Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Health care

Comments

Return To Article
  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 6, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    To "Ranch" you realize that what you are advocating is communism.

    If you believe that food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare are a right, then you are advocating a system of slavery in which those that work care for those that don't. It is forced, and those that work have no choice in the matter.

    Luckily we know that once you make all of those things a right, then the nation's days are numbered. You will experience an economic collapse as more people realize that the harder you work, the less others will work because they can just take any increase that you have.

    To "atl134" you realize that once the expanded medicaid money runs out, the state is on the hook for the increased cost. Where is the state going to get the money? You should also realize that the CBO has a failed track record for estimating medical costs.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 4, 2014 10:53 a.m.

    Healthcare isn't just a privilege for those with jobs and money either!. The insurance companies commonly denied coverage to folks with any pre-existing condition to protect their profits and the high shareholder investment returns. A basic right to healthcare is recognized by almost all of the advanced nations in this world. They spend a lot less on healthcare and have better outcomes than we do in America with our over paid healthcare empire. Nobody is saying you shouldn't pay your way, but there needs to be some rights for those who are less fortunate in society. With the outrageous cost of healthcare, even a household provider with a salary of say $40.00 per hour (if you don't have insurance) you can't afford what the cost of getting seriously ill and going to a hospital, much less folks who make less than that.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Jan. 3, 2014 5:19 p.m.

    @Badgerbadger – “Ah one of the favorite liberal lies, the ACA is the republicans' fault, when not one of them helped write it of voted for it.”

    One of the favorite conservative lies…

    The Republicans did not help write it by their own choice. Obama gave them plenty of opportunities to provide input, including a last ditch five hour round table meeting where he offered to consider any ideas they had if they would support it, only to be told no over & over. Obama naively thought that resurrecting their 90’s anti-Hilary plan would get him 5 or 10 Senate Republican votes straight away, but unfortunately he did understand the level of Obama hatred already in place.

    They opted for the strategy of denying Obama any victory on healthcare (or anything else, really), and you want us to believe that it was all a case of nobody willing to play nice with those poor Republicans on the playground? Please…

    Your fellow conservative David Frum wrote about this in an article called “Waterloo” and was subsequently drummed out of the movement for doing so.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 3:54 p.m.

    In the implication of the founding fathers that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", is that the new government would treat individuals as equal to other individuals.

    If a person has a right to life, does he also have a right to the things that are necessary to life? Like food, shelter, health care...

    No, a person does not have the right to another persons property but he does have a right to have the way to obtain the things he needs. If that way is denied to him the promise of America is broken.

    Would it be wrong if our society decided that equal opportunity to have the promise extended beyond mere birth on American soil to the food, shelter, education and even health care?

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 3:42 p.m.

    Ah one of the favorite liberal lies, the ACA is the republicans' fault, when not one of them helped write it of voted for it.

    Light your candle to Obama and the democrats and worship, while you ignore the facts and hate.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 3:20 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    "and who is going to pay for the cost of expanded Medicaid? We are already hurting the economy with the ACA, why do we need to damage the economy with more taxes and debt?"

    The bill is fully paid for (that's why the CBO scored repeal of Obamacare as increasing the deficit). You should know that seeing as your side railed against every single mechanism used to pay for it (tax increases, mandate fine, medicare cuts, medical device and tanning taxes...). There's also no evidence that the ACA is damaging the economy.

    @Badgerbadger
    "Having no insurance for anyone would make the prices of medical care go down."

    Medical bankruptcies would sky rocket and our life expectancy would drop due to people not being able to afford care (you see it turns out not everyone has tens of thousands of dollars laying around for surgery).

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 2:31 p.m.

    Just as people have the need for clothes, food and shelter as you mentioned, they have a need for healthcare. But not free as you are probably thinking. Except for the poor whom get Medicaid as they have done for years, the people that need health coverage need to pay a fair price for it. I am an example of this. Until Jan 1st, 2014, I didn't have health insurance for seven years. I was denied a personal plan when I became self employed due to a "preexisting condition" This unfair practice was one of the main issues that the ACA corrected. My spouse was not offered health insurance at his small company because it was too expensive. He also now has coverage. We will pay a fair price of $300.00 a month and have free health care screenings as well as access to doctor's visits and prescriptions. For hospital coverage we would pay a deductible like almost anyone has to. Our coverage is through a regular local plan that chose to be part of helping people get health insurance. Those are the facts that people need to get straight. God Bless America!

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 2:20 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701;

    Food, clothing and shelter should be a right. Transportation? Humans were born with legs. The bigger question is why is everything so expensive as to be unaffordable? If it weren't so pricey, people could pay themselves and not rely on the government or the charity of others.

    Jesus said care of the poor and needy IS an obligation; so, was Jesus a tyrant?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 3, 2014 2:00 p.m.

    "Requiring insurance for everyone is the best way to make costs rise. Great job Obama and democrats!"

    It cannot be denied that the original plan for mandatory insurance was "hatched" by the GOP and supported by Hatch.

    And this was touted as a Free Market solution.

    Proving once again that the quickest way for a Republican to be against their own plan is for a Democrat to support it.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    Having no insurance for anyone would make the prices of medical care go down. It is probably the most effective way of controlling the costs. Providers should be required to post the charges and they should be uniform for all patients. People would shop around and doctors would have to compete.

    It would be way better than what we have now, or what the ACA is bringing, or a one payer system. More freedom for everyone, and lower costs for everyone. Aspirins in the hospital would no longer cost $40 each.

    Requiring insurance for everyone is the best way to make costs rise. Great job Obama and democrats!

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 3, 2014 12:55 p.m.

    I don't know if this letter has spent much time in an ER with uninsured children having convulsions from dental abscesses, a fractured femur bleeding out, a child with a gunshot to the eye, etc.I have seen these things. But according to the letter writer, these poor children have no right to medical care. I cannot think of a more callous, savage viewpoint than this, but it is typical of my conservative neighbors.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 3, 2014 12:25 p.m.

    "I wonder if any of you Obamacare opponents care about the 5 million Americans who would've had the Medicaid expansion but don't because Republican governors blocked them, and don't have the subsidies because the bill assumed that Medicaid would be expanded so they wouldn't need them."

    Here's the rub.

    All those Republicans living in states without Medicaid expansion are nonetheless paying for that expansion but not getting any of the benefits in their state.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 3, 2014 12:17 p.m.

    It is funny to watch the liberals avoid the issue.

    If healthcare is a right, why isn't food, clothing, shelter, and transportation?

    What good is healthcare if I can't eat, or am exposed to the weather?

    The bigger question is who is going to pay for everyghing? The money that the government spends comes from all of us.

    To "Schnee" the right to life only means that the government can't just decide that you are not needed any more and kill you. It does not mean they have to keep you alive, that is your responsibility.

    To "The Real Maverick" you are right, and now thanks to the ACA, we can pay 2 times for the poor to be cared for. Once for the insurance we subsidize, and again when they go to the ER because they can't afford the deductible.

    To "Hutterite" since when are we "obligated" to help another person? Only tyrants force people to help.

    To "atl134" and who is going to pay for the cost of expanded Medicaid? We are already hurting the economy with the ACA, why do we need to damage the economy with more taxes and debt?

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    Tyler D,

    Yes.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 10:57 a.m.

    Lynn Price, if you want healthcare professionals to be treated like a capitalist enterprise then let them pay 100% of their education costs with no taxpayer subsidies. Let them compete like any other retail business. Make them post their prices instead of charging one price to the insured and another for the uninsured. Make them fight for every patient like Walmart or Target does or better yet like the Mom & Pop store on the corner. Open up medical schools for all instead of allowing the AMA to set quotas for admission. Instead of allowing their costs rising 3 times faster than inflation maybe we need to set up a real competitive environment for them rather than this vulturistic system we accept. Better yet, pay them well, take the insurance companies out of the equation and create a Medicare for all. There's nothing free about that since that is what you are worrying about. After all when you are healthier our nation is healthier.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Jan. 3, 2014 9:38 a.m.

    @Mountanman (sic) - Since I am not a fan of the ACA, I would like to learn more. Please, direct me to all legitimate studies wherein "millions of Americans... have lost their healthcare insurance and are now forced to buy more expensive insurance with less coverage." I have no doubt that, in making such a claim, you have ample evidence to support your statement. Please provide.

    Oh, and I understand you to be LDS, like me. If that is the case, abortion is not now nor has it ever been murder or killing. I would suggest you look more in depth at the subject.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 9:33 a.m.

    This thinly veiled defense of economic Darwinism is pretty much saying, "Let them die." If they can't afford health care, they have no right to health or even life. This letter is simply more evidence convincing me I made the right decision to exit the Republican Party several years ago. And this sentiment about health care is not popular just in the tea-party extremist wing. It is shared by pretty much all conservatives.

