Note that the group is "working age" not necessarily working people. And what exactly are the criteria that permit them to conclude that a death was caused by lack of coverage? I'm getting mighty tired of the constant drumbeat to insure everyone, no matter what the expense to the tax paying, working members of society. Get a job!

What does having insurance have to do with it? Insurance only offers minimal health care services. People are dieing and not getting health care because of the cost of the health care. These legislators need to look at what these for profit and investors have created with the excessive health care costs. No amount of insurance, unless you have the limitless taxpayers pockets to empty, will cover health care inflationary costs. People are looking at health care problems as an insurance problem, it's not an insurance problem, greed and investors profiteering is the problem in health care. From the pill makers to the cost of an asprin in a hospital is the problem in health care. Health care has unrestrained and uncontrolled open book on what they can and do charge for health care. The insurance companies are only a thrid party in getting health care and if the medical and pharmacuticals can escalte their prices then the insurance companies follow that inflation with higher premiums. Go after and challenge health care providers and don't waste the time and money on insurance companies. If health care cost come down so will the cost of health care insurance.

You don't "DIE" from not having insurance. You die because your body has suffered a trauma that it can't recover from. But hey.. lets give anyone who comes here without even a knowledge of the language free medical while the rest of Utahns who have no insurance lose their homes to pay for their medical bills. Seems so twisted.

Gee, maybe if we didn't spend all of our tax money invading third rate, middle eastern, dictatorships we could afford to insure all of our citizens! It's not like we don't know how to do it, we just lack the humanitarian will of countries like Canada.

@ Bob G-You sure don't know what you are talking about. The reasons for the healthcare crisis as it is has nothing to do with investors or greedy people. There are two main contributors.

1. Non paying patients who recieve care (illegals). When a hospital/doctor treats someone who can't pay (law prohibits hospitals to turn down treatment regardless of inability to pay), those costs do not get paid and therefore, are passed down to those who can pay. Thus the increase of prices.

2. Well, greed is part of it, but at the other spectrum. People sue whenever something happens and thus malpractice insurance rates go up. Doctors raise their fees to offset those rate increases.

Those are the two primary causes of the healthcare crisis.

@Please- don't be an ostrich. The fact that a person does not have insurance will dictate whether they will receive PROPER care for their illness. That is the crux of the argument.

@Facts-Don't twist the facts! It's people like you who like to put a spin to this. The article stated that 100,000 people ARE WORKING and do not have insurance. High deductables won't help.

If you believe this trype I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Just another example of how it's far past time to have universal health care in this country. If every other advanced industrial country in the world has it, it makes no sense that we can't. The problem is that the powers that be enjoy the huge financial profits that accrue to their accounts--and that's a fact.

The government is already the largest purchaser of health care (Medicare, Medicaid and VA system). Insuring all people will result in lower costs to everyone. It is cheaper for a person to receive primary care, and catch problems early, than it is for them to develop a serious problem. Kind of like it is cheaper to perform the preventitive maintenance on your car than it is to buy a new car every few years. A person who presents at the emergency department of any hospital has to be stabilized and treated. Guess who pays for all of that treatment? The insured pay for it. Patients with insurance subsidize those who are uninsured. Rather than patients developing serious conditions and receiving the most expensive care possible in emergency departments and high acuity treatment in hospitals they could have access to primary care.

The question is not if we want to pay more. We are already paying much more than we need to under the current system. The question is if we want to pay less by insuring everyone.

My younger brother just died at age 52 from lack of health insurance. Sure it was really cancer that finally got him but the lack of health insurance made it so he couldn't afford any care for himself until it was to late. He worked full-time as a self employed artist. He did great work and I'll miss his perspective on life.

The comments I've seen on this forum don't seem to address the problem of lack of health care seem to be an excuse to put down those less fortunate. Or, maybe it's a manifestation of greed. We are absolutely the richest country in the world and yet we are more concerned with making sure the health care industry makes money then with helping our own citizens with a fundamental right for basic health care. Even if we had universal health care, the rich would still get better care because there would be a system of private health care for those that can afford it. Kind of like private schools when we have public schools for everyone. It's time for our society to value all people and provide not just insurance but health care.

We could certainly provide adequate coverage for a fraction of what we are spending on Bush's War. It is a matter of priorities. I feel very fortunate to have great insurance, but ashamed of the fact that so many others work so hard and cannot get insurance through their work and cannot afford the costs (over $300/month) and high deductibles for private insurance- if they even qualify. This is a serious area of neglect by our government.

No Facts, anonomous quotes, fraudulet reporting, typical of the socialist agenda. Those who want to live off the work of others. That the Deseret News would report such garbage is indicitive of promoting an "agend" and not of honest reporting. Sad to see a newspaper sink so low.

I recall recently a number of reports talking about how the number of deaths from "error" while under the care of a physician are rising, as well. So, people die from not having health insurance (I assume that means they aren't getting health care, since lack of a paper never killed anyone, as far as I know), and people die from actually getting care. Insurance actually leads to people using doctors more than they would otherwise, so by having everyone insured, we would be increasing the odds of suffering a medical "error" and dying. I'd love to see a good, non-biased study that took both of those things into consideration.

Another thing: is it just me, or does anyone else roll their eyes when they hear some group described as an "advocacy" group? I translate that to be "extraordinarily biased" because they are advocating for a particular side, not trying to get real answers, and I can't really trust this group when they tell me that people are dying because they are uninsured.

Finally, on the reporting. Since when does 150 people per year, divided by 52 weeks, equal AT LEAST three people per week?

Are we now to conclude that lack of health insurance is an illness? If so, will there be health insurance for health insurance?

I agree with a lot of the comments here. This report seems fuzzy and incomplete at best. What are these people really dying of and how is that connected to health insurance? Cancer? Diabetes? Not getting preventive care to detect problems early and not affording more expensive later care? Please, be more specific on your reporting. This article does nothing but muddy the water.

I have a great job that I really enjoy, but it has no insurance. Thankfully, my husband's does, but it is expensive, over $300 a month, with a high deductible. Better than nothing, I guess, but it still leaves us with a lot to pay out of pocket before the coverage kicks in. So we often avoid going to the Dr. because we can't afford it, and can't afford the prescriptions we need, either. It's a complicated situation. Medical care is expensive because medical school is expensive and the Dr. has to pay student loans back, and malpractice insurance is so high because people sue, sometimes rightly so, often not. Therefore, insurance premiums are high and deductibles are high because the payments to the health care providers cost the insurance companies a lot. Prescriptions for new medications are extremely expensive. My husband needs Prevacid, which is expensive, even with insurance, so we have to settle for an older one, omeprazole, that doesn't work nearly as well. We were without insurance for 7 months last year, so we avoided the Dr. as much as possible. Still have a lot of medical bills to pay from that time. No easy solutions.

The 3 people per week that are supposedly dying should get their priorities straight. They don't buy health insurance, but they have big-screen tv's, new homes, etc etc etc... They didn't mention that in the article, but it's true.

We are each responsible to provide for ourselves and our families. If you choose not to buy health insurance then I guess you can claim that you "can't afford" it. The truth of the matter is that a very small minority of people truly can't afford it. The rest choose to spend their money on other things. That's certainly their choice, but with choice comes consequence.

There is a least one valid point in the article: it's good for people to get preventative care. However, government is currently part of the problem, not the solution. The answer is not more government involvement, it's less.

I currently can't get health insurance because of government regulation of the industry. If you keep government where it belongs, market forces will find a health insurance product at an optimal price. Health insurance should be a way of sharing risk, not taking care of the poor.

The proper role of government is to protect my individual freedom, not to take care of me. Socialism will always fail because it's based on incorrect principles.

>They didn't mention that in the article, but it's true.

What a completely ignorant comment. Go away and come back with facts.

That out of the way, we can complain about profits, illegal aliens, or greed, etc. But over 80% of the cost of health care for the average American over their lifetome comes in the first 6 months, and the last 6 months of life.

We have become a society fearful of dying.

The cost to keep someone alive, in the face of serious illness, even at the end of life (70s-90s) is astronomical.

Should we support that kind of (excessive?) care, just because we have the technology and knowledge to do so?

Should a 90 year old receive extreme measures to stay alive even though their life expectancy is already down to months - because the family or the person themselves just can't let go?

This is a real tear-jerker!

Having HEALTH INSURANCE is not a GUARANTEE, a friend
of my husband needed heart surgery the insurance company refuse to cover so the doctor told my friend
and husband he has 6 weeks to live. The insurance
companies are out to make MONEY. I have so many friends that had to take out bankrupcy do to HEALTHCARE COSTS, they had HEALTH INSURANCE. WE NEED
HR 676 SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH INSURANCE PEOPLE NOT PROFIT TRUE FAMILY VALUES!

To Tammi Diaz:

I'm not precisely clear how single payer health insurance represents true family values. I think the term itself is a little ambiguous, but especially when used to describe single-payer health insurance. Having the government be the only provider of health insurance in the country has nothing to do with family values, so why make the statement?

On the substance of your comments, of course the insurance companies are out to make money, and that profit motive is precisely what makes insurance companies care about people in general. Of course there are individuals who do not see the perfect outcomes we would all like to see, but that doesn't mean that the profit motive is inherently evil. The only people who really believe that are communists in the Lenenist mold (even Marx didn't really believe that), and those people are responsible for millions of deaths during the 20th century. Hardly a group I would willingly associate myself with, but if you must, feel free.

The article says uninsured people get sick more often; sounds more like a lifestyle issue, not an insurance issue. I didn’t know lack of insurance was a cause of death. Is that really what the death certificate says? Maybe they die earlier because they don’t get the needed care, but lack of insurance doesn’t kill people.

Access to adequate care is an important public policy issue; the debate is not furthered by alarmist, misleading articles.

Liberal Larry chooses to ignore that Canadians who can afford it come here for their health care when he holds the Canadian system up as a model.

DBG, lack of proper care can lead to death, but lack of insurance is not a cause of death. See first paragraph. And not all working age people are employed.

Bart and Michael, every other advanced country has higher taxes than ours. We spend more on Medicare than on defense. We can’t afford it, even pulling out of Iraq, we’d still owe trillions.

Instereo, we’re not the richest, we owe China too much. Condolences for you brother.

Tammi, if insurance companies weren’t profitable, there would be no insurance.

has a monopoly on health care with a huge lobby to keep it that way. I noted that drugs bought in Canada are not deductable on taxes!! That is nothi9ng more than the health care/big pharma lobby at work. Pharma costs are huge and it is a monopoly also. It is a financial behmouth (sp). Our health care needs fixing. The walls need to be taken down which the health care powers have built to destroy alternative medicine. Canada has figured this out and fixed it, why can't the people in the Us do the same? Folks, go to the internet, like your doctors do to find out how to fix your minor concerns, and some of the major ones. You will be shocked at what you can learn about our systems follies, and how to deal with health concerns. Watch out for perscriptions, some of them do more harm than good.

To "Tammi Diaz", if your friend's husband needed heart surgery to LIVE, why not just pay for it out of pocket. If I needed a surgury like that my wife and I would sell everything we have to cover the costs. Our families would probably help where they could. I could even work out a payment system with the healthcare providers.

Health insurance was never designed to be a guarantee, the list of services that they cover is listed in their literature.

I really like to repeat to people over and over again. If we start to let the government take over our businesses, they will keep taking them over until we lose all control.

Look at what is happening in Europe, some countries are now rationing health care. Canada has horribly long wait lists to even get treatment. I don't think we want that, we would lose even more lives.

