Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Let us improve health care by innovation, education and self-reliance

Comments

Return To Article
  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 16, 2012 12:39 a.m.

    Consider that the big banks make big profits by borrowing from the Federal Reserve at near zero rates, then lend to the public at considerably higher rates, and buy Federal Debt at rates of 6 and 7% paidt to they, the banks. Given this massive giveaway to banking I thinkt there is plenty of wealth in big capital to fix healthhcare.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    July 16, 2012 6:42 a.m.

    "Let us direct our attention to improving our health care system by innovation, education and self-reliance."

    That's just empty right wing blather.

    35 million Americans have no health insurance. Would we be more "self-reliant" if that number rose to 50 million? If I took away your health insurance would you celebrate your newly-increased "self-reliance?"

    How "innovative" can you be when your insurance company cancels your policy upon learning that you have a serious illness?

    When asked about how they feel about the individual elements of the Affordable Care Act, i.e. keeping your kids on your insurance until they're 26, ending lifetime coverage ceilings, ending denial of insurance for pre-existing conditions, etc., Americans overwhelmingly express support. Only when the label "Obamacare" is applied do they say they don't like it.

    Mr. Westover, instead of fatuous calls for "self-reliance," how about if you and your fellow conservatives start offering a practical, comprehensive, workable solution to the health insurance disaster to which you're so eager to return?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    July 16, 2012 7:01 a.m.

    We will eventually discover that what some have called "compassion for the poor" was really nothing more than perpetuating irresponsibility.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 16, 2012 7:28 a.m.

    Unless the government seizes the assets of banks and of the "rich guy", every dollar that the government spends comes from your wallet and my wallet. Obamacare is the biggest TAX ever levied against the American people. It is a TAX, pure and simple. It is NOT free.

    An honest man would tell us the costs associated with his program, but Obama is flying around the country pretending that he is the President of a nation of fools.

    Every health care service costs money. If it comes through the government, it costs even more because the government workers must be paid on top of the health care providers.

    Obamacare is just another money grab. This time it's for 18% of the GDP. The 15% that they take from our wages for Social Security and Medicare pales in comparison.

    There are problems with health care, but the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to handle those problems. Health care is an issue for the STATES to handle.

    Call the STATE Insurance Commissioner and complain if you want changes in insurance policies.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    July 16, 2012 7:52 a.m.

    Every person who claims that healthcare is a right should be condemned. No one has a right to any medical service unless he is willing to earn the money to pay for it himself.

    America is suffering through an epidemic of crime, addiction, and immorality. Every one of these social ills has its roots in laziness and idleness. The lazy and idle population has been created directly from government entitlement programs. Adding healthcare to the entitlement list will magnify the problem tenfold.

    As a nation, we can no longer pretend that the government can provide for every want and need of every citizen. We must return to the Founding principle that a man must work for his bread, and if he will not work, he will not eat.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 16, 2012 7:56 a.m.

    I don't think Obamacare prevents innovation, doesn't touch education, and certainly helps people to become more responsible (or else they'll pay a fine!).

    We're already paying for these folks via premiums, ER costs, and bankruptcies. Might as well create a mandate for them to get insurance and prevent greedy insurance companies from denying/dropping folks because of pre-conditions.

    I support Obamacare because it is a step in the right direction. I hope that one day we'll just get rid of the senseless middle-man and go into a single-payer system like most of the advanced industrialized world.

    I also support Obamacare because it's at least an attempt at addressing the issue. Repubs haven't made any suggestions or plans. They merely say "No!"

    Until repubs come up with a realistic plan (rather than right wing mantra) I'll support Obamacare. And sorry folks, tort reform and passing everything over to the states isn't a real plan.

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    July 16, 2012 8:02 a.m.

    It was printed in this paper just yesterday that BILLIONS have now been squandered in Iraq and cannot be accounted for.

    It's interesting to me that we have billions to hand out to Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc without any accountability, we have billions to support our 400+ bases around the world, we continue to waste millions on jets that the military doesn't even want (but which politicians demand because it means jobs for their states) and yet we cannot afford "health care" in our own country.

    While our country's infrastructure, education, and health care systems rot, our country can continue to hand out money in worthless wars, overgrown bases, and lazy jet plane manufacturers.

    While our people suffer with the nation's debt in a horrible economy, we continue to pledge billions to Iraq to "prop up theirs" despite their country being on top one of the greatest oil reserves in the world.

    We're being taken for idiots.

    Yet, who's stopping them?

    Certainly not the right, who is not only permitting this fleeching of America, but encouraging it!

    When will our government stop building up others and concentrate on us? Lets build up America.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    July 16, 2012 8:03 a.m.

    "America is suffering through an epidemic of crime, addiction, and immorality."

    It would be hard to quantify how these are our greatest challenges.

    I find it ironic that people have no problem spending trillions of dollars to "liberate the Iraqi people" but want to cut services to our poor.

    Again, Again Again I ask those so opposed to Obamacare to propose an alternative.

    And the silence remains deafening.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 16, 2012 8:13 a.m.

    So I ask is it ok with Republicans that when considering the 17 wealthist nations America ranks dead last in general health condition, dead last in life expectency, dead last in pre-mature mortality,and anywhere from dead last to 13th and 14th when considering deaths from specific illnesses. Oh yea..we rank second in self reported health condition. This is not a system with "some problems" this is a system that doesn't work. One of the reasons we got here, 10% or so of the population buy health insurance on their own (reasonable to think because of costs it's primarily major medical), and around 15% don't have any insurance. So probably around 25% of our population doesn't have regular access to health care until it's 1) too late and 2)enormously expnensive.

    This is not a problem states acting independently can solve, they never have. It's a national problem and will take a national solution. Or stop the constitutional mumbo jumbo and just man up and say it's ok for for some to live and others to die based on employment, occupational choices, and station in life.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    July 16, 2012 8:43 a.m.

    Don't like Obamacare? No problem. But please do not talk about personal responsibility like that is what we had prior. How can anyone claim personal responsibility unless they are either properly insured or have a minimum of about $250,000 in a health care escrow?

    Anyone claiming that they can take care of their own healthcare is naive. You may look and be healthy - today. Tomorrow you may have a stroke, heart attack, or one of any number of illnesses that will change your health future dramatically and permanently. And yes, this happens to the young. Many cases of bipolar disorder are diagnosed in young, otherwise healthy adults.

    Without good insurance or significant wealth, such illnesses can bankrupt you and put your family firmly into poverty.

    Anyone who goes without insurance is playing roulette with other people's money. Hoping/betting that they will not get sick. But if they do, they will present themselves to the local hospital as a charity case (once their money runs out) and then be dependent on either the taxpayers or other hospital clients to bail them out (because the money to help them does not drop from the sky).

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    July 16, 2012 9:27 a.m.

    @John "Charity" Spring

    "Every person who claims that healthcare is a right should be condemned. No one has a right to any medical service unless he is willing to earn the money to pay for it himself."

    I'll tell that to my cancer-stricken brother who lost his insurance when his company was restructured. He has now exhausted his savings, even cashing in his retirement savings. I guess he can just die since he can no longer afford the very expensive cancer treatments.

    I hope Mitt Romney wins in November. I'll give him the same courtesy and patience that the conservatives have given President Obama to get the country turned around. I expect that by the end of his four years a new health care plan is in place, and the economy is running at 100%, unemployment is 2% and gas is under $1.50 per gallon.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    July 16, 2012 10:03 a.m.

    I just read elsewhere in this newspaper about a young woman with melanoma who is struggling to pay $4000 a month for treatment AFTER insurance. Sick and disabled, she is trying to make up the difference by begging the public for help. Nowhere in the civilized world but in the USA are ordinary people reduced to begging when they become desperately ill. It's an absolute travesty, and the writer of this letter along with all "conservatives" have no response but "self reliance," which is just code for "it's your problem, Sweetie."

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    July 16, 2012 10:57 a.m.

    My son and his wife are provident people. They pay their bills, they both are employed, they are not extravagant in lifestyle. Right now, my son is in graduate school, getting training that will help him rise in his chosen profession.
    Grad school is expensive. They both worked while my son's wife earned her graduate degree, and now they're both working so that he can finish his. They have not incurred much debt. But this one year, they decided they simply could not afford health insurance. They've had it in the past, but the premiums went up past the point where they could afford it. So they crossed their fingers, just for this one year.
    The other night, my son's wife became very seriously ill. They delayed going to the hospital as long as they felt they could. Finally, they could wait no longer.
    That one trip to the emergency room is going to cost every nickel my son will earn with his assistantship this fall.
    They'll pay it back. We'll help too. But this is wrong. And all these calls for 'self-reliance' and 'innovation' and 'market solutions' are empty headed nonsense.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    July 16, 2012 11:10 a.m.

    Pre-emptive airstrikes and casting the sick aside to die in the gutter. The qualifications for "Christian Nation" must be pretty low.

  • EJM Herriman, UT
    July 16, 2012 11:52 a.m.

    Twin lights, CHS 85 and Irony guy have each, in their own way, highlighted the main problems with healthcare in this country. Who should address the issue? The private sector or public sector? Where does the concept of personal responsibility come into play when 35% of our nation is said to be obese? Is obesity genetic or are we fast becoming a lazy,feed our faces nation? What about pre-existing conditions? Should there be caps on the amounts insurance companies pay for treatment? Should hospitals be allowed to turn away people who can't pay?

    With every answer possible, with both the yes and no positions, people will say "you are discriminating against" this group or that group. Not one leader wants to offend anyone, and I do mean anyone. Even though I disagree with some of the postings on here, such as John Charity Spring, at least HE is willing to be up front about a point of view. I only wish our politicians on both sides of the aisle would step up with more concrete proposals as to addressing the health care issue in our country.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 16, 2012 1:07 p.m.

    Re: "Given this massive giveaway to banking I thinkt [sic] there is plenty of wealth in big capital to fix healthhcare."

    Therein lies the problem.

    All leftists insist there's plenty of money to go around, since leftist fatcats have learned how to game the system.

    This leftist crony captitalism is nearly as ruinous as the welfare entitlement mentality being peddled by leftist pols.

    But one ruinous leftist scheme does not justify another.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    July 16, 2012 1:12 p.m.

    @EJM

    I'll give you my take and an actual opinion, rather than another anecdote.

    I lived under a government-run healthcare system for 20 years in the US military. The doctors I saw were government employees, as were the nurses, orderlies, receptionists, etc. When I had my knee operated on, it was in a government-run hospital on an Army base. The care I received was excellent.

    The government can run healthcare effectively. The military and VA have excellent heath care professionals as well as excellent facilities. VA medical system has overhead costs also hovering around 3% and is generally regarded as providing excellent medical coverage for those eligible.

    I believe with American ingenuity, we can come up with a health care system that both shows compassion and meets the needs of everyone, rich or poor. When I was "subjected" to government-run health care, what I saw was excellence, pride, and efficiency. It is time to move that direction for all Americans.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 16, 2012 1:25 p.m.

    To "pragmatistferlife" have you even read the criteria that is used by the international community to rank healthcare system?

    How can the US rank dead last when they have the highest life expectancy, when accidental death is factored out. For most cancers the US has the highest survival rates. For response time between diagnosis and treatment, the US is the best.

    Tell us, it what ways does the US rank so low? From what I have seen and read, the US only ranks so low because we don't have universal care, that is it.

    To "CHS 85" would you rather have a government person tell your brother and his family that he can't get any more cancer treatment? From England's Telegraph we read "Lung cancer victims denied lifesaving scans" Does death due to lack of funding become easier when it is somebody elses money?

    To "Irony Guy" what about the women in England who were forced to give birth in offices, bathrooms, elevators, and other locations around a hospital? Is it more civilized to give poor treatment to people because the public coffers can't afford any better?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 16, 2012 1:36 p.m.

    I find it hilarious that repubs rant about the cost of a single payer system... They're completely oblivious to our own system.

    Isn't our "free market" driven system a lot more expensive than the single payer system and not nearly as effective?

    Or is having the highest costs while not insuring everyone and while being denied/dropped coverage not evidence enough that our system is failing?

    When will repubs finally admit that their precious free market system has failed? When 100 million Americans are uninsured? When we spend 10 times as much as the next country in health care spending?

    Guess I shouldn't expect much from the same group of people who believe that Iraq has WMDs, deny man made global warming, claim that trickle down economics work, and believe that our President was born in Kenya.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    July 16, 2012 1:59 p.m.

    Okay, here's my challenge:
    Fact: health care is very expensive. Diagnostic tests, medications, surgery; all very expensive. Ruinously so for low and middle-income families. People who get good insurance through their jobs can afford to get sick. People who don't generally can neither afford to purchase it, or to go without. That reality is not in dispute.
    So for those of you who oppose Obamacare, what is your solution? What practical, real world solution do you offer?
    No ideology or abstractions. Forget catch phrases like 'self-reliance and innovation.' Forget scare-mongering tactics, holding up the irrelevant bogeyman of 'socialized medicine.' What is your answer? What do you propose that will allow low and middle-income families to thrive?
    Because in America, when it's three in the morning and a baby is really sick, and families have to weigh two utterly irresponsible choices, either adding debt to a family barely making ends meet, or not treating a dangerously ill child, when that happens routinely, daily, in the richest country in the history of the world, that's not okay. That is not what it means to be an American.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 16, 2012 1:59 p.m.

    To "The Real Maverick" you realize that the higher costs and many of the problems with health insurance are due directly to the government trying to control it. This is what your liberal friends have given us. Next to banking, health insurance has the most regulations placed on it. Don't you find it ironic that the industries that cause the most problems are also the most regulated? If we cut regulations back to 1980's levels, you could cut the cost of insurance by 20% to 50%. The free market has not failed. Thanks to the free market, we have HSAs which allow young healthy people to save money and get the minimal care that they need.

    When will liberals admit that their attemps to gain power and control of our lives does not work, and causes more damage in the long term than it does good?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 16, 2012 2:36 p.m.

    Health care isn't like any other commodity. The most effective way for insurers to make it work is to deny coverage. And then we all end up paying for the uninsured anyway. Let's get everyone in the pool. For America, that will, in itself, be innovative.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 16, 2012 2:56 p.m.

    Does Obama have the solution to healthcare? When it would cost me about $900 a month to be privately insured (if my wife were not employed and her company has NEGOTIATED a lower price for services), and Obama would TAX me less than $1000 per year for the coverage that really costs $10,800 per year to provide, who's kidding whom?

    Does anyone really believe that the 35,000,000 uninsurable and those who have decided to not buy health insurance will receive all the help that they need for less than $1,000 per year when the health care industry would charge them ten times as much?

    The burden of proof is on Obama. It is his plan. He won't tell us what will be covered, but he is quick to tell us that he will slash payments by 50% to doctors and hospitals. Has he bothered to ask those doctors and hospitals whether they will offer the same services for 50% less? Is he going to enslave them and force them to work the same hours and to provide the same services for 50% less?

    Who's the fool here, us, or Obama?

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    July 16, 2012 3:42 p.m.

    Too many people are too quick to blame insurance companies for their woes. How many of those "uninsurable" gambled and lost, thinking that they could put off buying health insurance until they "needed" it? How many of those people misrepresented their health problems when applying for insurance and then were "shocked" to find out that they were denied coverage?

    As a former insurance agent, I've seen it all. People slammed the door in my face when I offered to sell them insurance, but they called me for a return visit the day after visiting the doctor and finding out that their "gamble" was going to cost them big time.

    The State controls all insurance policies issued within the State. If people would contact the State Insurance Commissioner and demand that every insurance company be obligated to cover, from birth, every person whose parents had continuous insurance coverage from birth onward, things would change for the honest people, but gamblers, who take their chances, should pay the full costs. They gambled - and LOST.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    July 16, 2012 4:18 p.m.

    @RedShirt

    You're right. The status quo is the way we should go. You've convinced me. As a society, we should just let the poor die, the middle-class have their health coverage eroded away. We don't want poor people around us anyway. We should all live in absolute white-knuckle fear our entire lives that our employers don't drop health coverage and our life savings are wiped out due to an illness. That's the solution we should strive for.

    Your side sure seems to have all the answers.

