Published: Thursday, Oct. 3 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
"For the 130,000 plus Utahns without health care insurance, ..." Well,
Dan, what about them? And what about those insured whose benefits are maxed and
are dropped? And what about those who are denied coverage because of
preexisting conditions? I challenge you to watch Moore's "Sicko"
for background. Remember "Sicko" wasn't about those without
insurance, it was about the horror stories of those with private insurance. The for-profit system is a dual edge sword. It encourages innovation,
but it puts profits ahead of health in all arenas. We are feeling our way now.
Capitalism is demonstrating how short sided and greedy it can be - you have been
watching the meltdown since 2007 surely. If your tea party friends decide on a
public default, the system you so love will dissolve, and fast. Then we will
have to evolve new ways of doing things, extra market, even faster. Hold on to
This health care reform is just a step in the direction of every democrats dream
of single payer government controlled health care system. It is simply a scam
to get the insurance companies out of the way so that citizens have no choice
and are subject to the dictates of government bureaucrats.
Why do conservatives honestly believe that healthcare is a privilege for only
the most privileged??
Let's consider what is wrong with health care pre-Obamacare. For a
classical market delivery system the following criteria would have to be
satisfied:1. Many sellers.2. Ease of entry into the health
care delivery market.3. Buyers have necessary information.4.
Transactions costs low.5. No market externalities.The health
care market violates 1, 2, 3, and 4 (and maybe even 5).This is why
the classical market solution which Dan so longs for can't be had. Sowe
are going to have a hybrid system (private and government) sooner or later,
probably a whole lot like the ACA. If you don't get such you
will have to come to my side of the street and have outright socialized
medicine. I'll be waiting.
This is exactly the reason for Medicade expansion. It's socialism in
action. The Dear Leader wants a one payer system, which won't work.
@Ernest T BassPerhaps you could quote chapter/verse stating our
expensive healthcare system is a right?The UNaffordable care act is
just that, unaffordable. All it does is mandate a bunch more coverage with
almost nothing put in place to control costs.Do you have a secret
Federal Reserve in your basement to print the money to pay for it?I
was born and raised in Canada. Ridiculous high taxes and literally waiting
lists to get on waiting lists to get surgeries. You don't need death
panels when you have waiting lists like they have in Canada.My
Parents still live there. In just February this year when I spoke to him he had
cataracts that had quickly clouded his vision in both eyes. His Doctor told him
they could get him into surgery. March 2014 (13 months) and if he didn't
take that appointment right then on the phone it would be June 2014!!!My Dad would have been effectively blind in weeks. He was/is completely
independent living at home. The fact he would be blind requiring massive
lifestyle accommodations was irrelevant. His choice was pay privately or go
blind.Welcome to socialized medicine/govt healthcare.
Proper health care won't be a takeover of the insurance market. It should
be the elimination of it. Health isn't an insurable commodity.
I read MR Liljenquist column last week and was not surprised to find he
misrepresented the facts in his opinion piece on the ACA leading to a single
payer system. I am equally as doubtful to the facts asserted in this opinion
piece. As evidence that employers will no longer provide health insurance to
their employees he sites Walgreens decision to use a PRIVATE health insurance
exchange (NOT the one created under ACA). This is similar to employers
outsourcing customer support. Walgreens is NOT forcing employees into the
federally mandated exchange but simply using a private company who bundles
insurances for businesses. MR Liljenquist is either ignorant of the facts or
he intentionally misrepresented the fact. Either way I am certainly glad that
he is no longer holding public office given he either does not do his due
diligence or intentionally would like to mislead the public. It's time
that the general public start educating themselves. Perhaps only then can we
make rational decisions about who should be our elected representatives.
"Dabakis manages all of this in a practiced, condescending, mocking tone
that projects the schoolyard bully rather than a serious, thoughtful
statesman."I received and read the same email Dan. It did not,
to any degree, strike me the way you describe. Rather, it struck me as Sen.
Dabakis pleading with the Governor to consider the effects on the lives of real
human beings a decision to reject Medicaid Expansion would have. The
comments I have restated above from you Mr. Liljenquist strike me as nothing
less than an ad hominem argument.
". . . expanding Medicaid . . . would certainly accelerate the government
takeover of health care."Yay!
"If we wish to preserve a private health care insurance market in Utah, we
should not opt for full Medicaid expansion."Why should we want
to preserve this? Health care should not be a profit driven market. We simply
would be better off if those in the private heath care insurance market were
left out of the loop. Let them find another gravy train to board. They are
mostly the blame for the mess that we are in now.
Private health insurance is driven by profits. They're not in the business
to be kind to people or do good for society. They're in business to make
money. Period.One of the biggest obstacles to profitability in
health insurance is the "pre-existing condition". When somebody has
already had cancer, guess what? They're more likely to develop cancer
again. These patients / customers are a big-time threat to profitability in
health insurance.Dan, if you want to preserve the private insurance
market, you need to attack the parts of ACA which directly attack profitability,
such as prohibiting health insurance companies from excluding coverage for
people with pre-existing conditions.I wish people would at least
just be honest about the issue.
I wonder what redeeming virtues Dan Liljenquist sees in our country's
current medical insurance system. We have the most expensive medical care in the
world but not the best medical outcomes (not even close). Our insurance
companies spend more on non-medical costs than insurance companies anywhere else
in the world. Notwithstanding the existence of Medicare and Medicaid, a
substantial portion of our population is uninsured and at risk of incurring
expenses that could ruin them financially. Our insurance system is least
hospitable to some of the most vulnerable among us, including the unemployed and
those with pre-existing medical conditions. In short, we have a system that
provides expensive, inefficient, inequitable care. What's to like about
that?Fear-mongers reference long wait times in Canada as if that
must be the inevitable outcome of healthcare reform here. The fact is that wait
times for non-urgent care in France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Japan, and
many other industrialized nations are typically shorter than wait times here in
the US. We pride ourselves on the fact that the US is a world leader, but when
it comes to healthcare, we're way behind. It's time to fix that.
10CC,Private health insurance is in business to provide a service. ALL
businesses provide a needed service... or they go out of business. Name a
business that doesn't provide a service that people want. If people
didn't want it... they wouldn't buy it (until now).That
service needs to be valuable enough to the people that they are willing to pay
for it (what's so evil about that)?You are not forced to do
business with an insurance company. You can pay your own medical bills.
Nobody FORCES you to buy insurance (until now).The service they
provide is... they spread the risk so you don't have to worry so much.
Because if you have a catastrophic illness... they have 100 customers who
DON'T have a catastrophic illness at the same time so they can afford to
pay your bill (even if it exceeds the premiums you have paid) calculating the
probability of that happening into their rates so they don't pay more in
benefits than they collect in premiums. 80% of premiums are required to go
towards paying medical bills. The rest pays for office space, employee
salaries, lawyers, computers, etc.
Insurance and health care assistance should be entirely separate things. People
should pay out-of-pocket for normal health expenses, and we should have a robust
system for trying to help those who cannot afford regular health expenses.
Insurance is something quite different.Insurance is not a way to
lower your costs, it is a way to lower your risk. You pay a premium that is
higher than what you would expect to have to pay out of pocket on average in
order to not have to worry as much about worst-case scenarios.Under
Obamacare, insurers cover lots of "essential health benefits" but either
double their previous premiums or reduce their catastrophic coverage. It's
like if your car insurance paid for gas and oil changes but drastically reduced
how much it would pay in an accident, or if your homeowner's insurance
started covering carpet cleanings and gutter maintenance but stopped covering
fires. This isn't insurance, it's a fraud that will inevitably raise
the overall cost of health care.
Oooh! More creeping socialism. Must start fear. Must scare em before
it's too late. Let's not be concerned with those who can't afford
medical care. Let em die and reduce the surplus population. God will take them
to his bosom afterall.What is wrong with this picture? Who are these
children coming down, coming down? Saturday's Warriors to save the country
from a socialist fate worse than death? Or maybe they are just deadheads
lusting to grind their heel in the face of the poor.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments