Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Health care differences: Romneycare is not the same as Obamacare

Comments

Return To Article
  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    Oct. 6, 2012 10:22 p.m.

    @ Mike Richards 2:12 p.m. Oct. 5, 2012

    It may be semantics but COTUS can be "redefined"; Have you *never* heard of the Bill of Rights and the other amendments??

  • Mr. Bean Ogden, UT
    Oct. 6, 2012 7:28 p.m.

    @Salsa Libre:

    "From your ideological and conservative interpretation of the Constitution, can I assume that you are opposed to both Social Security and Medicare?"

    Please show us where Federal Obamacare, SS, and Medicare are authorized by the US Constitution. Inquiring minds wanna know.

    "Just to be accurate, you oppose any program not specifically mandated in the Constitution as you interpret it..."

    Generalizations in the Article 1.8 Commerce Clause opens the door for power hungry politicians to amass all power at the federal level. My reading of the Constitution indicates that the Founding Fathers wanted federal power to be limited. Could you show us what those limitations might be?

    "Does this mean that if Utah develops excellent programs for its residents, people from other states should move there..."

    That would be their choice. And if other states want to keep their citizens they will do something similar.

    States see things differently. For example, some allow gambling, others don't.

    "One could almost see Utah replacing Florida as an ideal retirement destination."

    Not so. Utah's too cold in the winter for retirees.

  • Alfred Ogden, UT
    Oct. 6, 2012 4:54 p.m.

    @Makid:

    "The IRS has stated that they will not enforce any penalty tax on someone who doesn't buy insurance."

    Oh yeah? Who does the IRA work for? The president, that's who. If he tells IRS to do it, they will. Of course if Romney gets elected, all bets are off.

    @Mad Hatter:

    "Romney is notorious for telling his audience what they want to hear."

    That's how politicians win elections. Can you imagine what would happen to either Romney or Obama if they told their audiences the opposite of what they wanna to hear.

    Besides, if you are looking for someone who changes his mind, look to Obama. He has a master flip-flopper. Same sex marriage, for example.

    @Truthseeker:

    "Romney repeatedly claimed that a new government board was 'going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.' Not true."

    Is true. It's called the 'Healthcare Rationing Board.' Palin (correctly) labeled them as 'death panels.' I guarantee that a 80 year old will not get a heart transplant. Obama hinted at this when he said these folks will be encouraged to go home and take a pain pill.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Oct. 6, 2012 4:37 p.m.

    @JoeBlow:

    "What was the cost to our income and deficit when we decided to start wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

    Those wars were to ensure you can get some gas for your car so you (and I) can get to work each day.

    "I just don't get it."

    You might need to try harder.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Oct. 6, 2012 4:17 p.m.

    @Furry1993:

    "Romneycare IS the same as 'Obamacare.'"

    Oops, Romneycare is at the state level. Obamacare is at the federal level. Big difference. Federal power and authority is limited per the US Constitution. State power and authority is not.

  • L White Springville, UT
    Oct. 6, 2012 8:40 a.m.

    It looks like I tuned in just in time. I was going to make almost the same comment as J Thompson, but he beat me to it.

    I read the entire Constitution this morning, again. I read it often to remind me of my duty as a citizen to see that the government plays fair.

    Article 6 tells us that the Constitution AND the laws passed by Congress are the Supreme Law of the Land. The Constitution tells us HOW to pass laws and it tells us exactly what kind of laws (enumerated duties) that Congress can pass. The Court decides if those laws are Constitutional, but only as an appellate court. The Court has to first wait for a lower court to rule.

    Obamacare was not declared Constitutional. Justice Roberts said that Congress has the power to tax and that Obamacare is a tax. He encouraged us to fix things on our own in the next election. The Court didn't rule on the Constitutionality of the tax, but it ruled against the Interstate Commerce provisions of Obamacare.

    If we are wise, Obamacare will be overturned by the peoples' representatives elected next month.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Oct. 6, 2012 6:37 a.m.

