Published: Monday, April 29 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
From todays news..:America's national health care spending grew
by 3.9% each year from 2009 to 2011, the lowest rate since the federal
government began keeping these records in 1960. That slow growth appears to have
continued into 2012, when expenditures totaled an estimated $2.8
trillion."The slowest raise in cost since 1960. Now we may
never be able to measure exactly how many people lost their jobs because of
Obamacare, but the first hard facts are in.... medical care cost increases have
slowed to the slowest level since records have been kept."The
fact that Obamacare's early provisions have already had an impact is an
encouraging sign, said Josh Gordon, policy director at the Concord Coalition.
It shows policy levers can be pulled to slow health care spending down," he
said."So lets fix what is wrong with it, and lets not let
emotions taint judgement here. I know this doesn't follow the rights
narrative of what is supposed to happen - but life seldom does follow anyones
To the many thousands like me and my family who are beginning to see their
financial and health security vastly improved due to the requirements of
"Obamacare": We do have a responsibility. In the upcoming 2014
congressional elections, vote only for candidates who promise specifically to
support and expand the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, regardless of
their political party.Please don't allow the health insurance
industry's propagandists and a few mouths bleating nonsense on hate radio
stations to fool you into believing their lies.
I can't see the future but I can see the past, and what I've seen is
that despite the ideological rantings of someone who owns a business when push
comes to shove it is demand for goods and services that is the primary driver of
employment levels in all ready viable businesses. You can talk about cutting
hours, laying off employees but if the business has demand they can't meet
things will quietly go back to where they were. Let's just see in 2016 how
it all looks. My bet is that those who are complaining at that point are those
businesses designed to take advantage of low wage earners with low pay and few
if any benefits, and you can't build or sustain an economy with those kinds
What a ridiculous letter. We're suppose to vote on one issue alone? Our
representatives will vote and work on a lot of other issues as well.
Additionally, even if the Congress does get turned over to the GOP and both
houses overturn Obamacare, the President will veto it. It's time critics
stop being the party of NO and look to work and compromise on this issue and
other issues. The GOP refused to get involved in the health care legislation
and decided to be obstructionist instead. That tactic back fired and four years
later they're like a convict trying to get an re-trial.
"America's national health care spending grew by 3.9% each year from
2009 to 2011, the lowest rate since the federal government began keeping these
records in 1960. That slow growth appears to have continued into 2012, when
expenditures totaled an estimated $2.8 trillion"Interesting?
Assuming your numbers are even accurate,I think Obama's deep recession had
more to do with this situation, then obamacare. Recessions tend to do that, just
check most any other industries financial statistics during the same period.
Besides, obamacare legislation wasn't even passed until mid-late 2010, and
other then new taxes (which are an economic killer by themselves), a lot of it
wasn't even in-acted until a year or two later.
UtahBlueDevilDurham, NC"From todays news..:America's national health care spending grew by 3.9% each year from 2009
to 2011,"Yes, but per-capita income only rose 0.3% each year.
So at the 3.9% growth rate you are calling wonderful, health care
costs are rising 13 times as fast as income. The growth in the price
of health care has been the problem all along, and it is clear that Obamacare
has not addressed the real problem at all.
You both forgot to include the part about this data goes back to 1960 - and this
is the lowest rate of increase since that date. We're going to completely
ignore the other recessions that happened during that period... or the fact that
the depth of this recession was 2007-2009.... not 2009 - 2012. Health care
spending kept its full bore charge higher during those 3 years... but lets go
ahead and ignore that... it is not convenient to the argument.And
absolutely... lets not try to take the good, that seems to have been working....
the things that were supposed to break the back of the system, allowing for
pre-existing conditions and expansion of care to children up to the age of 25 -
those things that have now been in force for a couple of years.Is
the system perfect. Heck no. But as long as one side wants to wear blinders,
and just say no to everything, and not accept those parts that are working.....
we're lost.Yes, the economy has an impact. But no one says
they are not going to treat their cancer, or cancels long term care because a
recession is on.
Great post utahbluedevil. Weak rebuttals.Face it repubs, your health
care reform from the 90s is working just fine as Romneycare I mean Obamacare.
" Obama's deep recession"Any reasonable person would
admit that the economy was tanking hard when Obama took office.We were
losing 750,000+ jobs per month. One can argue that the recovery
should have been quicker, but the recession was in full bloom prior to Obama.
"So at the 3.9% growth rate you are calling wonderful, health care costs are
rising 13 times as fast as income. "Whether it is rising at 5
times as fast as income, or 10 times, or 2 times, the bottom line is that it has
been raising at an unsustainable rate.Something has to be done. Is
that Obamacare? I think not.But when the GOP has been in control,
they have done nothing to address the problem. In fact, Medicare part D, passed
under complete GOP control was the largest entitlement expansion since Social
I agree. Let's vote for representatives who will get rid of Obamacare . . .
and replace it with a single-payer system for the whole country, based on any of
20 systems already proven in other countries to provide quality health care for
half the price of our mess.That means, of course, that we can't
vote for a Republican. The Republicans want what we used to have or, better yet,
a purely market-driven system that will exclude everyone who can't afford
health insurance. That group ought to hit 100 million in a few short years, if
the Republicans have their way.
So, HaHa etc., income rose at .3 percent per year between 2009 and 2011? Yes,
but it increased rather handsomely for the top 7 percent of households. For the
other 93 percent, it decreased. If you earned under $188,000, you lost ground
(on average) during that time. This highlights the real problem. With most of
the gains going to the top tier, the people who make America great are getting a
smaller and smaller piece of the slowly expanding pie. We need to look at
Germany for an example of a smarter way to distribute corporate ownership and
profits. Germany is also a huge net exporter, leading the world until recently,
when China overtook them. By contrast, we haven't had a trade surplus since
1975. Yup, 37 straight years of trade deficits.
What a petty and silly letter.And then you folks wonder why
you're referred to as the party of, "No?" As completely out of
touch with Americans and obstructionist?It's time for you folks
to reform. Time to change. Stop always being so difficult. Time to give the
American people what they want. A rational and respectful GOP full of solutions
rather than complaints.
@HaHaHaHaThat is rather accurate, it is said that the recession is
the main driver of the low increase in healthcare spending. However, I would
also note that the vast majority of Obamacare does not go into effect until 2014
so the full effects of Obamacare are definitely not apparent in the data yet
It has been observed that those clamouring for repeal are those that few if any
major health issues in their family. Healthcare is not big oil and should not be
profitized as such. If you really want to control healthcare costs then
impliment a single payer system and take insurance companies out of the process
because it adds 30% right on top before you even see a doctor.
Many people depend on Social Security because the government took away their
ability to invest their money to meet future needs. Today, many people think
that taking 18% of the private wealth out of circulation in the guise of
ObamaCare will benefit society. It will not. It is the largest tax increase in
our nation's history. It cannot pay for everything that Obama promised,
any more than Social Security paid for everything that FDR promised. It is just
another Ponzi scheme that transfers wealth from the workers to those who vote
for government handouts.Yes, a single issue is worth our vote. Our
nation cannot survive when corrupt politicians convert private assets into
payments for pork-barrel projects. Is our memory so short that we don't
remember the "payoffs" in exchange for votes? The Washington Times
wrote that 733 "exemptions" were granted and that four States, New
Jersey, Tennessee, Ohio and Massachusetts are exempt. Many unions are exempt.
Ask Senators Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu what the price was for their votes.The process was fraudulent. The results are political. The promised
benefits will never materialize.How many times are we going to be
Universal health care - good idea. The ACA - bad implementation of a good
concept. Ready, fire, aim!
"Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly a half-billion dollars in
taxpayer money over the last two years to building improved versions of the
70-ton Abrams.But senior Army officials have said repeatedly, “No,
thanks.”Yet in the case of the Abrams tank, there’s a
bipartisan push to spend an extra $436 million on a weapon the experts
explicitly say is not needed.Keeping the Abrams production line
rolling protects businesses and good-paying jobs in congressional districts
where the tank’s many suppliers are located."_ __ _This should make us all LIVID. Our politicians are wasting money and
they know it.Nothing like an expensive jobs program.
How many times are we going to be "suckered"?Don't know
the number, but it won't end until the government can no longer steal or
borrow enough money to buy the votes. Then they will turn to violence to control
the people, and taking away the guns from the people is in preparation for that,
as the money is running out.
@ Mike: "Many people depend on Social Security because the government took
away their ability to invest their money to meet future needs."Really? And before Social Security was passed how many people were
"investing" for their retirement? (Let me give you a hint: The reason
the current generation is paying for the past generation is because the past
generation when SS was implemented had no resources to pay for their own care
and livelihood - and their children couldn't do it on their own.)Once again, your claims bear little resemblance to facts.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments