Health care reform threatens employer-provided health insurance

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    July 23, 2011 7:52 a.m.

    Insurance companies wrote the Healthcare reform bill and they will be getting richer.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    July 23, 2011 7:50 a.m.

    The law just makes the insurance companies richer period. People who do not have pre- existing conditions that have no jobs will have to buy insurance seeing as how they will be forced to do so in order to keep the insurance companies in business. Everybody will go broke because of this and have a microchip implanted in them also. The bill claims it is just for transients but it does have that clause that says "Or anybody else they deem necessary". If we didn't have such a spending problem in this country, we may have been able to insure these people without going broke. I bet you wish we didn't have a 14 trillion dollar debt now?

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    July 22, 2011 10:16 p.m.


    Another disciple of the cloward and piven plan..."we are going to have to see the collapse of the American system before any fixes (fundamental transformation) are possible." Well there you have it in a nutshell.

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    July 22, 2011 8:49 p.m.

    That woman in the photo looks like she's not 'right' in the head. I hope she doesn't have a position of influence in our country.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 22, 2011 2:36 p.m.

    To "Truthseeker | 2:14 p.m." it all comes down to who tells you that the money isn't there to pay for your treatment. Either you come to that realization or else some faceless government official.

    Also, my post was in response to people wanting universal care systems, I was not saying that the HC law resembles Canada's system.

    Given the choice of declaring bankruptcy, and having to go to court to get my debts restructured and death by government programs, I would choose bankruptcy.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    July 22, 2011 2:14 p.m.

    The new healthcare law does not in any way resemble Canada's healthcare system. Twenty-eight industrialized countries have single-payer systems including Australia and Taiwan.

    To counter your articles I could post a number or examples of people in the U.S. dying as a result of not getting healthcare at all and we could go back and forth. I could also point out that Cardiothoracic surgery article was not about people in urgent need of surgery not getting timely care in Canada or that the woman in "Reality Check" was not in urgent need of surgery, and was not facing a life or death situation. And despite Canada also looking at ways to decrease escalating costs they are not looking at the U.S. as a model.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 22, 2011 1:04 p.m.


    Anything that changes our death panel system I'll support.

    It's funny to me, we have billions to give away in republican nation building yet we don't have money to help support our own people. Anyone else hear of the kid that played darth vadar in that one commercial? He has a heart condition that isn't supported by insurance. That poor child and his family are now turning towards the government to try and help them.

    How sad is that?

    We have plenty of money to make Karzai and other arab people millionaire rich.

    Yet we don't have a few thousand too spend on a poor American born child.


  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 22, 2011 12:56 p.m.

    To "deserthound | 12:37 p.m." and "marxist | 12:39 p.m." lets see what happens when you go to a universal care system.

    From the Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery we read about the Canadian system. Their article "Cumulative incidence for wait-list death in relation to length of queue for coronary-artery bypass grafting: a cohort study" found that their wonderful system kills people waiting for bypass surgury.

    From Canada dot com we read "Medicare refuses to pay for woman's life-saving surgery" They refuse to pay for the surgury to save a person's life.

    CNN even wrote a story about the poor care in Canada in "Reality check: Canada's government health care system", where a patient was quoted 4 to 6 months of waiting to see a specialist. The wait would have killed her.

    CBC ran a story titled "Medical wait-list insurance to be available in B.C.". Seems like you have to pay extra to be seen quickly in Canada.

    Apparently Canada's system is more expensive than you think, Read Reuter "Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model".

  • deserthound Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2011 12:52 p.m.

    For the real story on our miserable health care system, read the 2006 book, "Critical Condition: How Health Care in America became big business and bad medicine."

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2011 12:39 p.m.

    Our present health care financing system is a disgrace. Too many people unable to afford coverage, and employers tightening the noose around their employees, ever bigger co-pays. You may want to note that Canadians seem entirely comfortable with their health care financing system (even the conservatives support it), and you may also wish to note that Canada remains recession free. Pointing these things out in Utah is, of course, spitting into the wind; we're going to have endure the collapse of the American system before any fixes are possible.

  • deserthound Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2011 12:37 p.m.

    Esquire is spot on. The U.S. health care system is the most expensive in the world while on a fast train to a train wreck, and it's all because of private health insurance and this stupid model of employer-provided insurance. Americans have been bamboozled into believing that the private sector can do it better. What a stupid idea.

    Remove the constant pressure to increase profits and dividends to shareholders while decreasing benefits to customers (i.e, patients) and suddenly things become much more economical and workable for all concerned, mostly patients and doctors.

    Want to see the greatest stimulus to our economy? Go to a single-payer Medicare for all. You remove insurance profits, the coverage stays with the patient no matter where they go or who they work for (talk about efficiency!), and suddenly millions of Americans would then be free to start their own business without the worry of losing everything. And it would free up billions of existing business assets to expand and grow, assets that are currently hamstrung by the big black cloud of private insurance.

    Oh, lose the label "Obamacare." It's nothing but an erroneous PR label to scare us.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 22, 2011 12:21 p.m.

