The Affordable Care Act proved an opt out for states to use thier own plan that
achieves similar results. All you have to do is DO IT.
So that would be more of NOTHING from our republican leaders in Utah.Perhaps the money made from selling off Utah's public lands to your
friends in property development could help, governor, but of course that would
go into your politicians pockets (including your own) long before it every help
a sick person.
This is nonsense. Faceless insurance companies bureaucrats in other states make
decisions about the health care I can get. A young man working in Utah who is on
his parent's policy decides to forego treatment because he is out of
network. The list goes on. Health insurance is an interstate issue, and the
fantasy of states rights won't change reality. Either we are one nation
(think Lincoln) or we are a confederation. Utah has proven it can't go it
alone, taking every federal dollar it can grab, while at the same time screaming
about states rights. Such hypocrisy!
If the Governor has a plan that would cover more people for less $$, please
propose it, and enact it. Then he can have the State of Utah opt out. Vermont
has done so.I always hear repeal and replace, but never hear a
replace with what. Sounds like a two part promise, with the intent of only the
first being carried out, and going back to the status quo of before.So, Mr. Governor, please propose your plan that is meets the criteria, get
your legislature to pass it, sign it into law, then your editorial will be more
Quit talking about how the state SHOULD lead. Get out there an actually lead.
The citizens of the State of Utah (as well as the citizens of many other states)
have been asking for health reform for YEARS! Massachusetts was the only state
to do anything.When the needs of citizens were being ignored by the
states in which they live, the citizens did what any good consumer does - moved
it up the line.When states refused to step in, citizens found
leaders at the Federal level who would.Now that the Federal
government has done what the states refused to do, the states are whining that
they should be the ones to do it.As Screwdriver pointed out, there
is an opt-out in the ACA. If Utah thinks they can do it better, then do it.But who do they think they are fooling? They haven't done it
before, they are not going to do it now.Their hyperbole works great
to get us all riled up - but it does nothing to help us.
I would replace the 2,700 page law with a few sentences and get better results.
Health care for all (not health insurance) is a matter of inviting
doctors, nurses, etc. to provide a certain percentage of their time pro bono
(for free) as a community service. Let them deduct the time and expense of
their pro bono work on their tax return.That's it.
It would be much easier to believe the Governor’s words if he could point
to one instance where state government has done something better than the
federal government, for the people of Utah. The problem with our
local and state governments is that they represent only the business interests
and ignore the people’s desires.
Okay. Now tell us WHEN and WHAT you propose to do.In the meantime
-- and for many years now -- thousands of Utahns and millions of other Americans
have been driven into bankruptcy by the current system.Hot air is
all that seems to come from Governor Herbert and from the rest of his party.It's time to replace Senator Hatch with Scott Howell and Governor
Herbert with Peter Cooke.Then maybe there will be a chance that
something productive might actually happen.
Let's look at what those who advocate Federal Health Care are really
saying. They want Utahns to pay part of the costs for health care in New York
and California, where doctors and hospitals charge significantly more than do
doctors and hospitals in Utah. They want Utahns to pay for health care for
illegal immigrants in California, Arizona and Texas. Hospitals cannot refuse
care, but hospitals just pass the cost of that "free" care to everyone
else.STATE CONTROLLED Insurance companies serve two purposes: 1. They serve as our agent to pay for our health care costs.2. They negotiate with doctors and hospitals to limit the cost of health
care.A State is the smallest practical unit for insurance. (It
takes a lot of people to "spread risk".) A State is the largest
practical unit because limits the size of the "risk pool".The Insurance Commissioner acts on behalf of the people of the State to allow
or to not allow insurance companies to sell policies in Utah.The
Governor is right. Obama is wrong.
So what's preventing them from doing so?I don't get it.
Repubs are complaining and complaining about health reform right now. Where were
they for the past 5 years? 10? 20???It's not like this ALL OF A
SUDDEN became an issue right now. It has been an issue and a huge problem for
decades. Yet, they haven't done anything about it.You don't wait until 2012 to start a space race against the Russians and
complain that we have already lost. Likewise, you don't ignore for decades
the health care problem we've had and then complain when someone finally
passes health care reform.
@J Thompson I agree the State should do something. So let's so
complaining, come up with a better plan, then we can opt out. The lack of a plan
the Governor shows only that he wants to whine and complain his way to
Darrel,The State has done something. They have prevented YOU from
forcing the people of Utah to pay for your health care. They have prevented ALL
insurance companies from committing fraud on the people of Utah. They have
licensed doctors and hospitals before letting them serve our health care
needs.What the State has NOT done is to force any of us to have
health insurance. They have left that choice, and the consequence of making
that choice, to each of us. They have NOT forced insurance companies to raise
their rates by providing care for PRE-EXISTING conditions, conditions that would
have been handled if that person had CHOSEN to buy health insurance BEFORE he
became ill.We do not live in a nanny State. In Utah, most of the
people understand that actions have consequences. They know that if they
don't buy health insurance that they will have to pay for their own health
care costs. They are capable of making choices and they don't demand that
others pay for the consequences of those choices.
"...Of course, we care about better health and an improved
system...".We?We (The Heritage Foundation: aka The
Republicans sacred Think Tank)invented the mandate.When President
Obama proposed the mandate, Republicans were suddenly against it."...Of course, we care...". Nice try Gov.!
@J Thompson,I respectfully disagree sir. We have proven that
"individual responsibility" does not work. How? Because uninsured
people have no motivation to seek insurance. If something catastrophic happens,
the ER must still care for them. And who pays that bill? Society.My wife was born with legs that are slightly uneven in length, and as such,
usually is in pain. I am in the military, so she is covered, but what would
happen if I left? It is a pre-existing condition, and she would not be covered.
Who's fault is that? Not hers, and she would be prevented from doing a
responsible thing, getting insurance.I believe in the parable of the
Good Samaritan. We should be more focused on who needs what, not who pays for
what. I believe we are responsible for our actions, but we also live in a
community to benefit each other. No man is an island. I believe our personal
judgement from the Maker will be how we treated each other, our
"charity".The government is of, for and by the people. We
are the government, so a government health program is our program.
The governor is only half right. We need to dump ACA, since it does increase
costs and does not really address the problem.The thing that most
people are getting caught up in is replacing it. We don't need to replace
the ACA with anything. Right now there are 2400 or more mandates on insurance
companies. Each mandate adds to the cost of insurance.If you want
to make insurance more affordable, cut the number of mandates, make the cost of
insurance less for doctors (especially specialists), and don't tax the
medical device manufacturers.If you really feel that the poor should
have access to preventative care, have the state hire some doctors, cut out the
Darrell,I'm sorry to hear about your wife's health
problems, but what does her personal problems have to do with the government?People who do not understand the limited role of government are quick to
pass their personal problems onto the shoulders of others. They fail to realize
that the same Constitution that protects us from paying for your wife's
health care problems also protects YOU from paying for our health care
problems.The Constitution enumerates the duties of government.
Anything not on that list is to be left to the States or to the people. Health
care is not on that list. The State's role is to license health care
providers and insurers. The State is under no obligation to provide you health
care. That is your responsibility.You are free to help others who
are in need. Christians see that as a duty. Christ NEVER told the people to
seek help from the Government. He told us to render unto Caesar that which was
Caesar's and unto God that which was God's. He never, ever used force
to make us help others. He left that decision to each of us.
To "Darrel" here is what I have learned about insurance. In cases like
yours, you would easily be able to go to a new insurance provider because you
have maintained insurance. The Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA) required insurance companies to reduce or eliminate
the pre-existing conditions clause if a person could show that they had
insurance without a 63 day gap between insurance companies (old to one your are
applying to). If did not have insurance previously, for some conditions you may
have an exclusion period of up to 12 months where they won't pay for your
treatments, but after the exclusion period they will pay.In other
words, as long as you are responsible and maintain your insurance, the companies
do not hold that against you. However, if you are irresponsible they will.So, knowing the truth behind the pre-existing condtions argument, how
does it feel to know that the ACA rewards the irresponsible by allowing them to
not buy insurance until they develop a disease or contract an illness that is
expensive enough that they need insurance immediately.
When it comes to the need for health care reform, J Thompson and Redshirt seem
to prefer a social/economic Darwinism approach, where those who are fortunate
enough to be free of congenital health problems and to either have
employer-provided health insurance or be wealthy enough to buy their own
insurance are provided with quality health care. This reminds me of a secular
philosophy I've read about: "... every man fares in this life according
to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospers according to his
genius, and ... conquers according to his strength" (Alma 30:17 - Korihor
speaking).Conversely, under the Thompson/Redshirt approach, those
not fortunate enough to fall into the aforementioned categories have a much less
pleasant outlook regarding their health care, but apparently, that is not
society's concern. Again, this reminds me of something I've read:
"I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make
idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they
cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there. If they would rather
die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
What Screwdriver said, there's an opt out for any state that can get at
least as many covered at no more expensive a cost... so have at it Governor.
Those who use scripture to "prove" that the government should force us
to be charitable misrepresent Christ. He did not turn to the government for
ANYTHING. He did not tell his followers to turn to the government for
anything.Health care is not a community responsibility.We have no guarantee that we will be born with eyes or ears or hands or legs.
