Disaster vs. disease

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 23, 2013 7:35 a.m.

    To "GZE" actually the neighbors and nearby towns are going to be able to help rebuild. Just look at Katrina and the help that people gave as soon as they were able to get into damaged areas.

    Also, look at 1 1/2 years ago in Davis County. Neighbors helped with the rebuilding after the winds ripped through and destroyed all sorts of property.

    The saddest thing is that you think rebuilding is hard, when in fact the tragic death of your child or neighbors compounded with the complete loss of all you possessions is much harder to deal with.

    May 22, 2013 3:55 p.m.

    Redshirt, acutally the "worst and hardest" is yet to come. The rebuilding. The neighbors and nearby towns are not going to be able to do that.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 22, 2013 12:45 p.m.

    Wow, most people missed one of the key things from the letter. They praise the government for getting involved in the disaster.

    Outside of first responders, the government was not the first group in there to help. Help for the disaster was first met by the neighbors, and nearby towns. All the government could do was call and say that they are on their way. By the time they get there the worst and hardest part will already be over.

    This exemplifies the cumbersome and inefficiencies of the federal government to provide relief on a local level

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    May 22, 2013 12:39 p.m.

    you completely distort what I say. I never said all health issues are caused by the individual. Typical leftist response, if you cannot refute, distort.

    "No one is free from disease and accidents, but you seem to be inferring lifestyle choices have no health consequences."

    whether we pay the insurance companies in the way of premiums (co-pays and deductibles go to the provider) used to be somewhat at our discretion; taxes are NOT discretionary. So your analogy is faulty.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 22, 2013 12:30 p.m.

    The answer to nearly all of the questions about how our society works can be found if you follow the dollar.

    Health care is a stable, dependable, constant market for the private enterprise system. And seldom does any harm to the business operations.

    Natural disasters are unpredictable, extremely variable, and often harms business operations as much a ordinary people.

    Private charity seldom helps business operations, but is expected to help when people need help with their health care.

    Consequently natural disasters are delegated to government and health care is reserved for private enterprise.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    May 22, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    Lost, you are absolutely wrong. We are paying enough today in "taxes" to insurance companies in the form of copays, deductibles and premiums to pay for a single payer healthcare system. You are absolutely wrong when you say all health issue are caused by the individual. You are absolutely wrong the way you refer to government. The government is us. It is you and me and our neighbors. When your neighbor is in need, you should be willing to lighten his burden. When your neighbor is sick you should be willing to lighten his burden. I breath the air you spew out in pollution every day so I have no problem that we through delegates require that you clean it up. Then maybe I won't need my oxygen so much.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    May 22, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    There are about 10 prohibitive reasons why the free market can never solve our health-care challenge. No room to list them all in detail, but consider this:

    A perfect health-care system would do three things: (1) provide quality health care (2) to all Americans (3) at a reasonable cost. This challenge reminds me of the quip by famous oil-well fire fighter Red Adair. He said, "I can do it cheap, I can do it well, and I can do it fast. Pick any two." Chances are we cannot achieve all three health-care goals. But right now we are achieving only one of them (quality care) and that one only halfway. Something has to give somewhere, but there are countries that achieve two of the three rather well and perform adequately on the other. We ought to just pick one of these systems and implement it.

    Of course, the anti-socialist GOP would never stoop to such common sense, but we can always hope they will continue to veer off course and eventually self-destruct. Then maybe we can solve this problem.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    May 22, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    We do not have the tax burdens of other societies, and we used to have more individual freedoms with their concomitant responsibilities. BO and the dems want to eliminate both personal freedom and responsibility. An offer too many sheep find alluring.

    Old man,
    Obviously you do not recognize tongue-in-cheek. Either that or you intentionally distorted what I said – again. Asking the author if HE thought we should eliminate disaster relief is not the same thing as espousing it.

    No one is free from disease and accidents, but you seem to be inferring lifestyle choices have no health consequences. Your response is way off base – again.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    May 22, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    There is a big difference between mass relief and individual relief. When an entire community is destroyed, complete relief is beyond the scope of individuals and relief organizations. That's when government needs to step in to provide what charity cannot. When an individual has health problems, it is well within the scope of family, church, and charitable organizations. No government intervention is needed.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 22, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    Disease is suffered alone. Disaster gets the satellite trucks. And the relief payments. I know, of course, far more of us will suffer disease than disaster, but that's the nature of how we perceive what is important to us.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    May 22, 2013 8:42 a.m.

    Lost -- you're missing the point again.

    The writer is not suggesting we eliminate disaster relief. Instead, he is pointing out the need for comparable relief for illness. And if you really believe that all disease is caused by those who suffer from it, that is simply insane.

    Have you ever had a cold? Have you ever had the flu? Have you ever had cancer? Have you ever been in accident that was simply not your fault?

    If you did, are you irresponsible?

    While it may be true in some cases that the sufferer is at least partially -- and perhaps even wholly -- responsible for his or her illness, there are at least as many others who are not.

    Your post here is way off base.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 22, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    Here's an idea... What is the rest of the industrialized world doing for health care? Oh, single payer? Good. Lets do that. Lets do what works. Single payer has proven to work. Our "free market" approach has completely failed (unless you are on Wall Street making millions in bonuses for cutting your hospital's staff, supplies, services, etc while jacking up the prices).

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    May 22, 2013 8:10 a.m.


    So you’re saying we should not provide disaster recovery relief?

    But to answer your question, disaster relief is in response to a random, one-time event; health insurance is continual. Also, health maintenance is not nearly as random as a natural disaster; lifestyle choices improve your health and reduce the chances of long-term health issues. You say disease is not caused by the victim? So smoking, drinking, promiscuity, drug abuse, poor diet, lack of exercise, bad sleeping habits, etc., have no health consequences?

    Disaster recovery is also necessary to restore the economic vitality of the affected area, where Obamacare does the exact opposite – it diminishes and discourages economic activity (think 29 and 49).