    According to the CIA, the US is ranked #50 in life expectancy, right ahead of Libya but behind Bosnia. That's what we want as a society.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    July 16, 2012 4:22 p.m.

    J Thompson,

    I agree that the folks you describe gambled and lost. The problem is that we are funding the casino. Either via taxes or via our hospital bills. When the gambler who lost goes to the hospital for help, where do those funds come from? Us. Whether via Obamacare or a Massachusetts strategy (federal vs. state) the concept of mandated coverage makes sense because we cannot/will not stop people from getting care. Despite the rhetoric, most of us simply are not willing to let a father of four (even one who WAS stupid) die (and possibly leave his family on the public dime).

    Also, what about folks who tried to get coverage but could not at a price that would be reasonable due to pre-existing conditions? Sure, you can get a policy to cover any condition if you can pay the premiums but even normal, everyday premiums are high. Rated policies are astronomical. In the case of a young person (previously covered by their folks) they cannot afford the coverage. Note that they did not gamble and lose. They never got to play.

    I am not saying you are wrong. Just asking for a solution.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    July 16, 2012 4:45 p.m.

    "I am not saying you are wrong. Just asking for a solution."

    Ah, the elusive solution. It is much easier to complain and shoot holes in someone else's solution than to actually propose one for scrutiny.

    I have asked and asked and the closest thing is tort reform and insurance across state lines.

    Like that will make a big dent.

    Solutions? Anyone?

  • Grundle West Jordan, UT
    July 16, 2012 5:35 p.m.

    The solution is to go back to a true free-market system. No Tort reform. Judicial Reform.

    Not this sham of a system we have let evolve over the last 45 years.

    As for the civilized world with all their vaunted universal healthcare and other entitlement programs...Read the news...these countries are going broke.
    They have adopted a model and it is unsustainable.

    The direction we are going is exactly opposite of the direction we need to go in.

    Life happens. My life plans have been altered by events. It happens. Nobody is responsible for that...I am. My dreams of a middle class life was compromised, but, thank God, I live in a land where I am able to recover. Not to where I was, but to where I am now. There is much to be responsible for and I will probably die in debt.

    But...I enjoy my grand kids. I revel in the holidays...all of them...and I love my country with all its blessings and all its risks. I love my failures even when I thought I could never overcome them. My life is richer because of them.

    That is how I feel.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    July 16, 2012 6:04 p.m.

    "No one has any right to any Medical Services unless he can pay for it himself" Mr. Spring you should change your handle and take the word "Charity" out of it. What about the old, the infirm, and children. Should we put infants to work to earn money for Medical Care?

    You Generalize way to much in your decidedly uncharitable comment.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 16, 2012 7:31 p.m.

    "you realize that the higher costs and many of the problems with health insurance are due directly to the government trying to control it. This is what your liberal friends have given us. Next to banking, health insurance has the most regulations placed on it."

    Swing and a miss.

    Nice try redshirt!

    Costs are much higher because... Well.. Watcha gonna do without health care?

    The free market has introduced folks from wall street who are more concerned with fattening their wallets than with health care. Since the 80s hospitals have been cutting staff, cutting equipment, and increasing prices not because of regulation but because they can. Finally those in power figured out how much of a gold mine health care was.

    As far as over regulation, are you really suggesting that the 09 collapse of our banking system was because of over regulation???

    Seriously???

    Um, try the opposite. The problem was no one was regulating wall street and hence the bad investments, the banks "too big to fail" and the collapse of our system.

    The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which repealed the needed safeguards of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 is what led to that disaster.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 16, 2012 7:39 p.m.

    To "Eric Samuelsen" here is a simple concise answer to you question.

    1. Cut the number of of mandates on insurance companies back to 1980 levels. This alone can reduce costs by 20% to 50%.

    2. Enact tort reforms to make malpractice more difficult to sue for. People like John Edwards made millions using junk science while making malpractice insurance for OBGYNs reach the $300000/yr range.

    3. Allow companies to create insurance pools across state lines. The government claims that this is how they can make it affordable, so it must be legit.

    To "CHS 85" read my post. First of all, you can't compare life expectancies from one nation to another for several reasons. First, the US has a higher number of accidental deaths than other nations, see "Does the U.S. Lead in Life Expectancy?" in the WSJ. Next, the US also has a totally different system for counting births than other nations, this skews our numbers down. For example England doesn't consider a birth a live birth until 22 weeks gestation. The US considers anything with a pulse a live birth.

    I would stay where we are rather than emulate England.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 16, 2012 9:22 p.m.

    Re: ". . . calls for 'self-reliance' and 'innovation' and 'market solutions' are empty headed nonsense."

    Hmmmm. Illustrative show of disdain for what made America, America.

    Solutions?

    First and foremost -- get government out of the business of promoting medical monopolies. Use its authority to prevent them. Government regulates every aspect of provision of medical services, from issuing certificates of public convenience -- without which one may not compete against existing medical-delivery facilities -- to enforcing the AMA/Big Ed monopoly on how many students may study medicine and how expensive it will be.

    Government must stop limiting, even preventing, competition by thousands of qualified primary health-care providers, PAs, NPs, dentists, even chiropractors.

    Government must stop propping up medical monopolies by cruel price supports and insurance mandates.

    These solutions will work, but big government won't implement them.

    Liberal politicians learned long ago that cynically driving up medical costs, then "saving" voters from responsibility to pay them, buys votes at both ends of the economic spectrum.

    And, that is, after all, liberals' primary goal -- buy votes with our money.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 16, 2012 9:39 p.m.

    Red Shirt; specific diseases/or conditions
    mortality to cancer 8th
    circulatory disease 13th
    respiratory disease 14th
    diabetes 15th
    infant mortality 17th
    musculorskeletal 13th

    Lots of reasons why but regular and affordable access to health care is a major contributor. One of my best friends just narrowly escaped death recently because of a hole in his heart that wasn't fixed because the procedure was turned down twice by his insurance company. Near death finally convinced them it was a necessary prodcedure. Insurance companies all ready have their own death panels. Life and death decisions are made every single day by bureaucrats.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 17, 2012 12:37 a.m.

    "Every person who claims that healthcare is a right should be condemned. No one has a right to any medical service unless he is willing to earn the money to pay for it himself." Then the Parable of the Good Samaritan would read something like this: the Samaritan found the man under severe duress, but because the man had no sufficient money to pay for aid, the Smmaritan conitnued on without redering aid.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 17, 2012 1:01 p.m.

    To "pragmatistferlife" your friend is a fool. Just because an insurance company won't pay for something does not mean that you cannot get the care. Your friend, if he (or she) valued their own life could have paid for the procedure out of pocket. Most doctors are willing to work with people to pay for medical procedures over time. My sister took 4 years to pay a doctor for the birth of a child, why couldn't your friend do the same?

    Why would anybody in their right mind leave life and death decisions up to anybody else?

    To "marxist" who compelled the good Samaritan to help? Was it the Jewish government or that person alone who decided to help? The liberal version of the good Samaritan would have him walk by and inform the government official in the next town that there was a person who needed help. Once the government did a cost analysis and formed a committee they would send out an official to oversee the care of the person. The good Samaritan would simply be a "Good Taxpayer", taking no initiative of his own to help others.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 18, 2012 1:55 a.m.

    Re: John Charity Spring: "We must return to the Founding principle that a man must work for his bread, and if he will not work, he will not eat." And if he does not have enough left for a health savings account he or his loved ones must die. Right?

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    July 20, 2012 11:04 a.m.

    >Redshirt
    1) Reducing mandates on health insurance companies may reduce their costs. Maybe insurance premiums go down 20%. I really doubt it, but let's say you're right. It's still unaffordable for lower income people, and it would absolutely make it easier for health insurance companies to not cover people, or to cut off their insurance if they get sick.
    2) Tort reform would reduce doctors malpractice insurance premiums a bit. No evidence to suggest that it would do anything about the affordability of health care. Texas tried this--it had little impact on costs, and made health outcomes worse.
    3) Selling insurance across state lines, as in, for example, a national health insurance exchange? A major element in Obamacare.

    So you've got one idea that wouldn't have much impact except a negative one, one idea that's been tried and doesn't work, and Obamacare.