Quantcast

Comments about ‘What others say: 'Obamacare' needs to be reformed, not repealed’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Sept. 19 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

It will not be possible to "reform" Obamacare for quite a while for one simple reason: If we open up the law to amendments, every single Republican will try to kill it outright. Democrats know this and will never allow it to happen. Unless Republicans have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, which is highly unlikely, it will stay as is.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

If only we could look at healthcare from the business aspect and not the political one.

Bill Frist, a staunch republican, is taking a reasonable approach. Look at the business model and see what can be improved.

When one looks at medicare, it would quickly become apparent that a huge percentage is spent in the last months of someones life. Is it not reasonable to study that? Isn't that what Romney would do as a businessman? How about we talk about it rather than categorize it as a "Death Panel" to make political points.

The mandate is certainly something worth looking at. It was for Hatch, and the Heritage Foundation and the GOP and Romney and now Frist. But the GOP has made it a political hot-potato to score points against Obama. Solutions to real problems are no longer the goal.

And, you watch. Bill Frist will be condemned for even suggesting some of this. His political career just ended. Party lines first. Common sense solutions and discussions not wanted.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

1st it was "Repeal",
after the GOP convention - and public opinion tipped 70% infavor of Obamacare - it switched to "Repeal and Replace".

So the first issue and problem begins with the GOP being a Party of NO.
i.e., NO Compromising. No Obamacare of any kind.
The extremeists who have High-Jacked the GOP are an All-or-Nothing lot.
And they have made it very clear that REPEAL is the only answer they will accept.
Democrats tried Compromising, to no avail.
So it was ram-rodded through without them.

Sencond, Replace? Replace with what?
If they wish to replace it - isn't that in essence admitting that AHCA is in fact a great idea for the citizens of this country, but it's just not THEIR idea?

Third, I'm still miffed that the mandate is for Insurance and not Healthcare.
Get rid of the middle man [the for profit Insurance Companies], and make it a [not-for-profit] Single-payer system. It's the only way to avoid "Death Panels".
History has shown, Companies will always put profits ahead of people.

Black Knight
American Fork, UT

Roland:
Since the Supreme Court ruled last June that Obamacare is funded by taxes, a simple majority is all that is necessary to pass or reject a tax bill in both the House and Senate. With Romney as President and a Republican Congress, Obamacare is finished as such. In any case, should the Republicans control only the House, they would control funding of Obamacare. No chance a Republican House would appropriate any additional funds for this abomination.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

If repubs hate Obamacare then they must have really hated the repub's plan for health care reform in the mid 90s.

Thinkin\' Man
Rexburg, ID

I think the idea of cradle-to-grave federal care -- health or otherwise -- should be completely scrapped. It has bankrupted Europe, and it would do the same to us. It is foreign to the Constitution. Just drop it.

KDave
Moab, UT

Liberals conveniatly leave out the fact that Ryans Medicare voucher plan is entirely optional. Much the same as they did in demagoging Bush' plan to save SS. While it is true that most of the medical expense we aquire is in the last 30 days of life, the reason is that doctors and hospitals are forced to spare no expense, in order to protect themselves from law-suits from grieving loved-ones.

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

Thinkin Man. You aint thinkin so well. The problems in europe were not caused by their health care systems. And did you watch the Olympics opening ceremonies. They spent about 15 minutes extolling the virtues of their NHS (National Health Service.

But, Obama care is not perfect, and reasonable changes should be made where it makes sense on a bi partisan basis. It is however much better than the nothing that the Republicans have proposed. Not foreign to the US constitution either. Read the preamble closely.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

WWJD?

Would he commend us for helping to poor, the sick, the elderly, or the needy?
or
Would he shower more riches upon the already rich, start offensive wars for thier Oil - and shun those listed above?

This coming from someone who doesn't like mixing Church and State,
but is trying desparately to realate to those who do.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Mike in Cedar City,
just because London put listick on their pig does not change the fact that it is a pig.

and no, it would be better to have NOTHING than Obamacare.

LDS Lib,
I did not know you spoke for Jesus. Is that Pres Monson hiding behind the pen name?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

LDS Lib,
I did not know you spoke for Jesus. Is that Pres Monson hiding behind the pen name?

12:18 p.m. Sept. 19, 2012

=============

I don't speak for him,
I just Follow him.

The 1st step is to have a clear understanding of who his is, and what he wants us to do.

BTW -- Jesus spent most of him time healing the sick, Obamacare falls into that category.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "LDS Liberal" actually, obamacare does not fall into the category of healing the sick. As the Supreme Court ruled this summer. It is a tax, and regulations. The bill not only won't help the sick, but it will make healthcare more expensive.

If you want to heal the sick, repeal Obamacare and many of the 2000+ mandates on insurance companies. Another big help would be to give Drs a tax deduction for equipment used on uncompensated care.

Obamacare is the rich young man, on the outside it looks good, but it just doesn't follow Jesus in the end.

Government programs cannot ever do as Jesus taught. Government programs are just a way to ease a person's conscience for not personally helping as Jesus did.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

LDS Lib,
you sure made it sound like you spoke for him.

your sanctimonious "I'm following Jesus by my position and the rest of you who do not agree with me definitely are not" sure gives the impression you think are speaking for him.

Tell me, since you claim to follow Christ so closely, which of his commandments include exemptions for political friends and campaign contributors?

You were aware of all the exemptions to Obamacare handed out to Nancy Pelosi's constituents, aren't you?

which of his commandments include religious exemptions?

which of his commandments were crafted using bribes?

which of his commandments are compulsory?

How many of Christ's commandments include THOSE types of exemptions?

Wonder
Provo, UT

@RedShirt -- Why does it have to be either I help personally or the government helps? I think more people will be helped if it is both. Individuals will have a difficult time helping everyone who needs help. Through government we help those who might not have a neighbor or family member who can pay for their cancer treatment or other very expensive health problem. We the people ARE the government. We can decide that we want out government to do this job. There's nothing so outrageous about that. That's how we decide things collectively as a group of citizens -- through our government.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

RedShirt - others....

My neighborhood is about a Mormon as it can get, about 90% LDS.

Our Bishop can in NO Possible way tend to all the needs of those in our Ward.

If the LDS welfare system is vastly superior,
Why do we still turn to the bad Government?

I admit our Church welfare system CAN be better, but Tithes and Offerings will need to be FAR higher than 10% and a few crumbs for Fast Offerings.

I reckon, Tithing would need to be somewhere around 30%+ to meet the needs of those around us.
And that would be IF everyone was paying a full tithe.

Ironically - that's about what the mean old evil Government is doing.

To me, it doesn't matter WHO gets the credit,
I believe GOD judges us one's intent of their heart.

If my money is going to help the poor and the needy, wheter it's through the Church or the Government - it makes no difference to me or to God.
Let God be the judge.

Where I get ticked-off, is having to pay for killing and blood shed, for offensive wars [not defensinve] in the Middle East for Oils.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Wonder" it makes a huge difference if you personally help vs. sending a faceless government official to do the work for you. It is simple. First, we are to follow Jesus's example. Now, in reading the Bible, or Book of Mormon, when Jesus was among the people and he had crowds of people around him, did he personally help, or did he refer the needy to the apostles? While the apostles were out on their missions, did they refer the needy to other people or did they do whatever they could for the needy? So, if Christ and his apostles did everything they could for the needy, what should we do? Do we send the needy to a government official or do we help them ourselves?

Let me use President Kimball's words from the 1978 April confrence "we must not be misled into supposing that we can discharge our obligations to the poor and the needy by shifting the responsibility to some governmental or other public agency. Only by voluntarily giving out of an abundant love for our neighbors can we develop that charity characterized by Mormon as ‘the pure love of Christ.’"

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "LDS Liberal" ok, let me just make sure that I understand what you are saying.

You only give the crumbs of your bread to the poor (without being the financial clerk or bishop would would never know how much others are giving), rather than giving a generous offering.

You believe that you get "credits" for doing good works, instead of blessings. You would rather surrender blessings to others than obtain blessings for you and your house by letting others take care of the needy in your place.

You believe that the people of Iraq would have been better under Sadam who outright killed over 5,000 people and intentionally injured another 7,000. Not to mention the totalarian government that he employed.

You also believe that the people of Afghanistan were better under the Taliban and their ultra strict intrepretation of Sharia law that allowes for killing daughter and for the humiliation of women.

You believe that rather than freeing the oppressed in Iraq and Afghanistan that we should leave them oppressed.

Wonder
Provo, UT

But Red Shirt, under my scenario the individual DOES help. And so does the community, collectively through the government. If you really want to reach everyone, that's the way to do it.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Wonder" sorry to say this, but it is because of the, lets allow the government to help cries that have created the welfare problems that we have. People know that once a government entitlement is created, it never dies. Also within government welfare programs you will always have somebody who's job is measured on how many people are helped. Once their job becomes dependant on helping people, they will find more people to help, thus creating more people that "need help."

Prior to WWII people helped their neighbors. We didn't have the huge houses that we do now, and people saved money in case they lost a job or had large medical expenses. We were self sufficient, yet knew that we should help our neighbors.

Since WWII and government saying that they will pick up the slack where individuals can't has only taken us to a point where people are now entitled to help.

As the prophet said, we can't discharge our obligations to the government.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments