Published: Saturday, June 29 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Can't you acknowledge that it's a little selfish, short-sighted, and
arrogant to compare helping people gain access to affordable, life-saving care
to giving out cars and clothes? Ron Pollack published a detailed,
well-written, and well-meaning article. You don't need to agree with him.
You don't need to agree with Obamacare. But your article trivializes the
reality that there are people who suffer, and who are in real need of, and
deserve, a dramatically different system. By resorting to hyperbole rather than
offering alternative solutions, or indeed even acknowledging that the status quo
is legitimately problematic, you simply reemphasize the ever-growing distinction
in the US between those who believe in trying new solutions, however imperfect,
and those who blindly, adamantly, and cold-bloodedly ignore the reality of
Sadly, conservatives don't actually believe in God. Santa Claus yes,
violently but If they did believe in the Lord they profess to they would believe
that the lord would bless a nation that directly obeys his command and takes
care of the sick. This hypocrisy is just sad considering it was
THEIR idea to mandate health insurance. They have plenty of ideas, but no
solutions and definitely no sacrifice.
You either believe the Lord will bless the nation for taking care of the sick,
or you don't.
Of course Ryan forgets little details like the CBO projects the ACA will have a
net reduction affect on budget deficits from 2012 to 2021, and that most
implementation costs are coming in lower that projected.
Ahhhhh yes Ryan, when all else fails, gooooo down the slippery slope! Works
every time for any issue when you don't have a rational counter argument!
Just create a bunch of gross exaggerations and completely ridiculous
hypotheticals and boom! A perfect slippery slope argument.
Reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy. Everything can be reduced to the
The writer is certainly correct that this needs to be paid for. The problem we
have had is that we have had emergency room treatment available to those without
insurance but that is super expensive and usually administered at the worst time
(after the issue has festered too long). The system we have had rewarded those
who go without insurance with zero premiums and they still get to have care if
they need it. That is moral hazard.Whatever system we go to needs
to require everyone to be insured. Healthcare is unlike other issues. We can
go without it for years, even decades. But one single illness can bankrupt a
relatively wealthy family.Don't like the ACA? No problem. But
don't tell me we can just go back to what we had. State or regional plans
would be fine. But there was precious little movement on them until the ACA
came about.The ACA may not be the ideal solution. But the GOP
proposals have been little more than "not what he said". Repeal and
replace is fine but only if we have a real, fully developed alternative that has
been deeply examined.
Ryan, your expressed selfishness exceeds your sarcasm. Health care is not a
consumer commodity, and no one is suggesting it be 'given away'. The
fact is we are already all paying, in one form or another, for health care, or
health insurance. I differentiate between those items. In any case, for what
Americans pay as a nation for health we get a poor deal. Our outcomes and cost
effectiveness would improve with a single payer health care delivery model in
place. And if, by chance, such a system were to help someone out more than they
contributed to the system, I'd feel pretty good about it.
I know how easy it to flip out a credit card. and how much easier it is to spend
other peoples money, but when I have to put up my own cash on the counter,
I'm having second thoughts on the extra idem.
Well Ryan.Romney and conservative organizations thought it was a good
idea.Really DN?Out of all the letters you had to choose
from, (perhaps that is the problem) you decided one dripping with sarcasm and
hyperbole fit the bill.How nice.
Let me guess - Ryan has all the health care coverage he needs, and so does
everyone he knows.
My favorite thing about the "Affordable" Care Act is that it authorizes
the hiring of 6000 new IRS agents to make certain that we serfs ...errrrrr
citizens have health insurance coverage that our Washington DC overlords deem
appropriate. That's especially comforting to know as a Conservative because
as we've seen- the IRS is really even-handed in it's treatment of
Conservatives and the groups that represent them. I actually despise
almost everything about the law. But it is the law of the land forced upon as
without a single Republican vote but unfortunately that's the way it
works. I will say this though: if you voted for Obama (especially you
youngsters out there)and/or you support this law then you better get out on the
exchanges and sign up for a policy. Don't be a hypocrite. That means if
you're 26 and in the prime of your life healthwise you still need to go buy
your policy and pay your 300.00 a month - 3600.00 a year and don't complain
about it- I don't want to hear any complaints.
Medical care is too expensive; making it a kind of state monopoly and forcing
everyone to have it will not help.Now housing is perhaps different.
When prices are high it might actually help if there were homes for sale at cost
by a housing department, who might also provide small homes for young couples
and retired couples - at cost, and using volunteer administrators. Set up in
competition in areas where demand is high, prices are draconian, and builders
are building every home with 2 or 3 bathrooms. Since this is not an ennumerated
power of the federal government, however, this would have to be done by State or
Local authorities, or private benefactors.
Re:RedstateprideThere is nothing in ACA which talks about hiring
6000 (or 16000) IRS agents.However,"The Treasury
Department on Feb. 14 released the IRS budget request for fiscal year 2012 that
shows the agency is seeking 1,269 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) at a
cost of $473 million to help implement the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act. That includes 291 IRS agents, most of them (193) to "ensure
accurate delivery of tax credits." For more information, read our Ask
FactCheck, "IRS and the Health Care Law, Part II."The
IRS’ main job under the new law isn’t to enforce penalties. Its
first task is to inform many small-business owners of a new tax credit that the
new law grants them — starting this year — which will pay up to 35
percent of the employer’s contribution toward their workers’ health
insurance. And in 2014 the IRS will also be administering additional subsidies
— in the form of refundable tax credits — to help millions of low-
and middle-income individuals buy health insurance."(Factcheck)
Truthseeker,Thanks for adding sanity to the otherwise insane - or
should I say inane - claims made by opponents of the ACA.
My letter was obviously not meant to be taken literally. The levity was a stab
at the way the piece in question simply lays out how "federal money"
will do so many wonderful things for us, without reference to where that magical
"federal money" is coming from. Companies everywhere have stagnated
growth and cut employee's hours to avoid penalties and extra costs from
Obamacare. And this is just the beginning. Hopefully we can overturn this
massive step towards European socialized medicine on a state by state basis
before it's too late. Our system is far from perfect, but to anyone who
thinks Obamacare is the way to go, you should see move to Canada and try to get
good, quick medical treatment. To Mark B of Eureka--yes I have health insurance
because I PAY for it. If you want to donate your tax dollars to pay for my
healthcare coverage then let's talk.
Those democrats seem to forget that health care insurance rates and deficiencies
are a direct result of a failed government program - FDR's wage freeze.
When that Democrat interfered with the free-market system by freezing wages, the
only way left for companies to keep valued employees was to offer
"benefits". One of those benefits was health insurance.Because of "insurance" and the very liberal plans offered by many
companies, people got the idea that a visit to the doctor's office was
either free or that it only cost $20. They failed to realize that the insurer
was paying the other $300. Doctors had to raise their rates because they
required at least one more person on the payroll to handle the insurance
paperwork. When some insurance companies demanded lower and lower costs, the
doctors passed the real cost to those who didn't have insurnace - which is
opposite of what a free-market would do.Democrats caused the
problem, now they want to mix 18% of all income into the general fund - with a
hollow promise to care for our health.We've heard that false
promise before. Does anyone remember Social Security?
Ryan's post is much better than the lowball approach of his original
letter. I find it hard to believe, however, that he feels that his health
insurance gives a better value than people in other countries get.
The selfishness expressed in this letter is simply disgusting.
Ryan Phillips, your immature sarcastic letter proves you don't know the
meaning of socialism. You have no understanding of socialism, capitalism, free
enterprise, or monopolism. You do yourself a disservice let alone other readers.
Healthcare should be provided by healthcare professionals not the CEO of United
Healthcare because I can guarantee you haven't been serviced by him. There
are some things that should not be profit based. Your good or bad health is one
of them. As far as who pays for it you further prove that you don't have a
grasp of facts. I suggest you do some more research and as for Canada, ask
yourself why 90% of Canadians would never think of changing to our system.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments