analysis for the sake of the power interests.
Congratulations to Romney or anyone for putting the current system in the spot
light. Those who criticize Romney do so for political reasons and not because of
"Romney's observation, therefore, should be seen as a warning."Nonsense. Romney's "observation" is merely an admission
that the GOP has no intention of providing any sort of health care for those the
market excludes other than the most expensive, inefficient care possible.This opinion piece admits that we as a society have indeed determined
that everyone deserves some sort of health care. Why don't we just join the
rest of the industrialized world (and much of the Third World) and implement a
system that provides all citizens with decent care. And we don't have to
reinvent the wheel. We have dozens of systems to choose from, depending on what
features we want to emphasize. Take your pick: Germany, Japan, France, Norway,
Australia, Iceland, Canada, or even Costa Rica, which, embarrassingly, ranks
just ahead of the U.S.
The political question that remains to be resolved is this: How does Mitt Romney
argue that Americans should vote for him because he cared about those who needed
health care in Massachusetts while Romney is, at the same time, arguing that
Americans should not vote for Barack Obama because he cared about those who
needed health care in the other 49 states?I could have voted for
Govenor Romney (R) of Massachucetts in a New England Blue Dog second..However, I completely despise the Frankenstein Politician the Far-Right-wing
out of touch Tea-Party Controlled Republicans have morphed him into.
@hellooowhat alternatives? this is a debate that has been raging for
decades and I have yet to see anyone articulate an actual alternative other then
returning to what was failing us before. Please tell us what alternatives you
think are going to work.
@Twin LightsTwin Lights reported..."...I think
Romney will be smart enough to not simply repeal with nothing in its
place...".What did romney pledge?romney has pledged
that the first thing he will do on his first day in office will be to repeal
obamacare.Millions of t-party, evangelical, christian, conservative
voters will hold him to that pledge.
>Mark 1Thanks for so clearly and concisely making the case for
Obamacare.>Tort reformDoes almost nothing to reduce health
care costs in states where it's been implemented.>expansion of
health savings accountsWhich poor people can't afford>Tax
employer sponsored health insuranceRaising the taxes of the middle class,
incentivizing companies to not provide health care>Allow customers to
buy insurance across state lines. Central to Obamacare.>We need
to incentivize people to purchase their own health insuranceA main tenet
of ObamacareAnd then, a trip to Wonderland:>Health
care consumers need to make better choices about the price of care. When the
>consumer is paying the bill, that provides incentives to try and minimize
cost.Consumers make sensible decisions about which cell phones to
buy, or which TV sets. But when your loved ones are sick, you aren't about
to price compare. Absolutely nobody wants the cheapest health care; we want the
BEST doctors and hospitals and specialists and meds. Admit it.
Conservatism has NO ANSWERS here. Obamacare is an answer, the closest thing to
a conservative answer as can possibly exist. I'd prefer single payer.
Obamacare's good enough.
To "Hellooo" the reality is that the ACA will be as useful as a neutered
dog stud service. Look at what happened in Massachussetts. See "Health
Care In Massachusetts: 'Abject Failure'" at NPR or
"Massachusetts health reform didn't cut ER visits" in Reuters.To "Eric Samuelsen" and "Tolstoy" here is the most
effective way to cut costs.Tort reform: "Texas Tort Reform: More
Complaints, Lower Costs" at Clinical Endocrinology NewsIf buying
insurance across state lines in the central point to Obamacare, why do they
prevent private companies from doing this? The Federal government runs at 25%
overhead, while private insurance companies run at 15% for overhead plus
profits. That right there would save at least 10%, or more once you include the
massive amount of money the feds lose to fraud.The best way to cut
costs is to cut the number of mandates. See CAHI report "HEALTH INSURANCE
MANDATES IN THE STATES". They found that 20% to 50% of the price of
insurance is due directly to the 2400+ mandates on insurance.There
are some ways that you could easily lower the cost of by at least 30%, if not
@redshirt tort reform is nothing but a red herring. medical malpractice
tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are
available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts
litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical
costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the
cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail and another way to protect
multi trillion dollar corporations from being held accountable. try
reading Professor Tom Baker, a professor of law and health sciences at the
University of Pennsylvania School of Law's “The Medical Malpractice
To "Tolstoy" you have not bothered to read the article that was
listed.In addition to "Texas Tort Reform: More Complaints, Lower
Costs" at Clinical Endocrinology News where they show that enacting tort
reform lowered the costs of healthcare through lower premiums and increased
number of doctors in the state.Also read "Tort Reform Shows
Positive Results in TX and CA" in Emergency Physicians Monthy. There we
learn that the cost of unnecessary tests along with the other issues can now be
reduced.According to the National Bureau of Economic Research study
"Does Tort Reform Reduce Health Care Costs?" tort reforms cut the cost
of malpractice insurance and does lead to lower medical costs especially for
high risk specialists such as OB/GYN, surgeons, and anesteologists.
When politicians say that people can get health care in an Emergency Room they
are overlooking the fact that ER's are only able to stabilize a patient and
send them on their way. That won't help long term or with a problem like
cancer, diabetes, a broken bone, heart problem or any other myriad of medical
problems that present at an ER. The ER Dr. will give a referral to a Specialist
or Primary care Dr. and those clinics require cash or insurance upfront before
surgery or treatment is given!
Tort reform has already happened. Sing a new song. You are so limited now that a
DR. pretty much has to admit he/she messed up before you will have any chance in
a court with prepropagandized conservative juries that believe all cases not
thiers are frivoless. Awards are capped at rediculously low amounts no matter
what the damages are and Dr's won't testify against each other.There's also no national standard of care to hold Dr's to and
they use that in court everytime. It's pretty hard to make a case when
there is no standard of care written down to hold them to and other Dr's
won't come out and say a Dr. messed up because they fear retaliation from
other Dr's and the insurance companies. It's a racket and it's
disgusting for anyone to still be crying that we need Tort reform.
What we need are less stupid medical errors.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments