Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Pushing back against feds

Comments

Return To Article
  • ken
    Aug. 12, 2009 12:31 a.m.

    It seems like we fought a Civil War over a state's ability to nullify federal law. What's your next suggestion when Washington commands adherence to national law, secession?

  • Lew Jeppson
    Aug. 12, 2009 12:43 a.m.

    What position will the D-news take next? Perhaps you will advocate Utah opt out of medicare. How about opting out of social security? You're ridiculus.

  • Re: Lew
    Aug. 12, 2009 1:32 a.m.

    If only I could opt out of S.S. and Medicare! I could have invested my money and retired a wealthy man instead of having the government confiscate it without my permission, pay me 0% interest and when I retire, I may get back some of it but at highly inflated dollars what will purchase some small fraction of what it would have when the goverment took it! Yes, if only I could opt out! What a farce for anyone to think the S.S. is a good deal! Only an idiot who can't use a calculator would think it is a good deal for them. You know, sort of like people who think Obama's health care plan is a good deal!

  • Anonymous
    Aug. 12, 2009 1:33 a.m.

    Too bad that the Utah version is to lame and weak, catering to the health care industry. There are no mandates that require coverage for expensive preexisting conditions. There is no mandates for mental health parity, although this will be included at the federal level for 2010. What about any mechanisms to control cost and overhead for these grave robbers? This is nothing more than a state giveaway to insurance and pharmaceutic at the expense of the people. Modeled after Massachusetts, which is running in the hole at this time costing the taxpayers of the state to cough up the difference. Businesses will be allowed to tailor their coverage without mandates, if they don't want to cover mental health at the same level as medical care, they can opt out of coverage, period. This is not reform for the people, just a ploy to say that all people have coverage, even though the coverage is worthless for catastrophic care.

  • S2
    Aug. 12, 2009 1:48 a.m.

    Whether or not it goes anywhere, it may be an effective tactic in letting D.C. know that Obamacare is not acceptable in Utah and Arizona, and could well be adopted, in whatever forms, by other states looking out for their people.

  • A different view point
    Aug. 12, 2009 4:10 a.m.

    Just a thought.

    I wonder if Rep Wimmer would have the same ideas if the State of Utah did not pay for his insurance for himself and his family for his part time service in the legislature.

    Can any of you who read this tell me about a similiar part time job with similiar health benefits at the same costs?

    Or is it the case of our legislators taking care of themselves and their families before the public?

  • Ultra Bob
    Aug. 12, 2009 4:47 a.m.

    I am a child of God, husband to my wife, father to my children. I am an American because I believe in the American principals of human society. Somewhere much further down the list, I am a Utahn, but only because I live here.

    Only a fool would not want Health Insurance in this day and age. However exceptions might by someone so poor that health was not a primary concern, like the homeless who live on the street and the very rich who can easily pay cash for the measly expenses of health care.

    If the American government was to offer a health care plan, available to all, and the state of Utah prohibited a person from joining the national plan, I would probably choose to opt out of Utah. Utah is a state where the individual is subordinated to business interests, and business interests just don’t have health care for people as an important concern.

    While conservatives often tout individual freedom and liberty, they are often the most likely to suppress liberty and freedom for the individual for the favor of business profits.

  • JMT
    Aug. 12, 2009 5:48 a.m.

    Being able to opt out is important. There is a balancing act between Federal and State control and when one goes to the extreme the other should respond.

    States have the ability to opt out of all kinds of Federal programs that have the force of law behind them. This should be one of them.

    Socialized medicine is not going to work.

  • Jason
    Aug. 12, 2009 5:56 a.m.

    Slippery slope! And being one of those uninsured, it really angers me that the state of Utah thinks that it can tell me what I can and cannot do in my own life. If I choose to get participate in this new program from Washington, how dare anyone including the state of Utah tell me that I can't participate if I want to. Hypocrites!

  • @ultra bob
    Aug. 12, 2009 6:36 a.m.

    You're exactly right that Utah is "often the most likely to suppress liberty and freedom for the individual for the favor of business profits." One way Utah suppresses individual liberty in favor of business profits is by imposing a measly 5% tax on corporate profits. We could have more individual liberty if we taxed corporations at 50%!

  • uncannygunman
    Aug. 12, 2009 6:46 a.m.

    "And besides, all but three members of the House and two of the Senate have no idea what Utahns want or need."

    Pray tell, what makes Utahns so special that a senator from New York or a representative from California can't understand their health care needs? Do we get special diseases? Do we want to pay more for our health care instead of less?

    Could the real reason for this ridiculous amendment be that the federal system will likely provide coverage for abortion and other reproductive health services, and that conservative Utahns want these services to be as unavailable as possible?

