Daily Herald - Lack of health care killing Utahns

Wednesday, 09 April 2008

Lack of health care killing Utahns

Joe Pyrah -DAILY HERALD

Somewhere in Utah, three people may die by the end of the week because they can't afford health insurance.

A national study released Tuesday indicates that about 150 people in the state die each year because by the time an illness or injury is bad enough to force them into an emergency room, it has often progressed far enough that they cannot receive adequate help.

"Our safety net for many populations is more hole than webbing," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA. The group is a national nonprofit organization that advocates health care for everyone. There are 47 million Americans without health insurance -- about 15 percent of the population. In Utah there are between 292,000 and 442,000 people without insurance, depending on whose numbers you use.

Health-care reform has increasingly become an issue for families and government agencies as insurance premiums have climbed more than 10 percent each year for a decade. Piling on the woes, the number of businesses offering health insurance dropped 11 percent between 2002 and 2005.

The number of people dying for lack of insurance sounds about right to Judi Hilman, director of the Utah Health Policy Project. And while 150 people a year in a state of 2 million may sound like a small number, Hilman said it should be zero.

"You have to get back to the fact that it's just not acceptable to have anybody dying because they don't have health insurance coverage," she said.

Utah Legislature passed an ambitious law this year that creates a task force aimed at reforming health care. Though it will likely take years for substantial changes to be put in place, some small changes have already been made, including millions in tax credits for individuals funding their own health insurance.

"The end goal is to have health insurance that is more portable, more affordable and accessible to all Utahns," said Lisa Roskelley, spokeswoman for Gov. Jon Huntsman.

While death may be the ultimate fait accompli of a degraded health-care system, there are plenty of other accompanying problems such as a stunted economy. Small businesses have been cutting back on coverage or killing it altogether as costs rise. That in turn forces employees to leave in search of a place with coverage.

"We're not going to have a leading economy anymore if we don't address the issue," Hilman said.

The Families USA report doesn't recommend a specific fix for the health-care system and the nonprofit doesn't advocate one presidential candidate over another. But Pollack said they are asking for something to be done.

"Our hope is that more and more leaders coming to Washington in 2009 consider this to be a top priority," he said.

• It's estimated that three working-age Utahns die each week due to lack of health insurance (approximately 150 people in 2006).

• Between 2000 and 2006, the estimated number of adults between the ages of 25 and 64 in Utah who died because they did not have health insurance was more than 800.

• Across the United States, in 2006, twice as many people died from lack of health insurance as those who died from homicide.

Article views: 1,557

Discuss (6 posts)

truthhurts

Apr 09 2008 12:52:56

Never fear, Utah. John McCain has a health care plan. It's the same health care plan George Bush has:

"Maintain the status quo. It'll get better. Honest. Trust us. Oh, BTW, Iraq will get better too if we just stay the course, and global warming? Hell, it's just a fantasy. And if it really is true? Well, our grandkids and great grandkids will be SOL. Not our problem, though."

But war? Always plenty o' money in the Republican mind for war. And how to pay for that war? Just charge it to the deficit, of course. Over half a trillion dollars so far, and counting. Why, you would not expect them to roll back those Bush tax cuts for the rich now, would you?

#360983

unaffiliated_person

Apr 09 2008 14:14:48

As for the "prosperous" economy we have had for the past few years, this is very revealing:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/09/news/economy/incomegap/index.htm?cnn=yes
The economy looked great only from debt spending from home equity. Salaries have decreased for the poor and only grew 1.5% for the middle class. In the meantime, the wealthy saw their incomes go up 9%.

#360987

John Adams

Apr 09 2008 16:29:56

Okay, lets put this in perspective. If you take the rate of Utah deaths and multiply it by 300 million (the US population) you get 22,500. The last estimates that I saw on the iatrogenic (doctor caused) death rate in the U.S. were 80K to 120K. So those dying because they didnâ€™t see a doctor are fewer (in absolute terms) that those who died because they did. Iâ€™m not saying that staying home is better than going to the doctorâ€”looking at the relative rate youâ€™re much safer using health care. But letâ€™s take the emotion out of this. Lots of people die of preventable deaths both within and without the system.

So letâ€™s ask the real question. Should we deny health care to the uninsured? How many out the could look a dying child in the face and say, sorry you donâ€™t have health care, why donâ€™t you go back to Mexico where you belong. As I read society, only an insignificant few are that heartless. So if we are going to treat everyone who really needs it whether or not they can pay, then lets face the factâ€”we already have socialized medicine in this country. The question is what form should it take? Should we continue to utilize emergency rooms at tremendous costs and expect those with insurance to make up the difference? Should we continue to expect the federal government to subsidize emergency rooms to make up their losses? Or can we find a more equitable and cost effective form? Should we seek to solve this problem at the state level, or are we going to wait for the Federal government to step in (using our money of course) and do the job for us?

#361022

John Adams

Apr 09 2008 16:47:10

#361028

truthhurts

Apr 10 2008 03:04:46

Oh, BTW, to all of you out there that are still lucky enough to have employer supplied health care (and the percentage of workers so covered gets smaller each year), McCain wants to tax it. Yes, I know he wants to make the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent and has promised no new taxes. Well, he is right on the former (GOP candidates love the rich) but, alas, a liar on the latter.

Example. If you have employer supplied health care, and the company pays 80% and you pay 20% of the cost (this is not your deductible, mind you, or copay for services, etc, but the cost of the insurance itself) McCain wants to treat that 80% the company pays as taxable income to YOU.

John McCain now says "no new taxes."

It may be a great way to play to a still-skeptical GOP base, but it will be a hard pledge for President McCain to keep. To see how tough, just take a look at his own health care plan.

McCain's promise is the latest step on a remarkable journey that began back in 2001, when he voted against the Bush tax cuts. In a September debate in New Hampshire, McCain was asked if he would sign the no-taxes pledge that has been circulated for years by the conservative Americans for Tax Reform. His response: "I stand on my record. I don't have to sign pledges."

But in recent months, McCain has sounded more and more like Grover Norquist. He now says he would make President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. And in an appearance on ABC's "This Week" on Feb. 17, he finally took his last step down the anti-tax road. Asked by host George Stephanopoulos if there are any circumstances under which he would raise taxes, McCain answered simply, "no."

To see what that would mean, consider McCain's health care proposal. He says he would treat employer sponsored health benefits as taxable income, while giving individuals a tax credit for the insurance they buy. On its own, taxing employer insurance just like wages would be a huge tax increaseâ€”OMB estimates in the neighborhood of $1 trillion from 2009â€“2013. To many on the right, that alone would violate the no-tax pledge.

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2008/2/19/3533610.html

#361146

There are too many comments to list them all here. See the forum for the full discussion.

Discuss this article on the forums. (6 posts)