Published: Sunday, July 1 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT
"Obviously there are and always will be exceptions to the rule and then
local government should provide assistance."Of course, whenever
there are circumstances where "private industry" can't make a
profit, then the government should step in to help out. That has been the
mantra of the private sector throughout history. Home insurance in hurricane
zones, housing the poor and low income, whatever, the private sector wants no
part of it if they can't make a buck."Shouldn't we be
teaching our children to prepare now for their future?" Tell that to a
three year old boy diagnosed with juvenile diabetes whose parents have
discovered that not one insurance company will cover them because they own a
small business and their "group" is not big enough.And what
do insurance companies do for us anyway, besides taking 30% off the top of our
premiums and put it in their pockets? I don't know if healthcare is a
right or a responsibility, but before we put one more dollar in the pockets of
insurance companies, military contractors or give special tax privileges to
private equity firms, we should take care of the health of our citizens.
The CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the deficit by $250 Billion in 10
years. That is a reduction, not an increase. Repealing it adds the reduction
back to the deficit.Health Care is as much a right as school is.
The same logic that requires me to pay for other families children to attend
school requires that others are responsible for their own healthcare.A healthy society is needed just as much as an educated society.If
you are against ACA or healthcare requirements for individuals, than you are
also against the requirement that everyone, with or without children, pay for
schools. Where is the uproar with that.Oh, one more thing. You may
not know this but the ACA that was pushed by Obama, it is the same health care
plan that has been pushed by Republicans since the late 80's. They all
wanted it until Obama decided that it would be good. It was pushed by the
Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. The 2 most conservative groups in
"Then logic kicked in. We are going to add 30 million people to the health
care rolls at no extra cost? " First of all these people are all ready on
the health care rolls, and you are paying for them. Secondly the 30 million are
being added to the insuraned rolls and they are paying premiums so yes they are
taking responsibility for themselves (I know..some of the premiums are being
subsidized, but they are being forced to be responsible).
This letter is hogwash. There is no point in debating the issue when misleading
propaganda is the rule. I am not sure I have ever seen such a
mischaracterization of this issue as I see here.
Mr. Carabine, like many others on the right side which is really the wrong side,
completely ignores the fact that the ACA is requiring personal responsibility.
At long last, anyone who can afford to pay the premiums MUST buy that coverage.
He is ignoring the fact that all of us who have been responsible in
the past have been paying a hidden tax to cover those who were either
irresponsible or who simply could not afford exorbitant premiums. We paid for
them under Reagan's requirement that allowed them to receive free emergency
care when needed. ACA is the epitome of personal responsibility.
Isn't that what people like this writer have been demanding?
The author missed an important point - no is claiming we can "add 30 million
people to the health care rolls at no extra cost." The Affordable Care Act
include mechanisms by which we can add those people and pay for them. The
mechanisms include some new taxes but also a variety of mechanisms to help keep
insurance premiums affordable, and to alter the ways in which health care is
delivered in order to control costs. The ACA may not go far enough but it
represents a serious attempt to control health care costs. It includes a wide
array of experiment - i.e. health exchanges in the states, funds studies to
identify comparative effectiveness of treatments - to control costs.The reveal, however, comes when the author claims health care is not a right
but a responsibility. Everything else in the letter is written to justify that
position. Compare our health care system to those in other nations
with universal health care; the US pays more and gets lesser outcomes than do
any of those nations. That creates a competitive disadvantage for American
businesses. So it's not only good policy, it's good economics.
Republicans are not 'realists', they have no plan at all and are happy
to see you go under the bus. Yes, we need to change the role of insurance
companies; we need to get them out of health provision entirely. Health is not
an insurable commodity, and health care is something we can provide to one
another. There's plenty of room to cover everyone if we take out insurance
bottom lines and infrastructure. Besides, a lot of those 30 (or 40 or whatever)
million are going to end up costing us all in one way or another.
Health care is not an enumerated duty found in the Constitution. People either
cannot read or they refuse to read the list of duties that must be performed by
the Federal Government. That list is very short. It contains only seventeen
items. Health care is NOT on that list.That does not mean that
"government" should not somehow be involved in healthcare, but if we are
a nation of law-abiding citizens, we know that the FEDERAL level of government
cannot legally perform healthcare (except to tax us, as the provided in the last
ruling).Amendment 10 provides the answer. If we want government to
provide health care, then it is up to the STATES to provide that health care -
just as Romney did when he was governor of a State.Things are so
simple when Congress doesn't try to "improve" on the Constitution
by writing legislation that they are not authorized to write.John
Roberts essentially told us that it is our duty, as citizens, to throw out those
who voted for the ACA. When we do that, perhaps, just perhaps, Congress will
realize that we are serious about the Constitution.
wah wah wah, does the right want some more cheese with their whine today?Whenever I see folks like Alan write, "Health care is a
responsibility" the obvious translation is:"Health Care
should ONLY be available for the rich or who don't have any pre-existing
conditions. The rest of you? You don't deserve health care."Furthermore, I haven't seen a letter written with so many inaccuracies.
The ACA actually lowers the deficit, as we're already paying for people to
get health care. The difference now is that they cannot be denied coverage,
cannot be dropped because they get sick, and are now going to actually PAY for
insurance. See, that's the thing that repub "realists"
don't understand. It's a simple concept really. When uninsured folks
gets sick, we all end up paying for it. Either through the insurance company
charging us extra or by their declaring bankruptcy and those costs are passed
onto us. The ACA helps people take responsibility and eliminates
these costs from being placed on the rest of us that otherwise would.Furthermore, when have repubs been realists about anything? Climate change,
war, tax cuts, trickle down economics.....
