Quantcast

Comments about ‘In our opinion: Health care confusion’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, July 13 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

the editorial spells out all that is WRONG with Obamacare. Don't need to add anything except that the delay in the employer mandate was definitely an effort to blunt the damage BEFORE the mid-term election.

as far as how BAD Obamacare is, what do you expect from a dem house, dem senate, and dem WH, but a misguided, mis-named, and thoroughly reprehensible piece of legislation?

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

In my view President Obama's position should have been "medicare for all." The public could have understood that and implementation would have been swift and clean. But the various sectors of the health care business would not have tolerated that so we have the current environment of confusion and fear. What will happen is anybody's guess. I can tell you that many elderly and baby boomers are fearful of going to the grave without care. If this happens politicians need to know they will face open revolt.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Come out in support of a single payer system. That WILL make health care more affordable.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

The root of the problem is that the federal government has no authority to force Americans to buy insurance. The Court told us that Obamacare was a tax and that Congress has the authority to levy taxes. What the Court did not review was whether an "insurance tax" is authorized by the Constitution. They did not review that question because the "tax" had not been implemented and because it had not been implemented, no "damages" could be determined. Without "damages", nothing could be done. To me, that was simply a Court that ignored its duty to uphold the Constitution, but at least they told us that Obamacare is the largest tax increase ever put upon Americans.

The federal government has NO authority to require health insurance. Some States may have that authority, depending on their constitutions. Obtaining health care is still a personal duty. Sure, it is costly, but it is costly mostly because of government interference. Doctor visits would not cost $200 if the patient had to pay $200. Patients think that the cost is only $20 or free.

Blame FDR to starting that misconception. He froze wages. Employers created "benefits" to retain valued employees.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

Repeal Obamacare early, before the disaster gets any worse.

And no, single payer will not be more affordable. It creates perverse incentives of its own.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

Wait, so the DN . . . is against Obamacare? Really? What a shocker.
Or perhaps it should be called Romneycare? This isn't the system liberals wanted, not even the system Obama wanted. A Medicare expansion is what we wanted, but that wasn't politically viable. What we settled for was this: a market-oriented Republican solution.
It also might work fine. A lot of evidence suggests it will work. Why don't we wait for it to be implemented? Then see what parts work, which parts don't work, and amend accordingly?

carman
Wasatch Front, UT

ObamaCare increased access to a broken healthcare system, and only worsened the problem. Of course the "Affordable Care Act" is a misnomer. It was intentionally labeled with a lie to hide its true intentions.

To Hutterite: "Single Payer" will only make the problem worse. ObamaCare is just the middle step to single payer, a step in the wrong direction. We need a functioning market where consumers are incentivized to take care of their health decisions (eating, exercise, treatment choices, provider choices, etc.). Single payer only makes all this more murky. I wrote a white paper years ago on how to fix the healthcare market, and to better regulate where markets fail (e.g. price inelastic services and R&D). But no one wants logical solutions. Everyone wants a political solution.

Steve C. Warren
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Hutterite and Marxist, you are right. We really need Medicare for all or single-payer. But at least the ACA was a step in the right direction. Keeping the status quo would simply have enriched the health-insurance industry fat cats while decimating the finances of modest-income people with health problems.

The way to get single-payer is to elect a majority Democratic House in the 2014 elections, then to suspend the filibuster rule in the majority Democratic Senate.

1conservative
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Its only a matter of when, not if, Obamacare folds. It has enough holes in it to drive a truck through.

The question is: how many billions will we waste before we give up trying to implement it?

The failure of Obamacare reflects several issues. Obama didn't think he needed any Republicans at all to help pass it. That issue created the deep divisions on its' acceptance. They (democrats) didn't spend near enough time trying to find the problems with it before they voted for it.

Democrats thought that, eventually, most Americans would embrace it. But they didn't, and probably won't.

Extended court fights, threats of defunding, and even the practical implementation and cost aspects of Obamacare will all add to its demise.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

Health care costs have increaed at the slowest rate in half a century the past three years. okay so in fairness a lot of that was due to the recession and a lot of Obamacare hasn't gone into effect yet. I have to think though that the millions getting expanded medicaid would find it more affordable. All those students like myself who can stay on their parents plans a few more years find it more affordable. All those people who will get subsidies starting in 2014 so they can go out and get insurance will find it more affordable. The people who are tied of subsidizing the irresponsible people who don't have insurance and then rack up hospital expenses will find it more affordable when those people have to get insurance.

carman
Wasatch Front, UT

To Alt 134:

Yeah, its more affordable to those who get the subsidies, and more unaffordable to everyone else. Nice argument. In the end, ObamaCare is a fiasco.

EDM
Castle Valley, Utah

Whenever I read a boo-hoo opinion like this one I have to cringe. When Obama was elected to his first term, 100% of Americans agreed that health care reform was absolutely necessary. Not one person in these United States would have said that run-away health care costs were just fine and dandy. But Almight Competition was thrown out of the room - by Republicans, no less. Why? Because the proposed government-run system that would have competed with private health insurerers was the Democrats' idea. So much for principles and ideals. Republicans have no one to blame but themselves, because putting an "R" on it is always more important than higher things.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Eric Samuelsen "Republican solution"

Senate vote: 58 Democrats and 2 Independents in favor, 0 Republicans.
House vote: 219 Democrats in favor, 0 Republicans.

Own it.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Funny how Obamacare was fine for repubs like Orrin Hatch and the Heritage Foundation in the 90s. Now suddenly, it's bad because a Democrat endorsed it.

So what's the repub solution? Tort reform (something already included in Obamacare)? Ohhh yeah... That'll solve everything...

The GOP's solution is like trying to drain the Pacific Ocean with an 8 oz glass.

Lets just join the rest of the industrialized world and get a single payer system already. You know this is coming, repubs. Might as well get it over with rather than drag this out kicking and screaming like a bunch of 3 year olds.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

Nate:

You forgot about the "upheld by the Supreme Court" part.

I fully expect Republicans to be opposed to it, and we'll see this House of Representatives vote to repeal it another couple of dozen times, at least, along with failing to support Immigration Reform, and other issues important to the growing demographic that makes Republican consultants cringe.

Yell louder, stomp your feet harder, offend as many people as you can. Please, don't stop.

Moderate
Salt Lake City, UT

This editorial is nothing more than a rehash of the Republican position.
Lots of complaints, while offering absolutely no alternative.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

Nate,
Irrelevant. Of course Republicans voted against it; it was an important piece of legislation proposed by President Obama. What matters is that Republicans in the Senate didn't filibuster it.
But it was initially proposed by Republican governor Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. And it's a kind of health care reform that does not destroy 'private health insurance company' as a concept. It included market incentives, through the exchanges.
And it did, and does, some important good things. Like keep kids on their parents' insurance longer. It does not allow insurance company to deny coverage, or cut you off if you become expensive. And it makes insurance coverage possible for everyone.
It's a good bill, a B, B plus kind of bill. And when it's implemented, watch. It will be plenty popular.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

Re: Mike Richards "Blame FDR to starting that misconception. He froze wages. Employers created "benefits" to retain valued employees." Subject to check but I believe the OPA was the source of the wage freeze during WWII.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Eric,
What we settled for was this: a market-oriented Republican solution.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh, please stop! My sides are aching.

Right, it got – how many repub votes?

Repub solution – riiiight.

And yes, they DID filibuster, but one RINO defected. Please stop telling untruths – you are better than that.

Atl134
Yeah, because BO’s economic results have been so miserable – Obamacare had NOTHING to do with it.

EDM,
Pretty twisted conclusion, blaming Obamacare on those who did NOT vote for it.

Maverick,
Repubs saw how it operated in MA and learned from it. Dems insist on repeating mistakes.
More than tort reform, but I guess MSNBC didn’t tell you that, so you remain yet ignorant.

Marxist,
FDR had NOTHING to do with any laws passed during WWII??

Iron Rod
Salt Lake City, UT

It appears to me that the Deseret News is against Obama care.

Do they endorse anything different other than the current situation?

Some people say the Republican Party is the party of No with out an alternative.

Is this the case?

to comment

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