Comments about ‘Affordable Care Act: Health care for 30 million more citizens will yield prosperity’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, March 3 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

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.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

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.

glendenbg
Salt Lake City, UT

@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.

Thinkin\' Man
Rexburg, ID

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.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

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".

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

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.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

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.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

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

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.

UT Brit
London, England

@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.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

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.

glendenbg
Salt Lake City, UT

@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

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.

UT Brit
London, England

@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.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

"...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."

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

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.

Res Novae
Ashburn, VA

@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.

to comment

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