    Of course those who think that the Constitution is outdated, that it is just a piece of paper, that believe in "royalty", would try to tell us that they have the right to "change" the Constitution at their every whim. Obama, the self-proclaimed "Constitutional Expert", has no use for the Constitution. He, like FDR, thought that it should contain a list of "freedoms" bestowed on the people by the government, i.e., the right to a job, the right to own a home, the right to healthcare. That concept takes us right back to King George, who gave us the "right" to serve him as he dictated.

    I agree with Mike Richards, completely.

    Those who disrespect the Constitution, including the posters who have minimized its importance and its position in limiting government, have done us all a great disservice. They offer tyranny as their form of government. That, of course, is Obama's desire - to rule and to reign from the White House with power over Congress and the Court. He supposes that he "knows" what is best for America and for Americans.

    We have Kingmen and we have Freemen in the Americas - again.

  • BRM Pleasant Grove, Utah
    Oct. 5, 2012 10:15 p.m.

    LDS Liberal

    I have lived in several different states. I have lived in 3 foreign countries. I have worked for a health insurance company. Therefore, I know more about the subject than any of my critics.

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 9:48 p.m.

    Mike: "NO LAW is Constitutional just because Congress has passed it and the President has signed it. It is required that each law be measured against what WE, THE PEOPLE, have authorized the Federal Government to do in our behalf. The Court decides that, not Obama. Obama thinks otherwise. FDR though other wise. LBJ thought otherwise."

    The SCOTUS (Supreme Court) has affirmed that Obamacare is constitutional. Therefore it is valid and can go forward as it is.

    Amendments are additions and expansions of the Constitution. Believe it or not, I do understand how they work. They expand the power of the Constitution from the original intent of the architects of the document.

    Laws passed by congress, signed by the president and affirmed by SCOTUS are constitutional. That is the point behind checks and balances. Each law, by nature uses the Constitution as its foundation. If it didn't, SCOTUS would strike the law as unconstitutional.

    Think of Amendments as additions and renovations to a house, Laws are additions and modifications to the yard. Some make the property better, while others make it worse.

    Some understand this, others want to form an HOA to force their ideals on others.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 7:12 p.m.

    Mike Richards says: "No PERSON, including Obama has the right to define for us what the Constitution says."

    Not to belabor a point made or alluded to by other commenters, Mike, but did it ever occur to you that your statement means that YOU (following your practice of shouting with all caps) do not have "the right to define for us what the Constitution says." So please stop. Your hyprocisy is becoming tiresome.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 6:51 p.m.

    To Mike Richards 2:12 p.m. Oct. 5, 2012

    You either agree with the Constitution or you reject it. Nobody has the right to redefine it. Your rethoric tells us that you reject the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 lists The authorized duties of Congress. The 10th Amendment tells us that ALL duties not authorized ate left to the States or to the people. You're either for the Constitution or you're against it. Since you're not FOR the Constitution, just what are you for?

    ------------------------

    The fact, Mike, is that the ONLY thing you're for is YOUR interpretation of the Constitution. The FACT that the way you interpret the Constitution and what it really says and means are two different things. I again invite you to really study it instead of just giving it the cursory reading tht you say you've done. It is a truly magnificent document in its depth and breadth, and it is only through long, hard study that you can truly understand and appreciate it. Give yourself a chance to really understand it -- you will be amazed at what it truly is.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 5, 2012 5:57 p.m.

    Makid

    Before things get completely out of hand, let's review the facts.

    The Constitution was passed WITH 10 amendments already in place.

    The Constitution contains the process by which it can be revised (Article 5).

    NOBODY, not you, not the President, not Reid, not Pelosi, or anyone else has the right to REDEFINE the Constitution. The Constitution is what it is, not what Obama tells that it is, or Reid or Pelosi. It stands on its own without the need for their clarification.

    NO LAW is Constitutional just because Congress has passed it and the President has signed it. It is required that each law be measured against what WE, THE PEOPLE, have authorized the Federal Government to do in our behalf. The Court decides that, not Obama. Obama thinks otherwise. FDR though other wise. LBJ thought otherwise.

    No new law can change the Constitution. Only the PEOPLE in 3/4ths of the States can change the Constitution - as declared in Article 5.

    Please read the Constitution and the method that has been approved to change it before trying to instruct us on what it is all about.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 5:25 p.m.

