Feds outline individual costs of health care repeal

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Jash Clearfield, UT
    Jan. 6, 2011 12:17 p.m.

    Re: Pagan

    My point is all three articles are trivial.

    Your articles at best covers 3 out of hundreds of insurance companies and 3 out of millions of insurance claims. You cannot come to any reasonable conclusions about the insurance industry with such a small sample size.

    I do agree the articles have "whistle blower" value. The public deserves to be aware of instances where insurance companies may be taking advantage of their consumers. But that is beside the point.

    The solution to Obamacare is to repeal it. It not only fails to address the underlying problem of Health Care (COST) but exacerbates the issue by making the actual cost of care more ambiguous to the consumer.

    As long as we continue to pay rising healthcare cost through tax increases and insurance payments healthcare costs will maintain their current trend.

    Left unchecked, Obamacare (medicare for all) will eventually bankrupt the country.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 5, 2011 4:08 p.m.

    To "CHS 85 | 3:00 p.m." you should read up on the HC law. It includes insurance exchanges that are run by the government. The insurance exchanges are set up to cover those that cannot afford insurance. The HC law included many provisions that increase the cost of insurance, this will force more people into the government program.

    The military healthcare is not like the universal care programs of other nations.

    Just look at headlines from england where they report that over 4,000 babies were born in hospital elevators, bathrooms and other non-maternity areas of hospitals. Read about how the last survivor of the Titanic was denied hospice care by the Brittish HC system. Read the canadian medical journal articles about how waitlists in canada are increasing mortality for cardiac patients. Read about how France's medical system runs massive deficits each year. Look up articles about how Japan now checks your weight each year and fines you if you are too fat.

    You can either have a system where you can get the best care you can afford, or get the care the government rations out. Which do you think is safer?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 3:11 p.m.

    'DN Subscriber | 12:48 p.m. Jan. 5, 2011
    Free market solutions provide the best health care options for about 90% of all Americans.'

    That contradicts the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance.

    '44 million Americans are uninsured, and eight out of ten of these are workers or their dependents.' - PBS Home - Healthcare crisis, who's at risk?

    How did you come to your conclusion?

    This also contradicts the reports from ER's that patients are twice as likely to die without health insurance.

    *'Uninsured ER patients twice as likely to die' - AP - 11/06/09

    'The findings by Harvard University researchers surprised doctors and health experts who have believed emergency room care was equitable.

    "This is another drop in a sea of evidence that the uninsured fare much worse in their health in the United States," said senior author Dr. Atul Gawande, a Harvard surgeon and medical journalist.'

    Again, how did you come to your conclusion?

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 3:00 p.m.


    But please remember, the Affordable Care Act is not universal health care. There is HUGE difference. I (as well as my family) was subjected to government-run health care for 20 years while in the military and I never was denied treatment, never was delayed treatment, and never received inferior treatment. The whole "death panels" scenario doesn't pan out. My current insurer is far more restrictive than my government provided healthcare ever was. I don't see people in Norway, Denmark, or France, etc. having shortened lifespans due to inferior medical care. Prove to me otherwise.

    And I still stand by my original thought that it is disgusting that people have to bankrupt themselves to receive healthcare in this land of plenty. When someone is bankrupted, we all pay by higher insurance premiums and higher hospital costs.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 2:08 p.m.

    'Just because one insurance or health company use shady practices does not mean all of them do.' - Jash | 12:29 p.m.

    And the other two examples Jash?

    Not sure how denying healthcare to a 9 month old, THEN after it makes the news giving it back to him is somehow NOT shady.

    Or using a computer algorithm to deny breast cancer coverage.

    Or denying someone who has HIV.

    The claim that the problem was 'fixed' with one example, when x3 and more are given of what the problem is...

    only means more will be dropped when faced with life-threatening illness.

    Still waiting for the actual SOLUTION to Obamacare.

    Not simply going BACK to the problems we faced before.

    The ones who do not get this media coverage likely do not get thier insurance, back.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 5, 2011 1:38 p.m.

    To "CHS 85 | 8:01 a.m. " but in nations that have universal care there are people dying or not receiving treatments.

    So, which do you want to be responsible for. Somebody having to hire a lawyer, and go through bankruptcy or helping somebody arrange a funeral because their treatment was not delivered in time or was not adequate?

  • bodgerdlue Kearns, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 1:24 p.m.

    Alright all of you who claim that free-market solutions are the best cure for health care reform- what are your free-market solutions?

    If you really want the free-market to work than that means that all doctors offices, hospitals, dentists etc. will need to provide up front pricing for services. That way the consumer has the ability to go where the best "deal" in medicine is. Pharmecies will also have to provide up front pricing so that you know what a drug costs before you fill your presription.

    It also means that prescription drug manufacturers will need to have there exclusivity windows for manufacturing new drugs shrink. That way generic manufacturers will be able to start puting cheaper versions of these drugs on the market sooner.

    If your free-market solutions include these provisions then I'll listen. But to cry "free-market" and then offer more of the same is no solution.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 12:48 p.m.

    Free market solutions provide the best health care options for about 90% of all Americans.

    For the rest, charity care is available, thanks to the generosity of drug companies, hospitals, doctors, nurses and people who give money to help others.

    I praise the liberals (and especially the conservatives who usually give a higher percentage to charity) who contribute to helping others. However, it is not the government's role to confiscate money from individuals to give it to other for health care, TV converter boxes, housing or anything else.

    We are guaranteed equal opportunity, not equal results, so those who work hardest deserve the greatest happiness. If you disagree, feel free to give everything you own to others, and bless you for your generosity.

  • Jash Clearfield, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 12:29 p.m.

    Re: Pagan

    You are too selective in what you quote...

    * 'Fat baby can get coverage after all, insurer says' -Associated Press - 10/12/2009


    'The insurer said Monday it would change its policy for babies that are healthy but fat. The company attributed the boy's rejection for health coverage to "a flaw in our underwriting system."'

    As for solutions, perhaps a consumer reports for insurance and health providers would be appropriate?

    Just because one insurance or health company use shady practices does not mean all of them do.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:31 a.m.

    Before Obamacare:

    * 'Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance' - By Nancy Lofholm - Denver Post - 10/12/09

    'By the numbers, Alex (Lange) is in the 99th percentile for height and weight for babies his age. Insurers don't take babies above the 95th percentile, no matter how healthy they are otherwise.
    "I could understand if we could control what he's eating. But he's 4 months old. He's breast-feeding. We can't put him on the Atkins diet or on a treadmill," joked his frustrated father, Bernie Lange...'

    * Insurer revoked HIV Patients coverage Reuters 03/17/10 - Person: Jerome Mitchell

    'Wellpoint Drops Coverage For Some Women With Breast Cancer' - By Mary Ellen Egan - Forbes Magazine - 04/23/10

    'Yesterday, an investigation by Reuters revealed that Wellpoint routinely drops coverage of women with breast cancer. According to the report, Wellpoint used a computer algorithm that automatically targeted...'

    Still waiting for that solution instead of Obamacare....

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 8:01 a.m.

    "Through out the history of man, the poor never had good health care and there is no reason to start now and put this burden on their neighbors. Your health is your responsibility, not mine."

    That's pretty cold-hearted. We are the richest and presumably the most charitible country in the world, yet people are bankrupted every day due to medical bills. I guess in the conservative world, that is just fine and dandy. I find it disgusting that people think that way. Why should only the insured be given the right to live?

    What the conservative plan to take care of the health care problem? I'll ask the question every day until someone can actually answer it.

  • My2Cents Kearns, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 6:19 a.m.

    No matter how you slice it, dice it, or cut it, national health care is unconstitutional in any form. The real scare tactic is Obama bankrupting the country to provided it. Health care is a choice, NOT a right, and the responsibility of individuals NOT the tax payers.

    Through out the history of man, the poor never had good health care and there is no reason to start now and put this burden on their neighbors. Your health is your responsibility, not mine.

    If individuals want health care, go through their company for help, it is their benefit to help you and keep you healthy to stay on the job. A healthy worker and a healthy family has always benefit the employer so they should help you stay healthy, not the homeless wandering the streets.

    No country with socialized health care works and so far the Obama plan falls right in line as a failure with all the rest. It is not government responsibility to be care takers, that's what it means to be independent and free from oppression. If you don't like your freedoms and rights, move to Canada or Russia or Europe.

  • Patrick Henry West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 1:59 a.m.

    People seriously...who cares about the costs or savings of Obama. What we should care about is whether it is constitutional or not? Can the government force us to buy something? Can the government regulate a state of inactivity under the commerce clause? Can the government continue to ignore that we the people are fed up with our leaders and their lousy solutions?

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 12:14 a.m.

    Hatch will spend every moment of the next two years running for re-election. Everything he says can be discounted as politcal jibberish. He's just spewing what he thinks the Tea Party wants to hear, because he saw what they did to Bennett.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 4, 2011 11:23 p.m.

    @DN Subscriber

    and your plan (or the Republican) plan to clean up the health care mess is what? Make plans portable across state lines? That'll help a lot, right.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 4, 2011 10:52 p.m.

    Obama's cohorts lied to us about the content and cost of this bill when they rammed it through in the middle of the night, without congressmen even having time to read it. They lied about details to get the numbers on cost to look good, claiming savings when it will actually cost billions of dollars.

    Since they lied to us then, why should we believe a single word that Obama's people tell us now about how bad it will be if it is repealed?

    Repeal it, every last word and provision!
    If that is vetoed, pass it again, and attach it to a "must pass" bill and keep doing it until Obamacare is entirely repealed!

    Do not fund a single provision of Obamacare- not a single dollar for any part of it!

    Senator Hatch and Rep. Matheson- you both need to vote in favor of repeal. You both campaigned as conservatives, now it is time to prove it!

  • Gary Federal Way, WA
    Jan. 4, 2011 10:47 p.m.

    The scare-tactics that Hatch and his cronies are using won't work. It is NOT a government takeover. It is a health plan that works to help more people have at least more access to affordable basic health care. It will have tweakings through the course of it in the years to come. It's not perfect, but is a good start. I ask Congress and the Senate to stop using scare-tactics and remember people in America aren't fools. The American majority asked for a change and they got it. The Republicans need to grow up and stop acting like babies and start working as a team and make compromises.

  • SuperArcher Lehi, Utah
    Jan. 4, 2011 7:01 p.m.

    "Hatch said the "unconstitutional, $2.6 trillion government takeover of our nation's health care system infringes on people's liberty, expands government to record levels and does nothing to stop skyrocketing health costs." "

    Hatch is flat wrong. The Health Care bill is not a 'take over" He's just using scare tactics as every other GOPer does.

    He is correct, though, when stating it doesn't contain costs. Doing nothing will only make the problem worse and more and more, including medium-sized companies, will no longer afford insurance to their employees.