Quantcast

Comments about ‘There's no quick fix for the Affordable Care Act’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, April 27 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

"Replacing the health care law means relying on more competitive health care markets, decentralizing decision-making, enhancing information transparency and realigning incentives to reward responsible choices and ensure accountability." Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.

This sentence is an incredible mouthful of nothing. The problem is that "competitive health care markets" cannot be established due to the high capital costs necessary to pay for state of the art medical hardware. The number of sellers is too few. This means that the market cannot be relied upon to deliver care. The solution: many of you won't like it, but a national system like that of the France, Britain, Norway, or Canada is necessary.

The ACA was the best Obama could get away with given the dug in medical industrial complex, and its right wing enablers who have been doing it since Ronald Reagan huckstered for the AMA.

If we can't fix health care we are doomed as a major power. There's a lot riding on this. Listening to Ted Cruz, Mia Love, and Gary Herbert at Southtown I'm not encouraged.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

"Replacing the health care law means relying on more competitive health care markets, decentralizing decision-making, enhancing information transparency and realigning incentives to reward responsible choices and ensure accountability."

More competitive health care markets first of all does nothing for the skyrocketing costs of health care technology (not saying the ACA does enough for this either)if what they are talking about is opening up state boarders for the sale of health insurance.

Secondly opening up boarders for health insurance sales will only lead to a consolidation of companies not competition. unregulated capitalism doesn't lead to competition it leads to consolidation.

De-centralizing decisions could mean a variety of things but the ACA all ready allows states the right to do their own thing within reasonable boundaries. Speaking of those boundaries minimum levels of coverage are an actuarial necessity in order to have a functioning system where everyone who plays..pays.

I'm all for information transparency if they mean drug companies, and medical device companies have to share their marketing information with doctors so the doctor knows he's not paying more for a device than the doctor down the hall.

More later..

cmsense
Kaysville, UT

Government needs to get out of the business of picking winners and losers. Yes we need coverage mandates, just like there is a 99% chance the writer of this article enjoys quality health insurance which included mandates enshrined in law and were paid for with pre tax dollars. Employees of small businesses, entrepreneurs, and people in the individual market should also have access to such coverage as well as any tax advantages that employees of the government, unions, and corporations have enjoyed for years.
Where and how you are employed shouldn't determine your access and mandated coverages and tax benefits. Pre ACA, you couldn't buy a health savings account policy in Utah in the individual marketplace that even had the OPTION of maternity coverage. The policies in the individual market that did cover maternity came with $7500 maternity "deductables". An employee of a corporation or government choices for insurance where much much different in the same state.
Yes I think maternity should be covered. Yes I think mental health should be covered. Insurance isn't insurance if you can game the system. I can't pick and choose not to cover hypertension or cardiology until I'm 60.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

The government created "health-care" when FDR was President. FDR froze wages. He had no authority to do that. Nowhere in the Constitution has the President been given power to freeze wages, but that didn't stop FDR. Now, Obama has signed into law another unauthorized grab of private funds. He wants that 18% that we pay for healthcare to be given to the government, not for healthcare, as Kathleen Sebelius showed when a little girl needed a life-saving transplant, but to pay for non-healthcare programs that buy votes.

As long as politicians tell us that they will "give" us something, some people will "buy" into their program. How many people actually believe that some "rich guy" will pay for their healthcare? How many people actually believe that a tax increase on that "rich guy" will solve all of our problems?

WE are the problem. WE want something for nothing. WE are the fools.

cmsense
Kaysville, UT

"Replacing the health care law means relying on more competitive health care markets, decentralizing decision-making, enhancing information transparency "

Competitive health care markets...like the ACA's "marketplace" for insurance where you are not charged more or denied for pre exhisting conditions and can shop on price etc.

Decentralized decision-making. The ACA's giving some room for innovation. Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on what constitutes "healthcare" that should be covered only argueing around the edges. Mental health and maternity should be covered. Insurance is only insurance if it can't be gamed by either the HMO's or members. If I can check my own blood pressure then decline coverage for HTN or wait until I'm 60 to sign up for cardiac care its not true insurance.

