Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: No viable alternatives for Obamacare

Comments

Return To Article
  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 9, 2013 10:49 p.m.

    Mike Richards: "Why would you demand that someone else pay for your health insurance? "

    ????????? The whole point of insurance is to share risk. If I make a claim on my health insurance, someone else's $$$ are paying for my care. This is how insurance works. I'm not asking anyone else to pay for my premiums. The bigger the risk pool the lower the rates. That's why we require everybody to have auto insurance. If young healthy people refuse to participate in ACA their rates when they do elect to participate later in life should be much higher than they would have been had they elected to participate now. Isn't that how private health insurance works? Oh and BTW, Mike, you must know if you are middle age and try to get private insurance without ongoing coverage you will either be denied coverage or pay sky high premiums.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 9, 2013 3:52 p.m.

    No, RedShirt, I did not skip over it. I just cannot reprint the entire report here. The PDF is 29 pages, but for any one interested I recommend reading it. And yes it is complicated. And yes if people like RedShirt or Rush Limbaugh want to cherry pick quotes they can try to imply that everyone's rates are going to skyrocket. But it just ain't true. A very small group will see an increase in premiums. But many others won't, or they will see a decrease.

    But read it and judge for yourself. Don't believe what I say; definitely don't believe what Redshirt tells you.

    More from the report about the group you are talking about Redshirt:

    Thus, the amount that subsidized enrollees would pay for nongroup coverage would be roughly 56 percent to 59 percent lower, on average, than the nongroup premiums charged under current law. Among nongroup enrollees who would not receive new subsidies, average premiums would increase by somewhat less than the 10 percent to 13 percent difference for the nongroup market as a whole because some factors discussed below would have different effects for those enrollees than for those receiving subsidies.

  • kiddsport Fairview, UT
    Aug. 9, 2013 2:11 p.m.

    @Noodlekaboodle- if I want to reduce my insurance costs on my car, I can choose not to live in high crime areas such as New York or Los Angeles. That's called liberty. If you choose to live in an area that attracts large numbers of uninsured people, such as California that likes to give away lots of free stuff, you must accept the associated cost. That is also liberty. With ACA, there is no liberty.
    Your assumption that insurance companies seek subscribers to increase the risk pool is exactly backwards, they seek subscribers to increase the premium pool. Having a sufficiently large risk pool is merely a statistical requisite of insurance in the first place.
    @Roland Keyser-
    "To Mountanman: We get Wal-Mart medical care at Nordstrom prices. We pay far more than anyone else on the planet and yet we get worse health outcomes."
    Is that why everyone who can afford it wants to come to the U.S. for their health care?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Aug. 9, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    To "mark" the effects of the ACA on insurance costs is not that complicated, just the wording used to explain it.

    From that same report "Average premiums would be 27 percent to 30 percent higher because a greater amount of coverage would be obtained. In particular, the average insurance policy in this market would cover a substantially larger share of enrollees’ costs for health care (on average) and a slightly wider range of benefits." That is the un-subsized effect of the ACA on insurance.

    You may have skipped over that part. The context of that quote is to show how it is cheaper to individuals, meaning that with subsidies insurance is cheaper to the individual. That is just a way of making insurance cost more and masking it through subsidies, like the price of corn or wind energy.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 9, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    "The legislation would have much smaller effects on premiums for employment- based coverage, which would account for about five-sixths of the total health insurance market. In the small group market, which is defined in this analysis as consisting of employers with 50 or fewer workers, CBO and JCT estimate that the change in the average premium per person resulting from the legislation could range from an increase of 1 percent to a reduction of 2 percent in 2016 (relative to current law).6 In the large group market, which is defined here as consisting of employers with more than 50 workers, the legislation would yield an average premium per person that is zero to 3 percent lower in 2016 (relative to current law). Those overall effects reflect the net impact of many relatively small changes, some of which would tend to increase premiums and some of which would tend to reduce them"- "An Analysis of Health Insurance Premiums Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"

    RedShirt, that is from the CBO report you wanted us to read. I did. As the report shows, the effect of the ACA on insurance costs is rather complicated.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 9, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" Liberals hate the confines that the laws put on them.

    Liberals detest 64% of America.

    Nobody "wrote and signed petitions to secede from the Union because Pres. Obama was re-elected". When people have wanted to secede from the Union is has always been because those states did not agree with the policies coming out of Washington.

    Crazy people are paranoid of government. No political philosophy has any claim to all crazy people.

    Liberals are arming their government paramilitary armies with lots of weapons, including assault rifles, drones, and some tanks.

    Lets look at what happened during some recent protests by liberal groups just to show the world that you are wrong once again:

    "Flyer Found at Occupy Phoenix Ponders: ‘When Should You Shoot A Cop?’" - The Blaze found a report by the ACTIC where OWS activists were declaring when it is ok to kill a cop.

    "May Day protest in NYC brings confrontations" DN typically May Day protests are filled with liberals.

    "Democrat urges unions to 'get a little bloody when necessary'" - The Hill.

    Can you honestly say that Liberals are not inciting violence and have violent protests?

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Aug. 9, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[a] you did it to me.’

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Aug. 9, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[a] you did it to me.’

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Aug. 9, 2013 12:46 a.m.

    @RedShirt
    USS Enterprise, UT

    To "one vote" the Tea Party will not cause a civil war. That will be the doing of the liberals and Progressives.

    ========

    What the?...

    Who hates the Government?
    Who detests 64% of America that is non-Republican?
    Who wrote and signed petitions to secede from the Union because Pres. Obama was re-elected?
    Who is paranoid of Government?
    Who is armed to the teeth with assault rifles believing Government tanks are about to roll through their streets?

    Ya - us "Liberals" who want rights for LGBTs,
    enjoy caring for the sick, elderly and the needy,
    like our Social Security and ACA Obamacare for ALL Americans,
    seek better education,
    have few if any guns,
    and like our Government,
    Ya RedShirt, WE are the ones who want to start a Civil War...

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 8, 2013 4:06 p.m.

    To "one vote" the Tea Party will not cause a civil war. That will be the doing of the liberals and Progressives. Just look at the difference in their protests.

    Tea Party protests are peaceful, and have no violence perpetrated by its members. Now look at the liberal Protests, they almost always end up with police hauling people away and all sorts of arrests.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 8, 2013 2:33 p.m.

    The tea party will have to man the barricades soon. Will they cause a civil war?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 8, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" you want facts, I have lots of facts.

    You are wrong about why american's don't have insurance, and it has to do with choice.

    The US Census found that 48% of the uninsured could afford insurance. See "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007"

    According to the Kaiser Family Foundation 57% of the uninsured make less than $40,000/yr. That would qualify a family to get insurance through various welfare programs.

    So, at the time of passage, 95% of the uninsured qualified for some sort of insurance yet made the choice to not get insurance.

    Let us see your "facts", assuming you even have any.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" getting the government out of the way is a viable option.

    According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance study, "HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATES
    IN THE STATES" just the state mandates add 20% to 50% to the cost of insurance.

    Doing nothing would have been better than the ACA. According to the CBO study "An Analysis of Health Insurance Premiums Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" the insurance premiums for most policies would increase. How does making insurance cost more help anybody?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Aug. 7, 2013 11:39 p.m.

    I've read and re-read all 43 comments.

    I have YET to hear of ONE single "viable alternatives for Obamacare".

    Lots and lots of Obama haters,
    and yet again - not one alternative.

    The letter writer (Richard Burt) is correct,
    and all conservative Republican commenters have once again nicely supported his claim.

  • Alfred Pheonix, AZ
    Aug. 7, 2013 9:18 p.m.

    @Edgar:
    "...if we just say goodbye to insurance companies and have a single payer system, we'd all be better off."

    With a single payer system, and the government being the single payer, you will find that the government will be into your personal lives in the most abdominal way. The government will tell you what healthcare you can have, even what you can eat, and what exercise you must do in order to keep healthcare cost under control.

    @airnaut:
    "Utah Sen. Mike Lee has openly spoken of his hopes to stop funding the Affordable Care Act with a government shutdown."

    Lee is misguided if he said that. He can't shut the government down... What he really meant is that the government will shut down if the Senate and White House doesn't agree to a House funding bill sans Obamacare funding. It will not be Lee's fault. It will be the fault of the Senate or the White House.

    "Yours is the classic example of the current dichotomy within the fractured, torn, ship without a rudder Republican party."

    The problem with the Republican party is it let's the Democrats get away with lies

  • Mr. Bean Pheonix, AZ
    Aug. 7, 2013 8:06 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal:
    "Please show us all in the Constitution that Mike Lee is authorized to shut down the Federal Government."

    These's but one place in the Constitutions that authorizes one person to shut down the government and that's in Article 1.7.2. If the president vetoes a budget bill passed by both houses of Congress, the government will shut down and the onus is his and his alone. Lee can't shut the government down by himself. Either house of Congress can shut it down by refusing to pass a budget or a CR. Remember, as someone posted above, the House is responsible for originating all funding bills. If the Senate refuses to take the bill up it would be their fault if the government shuts down. If both houses of Congress agrees to a budget or CR and the president vetoes it, he is responsible if the government shuts down.

    "As far as I'm concerned -- that would make him a Domestic Enemy or even a Terrorist.
    [You do it MY way or else!...]"

    Are you referring to pres?

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 7:24 p.m.

    I asked my 12 year-old parrot his opinion on Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

    He said, "let me out of here... let me out of here... let me out of here".

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 7, 2013 5:27 p.m.

    airnaut,

    You need to talk to my 12-year-old grandson.

    Mitt Romney had authority to mandate insurance in his state. Obama does not. If you care to read the Constitution, you will see that health insurance is not a duty of the federal government. You will also see that if something is not a duty of the Federal Government, it is to be left to the States or to the people.

    I asked my grandson to read Article 1, Section 8 and then to show me the "health-insurance clause". He looked at me and said, "There is no health-insurance clause". I then asked him to read the 10th Amendment. He understood immediately that health insurance is a duty left to the States or to the people. He's a sixth grader, yet he understands the Constitution better than Obama. Romney was a governor of a state. He understood the 10th Amendment.

    Article III, Section 2, states that the Supreme Court is an appellate court (which requires that a case be appealed before being heard). No ObamaCare tax has been levied. No appeal is in play. The Court must wait until a lower courts rules.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Aug. 7, 2013 5:26 p.m.

    @TheProudDuck
    Newport Beach, CA

    Preexisting conditions aren't an issue for employer-based group health coverage, only the individual market.

    ==========

    You've never changed jobs or moved to another state - have you?

    Denied!

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Aug. 7, 2013 4:52 p.m.

    LDS Liberal, I think your facts are wrong. As I recall, pre-Obamacare, the estimates of uninsured Americans ran between 20 and 30 million. The number of people who could not obtain affordable coverage because of preexisting conditions was estimated at between 2 and 4 million. Not "most," not even half -- barely a tenth.

    Preexisting conditions aren't an issue for employer-based group health coverage, only the individual market. The vast majority (about 92%) of Americans get health coverage through their employers. So the problem that you're talking about, affects only some small percentage of the remaining 8%.

    Preexisting coverage problems for those people is something we can solve without restructuring the entire health care industry. It's just a matter of counting up the people who can't get insurance, calculating how much it will cost to provide them care, and figure out where to get the money to bridge the gap between what those people can pay and what it costs to care for them. We're talking a few billion dollars and some high-risk insurance pools. We don't need the PPACA monstrosity for that. But you never let a crisis go to waste.

  • Edgar Samaria, ID
    Aug. 7, 2013 4:20 p.m.

    The Proud Duck - Credible sources - if you ask me to, I will provide the sources - have estimated that 30% of insurance companies' overhead is related to legal costs of them fighting with policy holders and their attorneys to pay what they owe to the provider. Of course insurance companies spend less per patient. Anyone who has ever dealt with insurance companies knows how hard it is to get to do what their contract says they should do. As sson as a hosptal sends a bill, the first act of the insurance company is to turn it over to their legal staff - the 30% part of their overhead - to scour every code book to find loopholes that will allow to deny coverage. And so I agree, private insurance companies spend less per policy holder than does Medicare. No brainer.

    But Medicare, even with the insurance cheats out their, still spends far less in overhead. And I agree with Hutterite - if we just say goodbye to insurance companies and have a single payer system, we'd all be beter off. Check out the systemm in Taiwan.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Aug. 7, 2013 3:30 p.m.

    @Mike Richards

    ========

    Utah Sen. Mike Lee has openly spoken of his hopes to stop funding the Affordable Care Act with a government shutdown. Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, however, is warning against such an act.

    So Mike -- Which is it?
    Mike Lee or Mitt Romney?

    You support both of them, but they can't seem to agree on anything.

    Yours is the classic example of the current dichotomy within the fractured, torn, ship without a rudder Republican party.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 2:41 p.m.

    @RedShirt
    USS Enterprise, UT

    To "Richard Burt" and "LDS Liberal" the second best option to make healthcare more affordable and to help encourage more people to get insurance was to do nothing.

    ======

    Excuse me, but I deal in a world filled with facts and reality.

    The reason most Americans do not have Healthcare in America has little to nothing at all to do with finances or being poor.

    MOST people who did not have Healthcare in America were systematically denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, period.

    But go ahead and keep stereotyping sick people along with the elderly and lazy.

    Since they have NO real alternative,
    It seems to be the only argument Republicans have left any more.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Aug. 7, 2013 2:32 p.m.

    Truthseeker,

    Speaking of apples and oranges, we were talking about the overall cost of healthcare, not the net effect on the federal deficit.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Aug. 7, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    Speaking in New Hampshire on Tues (8/6/2013), Mitt Romney stated:

    "I badly want Obamacare to go away, and stripping it of funds has appeal. But we need to exercise great care about any talk of shutting down government. I'm afraid that in the final analysis, Obamacare would get its funding, our party would suffer in the next elections, and the people of the nation would not be happy."

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Aug. 7, 2013 1:32 p.m.

    re:TheProudDuck

    From the CBO 5/2013
    "In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period. As shown in the figure below, the intervening projections of the cost of the ACA’s coverage provisions for those years have all been close to those figures on a year-by-year basis; of course, the 10-year totals have changed as the time frame for the estimates has shifted.

    Those amounts DO NOT reflect the TOTAL budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, ON NET, will REDUCE budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade."

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    Noodle
    I don’t know where you come up with the idea rates will go down in NY and CA. An article by CNNMoney on yahoo reports insurance rates in NY and CA will skyrocket as a result of Obamacare.

    Rates will also increase in FL and OH, but they voted for BO, so they deserve getting stuck in their wallets. Too bad those of us who oppose him are also getting hurt.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 1:00 p.m.

    To "Richard Burt" and "LDS Liberal" the second best option to make healthcare more affordable and to help encourage more people to get insurance was to do nothing. By not adding new mandates and requirements for insurers to follow would result in a small increase in premiums. That is the second best option.

    The best option would have been to cut mandates back to close to the 1980's level when there was about 1/10 the number of mandates that there current are.

    If government then wanted to lower costs they could have enacted tort reform, and made it so that more doctors would enter the more expensive specialties such as OBGYN, Anestologist, or surgeon.

    They could have also made it possible for insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines, wich was another plan to lower costs.

    Basically, the best way to lower costs would be to get the government out of the business of controlling health insurance. The second best option would be for government to do nothing.

    To "Hutterite" a single payer system is not viable, and will only make care worse.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Aug. 7, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    Edgar: Regarding that talking point about Medicare's and private insurance's respective administrative costs, consider this:

    Medicare covers old people. Old people consume more care. So of *course* a greater percentage of their total costs go to payment for care. Administrative costs are essentially fixed. In fact, Medicare's absolute administrative spending per patient is higher than private insurance companies. That is, Medicare spends more dollars per patient on administrative costs than private insurance does; the *ratio* of administrative costs to total costs is only lower because private insurance's denominator is lower, because its patients consume less actual care.

    I understand that Math is Hard, as is comparing apples to apples.

    Also, about 10% of Medicare spending (it has been estimated) is on fraudulent claims. For private insurance, the rate is about 3%. Maybe Medicare could stand spending a little more on administration, to try and prevent some of that 10% loss.

    The bottom line is that Medicare is absolutely not more efficient than private insurance when it comes to overhead.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Aug. 7, 2013 12:54 p.m.

    @ Noodle

    You really believe your whole fantasy of what you think obamacare is? I'll bet you do! Your a real cool-aid drinker! Here is the most accurate line in your whole scenario "meaning anyone with insurance pays more". Subsidy, subsidy subsidy, that is what your saying an what it really comes down to, and that doesn't make ANYTHING cheaper!

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Aug. 7, 2013 12:48 p.m.

    "The U.S. pays almost twice as much for medical services as does other comparable countries."

    And Obamacare will not change that. For all the talk of "bending the cost curve down," the latest CBO analysis states that with Obamacare, the cost of medical care will continue to increase.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 12:19 p.m.

    Thank you, Hutterite. This is, of course, the only sensible answer. The health-care problem we face reminds me of a quote by the famous oil well firefighter Red Adair: "I can do it quick, I can do it cheap, I can do it well. Choose any two." What we want from a health-care system is for it to provide (1) quality health care (2) to all citizens (3) at reasonable prices. Currently, we have a system that tries only to achieve the first condition, and it does a mediocre job at that. Most countries have decided that conditions 2 and 3 are most important, and they sacrifice a little in quality in order to achieve those two, which they do quite admirably.

    If the Republicants had ever given the slightest indication that they wouldn't scream "Socialism" at the idea of a single-payer system, we wouldn't have Romnobamacare right now, a pathetic attempt to somehow involve the holy "market" in something it is not designed to succeed at. Someday they will see the light, but by then it may be too late.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 11:29 a.m.

    Of course there is a viable alternative. A single payer health care system is viable, would improve outcomes and reduce costs.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    Aug. 7, 2013 11:29 a.m.

    @LDS Liberal:
    "And the difference between Obamacare and Romneycare is what?..."

    Romney care is run by the state and is constitutional (see the Tenth Amendment)... Obamacare is to be run by the federal government... which is not authorized in the US Constitution.

    @LDS Liberal:
    "Just plain old 'NO,' and that means NO to everything including a complete and total Government shutdown..."

    Any government shutdown would not be the Republicans' fault.

    It goes something like this... Per the US Constitution, All funding bills start in the House... which is controlled by Republicans. That means the House has the duty, authority, and responsibility to determine the financial needs of the government and to develop a budget. It is not the Senate's job. It is not the President's job. It is the House's job. If the budget bill is not approved by the Senate or the president, the onus for shutting down the government, if it happens, falls on those bodies who did not approve the House bill. That would be the Democrats since they control both the Senate and the White House.

    "Childish, silly and people fall for this baloney?"

    Only Democrats.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    @HAHA
    Well, in states with large numbers of uninsured people, like New York and California it reduces insurance rates due to a larger coverage pool. By spreading risk over a larger pool a single catastrophic event for a participant costs the group less. In addition if someone who is uninsured receives care that they can't/don't pay for that cost is passed along to insurance companies, meaning anyone with insurance pays more. In addition they have capped how much of total expenditures can go toward administration(i believe it's 10%) meaning your insurance company can't take all your money then not spend it on claims, if they fall below that percentage you receive a premium refund check. The biggest thing is the increased pool, it's why insurance companies are always fighting for more members, a bigger member base makes it easier to manage cash flow and big claims aren't as devastating.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Aug. 7, 2013 11:01 a.m.

    "We get Wal-Mart medical care at Nordstrom prices."

    And the letter writer puts for the the same theory.

    Please please tell us how Obamacare solves this! It does nothing to cut costs! Nobody is paying less for healthcare, and getting big increase in quality!

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Aug. 7, 2013 10:51 a.m.

    re:MikeRichards
    "The Court has not yet ruled that the ObamaCare TAX is legal. It has not been implemented. The Court can't rule until that tax is implemented."

    What?

    You are mistaken. The issue of the Supreme Court waiting until the tax was implemented was discussed before the Supreme Court ruling. Some people thought the Court might "punt" and wait until the tax was implemented. However, the Supreme Court chose not to "punt" but ruled that the tax IS constitutional.

    "The Supreme Court also ruled that it could proceed with considering the constitutionality of the tax despite the Anti-Injunction Act, which dates back 145 years. The law said lawsuits can't be used to prevent taxing, only to get refunded for taxes already paid. The high court said whether something is a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act is Congress' decision -- and since Congress designated the mandate as including a penalty rather than a tax, the law did not apply in this case."
    (CNN)

    In sum, the Supreme Court ruled it could take up the matter of the tax before it was implemented.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 7, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    "Would you have Senator Lee disobey his oath of office? "

    Enough Mike.

    Yes, we would have Sen Lee disobey his oath of office.

    Just like EVERY single senator before him.

    Tell you what. Name ONE. Just ONE congressman or president that has not, in your mind, disobeyed their oath of office.

    Name ONE.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 10:36 a.m.

    To Mountanman: We get Wal-Mart medical care at Nordstrom prices. We pay far more than anyone else on the planet and yet we get worse health outcomes.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    Unlike your political dodgeball reply in which you did not answer my question, I will answer yours.

    "Why would you demand that Senator Lee do something that he is not allowed to do?"
    This is according to your opinion and strict personal interpretation of the Constitution that is at odds with actual constitutional scholars.

    Why would you demand that someone else pay for your health insurance?
    I pay, have payed, and will continue to pay even though I have seldom used it. Seem to me that you and those on the right are the only ones that believe that ACA is free, not sure where you get that (radio)

    Why would you expect the federal government to do something that is not allowed by the Constitution?
    This is according to your opinion and strict personal interpretation of the Constitution that is at odds with actual constitutional scholars and the actual century we currently live in.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 9:26 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    @Happy Valley Heretic,

    Would you have Senator Lee disobey his oath of office?

    =========

    Mike --

    Please show us all in the Constitution that Mike Lee is authorized to shut down the Federal Government.

    As far as I'm concerned -- that would make him a Domestic Enemy or even a Terrorist.
    [You do it MY way or else!...]

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Aug. 7, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    Mike Lee is a nothing but slash and burn politician. He offers no constructive ideas beyond destroying, in so far as he can, the efficacy of the Federal Government. And the sad truth is that if he accomplishes his odious task, he will say, Look here I told you that government was no good, just look at all its intransigent problems.

    And, as usual Mountanman has his facts all wrong.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 7, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    @Happy Valley Heretic,

    Would you have Senator Lee disobey his oath of office? He does not agree with you that the federal level of government has authority to require health insurance. He can read the duties authorized to the federal level of government. That list of duties is small. It does not include mandatory health insurance. As a Senator, looking out for the interests of the State of Utah, he is duty bound to NOT allow the federal level of government to usurp the rights and duties of the States. He is doing exactly what he took an oath to do. There should be 100 Senators and 435 members of the House who stand with him. Unfortunately, most of them love their office more than they respect their oath.

    Why would you demand that Senator Lee do something that he is not allowed to do? Why would you demand that someone else pay for your health insurance? Why would you expect the federal government to do something that is not allowed by the Constitution?

    The Court has not yet ruled that the ObamaCare TAX is legal. It has not been implemented. The Court can't rule until that tax is implemented.

  • Edgar Samaria, ID
    Aug. 7, 2013 8:27 a.m.

    Mountanman - A simple fact should be considered when arguing for the current private insurance industry. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, administrative costs in Medicare are only about 2 percent of operating expenditures. Defenders of the insurance industry estimate administrative costs as 17 percent of revenue.

    That's according to those defending the insurance industry. Imagtine what the truth would reveal. Our current system leaves more than 10% of our population without insurance - most of whom would like to have it. It also allows free-loaders who refuse to pay for insurance even through they can afford it, to reap the benefits of a benevolent system that won't turn away people from the emergency room. The rest of us end up picking up the tab for those costs through higher service costs at hospitals.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    Mike Richards said: The fact that Senator Lee does not drink the federal "health insurance cool-aid" does not mean that he has no alternative. "

    The fact is Senator Lee drinks the "Health Insurance Companies Champagne" (192 million dollars-Thanks Joe) on the taxpayers dime while presenting, what was that alternative you mentioned mike? Oh yeah you must have faith that he has an alternative plan because you didn't mention any and he doesn't on his site either.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    Richard,
    Belize has fewer combat casualties than the US.