HR 676 SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH INSURANCE PEOPLE NOT PROFIT. TOP 10 REASONS
1.EVERYONE IN, NOBODY OUT: HEALTHCARE FOR EVERYONE
2.CHOICE: PATIENTS HAVE A CHOICE DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS THE PROVIDER IS ASSURED A FAIR PAYMENT.
3.PORTABILITY: ALWAYS HAVE COVERAGE.
4.UNIFORM BENEFITS:EVERYONE HAS THE SAME COVERAGE REGARDLESS OF INCOME.
5.PREVENTION: ENCOURAGES PREVENTIVE CARE.
6 NO INTERFERENCE WITH CARE: NO DENIAL OF COVERAGE.
7.COST SAVINGS: A GUARANTEED HEALTHCARE SYSTEM CAN PRODUCE THE COST SAVINGS NEEDED TO COVER EVERYONE.
8.COMMON SENSE BUDGETING: THE PUBLIC SYSTEM SETS FAIR REIMBURSEMENTS APPLIED EQUALLY TO ALL PROVIDERS.
9.COMMON SENSE BUDGETING: THE PUBLIC SYSTEM SET FAIR REIMBURSEMENTS APPLIED EQUALLY TO ALL PROVIDERS. NEGOTIATE VOLUME DISCOUNTS FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND MEDICAL EQUIPMENT.
10.PUBLIC OVERSIGHT: THE PUBLIC SETS THE POLICIES AND ADMINISTERS THE SYSTEM, NOT CEOs MAKING DECISIONS ON BASED COMPANY'S STOCK.
THIS IS USA. THE LAND OF THE FREE. GOOD HEALTHCARE IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT. WE NEED GET BACK TO HELPING TO KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER, ALSO HELP SO PEOPLE DO NOT FILE BANKRUPCY DO HEALTHCARE COSTS.

I loved this article. It was something I would write.

Vote Obama! Healthcare for all! Oil back to $45/barrel. No violence in the ghetto. Peace in the mideast.

Vote Obama.

We have Insurance on our Car, Home, life, Buusiness,
they still make MONEY. I want the BEST HEALTHCARE there is. I have a traumatic brain injury I almost
died 13 years ago. I Have really learned to appreciate life. I am proud of who I am. Life is a Gift.

According to Wall Street Journal, the CEO of UnitedHealthCare just negotiated a deal with the Feds--they won't throw him in jail if he will pay them $99 million in fines for backdating options. He still walks away with $1.2 billion. I feel so sorry for the poor put-upon insurance companies!

The claims in this article seem to be a bit of a stretch. Many such “studies” are created in an effort to push a political agenda, and are based on anecdotes and wild guesswork, instead of scientific and statistical standards. As a result, they are basically meaningless. But that doesn’t mean that they’re harmless. Too often such studies are accepted and used as the basis for foolish decisions on the part of lawmakers and government agencies. Yes, it’s valuable for people to have health insurance, but, like most areas, when the government gets involved, there are shortages, lower quality, and higher prices.

I thought Utah just received an award for being one of the best governed states?

I guess they were wrong.

who is going to pay for this?

It continually amazes me to see the ignorance and misunderstandign many people have over this issue.

Health care and Cancer industry having a hold on this? get a life! My wife works in this industry. The information I have are debunking every myth about the perceived actions of the healthcare system. Most doctors prefer the single payer system (many of you completely misunderstand what that means).

Grow a brain and understand the facts, not cherry-pick your argument from an article.

Why are Rx's so high? Because people SUE companies and stupid juries award consumers that money when the consumer is in the wrong. It's mind-boggling the mentality America has here.

The issue here is they didn't receive MEDICAL CARE! Insurance isn't the issue. Medical care should be affordable without insurance.

We need to fix the wound (costs), not the bandage (insurance).

To Tammi:

Yes, everyone will have the same level of coverage, and that coverage will be worse than most of us have right now, because uniform coverage at the "highest" level, which many like you envision with a single payer system, would bankrupt our entire economy. That is why my aunt was told she would have to wait over a year for knee surgery. Faced with walking around on crutches, in extreme pain, for a year until she could get a surgery, she came to the U.S. and got surgery within a month.

You see, medical horror stories don't all happen in the U.S., like you would have us believe, nor are they all fixed with a single payer system, like you would have us believe.

If I did not have MEDICARE I would any insurance no
want me my presciptions are almost $700. I can't get all the healthcare I need. At lease CANADA and
Europe people all have there teeth, also people live longer. THE US GOVERMENT does not VALUE HUMAN
LIFE, it all about MONEY.

calm down, Tammi. I was put off by all your shouting. It made it too hard to read. I did notice that you said "health care is a privilege, nbot a right." The bill you back pushes it close to being a right; actually, it makes it an entitlement, which is even worse. And I've yet to see a governmental agency run as efficiently and give as good of service as a private company.

I worked hard all my life, and now that I am too young for s.s. and am unable to work, I have had no insurance for the last 3 years. And no, I have no big screen tv's or any fancy expensive things. I some times wonder if I am just not important enough to society for any help with health care. If you go to a Dr., and have no insurance,most will require payment up front, or just go home. An office visit is the biggest part of $100. or more. So with my limited income, I have to stay home with my health problems.

who is going to pay for this?
who is going to pay for this?
who is going to pay for this?

WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THIS?

All of the people beating the "let the market sort it out" drum are out to lunch. Healthcare does not function as a true market. Do some research, ask a healthcare economist if you know one and you will learn why it doesn't function as a market. I don't have the space here to describe all of the reasons why. Here is a tidbit. Healthcare does not compete on price or quality. It is impossible for the average person to figure out what a procedure or service costs. If you call a doctor's office or a hospital and ask what "X" costs they will ask you what insurance you have, not give you an answer. Do any of us know what quality of care we receive. Plenty of doctors graduated at the bottom of their class. Good luck finding out which ones. Even more luck figuring out if your physician has 3x the mortality rate of his peers for a given procedure. Healthcare does not function as a market for these and many many more reasons, therefore the market can't fix it.

To "need help" you sound like you have the exact type of situation that Medicaid was created to help. I hope that you can talk to a Social Worker, if you haven't already. If you are truely unalbe to work, the social security should be able to provide you with some income. If for some reason you don't qualify for SS or Medicaid, there are many charitible organizations out there to help. Just take a look around the web.

I'd still like to see a follow-up on the little nugget about uninsured people getting sick more often. That's contradictory to some studies that I have seen that show when people have a financial stake involved, they tend to lead healthier lifestyles. I don't know which is true. I wish there was more information in the article about that.

Anyone who thinks that illegal immigrants are the only people not paying hospital bills is ignorant and prejudiced. Your attitude has no place in this state.

To Facts: Your comment is ignorant and insulting. Hundreds of WORKING Utahns don't have coverage or enough coverage.

This new so call HEALTHCARE REFORM is only going to
thing worse more people to die, it all for the INSURANCE COMPANIES to MAKE MONEY, they beholden to their stock holder.

To "YouGoFirst" I would qualify for medicaid. However, because I am over 55 I would have to sign my home over to them. I worked to hard all my life to have to do that. I have applied for my SS., two years ago and I'm still waiting.

Notice that most of those who are healthy and have good insurance call the rest of us lazy. They also say that the uninsured or under-insured have big televisions etc. What a bunch of crap. One can only hope that these elect individuals will face situations where they can't afford medical help. This country sucks and people like these make it suck even more.

Do you remember the prisoner that killed the guard.Well he was getting an MRI for a back problem. Who pays for inmates medical bills? We as tax payers. Due to things beyond my control I am unable to work. I don't qualify for Medicaid and too young for Medicare. I own my home thats why I don't qualify for Medicaid. I've worked for 35 years and payed taxes and now my health isn't good. If I was in prison I would more than likely get better care. What do I do now

What a sad state of affairs when people in Utah show no compassion to those who died because they didn't recieve care. To those of us who have a job and insurence and a home, you are blessed. Did you forget that some people just don't have it as good as you?

Shame on all the comments here telling people to get jobs and work... because the people you are telling that to are DEAD.

Chris Plummer is probably correct that we should all have a little more compassion on those who have died, regardless of why. That simply the humane thing to do. However, it is true that life ends in death, and while some deaths are more tragic than otherwise, neither health insurance or health care (yes, they are two different things) will stop people from dying. The true shame is in attempting to use people's deaths as a political tool, as Tammi Diaz and (possibly) Chris Plummer are attempting to do. I don't know for sure whether that was Mr. Plummer's intent, and I apologize in advance if not, but it is surely Ms. Diaz's intent, and she should be ashamed.

Someone said earlier that health care doesn't function like a market, and suggested that any health care economist would back up that statement. I am such an economist, and have done research for the federal government and the Utah Department of Health, and I can verify that our system does not function like a market, but only because the government won't let it. There is no reason to suspect it couldn't function like a market, if the government would butt out.