Enhancing information transparency...sure, lets do it. Lets make all the medical device makers and pharmacutical companies list their prices as well as justify any increase in prices above inflation. Lets also publish all the "non profit" hospital administraters salaries that earn more than the President and discuss why a SINGLE pill of the new Hep C med costs $1000.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

RE: Mike Richards "FDR froze wages." I can think of only two possibilities - the NRA (not national rifle association) codes or during WW II. If you're thinking of WW II that was part of the Office of Price Regulation in which case such was probably justified. Anyway, I don't get your point.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

Re: Mike Richards "How many people actually believe that some "rich guy" will pay for their healthcare? How many people actually believe that a tax increase on that "rich guy" will solve all of our problems?"

I think the "rich guys" should and can pay for a substantial part of our collective health care because they have attained their great accumulation stealing from labor. I don't think taxing "rich guys" will solve all of our problems but increasing their taxes will help all of us including the "rich guys." Because the system depends on a robust middle class which is being destroyed by the concentration of wealth we are going through now. Remember, the "rich guys" did super well when the top marginal income tax rates were 91% during the 1950's!

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

re: Marxist,

Surely you don't think that those who have signed up for subsidized health insurance are planning to repay you and me for paying part of their health care costs. The government is not paying for that subsidized insurance. YOU and I are paying for it.

You can read all about FDR and how he told employers what they could pay and how those employers, in order to keep valued employees, had to resort to giving them company-paid health insurance. It's in the history books. You might also read how FDR tried to increase the size of the Supreme Court to 15 so that he could pack the court with those who believed more in him than in the Constitution.

Health Care will self-regulate if government stays out of it. Last month, I had my yearly physical. The lab charged $219 for the blood test. They accepted $37 from the insurance company as full payment. That means that the "market price" for that service was $37. When "price gouging laws" are enacted and enforced, prices for routine procedures will be affordable - without government forcing insurance on us.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

Re: Mike Richards "You can read all about FDR and how he told employers what they could pay and how those employers, in order to keep valued employees, had to resort to giving them company-paid health insurance." OK, but I think that was during WW II. And you're right, getting health care insurance through an employer was an unhappy accident.

I hope you're right about the "price gouging laws" because such would be necessary in an attempt at market health care.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

My goodness . . . Another Right Winger demonstrating his panic and confusion, and lashing out with all kinds of bogus criticisms of the ACA.

Republicans in Congress had plenty of opportunity to help shape the ACA, but they absolutely refused to do so. Obama practically begged them to participate in making the law, but they snubbed him.

"I want to consult closely with our Republican colleagues . . . What I want to do is to ask them to put their ideas on the table. . . . I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward." – Barack Hussein Obama

Republican legislators were so irresponsible that they refused to help legislate THE MOST IMPORTANT LAW of the 21st century.

In retrospect, Republican Congressmen would not have had anything of value to offer anyway, so I guess it was better that they just lay down and went to sleep.

Republicans have proven that the best thing they can do for the nation . . . Is NOTHING at all.

That's pretty revealing, isn’t it?

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

"Tom Miller (the author of this bogus and misleading article) is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute"

And the American Enterprise Institute is a Right Wing Pretend Think Tank funded by the Koch Brothers.

In other words, what we have here is an employee of the Koch brothers telling us EXACTLY what the Koch brothers wants us to hear.

This, of course, impresses the malleable minds of Right Wingers who are looking for any made-up reasons to reinforce their prejudices.

But I believe Mr Tom Miller is a little naive in assuming that discerning Americans would get too caught up in his rhetoric of false claims.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

The only way to fix it is to go with a single payer system.
Plus it's significantly better than the republican's desire for millions of uninsured.

Thid Barker
Victor, ID

How are you all going to spend the $2500 Obama promised his Obamacare would save the average family on healthcare insurance premiums each year?

Cap'n Parrotdead
Onalaska, WA

This same old lame rhetoric has gotten old.

a bit of reality
Shawnee Mission, KS

RE: Mike Richards "The lab charged $219 for the blood test. They accepted $37 from the insurance company as full payment. That means that the "market price" for that service was $37."

The market price is what the players in the market negotiate. If $37 was the market price, the original bill would have been for $37, because the lab would have known that if it charged more than the market price (e.g. $38), literally *nobody* would have gone there. The fact that the insurance company charged you nearly six times the rate they negotiated with the insurance company proves that the market forces that regulate, say, the prices and quantities produced of limes doesn't work for health services.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments