Quantcast
Opinion

Dan Liljenquist: Obamacare will lead to single-payer health care

Comments

Return To Article
  • ECR Burke, VA
    Sept. 26, 2013 3:40 a.m.

    Headline: "Obamacare will lead to single-payer health care"

    Hopefully!

  • JustGordon Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 4:02 a.m.

    Dan, I hope you are correct.

    As the only first world country not to have universal health care for its citizens, it is time for the United States to value the health of its citizens and truly promote the general welfare of all.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 6:51 a.m.

    Yeah, and?

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 7:44 a.m.

    The Swiss have had a highly regulated program utilizing private insurance companies for years. If it works for them it may work for us. Granted if they prove less cost efficient perhaps we should move to a single payer system like most of the civilized world.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    One can only hope!!!

    Then we can join the rest of the modern industrialized world.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 8:36 a.m.

    Good! The sooner the better. Single payer would work best.

  • ute alumni paradise, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    ever heard of IHC? Indian Health Care? the feds can't handle 3.5 MM indian's health care and you expect them to be successful with 350 MM americans? keep dreaming about change.....that all obama can do is create devastating change.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    Wonderful news, Dan. Thanks.

  • ute alumni paradise, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    swiss? 16 hospitals, US 20K plus hospitals. seems like a good comparison

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    Dan gets the "Master of the Obvious" award for today.

    When people who didn't have health insurance before find out they still have to pay for it (and still can't afford it)... they will BEG for "Free Healthcare" (which doesn't exist, somebody has to pay for it).

    Once Americans who HAD insurance before see their old policy cancelled and the new rates... they are going to hate it so bad they will BEG for single-payer nationalized healthcare.

    If the COST of healthcare continues to rise, the RATES for insurance have to rise to pay those bills. That's an economic fact-of-life.

    Once you establish federal programs like these... they immediately become "Essential", and American's who were once independent become DEPENDENT, and you can NEVER go back.

    This plan also guarantees Democrats power. Because you can NEVER vote against the Democrat (because they will keep saying, "If you don't re-elect me... you will lose your healthcare").

    It's a great plan (to guarantee Democrats power).

    But we are past the point-of-no-return now. ObamaCare is here to stay... until we beg for National (AKA "Free") Healthcare.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 9:33 a.m.

    Most hopeful headline of the week.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    All of which goes to prove, Dan, that capitalism as we know it cannot deliver health care to a huge chunk of our citizenry. So if they can't successfully beg for care, they should simply get sick and die?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Sept. 26, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    'Obamacare will lead to single-payer health care’

    ====

    I echo many previous statements.

    Good!
    The sooner the better!

    FOR Profit Insurance Corporations should never have the final say deciding who should live and who should die --- because to them, they determine based on best business practices, NOT best medical practices, and they only see things as what makes them the most PROFIT $$$.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    Good. Can we suspend all the stupidity now and just do it?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    I believe this would cause the amount of americans who support ACA to increase many-fold.
    Fingers crossed!

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 10:51 a.m.

    I am counting on it. It's about time.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    @ Happy Valley Heretic: Many of those who do not support the ACA do not support it because they want single payer/universal health care.

    Those who oppose any government involvement in healthcare often fail to separate those who oppose the ACA into their respective groups and lump them altogether as opposition - but if you break the numbers down and really look at it, there is a lot of support for single payer/universal health care, including many of those who support the ACA.

    It is, however, interesting to note that Liljenquist's conclusion is not a return to pre-ACA health care but an advancement to single payer. This ads an interesting twist to the ongoing Republican opposition.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 11:15 a.m.

    I'll add my voice to the chorus. Let's hope we can adapt the ACA over the next few years into a single-payer system. Why do we have to be so "exceptional" in America? We're the only country that is totally out in left field on health care.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 11:26 a.m.

    Dan, it's not nice to tease us like that.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 11:29 a.m.

    If corporations stop offering health insurance to their employees, and dump them all on Obamacare, the profits of corporations will soar. Ir Republican economic theory is to be believed, all that extra wealth flowing to the "job creators" will result in millions of new jobs being created. It could be a new golden age, (if you believe Republican economic theory).

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    "... until we beg for National (AKA 'Free') Healthcare."

    Where do people get the idea that "National Healthcare" is free? At least in the countries I am familiar with, the premiums are deducted from a person's paycheck, though they might be called a tax or contribution or something else, rather than a premium. Those with higher incomes pay more, those with lower incomes pay less. The only case where it would be free is for people with no income.

    After all, Medicare isn't free, either. "The current rate for Medicare is 1.45% for the employer and 1.45% for the employee, or 2.9% total" (IRS).

    It would, of course, be better if the rate for single-payer insurance was adjusted so that when a patient goes in for treatment or prescriptions there is no deductible to pay.

    And, naturally, whether or not you have coverage shouldn't depend on whether you're employed or otherwise have an income, so those with no income should be exempt from paying premiums.

  • phantomblade Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 26, 2013 12:40 p.m.

    There are two ways of rationing a scarce resource such as healthcare:

    Price and Time

    If you remove price from the equation, then time becomes the rationing tool.

    Ever been to the DMV on a Friday at the end of the month?

    That's nothing compared to what waiting in line at the doctor's office is going to be, and that's only for a checkup.

    When your name, or the name of a loved one, is added to a waiting list for urgent surgery and they tell you it'll be at least six months to a year before they can get to you, and you feel that sinking feeling that you, or your loved one, may not be able to last that long, remember to thank Obamacare.

    Nightmare scenario? Hardly.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Sept. 26, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    In yesterday's Washington Post Matt Miller relayed a conversation he had with David Beatty - the kind of tough-minded, wealth creator who conservatives typically cheer, who ran food processing giant Weston Foods and a holding company called the Gardiner Group during a career that has included service on more than 30 corporate boards. Over breakfast in Toronto, Beatty told him how baffled he and Canadian business colleagues are when they listen to the U.S. health-care debate. He loves Canada's single-payer system for its quality and cost-effectiveness and for the system's administrative simplicity; you just show your card at the point of service, and that's it. Though he's a well-to-do man, Beatty relies on the system just as ordinary Canadians do, including for a recent knee replacement operation.

    In Beatty's view it's just common sense that government takes the lead in assuring basic health security for its citizens. He wonders why big U.S. companies want to be in the business of providing health care anyway (it's a government function, he says simply).

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Sept. 26, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    It will get everybody dependant on the government and turn them all into slaves. I say let them implement it. It will lead to a revolution and the destruction of the cancerous political parties.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 12:47 p.m.

    For those of you that want a single payer system tell us why.

    In the nations like Canada or England that have single payer systems, surgeries are delayed, so people either die while waiting or else they live in pain until their number comes up.

    In England the growh rate of private insuranc is huge as the government system collapses in on itself. The government system can't keep up with the needs of the people, so they are going to private doctors that have the capabilties to attend to them.