  • f. day
    Aug. 12, 2009 6:47 a.m.

    why not just drop out of the union? Americans
    already believe Mormons are not really Christians.
    Why not show them they are right and we do not
    believe in sharing? Republicanism is giving
    Mormons a bad image.

  • jack alamansky
    Aug. 12, 2009 7:00 a.m.

    Utahs' legislators are like utahs' church. We need protection from them, not by them. One of the cornerstones of a proper health care system should be portability. Coverage no matter where I roam. The people who want to deny us this, our utah legislators, have publicly funded health care and are on the payroll of pharmaceutical companies...do you suppose they have our best interests in mind

  • Anonymous
    Aug. 12, 2009 7:03 a.m.

    This is insane. Utah thinks it is so special, so different, that it can ignore the needs of the poor and the uninsured. If you want to opt out of being part of America, start with all the federal money you love to accept. No more money for research grants at Utah schools, no more money to support light rail, no more money for I-15 reconstruction. No more money for Hill AFB. No more money for immigration enforcement efforts. No more money for national parks or forests. No more money for air traffic control and enhancing SL International. No more money for Medicaire. Will the Utah system be able to match the federal system? You are a bunch of hypocrites. This is appalling stuff.

  • S2
    Aug. 12, 2009 7:06 a.m.

    Ultra knows what we want! All liberals know better.

    (Psst, remember what the good book says about calling another a 'fool.')

  • Are you barking mad?
    Aug. 12, 2009 7:46 a.m.

    DNews, do you _really_ think that while national political leaders are under pressure from special interests that our state legislators are not?

    The facts are plain: The US ranks 37th in the world in terms of the overall health of its citizens, yet no nation on earth comes even close to the per-person dollars we spend on health care. Why? Because we stupidly rely on private health insurance corporations for our health care.

    The plan now being discussed in Washington is in reality an exceptionally mild dose of badly-needed reform and deserves rapid approval.

  • Re-read People
    Aug. 12, 2009 8:02 a.m.

    Many of the posters have misunderstood Wimmers proposal. It is simply to preserve free choice for Utahns to choose whether or not they want to buy into a federal plan.

    Whats wrong with preserving choice? It is much better than having a health system rammed down our throats that may make us worse off.

  • What if?
    Aug. 12, 2009 8:08 a.m.

    What if Utah has a better plan than the feds? Why would anyone want to be prohibited from purchasing a better product for less money provided by the State rather than the feds?

    I don't travel out of state for my health care, and keeping it at the State level makes a lot of sense. I can see where it would be more responsive to unique needs, and how it could be less expensive that a bloated federal program where the nearest appeals location would be 3 states away.

    A federal program would be insulated from complaints about benefit denials. The State of Utah is much more fiscally solvent than the feds meaning our own health care would be better funded and less likely to go broke like medicare.

    The more I think about it, the better a State solution sounds.

  • Sterling
    Aug. 12, 2009 9:19 a.m.

    As "RH" alluded to, Utah is not unique in wanting to leave Obamacare on the table. Some of the posters here on DNews would have you believe that Utah is alone in this effort. Even IF the movement doesn't gain steam, it at least will show D.C. that the STATES DO MATTER!
    I don't believe the "protests" that are happening at town hall meetings are "staged", I believe the populace is expressing their displeasure. Part of the reason they might be so upset is that the mainstream media have been so pro-Obama that folks don't think they're being heard.

  • Anonymous
    Aug. 12, 2009 9:25 a.m.

    "Pushing back against feds?"
    Where was this guy 8 and 4 years ago?

  • Lew Jeppson
    Aug. 12, 2009 9:29 a.m.

    Regarding health care the battle lines are now starkly drawn. I had hoped this wasn't so, but it's all too true. On one side we have the Obama administration which wishes to make health care less a matter of profit maximization at the patient's expense - that's where I am. On the other side we have the Republican Party, the right wing talk show crackpots and media combines like Fox and Bonneville International which seek to serve corporate interests first in health care. I know who my friends are, and my enemies. You're no friend.

  • anon 9:25
    Aug. 12, 2009 9:47 a.m.

    He wasn't elected yet...that's where he was.

  • Wimmer
    Aug. 12, 2009 9:50 a.m.

    Rep. Wimmer is a brilliant mind, and I can't wait to see what comes of this. I agree we don't need the federal government controlling this for the styates.

  • Oh Please
    Aug. 12, 2009 10:33 a.m.

    There is NOTHING to commend in this Wimmer absurdity. The guy has the cheek to take public-assisted health care for himself and his family at a fraction of the cost to the rest of us. Does Wimmer understand the word "irony"?

  • Utah
    Aug. 12, 2009 11:57 a.m.

    If goverment programs are so bad then why dosen't Utah opt out of: the US Post Office, Forest and Park service, Public schools, US Military, Etc, etc., there are admittly some ineficiencies in goverment run programs, but goverment programs are much better run, managed and a thousand times more honest than private sector business, and government programs serve the american people as citizens as a whole nation and not just the special interest groups that the private sector serves for the sole purpose of profit for the wealthy big business. Good government is good for the people and bad for the crooked private business enterprise. And now you know why the crooks fight government programs.

  • Invisible Hand
    Aug. 12, 2009 12:43 p.m.

    Reasserting states' rights is the right thing to do. The pendulum has swung way too far in the feds' favor since the Civil War. Utahns and others who love freedom should attempt opt out of as many of these federal programs as possible. And if socialists like UltraBob want to opt out of Utah, then good riddance.

  • Pushing back
    Aug. 12, 2009 12:44 p.m.

    @9:25 a.m
    "Where was this guy 8 and 4 years ago? "

    If you're talking about The editor-in-chief of the Deseret News (who is presumably responsible for this editorial drivel), he was the head of the Utah Republican Party. He was complicit in the Republicans' trampling of the constitution. Now that the other party is in control, he has suddenly had a change of heart about the federal government. Hypocrisy at its finest.

  • funny!
    Aug. 12, 2009 1:37 p.m.

    How five or six liberals dominate the comment boards. Look, this is a great idea. Rep Wimmer should be commended for his effort. The Obama worshipers need to quit expecting something for nothing.

  • Right On!
    Aug. 12, 2009 1:44 p.m.

    The plan is right on. I think that other states would follow Utah's lead If there is a way to sidestep or refuse the dictates of the federal government regarding their usurpations of a power not ennumerated to them in the Consititution, we should seize it with both hands.

    I would disagree with the editorialist (Bob Bernick?) however, about forcing everyone to have health care. We should be free to handle the possibility of ill health and accident in our own way. The government should leave us alone entirely.

    They do not have to ensure the security of all citizens from the cradle to the grave. They cannot do that anyway no matter how many intrusive, unconstitutional, and draconian, confisctory, freedom-quashing laws they pass. Private charity and personal philanthropy are compatible with freedom, but such government meddling is not. Neither is the confiscation of our income and intrusions into our private bank accouts. All these are nothing less than wilful deprivations of the most basic constitutional rights of private citizens and seek unlawful searches and seizures of our assets.

  • Pat
    Aug. 12, 2009 2:05 p.m.

    The reason that we want to opt out of Obama care is that it is a matter of life and death. (Unlike the post office, forest service, etc.) Sadly, we no longer recognize our country.

  • conservative patriot
    Aug. 12, 2009 2:09 p.m.

    The editorial says "Holding out on principle is one thing, but the well-being of Utahns needs to be the primary concern." What principle is involved? The Constitution lays out the foundational principles and the amendments add to those. At the core of our nation is "We The People", not "me the person" or "Us the State of Utah". The Constitutionally-founded government institutions provide for our defense and welfare. Elected officials over-reach when THEY determine the principles to be used for today's politics, whether it be F-22's or health care or immigration reform. These complex issues must be determined by the U. S. Government that we elected, which usually means both D&R involvement. Mr. Wimmer may have a pet principle he wants to use to push his agenda, but it seems pretty obvious he wants to deviate from the welfare of We The People of the United States.

  • Re: Conservative Patriot
    Aug. 12, 2009 3:13 p.m.

    You almost got me, Almost. You are no patriot and you are no conservative. Nice attempt to walk a fine line and sound like you know the constitution, but in the end you are found wanting. NO conservative who is a REAL conservative would advocate for a larger federal government. This was not what the founders said. Read their works.

    Please show some class and honesty and admit what you are, not "Conservative Patriot," but "Liberal Marxist."

  • Wimmer
    Aug. 12, 2009 3:29 p.m.

    is a hypocrit, plain and simple. He is given (by the legislature, themselves) a Cadillac health insurance for part time work. His brother received care at the Huntsman center (paid for by both charity and other insured people.) However, he wants to be obstructionist in his actions. Principles, my eye.

  • Vietvet
    Aug. 12, 2009 3:29 p.m.

    Next, Wimmer and the DesNews will want Utah vets to be withdrawn from VA's socialized medicine and get their own insurance.

  • individual mandate?
    Aug. 12, 2009 3:42 p.m.

    I'm very surprised this paper is even considering supporting an individual mandate. Requiring insurance for cars is one thing; insurance for a person's health is another. I can choose whether or not to buy a car, I can't choose whether or not I want to be alive (excluding suicide which 'aint gonna' happen). Why not require everyone to buy jazz tickets or Honda Accords or diapers or anything else? Because not everyone wants them. I don't want health insurance because I'm healthy and can pay for any expenses out-of-pocket.

  • Hey Ultra Bob
    Aug. 12, 2009 4:30 p.m.

    You said, "While conservatives often tout individual freedom and liberty, they are often the most likely to suppress liberty and freedom for the individual for the favor of business profits." What are you talking about? Your idea of "liberty and freedom for the individual" is nothing more than using government force to make others pay for your expenses. That is not "liberty and freedom" but simple legalized robbery.

    Please explain to me why I should be forced at the end of a gun to pay for something, anything, for you?! You seem to think that if it comes from government then it is free. You would never think it OK to come to my house and demand that I pay for your health care. But you sure think it is OK for government to do it for you. You, sir, are a thief! And I am ashamed to think that you are an American!!!

  • Inefficiency= Government
    Aug. 12, 2009 6:17 p.m.

    The Post office loses millions of dollars every year while their private competitors make a profit by being efficient and well organized. The government can't run anything well and why should it, it has no reason to do so, it has no competition! Competition is the fuel of good business and efficiency! Obama's plan does not have competition, that's why it is really really a bad idea for Americans!

  • Heidi
    Aug. 12, 2009 6:43 p.m.

    I think that's wonderful that Utah politicians (even though they don't have more skills than the average Utahn) are taking this stand. And I hope that the proposal includes the statement that Utahns should not have to pay the tax hike that will fund the ObamaCare Bill. I think that we should all read the Health Care Bill, even though there are several versions and even though most of the Congressmen and even Pres. Obama has not read it all. We should know what's going on. The government will tell us how to raise our children on P. 838 of one of the Bills. The administration ovbiously wants to run every aspect of our lives and butcher the economy.

  • AN OBserver
    Aug. 12, 2009 6:45 p.m.

    WHy are liberals so dead set against individual choice?

    THey are agains school chpoice, vouchers,'

    They are agains health choice, rthey want government to control all, and make aALL the decisions,

    They are against individuals securing their future, all must be part of Social Security, where governnet takes from your paycheck, and basicly keeps it, but if you are lucky you may get some of back at a very BAD interest rate.


    And there are many other examples of deprivation individual rights and property, by liberals.

    SO WHY do liberals hate individuals and choice,

    And ALL for BIG CENTERAL GOVERNMENT controlling everyone and everything?

  • 1776
    Aug. 12, 2009 7:37 p.m.

    I learned in my 4th grade history class that once Americans refused to allow huge government control over their lives and were free people! As a result, we had the great American revolution to throw off big government oppression! We called these people patriots! Today, we have so many Americans who seem to insist that the government control their lives, make all their choices and force them to do the government's bidding. We used to call people like that slaves or at least subjects! What has changed about Americans? How can a nation of volunteer "slaves" ever be free again? Perhaps it is time for another revolution? Throw the liberal confiscating, controlling, oppressive bums out of office the next election! If you won't do it for yourself, do it for your grandchildren! In the meantime, your government (Obama) is seeking more control of YOU! Stand up for your rights! The right of self determination! The right to keep your property! The right to bear arms! The right of self determination! What kind of person would give that up for a "free" lunch from the government?

  • Great Idea
    Aug. 12, 2009 9:37 p.m.

    To refuse spending your children's money is not absurb, it commendable. Obama is putting us further and further in debt, and one day the debt will have to be repayed(China won't be as stupid as the people who lended money to California). And when that does happen, guess whose tax dollars go up? YOURS! So, If you want to make today better and not worry about tomorrow, pile on the debt. I don't care if it's a good idea(it's not by the way), we can't afford it!

  • Kami
    Aug. 12, 2009 10:50 p.m.

    I am amazed how many americans want the Federal Goverment to take care of there needs. I pay for my own health care. We are small business owners, it is extremly expensive I will agree. We need reform, but NOT socialized medicine. TORT REFORM. Do any of you understand the malpractice insurance doctors pay? INSURANCE COMPANIES CROSSING STATE LINES. these are idea's for real reform. And by the way: Ulta Bob, I am curious, do you not want business in America to succeed? taxes at 50%, are you serious! When have you ever been employed by someone just because they wanted to be nice..The incentive to stick your neck out and supply jobs in America is called PROFIT!!!! I am so sick and tired of people making business owners the bad guys!

  • Freedom is not free
    Aug. 12, 2009 11:47 p.m.

    If we want to exercise our freedom from tyranny and enjoy liberty where we can make our own decisions on how to best serve our interests and spend the fruits of our labor, we must wean ourselves from the notion that everything must be provided by the government (federal, state or local).

    Wimmer's plan is a good start.