    Romneycare is not the same as obamacare. And we need something much more extensive than both. We need canadacare, the single payer system. Health is about people, not insurance. Obamacare doesn't make it. Romneycare is worse.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 5:20 p.m.

    That apple is an apple, except for the flip flop spin used by the Romney supporters.

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 4:44 p.m.

    Mike, the Constitution was written prior to the Amendments.

    Amendments are adjustments that redefined Constitution. That’s something which you have stated you are against. You did state the following: "Nobody has the right to redefine it."

    This tells everyone that you are against all changes to the constitution as "Nobody has the right to redefine it."

    Now, the Constitution gives the power to create laws to Congress, sign laws to the Presidency and affirm the laws are constitutional to the Supreme Court.
    If a law is voted on and passes Congress, is signed by the President and is affirmed by the Supreme Court, then the law is Constitutional.

    Each new law that is enacted by Congress is further redefining the nature of the Constitution. That is how the document is meant to be understood. Anyone who does not understand this should not state that something is against the Constitution because it isn't directly stated there.

    I am sorry that this seems like a hard concept for many people to grasp. The Constitution is a document that is designed to flow like a river, changing as needed to affirm its nature as the foundation of the country.

  • Ying Fah Provo, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 4:09 p.m.

    J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT

    Once again for your information, Obamacare is based on Romneycare and was recommended by the Heritage Foundation (and Mitt Romney) as a plan for the United States. Nixon wanted to mandate universal health care and have business pay for it. And Wednesday Romney again stated that he wanted to keep many aspects of Obamacare, i.e. Obamneycare. He said all this before all Americans watching that night except (wink, wink) maybe he was sending a message to conservatives that he didn't really mean what he was currently saying.

    And yes, you have your interpretation of the Constitution, but that in no way lessens my interpretation of that same document. So I can say what I say with the same sense of truth as you might claim. However, I am interested in making a better American and believe sincerely that the Constitution was created as a dynamic and living document.

  • Salsa Libre Provo, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 3:59 p.m.

    Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah

    Continuing the back-and-forth.

    "You're either for the Constitution or you're against it. Since you're not FOR the Constitution, just what are you for?"

    Well, you are a true believer, that's for sure. Might we also assume that in addition to your political views, your religious views are as firm and anyone who does not believe as you do is wrong? This sounds too much like the application of Sharia Law in fundamentalist Islamic cultures. Would you like the "rules" of the Old Testament applied and enforced in our nation? One could imagine you joining in on a stoning because there is a religious directive for this action.

    As for my views on the Constitution, I take a more progressive approach and try to interpret it in light of the times. But, yes, I support the Constitution. Those who wrote the Constitution had absolutely no concept of how America would be 200 years in the future. So they allowed interpretation and flexibility. That is my position! Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me wrong! Neither does it make you right!

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 5, 2012 3:57 p.m.

    Makid,

    What in the world are you advocating? The Constitution includes ALL the Amendments. The Amendments are PART of the Constitution. No PERSON, including Obama has the right to define for us what the Constitution says. We have a defined way to change the Constitution. Three-fourths of the States have to agree on the amendment. Surely you understand the process. My grandchildren understand the process.

    Don't use empty rethoric to mask your contempt of the process. Obama cannot dictate our form of goveenment. WE have already dictated that process to him and sealed that process with the blood of patriots.

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 3:39 p.m.

    Mike Richards: "You either agree with the Constitution or you reject it. Nobody has the right to redefine it."

    So you are against all the Amendments then? "Nobody can redefine it." That means no one can change it. You can't have it both ways. If the Constitution is perfect than the Amendments are an abomination.

    Your rhetoric tells us that you reject all Amendments to the Constitution, you reject the Bill of Rights and the subsequent Amendments.

    You can't have it both ways. Either the the Constitution and be redefined or it can't. If it can't, please start a push to rescind all the amendments. Might as well start with 2 since Bear Arms isn't listed in the Constitution, all guns must go away. Don't forget 1, That is a powerful Amendment there.

    Everyone needs to understand that the document wasn't perfect and was made to be redefined as the needs of the country changed over time. That is what makes the document so strong and enduring. Fixed views for the document are not only limiting to the document but also to the country it spawned.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 3:08 p.m.

    @ J Thompson -- I believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I also believe that the Supreme Court (one of the branches of government under the Constitution) upheld Obamacare and said it isn't unconstitutional. So when someone says Obamacare is unconstitutional, I think that perhaps that person is less concerned about whether or not something is constitutional and instead is saying that they disagree with the law. "Constitutional" does not mean "laws I like" and "unconstitutional" does not mean "laws I don't like."

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 2:57 p.m.

    Massachusetts health care was a Mitt Romney initiative. That makes it good.
    The ACA was a Barack Obama initiative. That makes it bad.
    The fact that they're identical is irrelevant.
    Right?

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 2:51 p.m.

    People attacking the messenger have reached a new low. They openly reject the Constitution but the won't tell us WHOSE plan the favor. Do they want Obama to dictate to us? Do they want Reid to dictate to us? Do they want Pelosi to dicatate to us?

    We have a Constitution to protect us AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. That is the purpose of the Constitution!

    Those who reject the Constitution, even as they attack the messenger, are telling us that they believe in anarchy.

    You can't have it both ways. Either you believe in the Supreme Law of the Land, or you believe that we have no rules and no laws.

    Which do ypu believe?

  • boxerdog915 Clearfield, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 2:41 p.m.

    No matter whose is "better", the point is, the healthcare system should NOT be run by the government period, federal, state, or local. This is going against the Constitution of the United States and our government officials are just proving they could care less about this important document by completely disregarding it and those who are for it are just proving they are incapable of taking care of themselves and want the government to do everything for them. When are we are American citizens going to realize we need to be responsible for ourselves, expecting nothing from our government??? We give them an inch, they will take a mile and before you know it, we are going to be taxed so heavily by the "take care of the Americans programs" we are going to be poor and craving freedom!!

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 2:31 p.m.

    Oh Mike Richard, Mike Richards. Your hyperbole is always entertaining. I know you think everyone to the left of Attila the Hun is a Communist, but it just isn't true.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 5, 2012 2:12 p.m.

    Salsa,

    You either agree with the Constitution or you reject it. Nobody has the right to redefine it. Your rethoric tells us that you reject the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 lists The authorized duties of Congress. The 10th Amendment tells us that ALL duties not authorized ate left to the States or to the people. You're either for the Constitution or you're against it. Since you're not FOR the Constitution, just what are you for?

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 1:47 p.m.

    You know the biggest difference between Obamacare and Romneycare? One was passed while Obama was president, so it is BAD. The other one was passed while Romney was governor, so it is GOOD. Anything Obama = BAD. Anything Republican = GOOD. Until Obama proposes it. Then it is BAD.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 10:13 a.m.

    "All of the existing health insurance companies will be put out of business."

    That's false.

  • Whatever Springville, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 10:05 a.m.

    This letter is completely useless. All Glenn Beck/Faux News/AM radio gloom and doom. You know, Romney didn't implement Romneycare because he thought the idea was bad, he actually believed in it, but just like every other idea the man has had he switched positions on it when he found that it hindered his never ending campaign for president. Imagine that, he flip flopped again and you all just can't admit it.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 10:00 a.m.

    "The citizens of Massachusetts like it. They voted for it."

    Massachusetts citizens did not vote for it. The State Legislature voted for it, just as the U.S. legislature (Congress) voted for Obamacare. But you're right to say citizens of Massachusetts like it, just as U.S.citizens will like the very similar Obamacare once it is fully implemented.

    "All of the existing health insurance companies will be put out of business. All of their employees will be laid off; equipment and facilities will be sold or discarded and when they are gone it will be almost impossible to get them back."

    True, but health insurance companies don't provide health care, they merely create mountains of insurance paperwork as they drive up costs by competing for the preferred customers and try to disqualify the less-attractive customers. Perhaps the laid-off employees will find new job opportunities in a more vigorous health-care industry that focuses on health care rather than health insurance.

  • Salsa Libre Provo, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 9:47 a.m.

    Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah

    "The biggest problem, as Romney also pointed out, is that the 10th Amendment requires that healthcare be left to the States; it is not a duty of the Federal Government."

    From your ideological and conservative interpretation of the Constitution, can I assume that you are opposed to both Social Security and Medicare? It appears that you would want these two programs eliminated and the states develop something similar for their respective residents.

    Just to be accurate, you oppose any program not specifically mandated in the Constitution as you interpret it, is that correct? So you oppose public funding of EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING beyond defense? You don't like the interstate transit program under Eisenhower? You don't like the EPA under Nixon? And we've already mentioned that you don't like Medicare under Lyndon Johnson.

    Does this mean that if Utah develops excellent programs for its residents, people from other states should move there to take advantage of these good programs? It could be like moving across state borders looking for the best health insurance. One could almost see Utah replacing Florida as an ideal retirement destination.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 9:26 a.m.

    "When Obamacare gets fully entrenched it will literally destroy all of the alternative health care systems." If only.

    Seems to me this is the major problem with American health care. We have too many systems. And even with all of them, we still leave millions of people out in the cold.

    Folks, we don't have to reinvent the wheel. There are, right now, 40 or 50 health-care systems in the world that we could simply adopt and be far better off than we are with our schizophrenic hodge-podge of health-care chaos. We pay twice as much per capita as the next most expensive system and are ranked lower than several Third World countries. Yes, we are exceptional. And we'll be more so if the Republicans take over.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 9:05 a.m.

    Those who have taken the time to read the Obamacare bill from cover to cover and then taken the time to note the problems with the bill will never want Obamacare. We are NOT free to change insurance companies. A "secretary" will decide who is covered and what is covered. The government has listed the cost of healthcare at 18%, which will be funnelled into the treasury as Obamacare ramps up and as people are forced to buy insurance from the government.

    The IRS WILL collect the tax. The IRS collects taxes from those who owe them - no matter what lies Obama tells us about Obamacare NOT being a tax and, now that it has been declared a tax by the Supreme Court, that he will not enforce the collection of that tax. Just how does he propose to pay for the services, by writing rubber checks as he has done for $5 TRILLION of expenditures?

    Just because Obama said that it is based on Romney's bill doesn't make it true. Read Obamacare. Don't be fooled by Obama's lies.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 9:02 a.m.

    The letter forgot to mention that Obamacare will usher in the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Oct. 5, 2012 8:56 a.m.

    Re:Mike Richards

    Romney repeatedly claimed that a new government board was “going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.” Not true. It could make some binding recommendations about such things as what drugs or medical devices would be paid for by Medicare, but it has no legal power to dictate treatment or ration care.

    The board is a 15-member panel that’s tasked with finding ways to slow the growth of Medicare spending. So, its work concerns Medicare, not everyone seeking health care. And, according to the law, the board can’t touch treatments or otherwise “ration” care, or restrict benefits.

  • William Gronberg Payson, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 8:48 a.m.

    This letter is a wonderful example of one of the major problems with many letters that are selected for print.

    Inaccuracy of facts does not disqualify letters being printed.

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 8:28 a.m.

    And Romney was taking credit for being the "grandfather" of Obamacare until those in his base learned that he was bragging about his "moderate credentials" before a general audience.

    Romney is many things to many people. As Andrew Sullivan wrote in the Daily Beast, Romney is very skilled at closing the deal. The first debate was critical. He rose up, according to Michael Gerson, but now is having to backtrack on various statements he made in appealing to the millions of people watching. His "moderate" views expressed in the debate have upset many in his Party. They don't understand that he was only doing what was necessary to "close the deal".

    Romney is notorious for telling his audience what they want to hear. He is good at varying his message to suit the prospective customer. However, one can be certain that his plan is always to adhere to the ultimate goal of reducing taxes on the rich and cutting the costs of government by eliminating programs the poor and middle-class have come to depend on.

    He, like the missionary who gets the door slammed in his face, just picks up and moves to the next house.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Oct. 5, 2012 8:28 a.m.

    One painted red and the other is painted blue. It's the same car of conservative design.

    If you don't like Obamacare you should call the Heritage Foundation.

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 8:20 a.m.

    Mike, there is no one size fits all with regards to Obamacare. It uses private insurance companies. The companies are the ones that determine what is covered, what isn't, what levels of coverage to allow and so forth.

    Obamacare is a boon to the insurance companies. There are no options within Obamacare that do not use those insurance companies. This is the same as it is with Romneycare.

    The 15% that you hear on the radio has been debunked but the talking heads just ignore it to cause simple minded listeners to freak out and avoid wanting Obamacare (Even though it was there idea).

    The IRS has stated that they will not enforce any penalty tax on someone who doesn't buy insurance. If they won't enforce it, then it isn't a penalty because there is nothing to force you to purchase it.

    Obamacare hasn't even gone into effect but people are blaming it for increasing the costs of healthcare. How can something that isn't there raising rates? Once the new additions are made, the costs will decrease as the burden expands beyond the current users.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 5, 2012 8:13 a.m.

    " it is about allowing the federal government to take another 18% of our income."

    How much of our income was taken when Mr Bush and the GOP congress instituted Medicare Part D?
    What was the cost to our income and deficit when we decided to start wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
    How much of our income is taken when healthcare costs continue to rise exponentially?

    Mike, I can appreciate your concern for government spending. What I do not understand is that you seem to only rail against the govt spending when the Dems do it.

    You seem to think that if we all vote "R" that the same kind of spending will not continue.
    There is not anything the Obama has done that is any more "socialistic" than what past Republicans have done. That certainly applies to healthcare.

    In reality, the country does not run much different no matter who is in control.

    I never understand why people are so enamored with their party, either right or left.
    And you are as immersed in that ideology as much as anyone I know.

    I just don't get it.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 5, 2012 7:30 a.m.

    Obamacare is not about "care", it is about allowing the federal government to take another 18% of our income. The debate made it very clear that a fifteen person government panel would make all "health care decisions". Under Romney's plan, the doctors and hospitals were free to make all health-care decisions. Under Obamacare, one size has to fit everyone. Under Romney's plan, you could pick and choose any insurance plan that met your needs.

    The biggest problem, as Romney also pointed out, is that the 10th Amendment requires that healthcare be left to the States; it is not a duty of the Federal Government. Obama ignores the Constitution. He wants that 18% so badly that he would set aside the Constitution and his oath of office to uphold the Constitution to get his hands on the money.

    It is already evident that Obamacare has cost each family an average of $2,500 in higher premiums and that it will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, if fully implemented. When no one is working, who will pay the costs?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 7:14 a.m.

    The letter is one huge AM radio hyperbole.

    But all I can say is the letter writer has NEVER;

    Lived in another State,
    Never lost a job,
    Never had someone in his family he's responsible for all ill.

    Maybe he should consider himself "Lucky" in life,
    and stop being so condesending and judgemental of those who haven't been so blessed and perhaps showing some compassion [i.e., putting yourself in someone elses shoes] and think about the other 350 Million Americans instead of just himself and his circumstances.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 6:47 a.m.

    Romneycare IS the same as "Obamacare". Obamacare is directly derived from Romneycare, which was enacted in reliance on a proposed program developed by the ultra-conservative (far right wing) Heritage Foundation. Romneycare, at the behest of the Republicans, even has the mandate which requires everyone to have insurance. I really find it amusing that the far right is now contending against the exact program the proposed to counter Hillary Clinton's health care initiative. That appears quite hypocritical to me.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 6:09 a.m.

    "When Obamacare gets fully entrenched it will literally destroy all of the alternative health care systems. All of the existing health insurance companies will be put out of business.”

    Blaine obviously does not comprehend the ACA, which will ADD 30 million new customers to the insurance companies' rolls. It's unfortunate that Congress didn't enact a single-payer system like expanded Medicare for all Americans, not just those over 65. But even that would not necessarily destroy private health insurance, as insurance companies could offer private plans to cover medical costs not covered under Medicare, as they do now.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 5, 2012 4:41 a.m.

    "it will literally destroy all of the alternative health care systems. All of the existing health insurance companies will be put out of business."

    Are you suggesting that these things happened in Massachusetts? If not, then your claim is unsupportable.