    To "Ultra Bob | 11:56 a.m." there is a huge problem with your first idea. That is you leave out the fact that you can choose to take the health insurance that your company offers or not. I have yet to hear of a company that requires that you join the company health plan as a condition of employment. Also, if employers are to be kept out of being involved with the health insurance of their employees, does that include the Federal Government since they are a very large employer?

    Everything else makes you sound like a conservative that wants to get government out of the way and let health insurance providers work. Are you really becoming a conservative?

    To "merich39 | 10:37 a.m." outside of the fact that history proves you wrong, and that prior to the 1980's the health insurance companies provided for both the sick and the healthy. Do you have an arguement based on reality or are you just going to repeat what your fear mongering liberal masters tell you?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 22, 2011 11:56 a.m.

    The best thing anyone could do for working people with regards to health care is to prohibit employers from being involved with the health care of their employees. Businesses use health care insurance as an enslavement device for their employees and to reduce their payroll tax bill.

    If people were treated as individuals by health insurance companies, people could design their own coverage to fit their own needs instead to the needs of the employer.

    The second best thing would be to get state government out of the health care insurance business of people.
    People should be able to buy an insurance product from any state in the U.S., maybe any nation.

    The third best thing would be to require all entities in the health care industry to provide understandable, published, and dependable prices for insurance and the things it covers.

    The forth best thing would be to require all brochures, manuals, advertising and communications to ordinary people to be written and spoken in people English, not the gobbledygook of politicians and insurance salesmen.

    The Fifth best ...

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    July 22, 2011 11:15 a.m.

    Right wing think tanks. Truth doesn't matter anymore only perception. So it's easy to sell the perception that it's all Obama's fault and healthcare was going just fine before. hardeeeharhar.

  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2011 11:08 a.m.

    So, if we need health care delivery reform, why pass a bill that is health care payment and coverage expansion mandated. The only thing that has happened to control costs is the panels being established by the administration to review and approve coverage for the elderly. There needs to be reform, the current is not that and in the main worsens everything.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2011 10:37 a.m.

    Redshirt1701... and the alternative to mandates is health insurance that only covers the healthy. anyone with any kind of condition will be excluded, as they won't be profitable enough.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2011 10:34 a.m.

    I nearly choked on my coffee when I read the last few words of the first paragraph " a price they can afford". at a price who can afford?!? I've been involved for the last 20+ years in negotiating the annual renewal of our employer provided health care. our premiums have increased a minimum of 10% and a maximum of nearly 30% every one of those 20+ yrs. and those premium increases were AFTER we negotiated increased co-pays to keep the premiums as low as possible. because of the skyrocketing costs of health-care, more and more lower income families are dropping their coverage altogether. but, they still get emergency health care for free, as mandated by law. so the costs of their health care gets passed on to those who have insurance coverage. every year, fewer and fewer insureds are paying the total health care bill. and the problem will only become worse as the costs continue to incur double-digit inflation and more and more lower income families are forced to choose between food and clothing or health care.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 22, 2011 9:05 a.m.

    To "Esquire | 7:10 a.m." the private health insurance is getting more expensive because of government mandates. Over the past 30 years we have gone from 200 mandates to over 2200 mandates. What do you think that does to the price of insurance?

    Remember a couple of years ago Utah wanted to add Autism treatments to the list of mandates in Utah. It would only cost $50/yr for each insurance policy. That doesn't sound like much, but if you add 20 of those mandates you have now added $1000 to the cost of insurance. Each mandate costs money.

    Studies have found that 20% to 50% of the price of insurance is due directly to government mandates. With the HC bill that was passed, those premiums are going to go up even faster because of the new mandates and taxes.

    Also, thanks to medicare reimbursement rates, doctors charge those with insurance more than they otherwise would. That right there adds about $1000 to the price of insurance.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    July 22, 2011 8:18 a.m.

    Who is going to pay for Obamacare? If you haven't noticed, we are broke already! This article is spot on, unless you are lucky enough to get a waiver, which most companies are seeking! Gee, I wonder why, since Obamacare is such a "great deal"? The truth is, Obamacare is an unaffordable, unworkable, unmanageable nightmare waiting to happen! It is ripe for fraud and corruption and will be ten times more expensive than we have been told it will be, just like anything the government runs!

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    July 22, 2011 7:35 a.m.

    The McKinsey study runs counter to studies done by the CBO, the Rand Corp., and the Urban Institute. It has been criticized for it's poor methodology, basically a push poll, and characterized as being a pitch to attract business for itself.

    Esquire is correct this article is nothing but nonsense.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    July 22, 2011 7:10 a.m.

    This is nonsense. As an employer, I have seen premiums go up 25 to 35% every year with diminishing benefits. Lots of employers are cutting or eliminating programs. And this is BEFORE the reform legislation. The private health insurance system is collapsing, and the Senator, instead of trying to protect the status quo, should focus on further reforms. Our system is shameful in the industrial world. We have outcomes that are near third world. Our so-called American exceptionalism is a farce until we resolve this basic need in a way that does not ruin the lives of our citizens. Find solutions, Senator, instead of trying to undo an effort to address the problem. It is better than doing nothing, which is what you have advocated.