    "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" does not translate to a nanny state to wipe our noses and wash our hair and feed and cloth use and buy us cars. At least is not not mean that until recent years.

    Give me back my FREEDOM!

  • Anonymous
    Aug. 13, 2009 7:18 a.m.

    I want the federal government to succeed because I don't trust the utah government.

  • Anonymous
    Aug. 13, 2009 7:39 a.m.

    What's so great about being a conservative? It is no better than being a liberal. Give me the middle, where we can make practical, pragmatic decisions, not based on some ill-understood ideology.

  • Insurance a choice
    Aug. 13, 2009 7:54 a.m.

    It is ridiculous to compare Auto insurance to health insurance. Driving a car,is a privilege, not a right. If you are uninsured, you harm others financially. If you lack health insurance, you choose to suffer the financial loss. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights. I do not want another tax in the name of heath insurance!!!
    Mr. Wimmer and the Feds need to stay out of our pockets!!!

  • The Facts...
    Aug. 13, 2009 8:12 a.m.

    ... lie under the surface. You cannot legislate common sense and decency. Beware of extremes on either side, be they liberal or conservative. Extremism screams of selfish, narrow-minded, hidden agendas. Beware! Make a stand, yes, for what you believe in. But realize that a person has made no moral choice if the decision is not theirs. The more we require things as a government, the more we give away our freedoms to someone with a hidden agenda. Be it Bush or Obama, they both bow to the same powerful people in the shadows. Stop wrapping yourselves in the false security of standing behind your political party! Start electing moral people. Stop blaming "the other side" for all your woes! Big government is bad, and Bush was just as bad as Obama is; the paint job looked different, but under the hood they have a lot in common. Start thinking outside the "blue" and "red" boxes, or this country will continue to sink fast in this pathetic two-party system!

  • @ Insurance a choice
    Aug. 13, 2009 8:29 a.m.

    "If you are uninsured, you harm others financially."

    That applies to health insurance as well as car insurance.

  • Another view
    Aug. 13, 2009 8:51 a.m.

    For those who think that it is individual choice - lets say that you have been trying to get the on the state's medicaid program because you are poor - no job due to layoff recently end up in the hospital, lots of tests, doctor's visits, and one heck of a large medical bill to pay all because you were denied any government type of medical insurance. Even the hospital's social services won't help you.

    Yes there should be a nationwide health plan but with each family or individual having the option of joining or not.

    My friend has serious health issues and no insurance. She does however now have a large medical bill and no insurance although she applied for medicaid and was denied.

    So many think that medicaid is for the poor - it isn't because even the poor don't qualify for it unless they are disabled, under 18 or pregnant.

  • Horse left the barn
    Aug. 13, 2009 9:12 a.m.

    The country is socialist. The government owns banks, auto manufacturers, and now medical. They confiscate wealth and regulate all activities. The die is cast, the path is set.

    What will happen? For a number of years, the government will stumble along, the people will suffer, there will be no innovation, the standard of living will fall. The oligarchs will ride in limos, and buy people at cheap prices.

    Then, of its own weight and corruption, the government will fall and the assets will be sold off.

  • @Horse lef the barn
    Aug. 13, 2009 9:41 a.m.

    Not bad comments on the whole.

    I would make one adjustment. I would say
    "The banks own the government" rather than the reverse. Who owes who? You owe me, I OWN you.

  • Ernest T. Bass
    Aug. 13, 2009 10:00 a.m.

    Utah is so progressive!

  • hhmm
    Aug. 13, 2009 10:07 a.m.

    Utah needs to change with the rest of the world. We are a part of this great country, whether we want to think so or not.
    So if Utah decides to keep its own health plan, and perhaps never try to cut down on carbon emmissions, or develop alternative energy, etc . . . Well then we become a state of weird folks who close themselves up within a protective wall, incapable of dealing with the other parts of the world - whether it be in business or art or wherever. And while the "evil" feds cannot bring anything in, the wall is so impermeable that no "good" can get out. And we are left to suffocate in our own carbon emissions.

  • On opt-ing out
    Aug. 13, 2009 10:15 a.m.

    I know President Obama has said you can opt-out of the Federal Option and stay on your private insurance (if the insurance company still exists and you, or your employer can still afford it).

    What I wish I could opt-out of was PAYING for the Federal Option (whether I use it or not).

    SURE you can stay on your private insurance. But then you get to pay for BOTH! Sure I want to start paying for TWO insurance plans, the one I use and the one I hope my employer never forces me to use.

  • Will cost Utah big $$
    Aug. 13, 2009 10:36 a.m.

    Did we learn nothing from splitting the school district? In the health care scenario, the Federal Government is the rich east side district. Utah would end up being the poor west side district that would have to RAISE TAXES to make up for the money they would no longer get from the Feds.

    So this legislator wants to raise my taxes for what? So we can "make a point" that Utah is sovereign?

    Please! If you want to be a pouty little kid... do it on your dime, not mine!

  • Cosmo
    Aug. 13, 2009 11:24 a.m.

    Me thinks, that Civil War is just around the corner!

  • @ "What if? | 8:08 a.m. "
    Aug. 13, 2009 11:38 a.m.

    What if? | 8:08 a.m.

    How dare you even wonder "what if" something done locally could be BETTER than what the Great Obama proposed?

    Don't you know EVERYTHING Obama proposes is better than anything ANYONE could ever do?

    Stop questioning. Just go back to sleep and accept whatever the Feds offer you. Remember, whatever Obama says is best, resistence is futile, you will be assimilated.

  • Lew Jeppson
    Aug. 13, 2009 12:26 p.m.

    To 8:08: I support President Obama's health care initiative. I give him very high marks for putting it all on the line to fix health care. This is one of the reasons he ran for the presidency. He's a resilient and gutty guy. That said, do not infer that I worship him. I have problems with him particularly in the area of foreign policy. There are many of us who approve of what Obama is trying to do with health care simply because we believe it must be done, not because we are Obama groupies.

  • Switch a few words
    Aug. 13, 2009 12:27 p.m.

    'How dare you even wonder "what if" something done on the national level could be BETTER than what the Glenn Beck proposed?

    Don't you know EVERYTHING Beck proposes is better than anything ANYONE could ever do?

    Stop questioning. Just go back to sleep and accept whatever Fox News Friends tell you. Remember, whatever Glenn Beck says is best, resistence is futile, you will be assimilated.'

    Just make sure you don't check for yourself, though--the government might take over your computer! Yikes! Better to just believe him; much safer that way.

  • "Horse left the barn | 9:12" -2
    Aug. 13, 2009 12:55 p.m.

    Those on the left need to consider that though turning over healthcare decisions to the government may serve them well today, politicaians like Obama (who are willing to run the printing presses day and night to pay for this stuff) will not be able to sustain this. We will eventually have to elect leaders who will face the facts of life and either reduce what the government option will pay for... OR raise taxes on more than just one class of Americans to pay for it.

    When a more budget concious administration takes over... your healthcare benefits may be severely limited. But once you give this decision making power over to the beurocrats you can't take it back. THEY control it.

    Do you want an anti-abortion appointee running Health and Human Services and deciding that the government option will not cover or allow abortions? Once you give them the decision power waht are you going to do about it?

    Once you give them this power they can choose to cover things you don't believe in OR NOT COVER things you think are critical.

    No one can guarantee Democrats will remain in 100% control of the government forever.

  • Dean
    Aug. 13, 2009 12:57 p.m.

    Utah has already done small businesses a tremendous dis-service with respect to health care insurance, as it requires those with State contracts exceeding several magnitudes to cover their employees AND dependents. We know which legislators crafted and railroaded this bill, which is currently effective, and which was only released within 90 days of implementation. Knowing that over 85% of Utah jobs are provided by businesses with less than 50 employees, are we going to stand by for MORE?

  • @ "Switch a few words | 12:27"
    Aug. 13, 2009 1:19 p.m.

    Switch a few words | 12:27 p.m.

    What has Glen Beck proposed?

    Lets see if you know what your talking about or if your just caught up in the daily leftist talking points.

  • Anonymous
    Aug. 13, 2009 2:02 p.m.

    If we start opting out of everything that the govt. proposes, would it be ok if I opt out of paying state and federal income taxes?

  • GWB
    Aug. 13, 2009 2:35 p.m.

    Perhaps, if the Utah Constitution is amended in this way the Federal Government will opt-out of locating the IRS center in Ogden and the Air Force base in Layton.

    Perhaps, the federal government would opt out of letting the public onto land owned by the federal government.

    Perhaps, they would opt out of providing NIH, NSF, DOE and other grants to Utah institutions of higher education (the U, USU, and BYU all collect these dollars to fund jobs here).

    Perhaps, they would opt out of paying money from the Department of Education to fund the schools in Utah, which has a higher per capita student population than almost any other state.

    Then they wouldn't end up paying $1.20 to Utah citizens in wages, road building costs, insurance costs, and such for every dollar they collect in taxes.

    Perhaps these opt-outers should opt out of driving on roads created with Federal money? or getting Pell grants or federally guaranteed student loans?

  • Re "GWB | 2:35 p.m. "
    Aug. 13, 2009 3:45 p.m.

    Sounds like GWB | 2:35 p.m. thinks we should just be happy the Feds decide to locate ANYTHING in Utah. And we should just shutup and be happy for the grants they offer us.

    People like this will be happy about the new direction of healthcare in the US. They will love the day when someone in government gets to decide where new government built and operated hospitals will be built. Any question where the government built hospitals will be built? With Utah's 4 votes it will probably be Utah and not LA, Chicago, NYC, etc. They will probably build them in the more rural areas like Juab, Summit County, etc, not in the big cities (where the votes needed to stay elected come from).

    I know, I'm just a cynic, but I really wonder how it will go when the government eventually outlaws the private option and all decisions (of care, what's covered, where to build government hospitals, etc) is made by people with partisan interests and the usual "Bring the Pork home to MY STATE" attitude. Utah will probably make out real well in this type of system.

  • JBob
    Aug. 13, 2009 3:57 p.m.

    I grew up in Utah. I live out of state now and visit the Deseret News site every once in a while just to see what's going on.

    Some of the comments on this site are unbelievable to me, not to mention the editorial itself.

    Where were all of these self-described patriots when the Bush Administration and the GOP Congress passed a huge new entitlement, the Medicare prescription drug benefit that was largely a giveaway to pharmaceutical companies? Where were they when the GOP and Bush increased the size of the federal government from 18.4 to 20.9 percent of GDP? (Bill Clinton, on the other hand, reduced the size of the federal government from 22.1 percent of GDP to 18.4 percent of GDP.)

  • Amen
    Aug. 13, 2009 3:59 p.m.

    A la Reaganite Bruce Bartlett:

    In January, the Congressional Budget Office projected a deficit this year of $1.2 trillion before Obama took office, with no estimate for actions he might take. To a large extent, the CBO’s estimate simply represented the $482 billion deficit projected by the Bush administration in last summer’s budget review, plus the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which George W. Bush rammed through Congress in September . . . Thus the vast bulk of this year’s currently estimated $1.8 trillion deficit was determined by Bush’s policies, not Obama’s.

    ...

    In my opinion, conservative activists, who seem to believe that the louder they shout the more correct their beliefs must be, are less angry about Obama’s policies than they are about having lost the White House in 2008. They are primarily Republican Party hacks trying to overturn the election results, not representatives of a true grassroots revolt against liberal policies. If that were the case they would have been out demonstrating against the Medicare drug benefit, the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, and all the pork-barrel spending that Bush refused to veto.

  • Anonymous
    Aug. 13, 2009 4:32 p.m.

    re Inefficiency= Government | 6:17 p.m. Aug. 12,
    ____________________________________

    The overhead for medicare is about 1%, the overhead for the average insurance company is about 30%. Would you rather 99% of what you pay out goes to pay for care or 70%.

    Government is obviously the way to go.

  • @ "JBob | 3:57 p.m."
    Aug. 13, 2009 4:47 p.m.

    JBob | 3:57 p.m.

    It seems rolls change when the party in the white house changes.

    A year ago Republicans were saying, "Support the president, don't protest and question his decisions". Now DEMOCRATS are saying, "Support the president, don't protest and question his decisions".

    A year ago everything the president did was fine with one group, now everything the president does is fine with the OTHER group.

    A year ago you were unamerican if you protested the government's decisions. Now you are unamerican if you protest government decisions, but it's the OTHER side that's pointing the finger.

    It's weird but it seems like we've gone through a 180 degree roll reversal in the past 8 months.

  • RE: Amen
    Aug. 13, 2009 5:35 p.m.

    Way to twist everything to make it look the way you want.

    Bush is NOT a congressmen, thus he WROTE NO LEGISTLATION, he "rammed" NOTHING through.

    you MAY blame him for signing,

    but PUT the REAL and HONEST blame where it belongs:

    the LIBERAL DEMOCRAT controlled congress.


    It's no wonder the generally conservative and right leaning population must push back against the uncaring and unhearing feds.

    Feds who NO LONGER believe they are the servant but the master.

  • Re: Re: Amen
    Aug. 13, 2009 7:13 p.m.

    I think the GOP and its ardent supporters are going through some collective issues (see Wikipedia below on projection):

    Psychological projection (or projection bias) is the unconscious act of denial of a person's [or group's] own attributes, thoughts, and/or emotions, which are ascribed to the outside world, like the weather, the government, a tool or another person or people.

    An example of this behavior might be blaming another for one's own failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and redirect their libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another.

    The LIBERAL DEMOCRAT congress did not pass the medicare prescription drug benefit, and they were not in power for the lion's share of the expansion of government under Bush--that was done by the GOP congress.

  • Primal Scream
    Aug. 13, 2009 7:20 p.m.