    In places like Taiwan people are limited on how many times per year they can see a doctor.

    The horror stories about the policies that come with single payer systems should be enough to scare anybody away from them.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Sept. 26, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    And the sad thing is all the liberal house slaves are going to turn a blind eye to every atrocity that will be coming. These Government workers and Authoritarian Democrats think they are apart of a winning team. They are on a total power trip and are drooling at the idea that we are all going to be their dependant subjects. What they don't know is that they are going to be discarded once they out live their usefulness to the International Banking cartel,but that scenario is based on the idea that nobody is going to resist and take their country back.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    Good. We should have went there first.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Sept. 26, 2013 1:50 p.m.

    @RedShirt
    USS Enterprise, UT

    For those of you that want a single payer system tell us why.
    [Because Canadians only pay $30 for their fully Comprehensive Healthcare. You see, they don't have FOR profit Insurance Company middle men taking their generous slice of the economic pie doling out.]

    In the nations like Canada or England that have single payer systems, surgeries are delayed, so people either die while waiting or else they live in pain until their number comes up.

    [In nations like Canada or England -- Surgeries are based on NEED, not WANT. In America - he who has the most gold, waits the least regardless of the threat of life. Is that fair?]

    BTW -- My US Military Healthcare was the best Socialized Medical care I've ever had.

    Now I have a question for YOU Red,
    If those "Socialist" healthcare programs are so archaic and horrible, why do the richest Americans - who can afford only the best money can buy -- fly to places Germany and France for their medical procedures?

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 3:19 p.m.

    In my adult lifetime I've had two different types of health insurance for me and my family. I've had military medical, which covered me, my wife, and my daughter. It paid 100% of my family's medical needs in government-run hospitals, even when overseas. We never had a problem, never had any waits for medical procedures, never had issues, ever.

    Fast forward to several years and a new job with a private health insurance company. Every procedure has to be approved. Every hospitalization has to be pre-authorized. Every emergency room visit has a horrendous co-pay, and "expensive" procedures have to go before a "board" for approval. Hospitalizations are cut short against doctor wishes because insurance refuses to pay for more time. Yes, all of these listed things have happened to my family.

    Which one do you think I like better?

  • Snack PAC Olympus Cove, Utah
    Sept. 26, 2013 3:26 p.m.

    Open Minded Mormon

    "Because Canadians only pay $30 for their fully Comprehensive Healthcare. You see, they don't have FOR profit Insurance Company middle men taking their generous slice of the economic pie doling out.]"

    Don't kid yourself - there will be plenty of inefficient government bureaucrats taking their generous slice of the pie.

    "In nations like Canada or England -- Surgeries are based on NEED, not WANT. In America - he who has the most gold, waits the least regardless of the threat of life. Is that fair?]"

    Unfortunately, it'll be a government bureaucrat, not you and your physician, who decides what you NEED.

    Now a question for you:

    If those socialist healthcare programs are so great, why do hundreds of their citizens arrive every day in the United States to pay for surgeries out of their own pocket?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 3:27 p.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" actually they don't. According to "Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model" at Reuters 40% of the province budget goes to healthcare. If they are paying an average of 20% on their income taxes, then another 10% sales tax, that means that the average Canadian, who makes about $40,000/yr is paying at least $3200/yr for healthcare, assuming they buy nothing, but most likely pay $4800/yr for insurance out of their pocket. That means that they pay $400/month for care that has them wait for surgeries.

    In Canada and England people cant get the surgeries they NEED, the studies don't look at what people want. That is unless you consider people wanting to live unnecessary.

    So, let me get this straight, you like the Canadian system because after paying $400/month in taxes that go for healthcare, they then get to pay an additional $30 for healthcare. Unless they make more than average, then they pay even more. You also like the fact that wanting to live is not a need for people that need surgery, and you don't mind unnecessary deaths on waiting lists.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 3:31 p.m.

    Open Minded Mormon,

    Canadians pay a LOT more than $30 for their healthcare. They pay most of it in Taxes. And they don't all like it. My parents served a mission there and said everybody complained about the government and especially the lottery for medical treatment.

    I don't know of any rich people who fly to places like Germany and France for their medical procedures. Can you give us some examples? Because I can give you numerous examples of foreign millionaires, Sheiks, and Presidents who have flown to the USA for advanced medial treatment.

    I think there are a LOT more flying to the USA for treatment than fly to France or Germany.

    I've heard of some desperate people going to Germany, but not because they had better facilities, procedures, or doctors. They went because they will perform experimental procedures there that don't have FDA approval in the USA (Dang Government bureaucrats)!

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 3:43 p.m.

    At least some Democrats are now a little more open about wanting a Socialist Healthcare System in the United States. At least they aren't hiding anymore.

    When they come right out and say what they want... most Americans know we don't want to follow the Socialist nations, and they rally and defeat it... From Harry S Trueman in 1947 to the last attempt (HillaryCare) in 1993.

    Google "17 arguments against Socialized Medicine" if you want something to think about.

    We have a good number of budding socialists in America today. I don't know if they think they just came up with this idea and they are so intellectually advanced that traditional Americans can't comprehend what they are trying to do... or if they just don't realize that Socialism has already been tried numerous times throughout history... and always failed leaving the population in poverty and the gov bureaucrats living in mansions (paid for by your tax dollars).

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 4:15 p.m.

    ‘Dan Liljenquist: Obamacare will lead to single-payer health care’

    ========

    If this is a platform Dan Liljenquist is taking,
    He can count on my support AND my vote!

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 4:21 p.m.

    Did Rush or Glen or Sean just sign off the air for today? There seems to be a sudden spurt in echoes of their nonsense popping up here.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    A single payer system is not the same as a socialized system.

    The UK has a socialized system in which the hospitals and clinics are owned by the government, the doctors, nurses, techs, and other staffers are government employees.

    Canada has a single payer system in which provincial governments pay the insurance bills but the hospitals and clinics are not owned by the government. Each provincial system is a littler different, some are more generous than others.

    Most OECD nations have some form of universal health care - from single payer to managed competition to government run systems. Those nations have superior health care outcomes to the US.

    No system is perfect and every system will have problems. It's a matter of which set of problems we prefer to manage. Our system leaves 1 in 6 Americans without healthcare. Other systems guarantee a minimum level of care to everyone while limiting access to some forms of care because they extremely expensive or aren't considered effective. It's not about finding a perfect system, it's about finding a system whose shortcomings can be predicted and managed.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 4:39 p.m.

    "Medical tourism" refers to traveling to another country for medical care. It's estimated that up to 750,000 US residents travel abroad for care each year.

    ========

    Kobe Bryant
    Alex Rodriguez
    Rush Limbaugh promised to go Costa Rica for his medical treatment [it must also include the Viagra]

    I know of a least a dozen friends I knew back in Seattle who went to Vancouver BC for LASIK eye surgery.
    $199 cash US for both eyes.

    The same procedure, same machines, and same Doctors 60 miles south here in the United States -- $2,000 to $4,500 for both eyes.

    Even with one of the best Insurance policies in America --
    It was still cheaper to hop the border, stay at a nice hotel, enjoy a relaxing mini-vacation AND get great healthcare.

    We also used to watch CharterBus after CharterBus filled with SeniorCitizens going on "drug runs" over the border to Canada. Prescriptions filled - pennies on the US dollar.
    Basically a free vacation and coming home with cash left over.

    So, I don't need a radio talk show or politician to tell me the truth.
    I search it out, discover it, and witness it for myself.

  • Commodore West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 5:52 p.m.

    Good!

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 6:04 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal

    If they are only paying $199,

    That only means hard working Canadians were forced to pay the other 4300 for them through taxes and what not.

    sounds like the people you know are leaches.

    But then again liberals are all about forcing, and leaching off, others to take care of them, no personal responsibility.

    The funny thing is, if the horrendous monstrosity of obamacare is allowed to go forward, your liberal leachy friends will no longer have any place to go

  • ute alumni paradise, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 6:13 p.m.

    lds lib,
    adios. 100k plus Canadians get treatment in the US.

  • azreader1 tucson, AZ
    Sept. 26, 2013 6:48 p.m.

    Wow, the socialists are coming out of the woodwork. I'm not a socialist, and I don't want to live in a country run on socialist principles, including a government-run health care system.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 26, 2013 7:00 p.m.

    maybe it will..... but that will be the outcome of two factions not working well together on a real solution. If that happens, it will be because partisanship trumped solution finding. Neither side is doing all it can.... and both should be held responsible. Medicare isn't single payer.... and it seems to work reasonable well... I think we will end up with a like voucher system where we pick our private provider.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 7:05 p.m.

    @the truth

    "But then again liberals are all about forcing, and leaching off, others to take care of them, no personal responsibility."

    Sounds like private health insurance, which you apparently know nothing about.

    I pay for health insurance, and use far less than I pay in. That's how it works. Some people use more, some people use less. Insurance companies make billions using that model.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 7:08 p.m.

    Liberty has been almost dealt a death blow. The rich, the powerful, and the Kingmen won out today. The poor, the powerless, and the common man lost. All have been 'played' by the Democrats and the Republicans. The kingmen are all laughing at the loss of liberty and the theft of 'choice' by the lazy, the irresponsible, and the entitlement generation. The delusion of getting something for nothing just won a big victory. It's all free, with no consequences! You can live your life without having to be moral, thrifty, or responsible. The con job has almost been made complete. The Kingmen and Gadiantons are protected in their Washington D.C. cocoon, supported by an amoral media and a passive and undisciplined electorate. How convenient for them.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 7:11 p.m.

    @zareader1

    "I'm not a socialist, and I don't want to live in a country run on socialist principles, including a government-run health care system."

    Well, I'm not a conservative, and I don't want to live in a country where people die or are bankrupted because of medical needs.

    Please remember where the ideas for this "socialist" Obamacare came from. Let me clue you in - it was from the liberals.....

  • azreader1 tucson, AZ
    Sept. 26, 2013 7:24 p.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil, "Medicare isn't single payer.... and it seems to work reasonable well..."

    Really? You obviously don't know anyone in the health care profession because the declining medicare reimbursement rates are quickly undermining the medical profession and will radically change (and not for the better) how medical service is provided in this country. You can't keep squeezing the doctors' incomes and expect them to stay in the game. It just isn't going to happen, no matter how "hopeful" anyone in favor of this atrocity (socialized medicine) is.

  • GranFondoBiker Fairfax, VA
    Sept. 26, 2013 7:37 p.m.

    Some above applaud that Obomacare will lead to a single payer system. Here's why we should be careful applauding such an outcome.

    If Obamacare leads to single-payer health care system ---> A Single-payer health care system eliminates competition in the marketplace ---> The absences of competition degrades the quality of products and services provided in any industry.

    Nobody should seek inferior products/services for the same price and thus we should seek to avoid the single-payer system which I've shown above leads to exactly that outcome.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 8:38 p.m.

    We can only hope. The employer-based system certainly wasn't working. Leaving American's health care and financial future to the whims of your boss' decision to provide health care was such an untenable proposition, I'm surprised it lasted as long as it had. I warned the medical industry that if they keep over-charging their patients, the good times will end for them at some point. I know some would argue that there will be waiting lists in a single payer system, but when you have a parent who was unable to even purchase insurance because she had heart surgery (to repair a hole in the heart) when she was 15, you see things a little differently. I would rather wait in a line than be denied a spot in the line. The individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was designed by the American Heritage Foundation under Newt Gingrich, to be an alternative to the single-payer system. You would think that Republicans would embrace it and work on legislation to make it better rather than throw a tantrum over their own idea and then push us towards a single payer system. They make no sense.

  • Red Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 8:55 p.m.

    Be careful what you wish for because it looks like you are going to get it.

    We are going to really enjoy paying for all the baby boomers as the workforce shrinks.

    All you looters are in for a big surprise.

    Thanks Obama.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 9:05 p.m.

    @azreader1
    tucson, AZ

    Wow, the socialists are coming out of the woodwork. I'm not a socialist, and I don't want to live in a country run on socialist principles, including a government-run health care system.
    6:48 p.m. Sept. 26, 2013

    =======

    Wow,
    Then I guess you live by yourself on an island, because FAMILIES and Civilizations are Socialist.

    But, this is America.
    You are always free to go live as a recluse in a cabin, in the woods, grow your own food, hunt your own meat, live or die, not pay any taxes and nobody will bother you -- even the Federal Government will leave you alone. honest.

    Ted Kaczynski would even still be there today, if he hadn't decided to start mailing bombs to technological "progressives".

  • NT SomewhereIn, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 9:05 p.m.

    @bandersen

    Glad I read your comment - you said exactly what I would say.
    I can only hope for future generations that will have become subjects of the bondage created by power-hungry socialist ideology.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 9:32 p.m.

    All the short-sighted folks cheering for single payer seem to think that translates into "FREE healthcare." Well, you may not pay at the door, but someone will have to pay at tax time. Of course, with 47% not paying any income taxes, 47% of the people think this is just great.

    However, our country is bankrupt and nearly $17 Trillion in debt already, so there is no money to pay for any healthcare. (Medicare and Medicaid are deeply in debt as well).

    Maybe you suggest we just pay the greedy doctors and evil drug companies less and don't let hospitals make any money? That will work for a few months until drug companies go out or business, hospitals close (as many have already in big cities filled with non-paying patients) and doctors get new jobs that pay better.

    Be careful of what you wish for. But, please do come back and tell us 10 years from now how much better single payer is, and how much shorter the wait is and how much better the care is.

    Obama is destroying this great country's foundations one at a time. "I hope he fails" was a desperate wish, unfufilled.

  • Cincinnatus Kearns, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 9:38 p.m.

    @the truth

    There's more to it than that. While that $199 eye surgery MAY be somewhat subsidized, under the Canadian system, they are certainly not subsidizing and additional $4300 worth.

    That's because within the Canadian system, with single payer, you don't have CEO's and other insurance executives raking millions of dollars in compensation, you don't have individual and institutional investors expecting the insurance companies to squeeze out every cent in profit to pay out in dividends.

    Much like the cheaper drugs available in Canada, medical equipment is also cheaper, meaning less costs passed on to patients.

    Their laws on malpractice and other types of torts are different than ours and limit monetary damages, thus bringing down malpractice insurance considerably.

    There is a lot built into the cost of the $4500 eye surgery in the US, that isn't built into the Canadian system.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Sept. 26, 2013 10:23 p.m.

    @louie:
    "The Swiss have had a highly regulated program utilizing private insurance companies for years."

    Obama didn't need 16,000 pages document (bill plus implementation regs) to bring healthcare to citizens who don't have it. All he and Congress needed to do was expand Medicare/Medicaid to all. Can be done on about 10 sheets of paper.

    @marxist:
    "All of which goes to prove, Dan, that capitalism as we know it cannot deliver health care to a huge chunk of our citizenry."

    That's why Obamacare will bring the US another step closer to socialism... where the government controls all aspects of citizens' lives. As the saying goes, 'you can't have your cake (freedom) and eat it too.'

    @Open Minded Mormon:
    "FOR Profit Insurance Corporations should never have the final say deciding who should live and who should die..."

    You will soon find it will be the government who decides who will live and who will die with Obamacare. Obama has already told us how it will work... he told us 'if you're old and need some serious healthcare like heart stents forget it, just go home and take a painkiller.'

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 26, 2013 11:02 p.m.

    Re:Cinncinatus

    1) In 1978, the Canadian Supreme Court limited damages for pain and suffering. Adjusted for inflation, the cap now is just over $300,000. Several states, like CA, have similar caps.

    2) Instead of buying insurance from a for-profit company, as most U.S. doctors do, Canadian physicians are covered through their membership in the nonprofit Canadian Medical Protective Association.

    3)Membership fees vary only by the type of work and region of the country. All neurosurgeons in Ontario, for example, pay the same amount regardless of how many times each may have been hit with a claim.

    4) Moreover, the association provides legal counsel for doctors who are sued and pays the damages, no matter how much.

    But malpractice lawsuits account for less than 1% of the U.S. health care tab. The same is true in Canada.

    Canadian law firms, unlike U.S. firms, often require plaintiffs to pay for an initial investigation to determine whether the claim has merit. That cost discourages many people from pursuing a lawsuit.

    The CBO estimated torrt reform would save $54 billion over 10 yrs., and a public option would save $115 billion over 10 yrs.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 26, 2013 11:19 p.m.

    Re:Cinncinatus

    1) In 1978, the Canadian Supreme Court limited damages for pain and suffering. Adjusted for inflation, the cap now is just over $300,000. Several states, like CA, have similar caps.

    2) Instead of buying insurance from a for-profit company, as most U.S. doctors do, Canadian physicians are covered through their membership in the nonprofit Canadian Medical Protective Association.

    3)Membership fees vary only by the type of work and region of the country. All neurosurgeons in Ontario, for example, pay the same amount regardless of how many times each may have been hit with a claim.

    4) Moreover, the association provides legal counsel for doctors who are sued and pays the damages, no matter how much.

    But malpractice lawsuits account for less than 1% of the U.S. health care tab. The same is true in Canada.

    Canadian law firms, unlike U.S. firms, often require plaintiffs to pay for an initial investigation to determine whether the claim has merit. That cost discourages many people from pursuing a lawsuit.

    The CBO estimated torrt reform would save $54 billion over 10 yrs., and a public option would save $115 billion over 10 yrs.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 11:35 p.m.

    @wrz
    Phoenix, AZ

    Obama has already told us how it will work... he told us 'if you're old and need some serious healthcare like heart stents forget it, just go home and take a painkiller.'
    10:23 p.m. Sept. 26, 2013

    ======

    I think you just making stuff up now.

    I'm afraid I'm gonna have to call you on this one wrz --
    quote your source. -->

    BTW - the closest thing I found to any sort of reality was 2 major medical studies conducted since 2007 which showed that many heart stents were unnecessary and actually increased the risk of heart attacks, while drug therapy would have been the better and safer procedure.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 26, 2013 11:42 p.m.

    azreader1 - you give me all kinds of giggles. You actually think that the United Health Care, Blue Cross Blue Shields of the world are just letting doctors charge what they want? That the insurance companies are worried about the standard of living that doctors enjoy.

    I have to burst your bubble, but they all work on margin, and minimizing their expenses - aka payouts to providers - is a chief way they try to increase their profits. Please don't tell me you think the share holders of Intermountain Health aren't all about making money, minimizing expense.

    This other world you all have created where insurance companies don't prescribe what treatments they will pay doctors for is some relic of a bad leave it to beaver world. If you actually knew the industry, you would understand how lowering the pool of un - or under insured reduces cost at the individual level - because the cost of treating the uninsured doesn't vaporize.....it is baked in the cost of every doctors appointment you make.

    Let the doctors go get regular jobs if they think they can make more elsewhere, let them.

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    Sept. 27, 2013 12:09 a.m.

    I love the completely unfounded and anecdotal speculation that employers will simply end offering insurance, or that businesses will simply fire all their FT employees. Please! Businesses, good businesses recruit good employees. If the economy is remotely decent, its and arms race. You want the best to come work for you? You offer them Full time, good pay plus benefits! If you don't, you'll die on the vine or you'll attract the not-so-best in the field. That's the free market!

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Sept. 27, 2013 12:25 a.m.

    @phantomblade:
    When your name, or the name of a loved one, is added to a waiting list for urgent surgery and they tell you it'll be at least six months to a year before they can get to you, and you feel that sinking feeling that you, or your loved one, may not be able to last that long, remember to thank Obamacare."

    With the government in more and more of control of Americans' lives someone has to get the short end of the stick. Under government controlled healthcare (which Obamacare is leading to) it will be the elderly who have lived past their useful years. It could even reach to the handicapped who can't contribute to society. Where have we seen this scenario played out before?

    This move toward Obamacare and eventually single payer, government-controlled healthcare we will be putting ourselves in the hands of government. And if the government gets powerful and corrupt as governments can and do, we will all eventually be sad and sorry. Our very prescient Founding Fathers envisioned this when they created the US Constitution which they designed to limit federal government power and control.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Sept. 27, 2013 1:03 a.m.

    A new study on Canadian healthcare has been released. In it, the authors examine the deleterious effects of socialized medicine on patient wait times and the delivery of care. It offers Americans a revealing glimpse of the future economic implications of Obamacare.

    The survey of specialists reveals that Canadians are now waiting 17.7 weeks between the referral to a specialist and the delivery of treatment.

    In essence, wait times in Canada have doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, the rationing of care that results in lengthy wait times for patients is a predictable consequence of government interference in the medical system.

    Currently, Canadians are awaiting an estimated 870,462 procedures. Life on a waiting list isn’t pretty. It involves living in a state of poorer health, in constant fear that treatment will come too late, increased suffering and lower quality of life, and financial and economic loss. Some patients even die without treatment. Others will travel in search of health care. In fact, an estimated 0.9 percent of patients left the country in 2012 in preference for treatment outside of Canada.

  • UT Brit London, England
    Sept. 27, 2013 2:59 a.m.

    @RedShirt

    Private insurance grew 1.1 percent this year following contractions of 8% the previous 4 years. Where are you getting your "massive growth" numbers from? Urgent surgeries are done urgently. I have no cap on the amount of times I can see a doctor and I have never not got same day appointments to see a GP. How long have you lived in the UK Redshirt?

    @Snack PAC

    I have never seen a beaurocrat in my meetings with a doctor, surgeon or specialist.
    Luckily in the States you dont have things like insurance companies imposing lifetime caps and excluding people due to pre exisiting conditions right?

    Why do 10 times the amount of people leave the US to get health care in other countries than those coming in?

    @glendenbg

    Technically GPs are self employed, they contract out to the government.

    @ute alumni

    Where are you getting your 100K number from? The last study conducted said 0.5% of the Canadian responders went to the US for healthcare. 25% of that 0.5% only went for the express purpose of being treated in the US.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Sept. 27, 2013 4:51 a.m.

    To all the 'do-gooder' socialists: Live up to what you espouse! If you are so absolute about compelling others to live up to your 'kind', 'charitible' means for delivering healthcare,i.e. compelling everyone to live by your theft,then show us first. Give all that you have to the government first, before asking others. Isn't that what the good book says, 'Do unto others... Stand by the principles you espouse. Give up your capitalistic income to your dear sweet government first. Hypocrisy is a difficult thing to push out of the way. Put your full names down, addresses, and your organization. Come on, live up to your principles!

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Sept. 27, 2013 5:12 a.m.

    "All the short-sighted folks cheering for single payer..."

    DN Subscriber 2 - Nice straw man argument. You assume something based on your misinformed belief and then create a whole essay refuting that claim.

    How about assuming this: No one expects a single payer system to be free but they believe, as has been shown by a single payer system in countless other countries, that we can provide decent and more than adequate healthcare to everyone and the delivery of that healthcare will cost all of us less than what we are paying now. We might also believe (although I am admitting this is my personal hope) that we as a country will transfer some of the money that now pays for our vast war machine called the military industrial complex (over $700B in 2009 compared to $90B spent by China) and use that money to at least partially pay for the cost of covering all of our citizens with decent healthcare. We also believe that in taking those measure the general health of the nation will improve and that will further reduce the cost of a single payer system. So there's my straw man argument.

  • Albert Maslar CPA (Retired) Absecon, NJ
    Sept. 27, 2013 5:51 a.m.

    My single payer plan:
    36. Institute a 3% National Sales Tax (NST) with NO exceptions for resale, charity, non-profits, religious, education, or government. The many cannot be continually supported by the diminishing few. A 3% NST may raise up to $7 Trillion annually, double the current budget, reduce national debt, spread tax burden to all residents, legal or not. Allocation: the 1st 1% toward Budget, the 2nd 1% toward debt reduction, the 3rd 1% for Universal Medicare for all legal residents.

    37. Dedicate first 1% NST to Universal Medicare to automatically eliminate most State Medicaid benefit requirements, costs, and overhead. State Medicaid mandated costs are virtually eliminated, reducing State budget shortfalls and tax requirements.

    38. According to a 7/6/10 analysis by attorney Lanny Davis published in The Hill, there were $755 Trillion in total transactions in the U.S. in 2008; $443 Trillion if exempting stock transactions. Accordingly NST on stock market transactions should be set at 1/2 of 1%, beating the International movement toward the inevitability of this type of tax. This 1/2% stock market transaction tax will inhibit the negative and controversial effects of High Frequency Trading (HFT) that causes artificial volatility.

  • Yorkshire City, Ut
    Sept. 27, 2013 6:22 a.m.

    Guess from the first few of the comments that I'm one of the FEW who is worried about all this Obamalove.

    Thought this a very troubling part of the article:

    "...employers who do not provide health care insurance will pay the federal government a “tax” or penalty, beginning in 2015, of up to $2,000 per employee.
    Employers, whose finance personnel are usually pretty good at math, are realizing that they can save a bunch of money if they (1) stop providing health care to their employees, (2) push their employees to the federal insurance exchanges, and (3) pay the per employee “tax.”"

    THAT SOUND you hear now is big companies (who currently provide insurance to employees) collectively chuckling, licking their lips, rubbing their hands together and lacing up their tennies to race to be the first one to sign up to pay the $2000 fine................

  • artmom DENVER, CO
    Sept. 27, 2013 6:37 a.m.

    The Federal government already borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends. Now with the Federal government subsidizing the health care of all these families, how much more into debt will we go? This is very frightening. We are mortgaging our children's future.

  • peter Alpine, UT
    Sept. 27, 2013 7:16 a.m.

    Our current health care system needs an overhaul, for sure. But, single payer, socialized health care will create changes for the worse, with seniors and special needs taking the brunt of a bad situation. This is nothing more than a huge power grab by an over-sized government that will eventually implode, like where Europe is heading. But, worse, we are losing more of our rights and freedoms.

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Sept. 27, 2013 7:32 a.m.

    I'm borrowing a comment from another DesNews story today--Just replace "king" with "socialized government-controlled health care". (all the other progressive countries do... blah blah blah.)

    (from) Third try screen name
    Mapleton, UT

    "Once upon a time the chosen wanted a king. The prophet asked. God said no.
    Then they said, "All the sophisticated countries have a king." We should have one, too. The prophet asked. God again said no.
    Finally, the chosen people said, "This is getting embarrassing. We are looked upon as a backward people because we don't have kings." The prophet asked. God said, "Have it your way."
    That turned out to be a bad move.
    As did the showing of the manuscript pages...."

    So many commenters here think we should get with the program like Sweden or Canada or Switzerland and stop being backward......and its all going to be rosy and perfect.

    But its going to turn out to be a bad idea....

  • elarue NEW YORK, NY
    Sept. 27, 2013 7:43 a.m.

    Okay, I guess we shouldn't be surprised that the guy who tried to primary Orrin Hatch, an elder statesman right up there with Richard Lugar (who did get primaried out this last election) would try to present the move to single-payer as a boogeyman to be afraid of. But really, all of us who love our families should be cheering the move to single payer. Those of us on the left who were disappointed with the ACA were disappointed because it fell way short - no single payer, no public option, not even Alan Grayson's "Medicare you pay into" coverage. Honestly, single payer would be a lot better than the private insurance market, because we would own the people who run it - our elected officials. And if it's ensuring that the Democrats stay in power, it's only because the Democrats are more interested in preserving our families' welfare than the Republicans are. If you don't want a one party system, then vote Green. :-)

  • elarue NEW YORK, NY
    Sept. 27, 2013 7:51 a.m.

    The funny thing is how often I hear the health care reform debate, and the people who compare proposals for single payer in the U.S., not to Canada, the UK, or France, but to _Russia._

    Well, let me tell you something. My wife is Russian. And while I don't have first hand experience with the Russian health care system, she does. Some people have even been so brazen as to say to me directly, "You don't want to have health care like your wife had back in Russia, do you?" But the amazing thing is we've had plenty of occasions where we've had a billing issue, or waiting in a doctor's office, or some other problem, where she would say, "This would never happen in Russia!"

    Still don't want a system like they have in Russia? I don't know, it doesn't sound so bad to me.

  • UT Brit London, England
    Sept. 27, 2013 7:57 a.m.

    @bandersen

    Thats funny your location says Utah, you must be posting from Somalia surely? I am glad they have a stable communications infrastrucure setup now.

    I hope you also take this approach to the military, roads, utility infrastructure, emergency services etc.....

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 27, 2013 7:59 a.m.

    To "UT Brit" I don't know where you are getting your info from, but according to "Private health insurance takes a dive" in the GUardian from 2010, the 3 previous years saw an average growth rate of 31% for dental plans, and and in 2006 medical plans grew 31%, 2007 they grew another 10%, 2008 they grew another 1.5%. The article cites that the only reason why there was a contraction was because of the recession, not because people think the NHS is great.

    So again, if the NHS is so great, why is it that the private insurance businesses are able to hold onto their subscribers so well even during a recession when money is tight? Doesn't that indicate that people are willing to pay more so that they can get proper medical care?

  • elarue NEW YORK, NY
    Sept. 27, 2013 7:59 a.m.

    "Maybe you suggest we just pay the greedy doctors and evil drug companies less and don't let hospitals make any money? That will work for a few months until drug companies go out or business, hospitals close (as many have already in big cities filled with non-paying patients) and doctors get new jobs that pay better."

    If that were to happen, it would have happened in both Great Britain and Canada by now. But they still have doctors, and their doctors are still able to buy nice houses and nice cars and provide well for their family. This is just another right wing myth, easily disproved.

  • caf Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 27, 2013 8:03 a.m.

    Wow. It seems that a lot of people have no idea how bad healthcare can be in single-payer areas of the world. Or they approve of health care being difficult to access by the elderly and infirm, overwhelmed hospitals, etc. It is surprising how many folks don't do their homework. Maybe I am fortunate to know personal experiences of people living in other countries (Mainly Europe and Canada). Dan has a valid concern for those of us who know the negative aspects of 'single-payer' systems.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 27, 2013 8:07 a.m.

    To "elarue" you are wrong. Just look to England and see what will happen. With private insurance companies you control those businesses. Under single payer, you lose control because there is no alternate. They become a monopoly and will end in abuse of the consumer.

    Grandma may not get the hip replacement. If you smoke, eventually they will deny treatments for you. Hospitals will get over crowded because once they control the payment for medical procedures, they will then control how many hospitals are located in your area.

    The single payer systems end up denying care for the elderly because the elderly won't be returning to work and paying into th system. They create "end of life" plans.

    Democrats are not interested in "preserving" families. They are interested in control.

  • Speed_Altitude Centerville, UT
    Sept. 27, 2013 8:14 a.m.

    When has government ever been more efficient than the business sector in administering anything? Those who think that big government will do even an adequate job of administering health care are fooling themselves. This will just turn into another entitlement program that will bankrupt the US a little sooner. Here come the death panels and you can't do anything about it.

  • elarue NEW YORK, NY
    Sept. 27, 2013 8:13 a.m.

    Oh, and let's not forget that much of Obamacare was actually modeled after Romneycare. Why? Obama was trying to get something Republicans would sign onto. Of course, that didn't work, because this time, it had Obama's name on it (if Obama supports it, it must be an evil socialist plot, right?) So while those of you on the right take a moment to look in the mirror, I will go back to pushing for single payer, thank you. :-)

  • The.Canuck Tooele, UT
    Sept. 27, 2013 8:42 a.m.

    Just a little north of the border news from Saskatchewan, Canada. Birthplace of North American single payer government health care.

    Google "Hospital crowding could lead to tough decisions" from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix news paper today.

    Saskatchewan was the first government body to implement state run health care.

    Just a sign of things to come.

  • The.Canuck Tooele, UT
    Sept. 27, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    And folks the hospital crowding in Saskatoon, a larger Canadian city, was for EMERGENCY bed space.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Sept. 27, 2013 9:03 a.m.

    @Yorkshire "Guess from the first few of the comments that I'm one of the FEW who is worried about all this Obamalove."

    Don't let the comments on this forum be your measuring stick about public opinion. There are a whole bunch of liberals who spend all day logging in under a dozen different usernames and "like" all the other comments they just posted under a different name. It gives the impression that there are more of them and that their opinions are more popular than they really are.

    There are lots of us out here who have serious concerns about Obamacare and other "big government" programs. We just have jobs during the day (and a part-time one at night).

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 27, 2013 9:03 a.m.

    To "elarue" Romneycare was a failure too. However, there is a huge difference. The original Romneycare bill ws 2 pages. If the federal program was modeled after that, why did it take 2700 pages?

    Lets see about the "success" of Romneycare.

    From NY Times "Massachusetts in Suit Over Cost of Universal Care" there we find that hospitals are running deficits because of Medicaid reimbursement rates that were lowered.

    From Washington Times "Romney-fication of health care reform" there we find that along with Romneycare came a bump up in the cost of insurance.

    There are many articles out there that point out the failures of Romneycare. Everything from raising the cost of insurance, to budget problems, to doctor shortages.

    Knowing that Romneycare failed on so many fronts, why support a national system modeled after a failing state system?

  • docport1 ,
    Sept. 27, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    Single payer? Great! Medicare is single payer. It's not socialized and it works at a 5% overhead unlike the 15-30% in the private sector. Bring it on.

  • andrew h Twin Falls, ID
    Sept. 27, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    Are you saying that is a problem?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 27, 2013 9:26 a.m.

    Maybe if we can get Universal Healthcare, and the government can control what care you can get, and what they will pay doctors... We can have long waiting periods for needed procedures, and hospitals that can only afford to hire doctors from India (who are willing to work for less) like the UK. I watch those ER shows from the UK a lot and it seems like ALL their doctors are from India. Is the UK population really predominately Indian and middle eastern?