    Obamacare does just as must to address the disparity in combat deaths as it does the cost of healthcare.

    Lds?lib
    The difference?

    Romneycare was wanted by the citizens of MA, Obamacare was opposed by the majority of US citizens.

    When it was instituted, no one knew whether or not Romneycare would increase access to healthcare or reduce costs; when Obamacare was passed, we knew from the Romneycare failure that Obamacare would also fail.

    The old definition of insanity applies, repeating the same thing over and over hoping for a difference result. Obamacare is insane because we knew from Romneycare it would fail.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    Sen Lee has only one objective and that is to get noticed. It's too bad if he hasn't come up with a viable option that the Koch Brothers would approve of. I think he is afraid his own healthcare coverage will be effected when the ACA is fully implemented. It must be nice for the oblivious to sit in their small NW community, with great healthcare benefits, gloating to others that "that's it too bad you're not me". Anyone that thinks that all have access to the great healthcare system we hear about hasn't been sick.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    For five years now, Republicans have been telling us they're going to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. The Republican House has now voted forty times to repeal it, but not one single proposal to replace it has surfaced. I'd take them more seriously if they actually had an alternative.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 7, 2013 7:55 a.m.

    The fact that Senator Lee does not drink the federal "health insurance cool-aid" does not mean that he has no alternative. The only proper alternative is to let the States and the people handle health-insurance. It is not a function of the federal government. The Supreme Court ruled that ObamaCare is nothing more than a tax. It is the largest tax increase ever foisted on America. Obama denied that it was a tax. He told us that we could keep our present health-insurance. He told us that ObamaCare would save each family $2,500 per year. He told us that ObamaCare would cover ALL the uninsured. He told us all of those lies and many more about ObamaCare.

    Lee knows his duty as a Senator and as someone who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution. What happened to Hatch? Why has he backed down from his promise to get rid of ObamaCare? Why isn't he standing side-by-side with Lee?

    Health care falls under the 10th Amendment. Romney knew that. Obama knows that. Lee is acting on that knowledge.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 7:35 a.m.

    No hope,
    No solutions,
    No ideas,
    No alternatives,
    No better options,

    Just plain old "NO",
    and that means NO to everything including a complete and total Government shutdown...

    Childish, silly and people fall for this baloney?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 7, 2013 7:16 a.m.

    @Mountanman
    Hayden, ID

    ========

    That was hilarious!
    You voted for Mitt Romney, did you not?

    And the difference between Obamacare and Romneycare is what?...

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 7, 2013 5:31 a.m.

    Of course not Mr Burk.

    This is a complex problem. The goal of any fix is to reduce the out-of-control costs.

    If that were to happen, it would hurt a cash cow for many businesses.
    These businesses pay dearly in the form of lobbying and campaign funding in order to keep the status quo and hence their obscene profits.

    In 2012, the insurance industry paid about $42 million in campaign contributions to congress.
    Then they added another $150 Million in Lobbying money. Thats in 2012 alone

    Why do they spend so much? Why do you think.

    Our congressmen may be voting their conscience, but when they receive so much money from those they affect, it is impossible to tell.

    We argue daily about R and D. But, in reality, both R and D votes have been bought and paid for.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 7, 2013 4:46 a.m.

    No alternative for Obamacare? Nonsense! The free market has provided the best medical care the world has ever seen right here in the US. Unaffordable you say? Getting rid of the tort lawyers who have their parasitic hands in the system will do more to control costs than Obamacare ever will. Remember folks, you get what you are willing to pay for, there is no such thing as Nordstrom medical care at Wall-Mart prices. Anybody tells you different (even Barrack Obama) is lying as we all shall soon see with Obamacare! All Obamacare will do is inflate medical care costs then transfer those costs to taxpayers, as the government always does, but that will not make it cheaper or better.