    "The Feds"? Are you kidding me? Who are we, the Confederate States of America? To those Mormons who would say yes, might I remind you of what the Doctrine and Covenants clearly states about government:

    "We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly."

  • RE: Re: Re: Amen
    Aug. 13, 2009 10:29 p.m.

    True that, although the congress was roughly 50-50 and liberal republican leaned slighly left.

    But "Amen" was NOT talking about that bill,

    and I am NOT sure that most republicans or conservatives were happy about it either.

    BUT everyone thought something needed to done about prescription drugs costs for the elderly.

    NO liberal democrats of the congress ever spoke up against it or complained, meaning they must also be complicit.

    That said, Bush was rather LIBERAL in the spending he signed.

  • Joseph Atwater
    Aug. 14, 2009 12:22 a.m.

    Its all about who gets the greatest slice of the monetary pie!
    Utah wants to build up its own coffers at the expense of its citizens, but walking on soft ground not to bite the hands that feeds to get the Federal portion. Either way the poor and needy lose.Its not really about true health care for all, its really about who gains when it comes to purse strings.
    Either way the "doctors" are winners!

  • Lewl Jeppson
    Aug. 14, 2009 12:59 a.m.

    I have a question for you who so stridently criticize President Obama on health care: Would you propose any health care or health care financing reforms; if so what might they be?

  • All for one and one for all!
    Aug. 15, 2009 9:40 a.m.

    That would be stupid to opt out of any Fed Health care and I oppose it! I see our state only caring for the wealthy and business community at the determent of Utah as a whole and the country as a whole.
    We would be tossing federal dollars into the wind. Health care is something which must be tackled on a federal level. We must look at the big picture. Our health care is already a patch work of insurance regulations put forth by every state. There is too much leeway and too many people have no access to coverage or are bankrupted or must turn to raising money locally and through the churches. Health care will continue to be too expensive and legislature will continue with "talk" committees that won't produce anything and give us timetables like "10 years away" for any reform at all, while preserving the corrupt insurance companies bottom line. We need to join together as a nation to solve our ills, not break away from the feds. What are we going to propose next in Utah? Breaking away from the nation to form our own country?

  • CJ3
    Aug. 15, 2009 11:53 p.m.

    Utah has a proposal for reform? First I've heard of this. Must not be all that or it's policies would already have been adopted.

    I'd also like to thank Utah for attempting to LIMIT my freedom of choice by opting out of a program that would present a reasonable alternative to the bad joke that is the current system.

  • Andrew
    Aug. 16, 2009 7:36 a.m.

    While this government control argument is legit. It feels like the abortion debate, there is no end to it. All the arguing in the world isn't going to change very many opinions on the matter. Those debates will continue but in the mean time why don't we try to find some common ground( for some there will never be common ground, but for most of us I think we can). I am confident we can have some health care reform without the "patriots" feeling overly controlled and the "free healthys" getting what they want.

    Instead of trying to fix everything all at once which isn't going over very well in the republic why don't we take smaller steps first like tort reform and a level playing field with insurance across state lines? Those two measures alone would make a huge difference and not put us farther in the hole at a time when we need to be much more conservative with our spending. Yes we need some sort of health care reform, but we have as a nation much bigger financial problems on the horizon that will make any reforms a moot point.

  • S2
    Aug. 16, 2009 9:06 a.m.

    @Jeppson
    There are proposals out there that many of us could stomach or support that have to do with rolling back regulations on health that contribute up to 30% of the overall costs. We also would support tort reform, saving another $200-$500 billion annually. There are regulations that need to be looked at at the local/state levels too. Those who oppose Obamacare do it on principle (not the gov'ts bailiwick or expertise, and heck no on surrending so much control to an unwieldy and unresponsive ogre) and economics (CBO says 'no way' that cost estimations are realistic.) Sure, health care can use reform, but the first step is to cut the fed gov't regulations. Completely opposite of what Obamacare is doing. Health care includes a morass of networks and parties, and more complicated than any of us, as well as congressmen, can figure out completely. We can be grateful in some respects that the conversation is on-going, but have to hope Obama learns to exit stage left and let experts and stakeholders figure it out. BLUF: There is no crisis and we CAN afford to take the time to do it right!

  • If it isn't broke, don't fix it!
    Aug. 16, 2009 11:07 p.m.

    I would like to see Utah refuse to accept the Federal Health Care that is being offered.

    It is too extreme, and controlling!! Terrible for care of the elderly! Like the fellow from England said "Why would we want this kind of Federal Health Care when we have the best health care on the planet!

    If it isn't broke, don't fix it!!

  • The number: 66%
    Aug. 16, 2009 11:39 p.m.

    The number of Americans that say it IS broken is directly proportionate to the number of Utahns that say it isn't. Try again.