Quantcast
Opinion

Affordable Care Act: Health care for 30 million more citizens will yield prosperity

Comments

Return To Article
  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    March 5, 2013 11:47 a.m.

    @Redshirt

    "As much as the left wing likes to paint fascists are right wing, that is a relative comparison. They are to the right of socialists, but to the left of capitalists and modern conservatives."

    Huh, I thought I was a "moderate" or "centrist" for being in between. Guess I should break out the brown shirts and learn how to goose step.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 5, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    To "UT Brit" just because there are more doctors does not mean there is better care.

    The use of infant mortality statistics and life spans is a fallacy.

    First, nations count infant mortality differently see "Behind the Baby Count" in the US News.

    As far as longevity, again, when accidental deaths are factored out the US leads the world in longevity. See "Does the U.S. Lead in Life Expectancy?" at the WSJ.

    See "Paying for Health, The German Way -- A special report.; Medical Care in Germany: With Choices, and for All" in the NY Times. In Germany all the high tech stuff is put into the teaching hospitals, and are not available to everybody. They also keep costs down by virtually eliminating malpractice insurance. They also don't care for their elderly like the US does.

    See also "Cancer Survival Rates Vary by Country" at WebMD. The US ranks first for cancer survival rates. Also see "Study Of 31 Countries Finds Wide Variations In Cancer Survival Rates" at Medical News today where they found the US leads in cancer survival. Also see "Cancer Survival Rates Far Worse in Great Britain than U.S." at the Population Research Institute.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 5, 2013 10:29 a.m.

    "...are the no prisons? Are there no WorkHouses?"
    To which Scrooge responds: "If they'd die then perhaps they had better do so and decrease the surplus population!"

    Brought to you by today's Oxymoron - "Compassionate Conservativism."

  • UT Brit London, England
    March 5, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701

    I think you will find that most European have more doctors and nurses per person than the States does. They also have lower infant mortality and longer lifespans and are much, much happier with their health care systems in comparison to Americans.

    "The US also has the best cancer survival rates"

    A couple of types of cancers only and you include false positives in that list as well, "and does not put its elderly into programs designed to let them die quickly.", please explain this one. How does this even make sense when western Europeans live 4 years longer on average compared to Americans? You are 40th in the life expectancy list.

    "The question you should ask is why is it that the European countries are so cheap that they won't get the equipment and drugs to properly treat their people."

    Europeans are not clamouring for a health care system reform. I do not see multiple stories daily from European countries from unhappy people asking for reforms. I know Americans who buy medication meant for horses to use on themselves.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 5, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    To "glendenbg" the ACA is not a modest reform. It is additional control on an already over-regulated industry.

    Actually claiming that modern liberalsims is socialist is not dishonest, it is the truth. Just look at the collectivist mentality of the modern liberals, the ACA is a prime example.

    Fascism does not reject socialism. It hides socialism under a capitalist disguise.

    You cannot even separate teh ACA from socialism, you even point out that it has the goal of universal health care. That is an example of the collectivist philosophy that is socialism.

    Please be honest with yourself and the others here. Modern liberals are engaging in fascism and modern liberalism is adopting socialism more and more each year.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    March 5, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    @RedShirt - I have read both Paxton and Griffin, leading scholars on fascism. They point out that fascism borrowed the tactics of socialism (things like mass marches) but not the ideology; fascism is an extreme reaction to and rejection of socialism. Your insistence on claiming a link between fascism and socialism where none exists undermines rather than strengthens your argument.

    You're attempting to compare contemporary American liberalism to fascism in order to smear modest, regulatory reforms aimed at increasing access to affordable health care. That is both dishonest and inconsistent with what scholars and historians tell us. You may disagree with liberals and liberalism. You may dislike the ACA and disagree with the goal of universal health care. Those are valid positions. Falsely claiming liberalism and the ACA are fascist (or socialist) is dishonest and ahistorical.

    I've said it before, there are enough real world reasons to criticize the ACA that you don't need to invent fake ones to do so.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 5, 2013 8:39 a.m.

    To "UT Brit" the US also has the most innovations and has the best access to medical professionals and equipment.

    The US also has the best cancer survival rates, and does not put its elderly into programs designed to let them die quickly.

    The question you should ask is why is it that the European countries are so cheap that they won't get the equipment and drugs to properly treat their people.

  • UT Brit London, England
    March 5, 2013 2:33 a.m.

    @Thinkin\' Man

    The US spends almost twice the amount per person compared to what most of European countries spend on health care. Do you understand that? How is the American health care system less expensive than a single payer system? Please show me the maths.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    March 4, 2013 6:09 p.m.

    Red Shirt.. to cut the costs you have to cut the regulations...a single cancer chemo costs the drug company $200 to make. The hospital buys it for $3000 dollars, and sells it to you for $13000..and that's regulations? Those are also real numbers no hyperbole. "If "health care should in no instance be granted for profit" then the ACA act should be repealed."..
    Agreed. We should have a single payer system where taxes are the source of funding.

    "In terms of care, we have not left out millions. Everybody can still get the care they can afford." Bingo, exactamundo, precisely. They get the care they can afford even if it's nothing..they don't get the care they deserve as a human being and citizen.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 4, 2013 3:16 p.m.

    To "pragmatistferlife" health insurance is not tied to employment, if you refuse your company's insurance you won't be fired. It is a benefit, similar to a retirement account, disability, life insurance, dental insurance, vision plans, computer discounts, gym memberships, and other benefits that employers have.

    If "health care should in no instance be granted for profit" then the ACA act should be repealed. Remember that the ACA was also supposed to reduce the deficit, which it can't unless the government makes a profit (money collected in excess of actual costs).

    In terms of care, we have not left out millions. Everybody can still get the care they can afford.

    If you want to cut costs, you have to cut regulations. Right now there are over 2200 mandates on insurance companies. Most of those were added over the past 30 years. Studies indicate that up to half the cost of insurance is compliance with mandates.

    If you want to eliminate the monopolies, get the government out of the way. The government determines who can sell insurance and what they must cover.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    March 4, 2013 2:40 p.m.

    Red Shirt I'll defer to others about facism, but the point about the regulation of health care is health care should have nothing to do with employment. There is absolutely no natural tie and just because it has doesn't make it right or logical. Also, health care should in no instance be granted for profit. Not just because it's the wrong thing to do socially but it's the wrong thing to do economicly. By have health care for profits you have a de facto monoply that try as you will to "regulate" you can't and over time costs become exorbetant. My baby bill example is prime and those are real bill figures 1975 $400..2010 $10,000. Alot of those costs are there to cover better care..good for us..but $10,000? And speaking of costs, the costs to small business is high and growing but they don't even scratch the surface of the costs to provide health care, that is only possible through large group larg company coverage.
    And so we've come full circle..we've just left out millions and done nothing about the monoply.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 4, 2013 2:27 p.m.

    To "glendenbg" fascists are enemies of socialists, but not socialism.

    Go and look up the roots of fascism. It takes much of its philosophy from socialism, won't quite take over businesses, and adds in a totalarian leadership approach.

    As much as the left wing likes to paint fascists are right wing, that is a relative comparison. They are to the right of socialists, but to the left of capitalists and modern conservatives.

    Read "So total is the Left's cultural ascendancy that no one likes to mention the socialist roots of fascism" in the UK Telegraph.

    From the Economic Library we read that "fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer".

    Enough proof, or do you want to dispute the experts.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    March 4, 2013 2:08 p.m.

    one old man
    "I would be very, very interesting to see what people like MM say if some day he or a family member is struck by some horribly expensive illness and his insurance company says, "Tough luck!""

    Obamacare still relies on Insurance Companies; but now they have the govenment backing to tell you "tough luck".

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    March 4, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    It may yield more healthy poor people, but it will suck trillions out of the economy. Several European countries are proof of what will happen. The article is illogical.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    March 4, 2013 12:47 p.m.

    @RedShirt - Your argument is wrong. Fascists are enemies of socialism. It is not and has never been a left wing or even center left movement; such claims were invented by Jonah Goldberg to sell books.

    There are actual academic definitions and understandings of fascism. Umberto Eco, who lived through Italian fascism, offered an insightful definition of fascism that included:
    the cult of tradition (and rejection of modernity), cult of action for action's sake, the belief that disagreement is treason, the fear of difference, the appeal to a frustrated middle class, obsession with plots and enemy threats (and the appeal to xenophobia), the belief that life is and requires permanent warfare, contempt for the weak, selective populism and distrust of democratic institutions and practices. Other scholars point to fascisms cult of extreme nationalism (at odds with socialism's internationalism) but consistent with rightwing politics.

    As I said before, there are enough real world reasons to criticize the ACA without inventing false ones like the claim it is a fascist policy. There are enough real world reasons to criticize liberalism without distorting history by pretending it has ever supported fascism.

    Your definition of right wing politics is self serving and ahistorical.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 4, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    To "pragmatistferlife" it is not just the ACA, but a combination of the ACA with all of the other mandates on Health Insurance.

    The liberals have not achieved total fascism, but they are quickly approaching it. Just look at all of the new mandates on insurance companies. Is fascism the control of businesses by government, and did the ACA add controls?

    To "glendenbg" I am not wrong. If you look at the roots of fascist movement, they all go back to socialism (left wing politics) and socialist philosophies. At best you can say that Fascism is a center left philosophy.

    The ACA furthers the control of insurance companies by the government to achieve its liberal goals. Ask yourself this. Do insurance companies have the ability to decide what to do with pre-existing medical conditions, or has the government decided that for them?

    If the government has decided what they are to do with pre-existing conditions, who in government decided that? Did the conservatives or liberals push for that?

    You see, this is liberal fascism. Fascism is a liberal philosophy because the right wing of politics is less government and less control the further right you go.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    March 4, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    Mountain Man..No.

    Red Shirt..While I agree that this is government regulating a private industry, I disagree that it is facsisim. We're talking degrees here. Facism implies a total control and the ACA is hardly that. I do agree that health care is a burden on private industry, and definitely distorts markets and the economy. Our solutions would just be 180 degrees from one another. I don't think any civilized or modern society can afford either economicly or morally to have a for profit health care system. That doesn't mean that providers don't get to make a reasonable and market oriented living..it just simiply means that access and services should not have the goal of profit.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    March 4, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    @RedShirt - your definition of fascism is incorrect. Fascism includes many elements, one of which is an alliance between government and corporations to protect corporate power and advance corporate interests while suppressing organized labor and unions. The notion of liberal fascism is nonsense. Fascism is an authoritarian movement of the right and has sought to limit and wipe out liberal institutions and political parties.

    Regulated capitalism, of which the Affordable Care Act is an example, has been part and parcel of Western liberalism for over a century - and corresponded with massive improvements in quality of life for millions of people all over the world. Regulated capitalism evolved as liberal nations sought to limit the excesses of capitalism. The ACA represents an attempt to maintain private and non-governmental control of health insurance and health care while moving us closer to universal health care rather than implementation of a single payer system (Canada) or government owned system (the United Kingdom).

    There are many reasons to be critical of the ACA in the real world. It seems unnecessary to invent reasons such your claim of liberal fascism.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    March 4, 2013 9:46 a.m.

    To all my conservative friends here, I understand your legitimate points about the free market and how government intervention can often make things worse, but in order for those points to hold for healthcare you need to explain how the healthcare industry functions like the automobile or toaster industries - only by demonstrating that can you make the case that an unregulated free market is the best way to provide the maximum health benefits to a society.

    Also, ask yourselves why every other developed country in the world has regulated their healthcare systems to some extent (some obviously more than others)? Are they all just gleeful socialists? If so, you’ll have to make that case for not just “shiny, happy people” countries like Sweden and Denmark, but also for countries who are typically much more concerned with things actually working well (e.g., Germany, Switzerland, Japan, etc…).

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 4, 2013 9:12 a.m.

    To "Mountanman" I wouldn't call this an all out take over of healthcare. This is a prime example of Liberal Fascism. Now, before the liberals start their rants, you have to remember that Fascism is the governmnet control of business. The government may not take over the health insurance industry, but will effectively control it through regulation and mandates.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 4, 2013 9:05 a.m.

    @ Pragmat. Obamacare isn't the government take over of our healthcare?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    March 4, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    Mr. Forrest has stated the problem exactly..it's actually pretty dumb to try and make the argument for the ACA in economic growth terms.

    MM..you gathered around before the government took over health care? The only government take over of health care is Medicare. Is that what you mean? Nothing else makes any sense.

    Country Mom..the only way ACA makes you pay three times as much for insurance is if you didn't have insurance in the first place or are an employer who employees 50 or more people and provided sub par insurance, in which case you would have more coverage not less. To conflate the general trend in rising health care costs with the ACA is simply dishonest.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 4, 2013 7:56 a.m.

    @ one vote. The only people who are bitter are those of us who will actually have to pay for Obamacare! The other 47% won't have to!

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    March 4, 2013 7:40 a.m.

    Time to be a bitter whiner is over.

  • county mom Monroe, UT
    March 3, 2013 9:00 p.m.

    Obamacare is an aweful burden on all working citizens..
    I don't know who is supposed to get the benefits of this massive government takeover of our healthcare system.
    For the short term and for the forseable future, we are paying three times as much for less coverage.
    How could this possibly make the costs of healthcare less?
    Are we going to kill off those with drug addictions, the obese, the elderly, the mentally ill, those born with disease or defects?
    What could possibly make the costs go down? When the working people are forced to pay for the nonworking and even the non-citizens healthcare, when those who sneak across our borders are given the same care as those who pay taxes.
    We are doomed to never be able to pay in as much as is bleeding out.
    The costs will continue to rise.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 3, 2013 4:09 p.m.

    I am still trying to figure out how increasing taxes and a $20,000 insurance plan will lead to more prosperity.

    Can one of you liberals explain how this nation is to be more prosperous when everybody is paying more for healthcare or else has higher deductibles that make anything beyond wellness checkups unaffordable?

  • Fibonacci Centerville, UT
    March 3, 2013 4:09 p.m.

    30 million more patients but no provisions for significantly increasing the number of doctors. I worry that in the end the wait for health care will cripple it. What good is being affordable if it's not available?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 3, 2013 3:42 p.m.

    @ one old man. It has happened to my family and we did the best we could and my family all gathered around like they used to before the government took over health care. None of us ever asked our neighbors to pay for our healthcare! See the difference?

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    March 3, 2013 3:13 p.m.

    This opinion is certainly better reasoned than the counter-argument by Grace-Marie Turner, but the question they are debating is the wrong question. We should not be worried about whether or not the ACA will spur economic growth. Economic growth is not the only good in society. The question is, Will the ACA provide health care to those who do not have it, and will it prevent people from having to declare bankruptcy because of medical bills?

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    March 3, 2013 2:37 p.m.

    Typical. Those who oppose the ACA still aren't offering an alternate solution.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 3, 2013 1:56 p.m.

    Re: "Any short-term hardship that may come from the implementation of the Affordable Care Act will certainly be offset . . . ."

    Just another disingenuous "pie in the sky" liberal promise.

    But real people don't need pie in the sky by and by. We need for the government to get out of the way and let the economy recover NOW.

  • Tulip West Jordan, UT
    March 3, 2013 1:19 p.m.

    Sorry Hutterite, I meant to direct my comment to "one old man"

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    March 3, 2013 12:27 p.m.

    The ACA may or may not yield prosperity. But doing the repub plan and kicking the can down the road most certainly would not only yield prosperity but continue to add to our disasterous tragedy known as our health care system

    Doing something is a lot better than doing nothing.

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    March 3, 2013 12:05 p.m.

    The comments made below about getting sick and being "left in the dark" has been all too true in this country! The ACA is an important step in the right direction and we are already starting to see the benefits of it!

    An ACA Volunteer

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 3, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    I would be very, very interesting to see what people like MM say if some day he or a family member is struck by some horribly expensive illness and his insurance company says, "Tough luck!"

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 3, 2013 8:45 a.m.

    Getting sick in America all too often means going broke. We need a single payer system that covers everyone. It's not free health care, but it is more efficient than what we have now.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 3, 2013 7:37 a.m.

    Obamcare is projected to cost taxpayers an additional $1.2 trillion each year. Hardly prosperity, is it?