Uh oh, logic just kicked in. You add 30 million people to any risk pool and
suddenly the risk goes down by a vast magnitude. It actually should mean much
lower premiums. (This is real logic, as opposed to right-wing "logic,"
I was completely fooled by the title "Heatlh Care Is Not A Right - It Is A
Responsiblity".I thought the letter would outline why
individuals should contribute to their own health care. Instead the message was
"bury our heads in the sand and pretend nobody ever gets sick".
Alan, while I feel the ACA should only be the first step to a real universal
healthcare system I am a witness that since 2010's intial implementation it
saves money from the consumers pocket. You assume that people are in the same
circumstances as you and since you never get sick and you have good health
insurance policy that everyone is in the same boat but brother that ain't
true. Clearly 1/3 of the deficit has been caused by the "mandate" from
Congress in 2004 that said Medicare must pay full retail for prescriptions. They
refer to this as the donut hole. Think about it, full retail. I am looking at a
prescription bottle right now that costs $242 monthly at retail. Of course you
righties love that Americans subsidize the world for pharma. Now they will
negotiate prices which is only fair since we pay for the research of drugs. When
shopping for a universal healthcare system, Taiwan studied every system in the
world. Their conclusion was the U.S. is exactly what not to do.
@Makid said, "The CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the deficit by $250
Billion in 10 years."Nonsense – you are quoting outdated
data based upon erroneous information provided to the CBO back during the
healthcare debate and prior to this past week's Supreme Court decision.
Based alone upon the Court's decision, that the Federal Government cannot
penalize the States for not adding Medicare recipients (being able to opt out),
the overall cost will going up; not down.
re: Mike Richards 8:43 a.m. July 1, 2012"John Roberts
essentially told us that it is our duty, as citizens, to throw out those who
voted for the ACA. When we do that, perhaps, just perhaps, Congress will realize
that we are serious about the Constitution."He did this by
voting w/ the Liberals & upholding a Govt mandate? He must be worlds
greatest Agent provocateur?Seriously, until Joe Average can pay
members of Congress like special interests then things will continue to spiral
out of control.
This is an interesting letter. To paraphrase: "I was almost persuaded by
facts, persuasively, logically and cogently presented. Then I remembered my
ideology. Whew. Close call there."
Voter support for President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul has
increased following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling upholding it, a
Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Sunday showed. Among all registered
voters, support for the law rose to 48 percent in the online survey conducted
after Thursday's ruling, up from 43 percent before the court decision. The survey showed increased backing from Republicans and, crucially, the
political independents whose support will be essential to winning the Nov. 6
presidential election. Thirty-eight percent of independents
supported the healthcare overhaul. That was up from 27 percent from a
Reuters/Ipsos poll taken days before the justices' ruling. This
is a win for Obama. This is his bill. There's not really any doubt in
people's minds, that it belongs to him. "It's his baby. It's
literally been labeled Obamacare which maybe it works in his favor now that
there's a little bit of a victory dance going on." Live
Health care ins not a right. But it could be.All it would take is
for honest, humane, caring, unselfish, decent people to wrest control of our
government from the people who feel that they have a right profit from other
peoples misfortune. And live off the labor of others. The rights
that we enjoy are the rights that our society gives to us and are secured and
enforced by our strong national government. The people who would limit, starve
and destroy our national government would take away the rights that are promised
to Americans. When we talk of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness, we should realize that the most important factor of each of these is
health. And without health care there is no protection from the ravages of
illness, disease and trauma. There is no enemy that harms us and
takes away our freedom than the things that effect our health. Is our
government not supposed to protect us? There is no greater
commonality of the danger. So why is it not a right like the other rights we
Mike Richards. When we elect a president, we are not electing him
to be a janitor. As our main representative we expect him to manage and direct
the nation mainly as we would do if we were in his position. We also expect him
to do his job as a person in today’s world and not that of 200 years ago.
You seem to overlook the part of the Tenth Amendment that says that
the people have just as much authority in their government as do the
“states”. Just because the criminal unscrupulous people
in state government have acted to prevent the people from having their say,
doesn’t change the fact that the Constitution says they have the same
authority as the “states”.The facts are that when the
other mechanisms for supplying and providing for the people fail in their
mission, people will look to their government for help. It is the
lack of proper health care that prompts us to look to government. If a private solution to our needs can be found that is less oppressive and
harmful to us, we would choose that over government action.
I concur with the letter writer. I completely disagree with the notion that just
because you were fortunate enough to be born in the US you are automatically
entitled to certain benefits. At least people who are eligible for the GI bill
actually did something for their Country. The fact is (as the writer
stated in his letter) we're already bankrupt so nobody's getting free
anything. Either taxes are going to be raised dramatically or benefits are going
to be cut for la-de-da-dee everybody. There's no other way around it. The
money just isn't there- unless you're the kind of psychopath leftist
who wants to kill the entire economy and take 95% of everyone's income.
"Republicans are realists." Really now. If this were true, they would
significantly raise taxes to pay for the deficits their policies and unfunded
wars have created. We can afford the Affordable Care Act. But the Republicans
won't allow a tax increase. Tax rates are at ridiculously low levels. I sit
firmly in the middle class, but I can afford to pay more, and I am willing to
pay more for all the benefits we've already committed to.As for
health care not being a "right," well, only to the American Right. Every
other developed country and many Third World nations consider health care a
right. They deliver good quality at half the price America pays. Are we so
"exceptional" that we can't learn anything from other countries who
long ago figured this out?And Mike Richards, of course the
Constitution says nothing about health care. Why would they mess with the proven
success of administering calomel (which we now use as an insecticide) and
bleeding the patient at every turn? Please join the 21st century.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments