Deseret News | Reid indicates timetable for health care may slip

Reader comments
Reid indicates timetable for health care may slip

Mike | 11:41 a.m. Nov. 3, 2009

A far more measured approach, and has the advantage of not costing us trillions of dollars. An approach like this just might make healthcare more accessible due to the cost going down and people who can't afford it may be able to which benefits them. Crap on the Democrat plan and their Socialism/Big Government option.

Anonymous | 11:53 a.m. Nov. 3, 2009

Now this solution makes sense for us and the country as a whole.

At least this is a plan and an idea worth discussing and fine tuning. Obama's plan just doesn't make sense how he is going about it.

Anonymous | 12:36 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

What a worthless bill that bows down to the Corporate Healthcare overlords.

Comments continue below

xscribe | 1:10 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

@Mike: And that's your unbiased opinion, isn't it? You say this plan "has the advantage of not costing us trillions of dollars." However, you're supporting this plan not even knowing how much it will cost, as the republicans have not disclosed how much it will cost. We also don't know how much, if any, of a decrease in premiums will be realized by this plan, so therefore cannot know whether it will be cost-effective for those who cannot afford insurance, since the focus is only on trying to lower cost. It doesn't say it will lower costs. Also, it does nothing for those with pre-existing conditions, so those with pre-existing conditions will still be unable to get insurance. Lastly, stop with the socialism/big government option. The option is there for people who want it, not those who don't. That's neither big government nor socialism. Don't try to make things look like something they're not.

cm | 1:15 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

It is just a waste of paper as long as insurance companies are allowed to reject anyone or charge astronomical rates for those with even a minor pre-existing condition.

Fred | 1:32 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

the article says, "The Republican bill includes a permanent ban on any federal funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother, stronger language than the Democratic bill."

If this is about being pro-life, why does a child whose fater is a rapist/relative of the mother deserve to die and have the government pay? I didn't think we punished children for the sins of their fathers.

Can someone please tell me why this is in any way consistent with a Pro-Life stance?

All this does is make the mother say she was raped in order to get everyone to pay.

Wrex | 1:45 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

Wow! It took the republicans 230 pages to say:

"Don't get sick. If you do get sick, die quickly."

That's really quite surprising. I mean, that is, after all, their entire health insurance reform plan.

need pre-existing covered | 1:56 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

Covering pre-existing conditions gives portability to families and individuals. I like the republican plan but it needs this one revision.

Scott | 1:59 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

Good point Fred. The government won't be able to tell whether someone has been raped or not. Better just to strike out funding for abortions altogether, and rely on the victim's family and friends to help cover the costs.

Sterling | 2:04 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

Actually the GOP bill contains such pesky items as tort reform, buying insurance across state lines, among other things. I guess I'll have to read it to see if says "don't get sick, if you do get sick, die quickly"! The nice thing about the one the GOP is proposing is that they DO ALLOW folks to read the bill, AS OPPOSED TO the Demo. bill that is 1900 pages long. I suspect the DEMO bill needed to be that long to allow enough loopholes for abortions to be covered, illegals, etc. Oh, and the MOST IMPORTANT PART of the DEMO. bill is that EVERYONE GETS TO PAY for someone elses insurance whether you want to or not!

Sad | 2:09 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

That bill doesn't even come close to what the country needs. The party of "no" strikes again.

2000-2006 | 2:13 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

Where was this PLAN (?) when you guys had control of ALL THREE BRANCHES of government?

AMERICANS appreciate your efforts (read: pushed to the wall, cannot afford to come up with some bogus plan, but will do it anyway), but, your belated PLAN FOR PROFIT PROTECTION FOR THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY is ALL YOU CAN COME UP WITH?

GWB | 2:17 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

Does anyone here notice how your credit cards are issued in South Dakota or Delaware? Those 2 states let the banks set their own interest rates and fee schedules with not protection for consumers.

Is that what people want for their health insurance? Think of it this way, your state may require insurance coverage of pregnancy as if it was any other medical care, but say for hypotheticals, Arizona doesn't. Pretty soon, under the new GOP plan, all the Utah insurance companies shut down and you have to go to where you get cheap coverage, states like the hypothetical Arizona.

Pretty soon, you still have insurance, but no policies that cover pregnancy, labor and delivery because they are too costly to the bottom line if something goes wrong (I have a half million dollar baby that was born premature).

Talk about taking away State's rights to regulate themselves. I thought the GOP supported state's rights.

xscribe | 2:26 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

@Sterling: Where's the evidence that "everyone gets to pay for someone elses (sic) insurance whether you want to or not"? If people choose the public option, they still have to pay premiums. So unless you're talking about a tax increase, which is speculative that everyone will have to pay, then please explain. Mainly so I can research your assertion so as to have correct information. Thanks!

Don | 2:48 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

First, Lets clarify this point: President Obama has no Health Care Plan! He did not present one and has tagged along on all 5 versions the democrats came up with! No leadership at all!

Second, Steny Hoyer waved off the Republican plan WITHOUT READING THIS PLAN EITHER! Just because it was from the opposition! Not one second appeared to be spent on thinking WHAT IS BEST FOR AMERICA! JUST LIKE WHEW DID NOT READ THE DEMOCRAT PLAN THOUGH HE SUPPORTED IT WHOLE-HEARTEDLY!

Third:Xscribe, You have made a number of incorrect assumptions in your opinion as you have not read the bill either as it is in its draft form. However, after reading this bill it appears there are numerous areas that will lower premium costs. But, the Congressional Budget office has not scored the bill yet! Why? Because the democrat leadership has not approved that function yet. Lastly on your points this Republican bill will not see the light of day in the House as Speaker Pelosi does not want Americans to determine policy she wants to continue to control this in order to control our lives.

cm | 3:06 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

You are already paying for other people's health care. Hospitals simply pass on their cost of providing care in the ER for those that do not have insurance (or the ability to pay cash) to those that have insurance.

Health insurance companies are in the business of making money not providing health care. My daughter had a bad reaction to an antibiotic during her senior year of college. She was kicked off our group plan at graduation but her new employer won't cover her for a year. We tried to buy her a policy on the private market but insurance companies turned her down because of her antibiotic reaction. After months of appeals were were finally able to buy her a high deductible policy but her classmates with type I diabetes and asthma haven't been so lucky. They are un-insurable at the age of 22.

Anonymous | 3:38 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

We need change in healthcare that are able to bring costs down and the quality up?

Walmart, Costco, Sams Club, etc are large clearing houses..

They do reduce costs by buying in quantity and can demand quality because of it and offer return policys. A simplified distribution system too.

Yes, there may be some lines to wait in at times at walmart etc, but people have the choice of better prices where before they could not afford it.

The Government would introduce this type of large competition which would force the industry to change and reduce the waste going on while giving the public a better cost for their services.

Its about developing the type of competition in the healthcare industry that reduces costs through mass buying power can demand quality.

The Government runs medicare more efficiently than the private industry. That upsets the current greedy fatcats in the private industry.

The nice choice with government is if they are not providing quality healthcare, we can vote them out of office!

Thats True Freedom!

What about the budget | 3:39 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

But what about the budget estimates put together by the GEO before the details in the bill were even WRITTEN?

Do you think that may slip too?

@ "Anonymous | 12:36 p.m." | 3:50 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

Be careful "Anonymous | 12:36 p.m.". These "Health Insurance Overlords" as you disdainfully call them, are probably the people who paid for YOU to be born into this world (unless you were born into a family on welfare).

They are the people MOST of us Americans have relied on for MANY years to HELP us pay for our healthcare, and we are happy with the service they have provided us.

Alienate everyone who LIKES their current insurance provider (and doesn't relish the thought of them going out of business and being forced with no option BUT joining those on welfare)... and you may have a LARGE percentage of the population fighting against you.

This is still America, where the people's voices are heard. You get a majority of the people against you... and your plan probably won't succeed.

We ALL want EVERYONE to have insurance. But you DON'T have to vilify the existing insurance providers who MANY people are happy with in order to get that.

Lew Jeppson | 6:14 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

It would appear that corporate interests are going to win. Why did we hope for anything more? The precarious place of labor predicted by Marx is vindicated.

Anonymous | 4:53 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

On my honor...

To do my duty to God and the country,

To help others except with healthcare,

And to keep American Law.

Not just the republicans with Greed, but some democrats that have also been paid off by the lobbyists...

Keeping their slogan...

Everyone is forgetting.. | 8:40 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Insurance has nothing to do with health care costs. Regulating insurance companies is a completely different matter than what it cost to see a doctor or get medical care.

Medical care has become monopolized and costs escalated for investors and profit. Even without insurance we should be able to afford a visit to the doctors office by our own means and finances. Contoling health care cost means controlling health care services and medicines.

None of the real cost of health care is even considered in this insurance plan that will prove to escalate health care costs even more.

If all working Americans would demand higher wages they could afford their own insurance costs. Organized labor can also serve to regulate insurance costs and coverages as they once did. We can only blame our selves and our submissive actions to relinquish our rights of fair wages for fair work from employers.

Now everyone is submitting their rights and choices in to the hands of government with the Obama ill conceived and arrogant plans.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.