In Boo Reiser's article, he postulates that Utahns aren't opposed to progress, and they aren't necessarily opposed to Obamacare either ("What's in a name? Obamacare vs. Affordable Care Act," March 3). According to him, a law by any other name than Obamacare would likely have the support of the majority of Utahns. Obama's press secretary couldn't have said it better.
Reiser then lists the positive parts of the ACA: insurance exchanges, help for those who can not afford health insurance, guaranteeing coverage for pre-existing conditions, banning insurance companies from canceling policies because a person becomes ill, etc. Doesn't Reiser realize that these positive attributes could be better enacted within the framework of the American free enterprise system? Utahns understand very well that that following the failed European model of socialism which is crumbling before our eyes is not a good idea.
For many years I was an international health care consultant advising third world countries on how they could improve their failing socialized health care systems. To make a long story short, socialized medicine increases costs, reduces quality and accessibility and drives health care providers from their professions, causing long delays for patients seeking care.