    I can't wait!

    Nothing against people from India... they are great people.

  • UT Brit London, England
    Sept. 27, 2013 9:33 a.m.

    @Redshirt

    I got my numbers from a Health Cover UK Market Report dated July 2013. Think mine is a bit more accurate than yours.
    Take a look at what private insurance companies (like BUPA) exclude from treating. Also take note that if anything goes wrong with a private operation you will be put straight onto the NHS.
    Private health insurance is mostly used to top up existing NHS services. 8% of the population have private health insurance policies. So you are trying to argue that because 8% of the population (most of which will be topping up NHS services) sometimes use private doctors (trained on the NHS), somehow means the NHS is a failure? The NHS remains very popular in this country, there would be riots if it was scrapped.

    You did not answer my question as well, how long have you spent living in the UK Redshirt? Does your knowledge of the NHS match up to mine, my extended family and everyone I know?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 27, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    To "docport1" saying that Medicare operates witha 5% overhead rate is like saying the billing department for any major company runs at a 5% overhead rate. You ignore the fact that there is considerable cost to collect the Medicare taxes. Right now the government run 20% to 30% overhead. Compare that to the 15% to 20% that private insurances run for overhead PLUS profit.

    Now, we can go into the fraud that is rampant in Medicare. Did you know that Medicare loses 2 times as much money to fraud than all private insurance companies combined, while insuring half as many as private companies? That means that per insured person, Medicare loses 4 times as much as private companies.

    So, tell us why should we let government take over health insurance when they have higher overhead rates and lose more money to fraud?

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Sept. 27, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    UT Brit: Actually I don't have any problem when anything is done according to the Constitution without violating it. It's obvious that the constitution doesn't mean much to you, which isn't surprising since you happen to be from Europe, that bastion of economic freedom--not! No thanks, we left Great Britain a long time ago and became the leader of the free world in every facet of human growth and progress. Britain may not even exist in another ten years at the rate it is going. Of course, that doesn't stop many, like you, from implementing the failed polices that made Great Britain, once a great country, a mouse on the same treadmill as third world countries. No thanks. America is different, even if many of its citizens have been temporarily blinded by Socialism and Fascist ideaologies, including Obamacare.

  • NT SomewhereIn, UT
    Sept. 27, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    @JoeCapitalist2

    "There are lots of us out here who have serious concerns about Obamacare and other "big government" programs. We just have jobs during the day (and a part-time one at night)."

    ...so true, because without us there can be no transfer of wealth - and Obama and his worshippers will die on the vine.

    (funny how the lib posters must feel like their contribution to society is to blog, comment or "like" comments that support their lifestyle)

  • UT Brit London, England
    Sept. 27, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    @2 bits

    Oh geez this is getting silly, because you watched a programme on TV you are able to say that all UK doctors are from India???? Four of my friends are GP's and they certainly are not Indian. Indians come for training because the UK offers a good western medical training. The doctors you see on TV will be earning exactly the same as British doctors because they would need residency. Oh and its not ER its called A&E.

    Also brilliant casual racism there, "who wants Indian doctors!!!!!, oh nothing against Indians though", almost like someone telling racist comments and claming at the end that they "have black friends".

    Oh and another thing, are you claiming you dont have doctors from other countries in the States? My own experiences over there shows otherwise.

  • justamacguy Manti, UT
    Sept. 27, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    People don't understand what the government system does to service. I would suggest you look at Canada's system. The last audit I checked on their showed that they had met their goal of 80% customer service. What that meant was that if you needed, say, a knee replacement you had an 80% chance that you would get the surgery within 24 months. Compare that to getting the operation here in the US within a week or two of diagnosis. Also the Canadian program delays some services until you are judged "sick enough" to receive them. I recently spent a trip with a Canadian who's wife died of cancer. He was adamant that wait imposed by the Canadian system is what killed her. That if she had been given care at first discovery she could have been saved. It will be entertaining to see who gets immediate service here in the US with the IRS managing the purse strings. No medical for Tea Party members.

  • Winglish Lehi, UT
    Sept. 27, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    Please be correct, Dan. The Obamacare health insurance prices are sooooo much cheaper than what insurance is going for in the unregulated private sector!

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 27, 2013 11:09 a.m.

    @winglish - what "unregulated private sector" are you talking about? Is that in some other country other than the US... because we surely don't have an unregulated market. In fact, we have 50 separate regulated markets.

    Then there is this flash back to the discussion on American Exceptionalism - or how it has become twisted in this quote "No thanks, we left Great Britain a long time ago and became the leader of the free world in every facet of human growth and progress. "

    Really.... we don't lead in mortality rates. There are all kinds of metrics we don't lead in... but lets not go down that rate hole. The idea that there are no good ideas out in the world that are worth copying is juvenile. Its time to grow up and realize that there are smart people all over the world, and we would be stupid not to leverage great ideas, even if we didn't think of it first.

    Obamacare as written might not be the best answer possible... but no one is putting anything elser forward. Until then... stop complaining and start doing.

  • Madness7 Coupeville, WA
    Sept. 27, 2013 12:01 p.m.

    Ask our friends across the border in Canada. They love (97% approval) Canada's single payer health system and can't understand the controversy in the US. Canadian businessmen are particular advocates of the single payer system.
    A few previous posts here have mentioned, in a disapproving tone, of all the 'freeloaders' who would be getting health care that 'we' pay for. Do such posters not understand that we currently pay for healthcare for those who can't pay? It's just more expensive via the ER.

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 27, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    Madness---My Canadian relatives think we are nuts down here. They wonder where all the horror stories come from. I tell them lying politicians. It is too bad so many are gullible enough to believe them.

  • Archie1954 Vancouver, BC
    Sept. 27, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    The full savings to the nation for healthcare costs will not be realized until the universal plan is in effect. The current Obama Care is a hybrid that still costs too much. It was simply the only way the beginnings of a universal healthcare regime could get through the Congress. Republicans are just too tied to their insurance corporate benefactors to actually do what is right for the American people.

  • The.Canuck Tooele, UT
    Sept. 27, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    @Archie1954, Mcclark and Madness7,

    We are just concerned that a great healthcare system will be overburdened and become another government run debacle with waste, fraud and less quality service.

    Love how Saskatoon has a waiting list for emergency beds today? 55 very sick people can't even get a bed. Great care right there.

  • BobRN Idaho Falls, ID
    Sept. 27, 2013 12:51 p.m.

    The difference, oftimes, between a prosperous family who has everything -- home, cars, vacations, college saving accounts, 401K money, all necessities and most luxuries -- and a family living a poor existence -- struggling every moment to stay ahead of all the medical bills and bill collectors -- is that the poor family has a child born with handicaps, birth injuries, or genetic illness. Income, hard work, integrity all the same, but they had an unhealthy child born into their family. Despite all the safeguards we believe are inherent in our system, legitimate healthcare bankrupts many.

    Insurance companies add zero value to our healthcare system -- they are parasites who suck billions in resources from the system annually.

    Visiting aliens would leave our planet, unable to find intelligent life, if they examined our system of healthcare.

    In reality, most Canadians are very satisfied with their system. As a society, they spend about half of what we spend,and have better outcomes in many areas of care.

  • GiuseppeG Murray, Utah
    Sept. 27, 2013 1:42 p.m.

    I don't think Dan mentioned a couple of things: Additional incentives for employers to jump out of the coverage business -

    Insurance risk....it's not just the premium, but the risk that the healthcare costs will exceed the premium that many employers currently assume.

    Additional fees/taxes that employers must pay to the government for the program....I work for a large regional company and my tiny sliver of the company's business (about 9%) will be funding over $20 Million in Obamacare related fees next year alone.

    So unfortunately, as much as I wish that Roland's assumption was correction...obamacare will not create an additional windfall for companies...many will simply need to get out of insuring their employees simply to keep their financial noses above water.

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 27, 2013 2:35 p.m.

    I read a mommy blog of a Canadian who lived in a city with a hospital that was forced not to deliver babies because of socialism. She got checked at her hospital and then they told her to drive about an hour to the nearest hospital that could check her in. She lived in Cardston and the nearest baby-delivering hospital was in Lethbridge. Hundreds of babies were delivered in Cardston before socialized medicine took hold in Canada. Now, they aren't allowed. Google it. It is in the news as recent as July 2013, but has been going on for years.

    So what if its an emergency birth? The Cardston hospital puts you in an ambulance headed for Lethbridge. You may deliver in the ambulance or you may make it to the hospital, but they aren't authorized to deliver babies at their hospital. It is too expensive for the government to pay for.

  • Coach Biff Lehi, UT
    Sept. 27, 2013 2:48 p.m.

    We are 17 trillion in debt. How are we going to pay for this? When has government ever run anything more efficiently than the private sector? It was governmental interference that ran costs up in the first place. Either you liberals exist on a different planet or you are willing dupes. Either way, that thumping you are hearing in the back ground is our founding fathers rolling over in their collective graves. Take it from someone who has lived under a single payer system, (Japan) it sucks. It is not the Utopia you think it is. You will realize that you have ruined the motivation for excellence in health care. You will see fewer and fewer specialists and the overall quality of doctors will decline. You have no idea what type of Pandora's box you have opened here. Unfortunately for all of us, we're about to find out.

  • Conservative Cedar City, UT
    Sept. 27, 2013 3:12 p.m.

    It is essential that we move to single-payer healthcare.

    Our society believes every human life is of utmost value. Thus a baby with a bad heart receives extraordinary care. As do 95-year-old citizens with Alzheimers. And the rest of us in between deserve the same. A homeless/jobless/impoverished person can go into the ER and get necessary treatment. A doctor cannot turn anyone away.

    Therefore, we must "level the field" in healthcare and insure all receive the preventive, regular and corrective care we need. And we all share the cost.

    This may mean we cut back on the excessive defense budget. But, that time has come, too.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 27, 2013 3:16 p.m.

    "Don't let the comments on this forum be your measuring stick about public opinion. There are a whole bunch of liberals who spend all day logging in under a dozen different usernames and "like" all the other comments they just posted under a different name. " Well I can't disprove this but I strongly doubt it. "marxist" is my only handle, but then I am not a liberal. The simple truth is that a whole lot of people are priced out of health care now, and many a scared of being so.

  • Neanderthal Phoenix, AZ
    Sept. 27, 2013 4:28 p.m.

    @elarue:
    "Those of us on the left who were disappointed with the ACA were disappointed because it fell way short - no single payer..."

    Here's what I see wrong with 'single payer.' The government makes the payments. Thus, the government decides what the payments will be and for what. Doctors' salaries will be controlled by some government agency. Patients' healthcare needs will be decided by some government agency. If the government decides more services are needed it will raise taxes to pay for it. If the government decides it can't collect anymore taxes it will decide, essentially, who shall live and who shall die (i.e., death panels).

    For some reason, I don't think the government should be in that sort of business.

  • jparry Provo, UT
    Sept. 27, 2013 5:26 p.m.

    I have no objections to a single-payer system (Medicare has not been the disaster that conservatives thought it would be in the 1960s). But the Heritage Foundation, when it came up with the basic design of this program, certainly didn't worry that a single-payer system was inevitable, nor is this the case in Massachusetts where this kind of program is functioning fairly well.

  • Blue Bolshevik Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 29, 2013 12:28 a.m.

    Ya gotta love a health care system that would not disclose a price and then charged me $315 to freeze a wart off my finger. And to add to the insult the greedy 'doctor' likely pays a lower tax rate than I do. Tempted to just get all my ailments fixed, rack up the bills, then skip town to Costa Rica forever. So done with this place.

  • Jewell in the Crown Spanish Fork, UT
    Sept. 29, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    As long as the federal government is not involved in any way, shape, or form, (because it's not one of their Constitutional responsibilities) then individual single-payer health-care systems for the states that want it is fine. That way, those that don't want it can move to states that don't offer it.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Sept. 30, 2013 9:25 a.m.

    Notice the word "socialized" Dan associated with single payer. The suggestion is that single payer is synonymous with socialized medicine. It isn't so any more than Medicare is socialized medicine. I use Medicare for the same private doctors and the same hospital and other medical providers, whether they are for profit or non profit. Medicare just pays the bills, and it does it much more efficiently and cost effectively than does any for profit health insurer.

  • Samson01 S. Jordan, UT
    Sept. 30, 2013 5:19 p.m.

    Rand got it wrong...

    It wasn't manufacturing...

    It was healthcare.

  • Quagthistle Hays, KS
    Sept. 30, 2013 5:53 p.m.

    May you be correct! Let's just save time and do single-payer NOW! :)

    If "Obamacare will lead to single-payer" was supposed to be a scary headline, I think it backfired. XD

  • Quagthistle Hays, KS
    Sept. 30, 2013 5:57 p.m.

    @phantomblade: The other side of your 'waiting list of doom' scenario is that, to avoid these waiting lists, we must be willing to throw the poor and needy under a bus to serve our convenience. This, I am unwilling to do, even if it does mean I have to wait 6 months to see a doctor. Limited resources should be distributed based on need, not greed.

  • Samson01 S. Jordan, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    " Limited resources should be distributed based on need, not greed."

    Wow...straight out of Karl Marx's mouth.

  • Massresident TOPSFIELD, MA
    Oct. 2, 2013 9:39 p.m.

    How do you get to "single payer" when the healthcare lobby is writing the laws and their main objective is to keep their share of the economy growing. They have already consumed 18% of GDP. If you had a cancerous tumor that big, you would be on your death bed and so is our economy.