    What is ironic is that, as a recent Pew survey revealed, even as Republicans increasingly embrace economic Darwinism, they are increasingly rejecting Darwin's theory of natural selection. Go figure.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    @Mountanman
    "I wonder if any of you Obamacare supporters care about the millions of Americans who have lost their healthcare insurance and are now forced to buy more expensive insurance with less coverage?"

    In most cases there is either a comparable plan at similar cost on the exchange or there's a more expensive insurance that has much more coverage because the person had a junk policy (which are known for being cheap and covering next to nothing), so I just plain reject your premise since it doesn't apply to most who lost their health insurance.

    I wonder if any of you Obamacare opponents care about the 5 million Americans who would've had the Medicaid expansion but don't because Republican governors blocked them, and don't have the subsidies because the bill assumed that Medicaid would be expanded so they wouldn't need them.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Jan. 3, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    It always a bit sad when a movement (conservatism) that was founded by some incredibly smart people (Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, etc…) is eventually inherited by the not-so-smart masses who, instead of possessing the power to analyze, understand complexity, make distinctions and deal with nuance, are left to reciting bumper stickers.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 8:53 a.m.

    "the millions of Americans who have lost their healthcare insurance and are now forced to buy more expensive insurance with less coverage"

    I'm still waiting to hear a first-person account of this happening. All I've ever heard is anectodal. If there is someone to whom this has happened, please tell us your story. I'd really like to know how and why.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 8:43 a.m.

    One of the problems this writer puts forth is to equate health care with any other commodity. Unfortunately, this is not the case. When you need building material and don't have the cash, you can hold off on the purchase, When you're exhibiting signs of a heart attack, that may not be as much of an option. Instead of calling health care a 'right', how about a moral obligation we owe one another as members of an oft cited 'christian', charitable society. As a bonus, it can be done for all, with a smaller total expenditure than we are experiencing now.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    Pope Benedict (that's the last pope, the conservative one, not the new liberal one) said that healthcare is a basic human right and that all developed countries have a moral obligation to provide universal healthcare. It seems funny that the same people who insist that we have to follow the Pope on abortion and gay marriage simply chose to ignore him in this context.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 8:32 a.m.

    I would like to remind this letter writer that when she rushes to the ER for health care and isn't denied service that health care isn't a right (according to herself).

    MM, millions of Americans can still choose whether to obtain health insurance or not. That's the beauty of Romneycare, choice. Just because some Americans have chosen to go without or are choosing to procrastinate until spring, doesn't make supporters of the Romneycare hypocrites.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 3, 2014 7:58 a.m.

    @ Ranch. IF you are lucky enough to make it out of the womb! Odds are someone might deem you unworthy to live and kill you before you are born. I wonder if any of you Obamacare supporters care about the millions of Americans who have lost their healthcare insurance and are now forced to buy more expensive insurance with less coverage? You fake your concern for the relative few uninsured but ignore those millions who are harmed! Hypocrites!

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 7:04 a.m.

    Translation:

    Once you exit the womb, you're on your own baby!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 3, 2014 6:03 a.m.

    Until people look at the big "health care" picture, we will get letters like this.

    In a nutshell, health care is unreasonably expensive and the aging population will take a bigger and bigger chunk of our resources and ultimately bankrupt the country.

    Google "reddit 55000 bill" as an example of the disconnect between costs and services.

    So, we can continue to play partisan politics on the issue, or we can look to address it.

    Too many see no problem. Hence, they see no need to make any changes.

    There is a huge difference between wanting reasonable costs vs free services.

    The average cost of childbirth in the US is more than twice as much as other developed countries. And the outcome is similar at best.

    Why is that? Someone? Anyone?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 12:43 a.m.

    So much for self-evident truth of inalienable right to life...

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 12:36 a.m.

    So the writer asserts that individuals don't have a right to much of anything. If they don't have the cash with which to make a purchase, they have no right to any substance. But how does that square with the government's capital infusion into the big banks in 2009 to rescue them, and the extremely cheap, practically zero cost, of Fed funds being loaned to these same banks to keep them solvent. Did these banks have a "right" to that support? I hope the writer would say no to remain consistent. But the capital infusion and the cheap Fed funds were necessary to keep the banks, the center of the capitalist system, afloat. Here the needs of the system trumped the natural rights doctrine. Maybe the needs of individuals also trump the writer's rights doctrine.