Should those born with handicaps demand that society pay because they were born
with handicaps?We have no guarantee that we will ever learn anything
in the public schools provided to us. All we are guaranteed is that we will
have the opportunity to learn. Should we demand that society pay if we do not
use every opportunity offered?Insurance is an OPPORTUNITY.My first daughter died from cancer when I had no insurance. Some doctors
waived their fees. Primary Children's Hospital waived its fee. But, we
still had huge medical and funeral bills. Family, friends and neighbors helped
us. EVERY bill was paid in full without turning to the government.Government fattens itself on our GREED not on our NEED. Either buy
insurance or pay the bill yourself. It's your choice.
Mostly this call for the States to take the lead is just a smoke screen for
doing nothing. 43 million people don't have coverage for any number of
reasons, and historically States have done little or nothing. This smoke screen
is just to put the issue of health care coverage back to a place where the
insurance companies can control access and price.Governer Hebert,
how much money have you taken from the health insurance industry...?
Much of the massive cost of health care can be attributed to the advertising
campaigns of hopsital chains, insurerers, attorneys etc. All of it pure waste,
and such confuses and obfuscates. If I can afford it, I'm getting out of
Utah - working people have no future here.
Mike said: My first daughter died from cancer when I had no insurance. Some
doctors waived their fees. Primary Children's Hospital waived its fee. But,
we still had huge medical and funeral bills. Family, friends and neighbors
helped us. EVERY bill was paid in full without turning to the government.Sorry to here that Mike but the truth is No One waived their fees, they
were passed on to the rest of us.Or are you suggesting that Doctors and
hospitals waive the fees of people who can't afford the care and take the
loss while the insurance companies still profit?
I love some of the 'solutions' being proposed here. Let doctors treat
people for free! Let the state hire doctors! Get rid of all those darned
regulations! It's all nonsense, as is this election year claptrap
from the governor. None of it solves the central problems. Poor people
can't afford health insurance. If someone gets sick, they're forced
to choose between two completely irresponsible alternatives. They can either
not treat a potentially deadly illness for a family member, or they can go to an
emergency room and rack up a bill they can't pay. And if anyone thinks ERs
will just treat them, pat them on the back, and let it go, they've never
had the experience of being hounded by a bill collector. Obamacare solves
both problems, and does so without driving health insurance companies out of
business. It's a market-oriented solution. The governor has proposed no
solution at all.
Did all you AHC naysayers notice how the British celebrated their
"socialized" single payer Government run Health Service at the opening
of the Olympics? How is it that the enslaved British don't run the
government healthcare bureaucrats out of the country in the name of rugged
To "SG in SLC" then explain how we can lower the cost of healthcare?Currently there are not enough doctors to provide care, and it would
take a long time to train up enough doctors and medical personnel.If
you are going to quote scripture, here is a better one. D&C 56:17 "Wo
unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite,
and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying
hold upon other men’s goods, whose eyes are full of greediness, and who
will not labor with your own hands!"Stop being a typical
liberal. Society, not the government, is more capable of taking care of the
poor. Just look at the Shriner's Hospital, and the Catholic Charity
Hospitals. They all all non-profit and have been around for a long time
providing free care to the poor.Why do you want give your agency
away and operate under a system of compulsion? President Hinkley spoke out
against doing that in 1986.
Your right Red Shirt, just because they say not for profit means they don't
charge anything... the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard... IHC in
nonprofit too do they not charge. This is all about taking care of the poor
because that is what causes the crazy bills to all of us. I don't see why
making costs go down for everybody is a bad thing. Please explain...
Happy Valley Heretic,How much do you know about the Primary
Children's Hospital? Apparently not much.Charitable donors
give money to that hospital so that the hospital can waive its fees for some
children, depending on the circumstances of that family.Right after
we received word that our daughter had neuroblastoma and that her chances of
recovery were 0%, a hospital worker visited with us and told us that we would
not be charged for their services. I told that worker that we would find a way
to pay. Then, she explained how the hospital worked. She told us of pennies by
the inch. She told us of radio and tv stations that held fund raisers. She
told us of private donations. She told us that because of the goodness of
people throughout the world, funds were set aside for some types of services.
Our daughter qualified.Some doctors donated their time and services.
Some doctors were paid by charitable donors.Government was not
involved. Insurance companies were not involved. Good hearted people gave
their time, their money, and their love to people who were facing the death of a
Does anyone else find it ironic that the healthcare solution from the
small-government, capitalist, we did it on our own and shouldn't have to
pay to support others personal responsibility Conservatives is a government
mandate not to buy insurance and contribute to the cost of your care but to
force those in the medical profession to do at least some of their work for free
- possibly reimbursed by the government, but possibly not.Really?It is wrong for the government to require every American to have
insurance because somehow that means you are going to have to pay for other
people's medical costs - but it is not wrong to force doctors
to contribute their services to those who have no insurance - yeah -
because that won't get passed on to you - especially not if they receive
reimbursement on their taxes or from the government.... /roll eyes/How can you even pretend that makes sense in any rational universe?