Comments about ‘Letters: No viable alternatives for Obamacare’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Aug. 7 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mountanman
Hayden, ID

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.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

@Mountanman
Hayden, ID

========

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

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

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

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?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

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.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

ugottabkidn
Sandy, UT

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.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

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.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

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.

Edgar
Samaria, ID

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.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

@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.

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

@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!...]

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

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.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"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.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

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.

HaHaHaHa
Othello, WA

"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!

Noodlekaboodle
Poplar Grove, UT

@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.

wrz
Pheonix, AZ

@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.

to comment

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