Quantcast

Comments about ‘Is Obamacare a good deal? Yes: The affordable care act will help improve the nation's health’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Aug. 4 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

ObamaCare is NOT a good idea when you simply study the scope and purpose of the federal government. The People have not authorized Congress to force them to buy any type of health insurance. The duties assigned to Congress where the people have agreed to be taxed are enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. ALL OTHER DUTIES are to be left to the States or to the People.

ObamaCare may be perfectly legal if implemented on a State by State basis (depending on the Constitutions of each State), but it is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States. No matter how the President or Congress twists and turns the Constitution, ObamaCare is not an authorized duty of the federal government.

That is all that we need to know about ObamaCare. Forced health insurance and federal government duties are two concepts that must never be allowed to be used together unless the Constitution is amended.

high school fan
Huntington, UT

In a perfect world, don't get sick or fall ill either but this is not a perfect world. The only way Obamacare is successful is if everybody is forced into the system. If you take away our free agency, it might just work as long as medical people never expect a higher income in the future.

KDave
Moab, UT

It is hard to fathom how adding tens of thousands of paper shuffling beaurocrats to the system is going to make it cheaper or better.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

If Obamacare is so great, why do so many people and organizations want to opt out? Even union members know their present healthcare is far better than what Obamacare will be! Obamacare may improve healthcare for some of the uninsured and illegal aliens but it will not be better for the vast majority of Americans, especially taxpayers! Ask millions of Americans who can only find part time work because of Obamacare mandates! Higher unemployment, more poverty, higher deficits, rationing, massive fraud and abuse and what's worse, the IRS is in charge!

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Mountanman
" Even union members know their present healthcare is far better than what Obamacare will be! "

A union could, you know... just keep it's present health insurer if they like it. Obamacare doesn't change that...

cjb
Bountiful, UT

Bottom line all income levels need to have decent health care not just a middle class or the rich.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ alt. Not true, Under Obamacare, those with "Cadillac" healthcare programs, like union members, will be forced to pay more! Their premiums will explode!

QuercusQate
Wasatch Co., UT

@Mountanman

Under Obamacare, you have the option to keep your current insurance program.

BTW, I'm unemployed because of Republican austerity measures which have cut education budgets in Utah...and I'm very much looking forward to Obamacare. I'm currently uninsured. Oh, and the IRS is only in charge of collecting fees for non-compliance. You can check your hysterics at the door to the ER.

louie
Cottonwood Heights, UT

it is amazing that people are quick to ridicule Obama Care when it mirrors the Romney plan. In Massachussetts the plan has been very popular and was successful in covering 98 percent of population. So why not take a step in that direction. Because opponents really do not care about any solution or attempts to make 1) health care affordable to the less fortunate and mandate 2) a greater level of participation among all sectors of our population. If I am wrong tell me where the republican solutions are.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

QuercusQate. No hysterics here. I have been unemployed a few times but I never took a dime from the government. I have worked two jobs much of my life to make ends meet and never considered myself a victim. I guess that's the difference between us and I think you are right, Obamacare is for "victims"!

KJB1
Eugene, OR

Mountainman 6:13 p.m.:

You say you never took a dime from the government, but I'm guessing that you relied upon either family members and/or the LDS Church when you needed help. What are nonmembers (who are the vast majority of Americans) without family resources supposed to do? Go hungry and hope they don't get sick?

Liberal Today
Murray, UT

We should have public yachts too. Let's face it, it isn't fair that rich people have yachts and poor people don't. Poor people have no chance of ever getting a yacht.

We could improve everyone's' mental health if we made sure everyone had access to affordable yachts for quality recreation. It would definitely be a good deal.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

National Romney care is needed. That will be his legacy.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "louie" the ACA only superficially mirrors Massachussetts. Romney's bill was just a couple of pages long. The ACA was over 800 pages long.

Beyond that, we should look at the disaster that occured in Massachussetts.

After the mandated insurance there took effect, the ERs were flooded with people needing minor help.

Nationally, the ACA is discouraging people from becoming doctors because of the paperwork involved. The ACA has also made things more expensive from insurance, to medical devices, to overhead costs a insurance companies.

Tell us, how is it a good thing if everything is looking like it will make things more expensive and harder to comply with.

wrz
Pheonix, AZ

@Mountanman: "Their (unions) premiums will explode!"

And, of course, they will figure a way to make the employer pay for it.

@Mountanman: "Oh, and the IRS is only in charge of collecting fees for non-compliance."

Doesn't matter which government agency, whether the IRS or HHS's Kathleen Sebelius. It's still the government.

@louie: "it is amazing that people are quick to ridicule Obama Care when it mirrors the Romney plan."

Romneycare is a state program... authorized by the US Constitution. Obamacare is a federal program not authorized by the US Constitution.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

In the game of "Life" (by Milton Bradly)... you are always eventually rewarded or escape disaster IF you took advantage of your opportunities to get insurance (life, heath, fire, car, etc) early in the game.

I assume the game was designed to teach us something about life. And one lesson I learned when playing the game as a child were:

1. Always take the college route (instead of the short-cut to the early Pay Day).
2. Always buy insurance (it will pay off BIG later in the game)
3. Have kids... it pays off throughout the game, and especially at the end.

And now that I'm playing the real game of life... I've noticed that the lessons taught were true. Insurance really IS a good thing. And the minimal cost of insurance really does pay off when you need it. And even if you don't need it... it doesn't hurt you.

My problem with the President's plan is... from his own words when he doesn't know he's being recorded is... that the ACA is not the "end". It's the "Start". And he admitted the intended "End" is single-payer government healthcare nation wide).

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

All you right wing naysayers. What in your infinite wisdom would you do with the 40 million plus or minus that could not get or afford health insurance before the ACA. What would you do about those that could not get insurance because of a pre-existing condition, including new born babies? What would you do about the freeloaders that get their health services in the emergency room? What would you do to prevent health insurance lobbies from writing legislation favorable to their bottom line? What would you do to see that rising health costs be controlled?

You all seem to have a lot Fox News talking point criticisms but offer little to solve the problems that we have been experiencing for the last 10-20 years. And 2 bits, if single payer is the "end", I like it because I have it,it's called medicare and I am sorry everyone does not have it.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Mike in Cedar City" first, to help those that couldn't afford insurance before the ACA, I would cut regulations and mandates on insurance back to the 1980's levels. That alone can cut costs by up to 50%.

As for Pre-existing conditions, that is easy. We let the companies do what they have done for a long time. Include a mandatory waiting period where pre-existing conditions are not covered for 6 to 9 months. Nothing needs to be changed for new born babies since insurance companies cover them at birth anyway. For the freeloaders, that is easy. We cut off the free-stuff. Allow hospitals to have the choice of providing free care (tax break for charity work) or to work out a payment plan with them.

Any true improvement to the insurance regulations will improve business for the insurance industry, so it doesn't matter who writes the regs as long as there are fewer regs.

To further control costs, the lawyers must be reigned in, so that Doctors will stay in practice longer and will go into the specialties that typically are more expensive to use.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Back to my likening the game of "Life" to real life...

There may come a day when you play that game with your kids, and when you come to the "Stop and buy Health Insurance/Life Insurance/Fire Insurance/etc space... your kids will ask, "What's Health Insurance"? And you will obliviously have to answer, "This game is about making decisions... We don't have to make decisions now days... our Government takes care of all of that for us".

Maybe Milton-Bradly will come out with a new game, called "Cradle to Grave", where you don't have to make any decisions for your family, becuase every event that happens in life has printed on the back of the card, "Don't worry, your benevolent government has taken care of this for you". The old game may make absolutely no sense to our kids in the future.

BigLebowski
Mesa, AZ

I have a hard time believing that a currently uninsured healthy young 28yr old individual, the target demographic who is currently uninsured and that the ACA is relying on to make this whole program more cost efficient, will opt to pay $3500/yr for health insurance when the penalty for not doing so is only $500. Especially when there is no penalty for pre-existing conditions. So what's to keep this person from paying the $500 penalty and then when they get sick, apply for insurance and start paying then?

I hope that insurance costs do go down, especially since mine are almost twice as expensive today as compared to 2009 when this law was first passed (monthly premium for my family in 2009 $470, today it is $910. Thanks ACA for that little gem). But for today, I will remain skeptical about the ACA saving me any money.

to comment

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