Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: Obamacare exemptions

Comments

Return To Article
  • jcobabe Provo, UT
    Sept. 27, 2013 10:09 a.m.

    Question: How is "exemption" different from "waiver"?

    Answer: They're spelled different. :-)

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 21, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    wwookie, can you provide us with the quotes from LDS liberals post that say what you claim he is saying? That he loathes the Constitution and thinks all of it is bad? You claimed: "Your argument that 1787 was all bad because of certain institution that existed is really confusing." Can you show us where he made this argument?

    Can you show us this, or are you just fighting straw men?

    "please help me with the logic that Mike was foolish in believing in ideas from 1787 could be relevant today. "

    The problem with Mike's argument has nothing to do with believing in ideas from 1787 and their elevancy today (more straw men), the problem is that he does not understand the Constitution, and his interpretation of it is critically flawed.

  • wwookie Payson, UT
    Sept. 20, 2013 8:55 p.m.

    LDS Liberal,
    It is obvious you are a constitutional scholar. As you loathe the constitution, what what would you propose? A new constitutional convention? Or is there something good in the constitution? Your argument that 1787 was all bad because of certain institution that existed is really confusing.

    What about the division of government among three branches? Must be a pretty bad idea.
    Separation between state and federal powers? Also a bad idea.
    All men created equal? (Even earlier than 1787)- horrible.
    A constitution that can be amended? Ridiculous

    Maybe we should amend the constitution and remove freedom, democratic principles etc. so we can implement a socialist regime. The world would be so much better if we could force everyone to think the same way we liberals do.

    But still, please help me with the logic that Mike was foolish in believing in ideas from 1787 could be relevant today. There are so many ideas from 1787 and even earlier that I like and it will be hard to let go.

    (I'm really attached to this idea that the earth's mass exerts a mysterical force that keeps me from flying off into space and that came from 17th C)

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 20, 2013 12:13 a.m.

    "So, let's get law enforcement to impeach him. Wait! Law enforcement... i.e., the Attorney General... is a trusted Obama cohort. We are in trouble when law enforcement is in cahoots with the criminals."

    So, wrz, clearly you have no idea how impeachment works. And yet you comment on the Constitution like we should listen.

    "The Court didn't rule on Obamacare. It merely authorized the government to tax people rather than charge a penalty."

    Okay, and if they don't rule on it that means that it IS the law of the land. But, wrz, you've already said that it is Constitutional. So what does it matter to you?

    wrz: "Is money spent on illegal drugs? If the answer is 'yes,' then it's part of commerce. And the government can regulate commerce per Article 1.8."

    Is money spent on healthcare? Obviously yes, therefore according to you its part of commerce and government can regulate commerce. Cool.

    Badger, I'm not blaming Republicans for a thing with regards to the ACA. It is a success already, and it will be even more so in the future. No, the only thing Republicans have done is obstruct.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    Sept. 19, 2013 9:25 p.m.

    @Truthseeker:
    "If you knew anything about the U.S. Constitution (or the law) you would know it is one of the shortest constitutions in the world, thereby leaving many gaps and room for interpretation."

    That could mean there is no subject under the sun that the Federal government cannot get involved in... Which can't be the case since Amendment 10 tells us 'powers not delegated to the US Government ... are reserved to the states.'

    "For example, where in the Constitution is the authority of the Federal govt. to regulate illegal drugs?"

    Is money spent on illegal drugs? If the answer is 'yes,' then it's part of commerce. And the government can regulate commerce per Article 1.8.

    "Why did regulation of alcohol require an amendment but not illegal drugs?"

    Because alcohol was prohibited by an Amendment (18) which, thus, had to be canceled by another Amendment (21).

    Th bottom line is... the federal government can do anything it wishes regardless of limitations in Article 1.8 and the 10th Amendment... because... because there is no one around who can put a stop to it.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 19, 2013 8:57 p.m.

    Some people are still in wacko mode over social security.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    Sept. 19, 2013 1:07 p.m.

    @Mike Richards:
    "He (Obama) took an oath of office to defend the Constitution. He violated that oath."

    So, let's get law enforcement to impeach him. Wait! Law enforcement... i.e., the Attorney General... is a trusted Obama cohort. We are in trouble when law enforcement is in cahoots with the criminals.

    And the Senate chooses to close their eyes and look the other way at these serious violations of our Constitution.

    "ObamaCare will bankrupt us."

    We... the US government... are already bankrupt with an unprecedented $17 trillion debt... and growing at the rate of $1 trillion per year as far as the eye can see.

    "People will die waiting for healthcare from the government."

    Obama has already told us how his healthcare program will work... 'If you're old and need serious healthcare, just go home and take a pain killer.'

    @LDS Liberal:
    "So woman can not vote, "Blacks can be slaves..."

    Covered in Amendments.

    "BTW - Obama hasn't violated his oath, so says the Supreme Court, and regardless of what you say."

    The Court didn't rule on Obamacare. It merely authorized the government to tax people rather than charge a penalty.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Sept. 19, 2013 7:35 a.m.

    The Supreme Court was wrong on Dred vs SCott and Roe Vs Wade. So there interpretation is wrong sometimes. As for women not voting and slavery being legal thing about the constitution is it found ways to end that. Since those things were legal worldwide when the constitution was written. Great thing is it had provisions to change those injustices in the near future.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Sept. 19, 2013 6:39 a.m.

    Truthseeker????

    Your quote on the meetings said they discussed principles, very early on (2009). NOwhere did the republicans get to help with the actual writing of the bill. By then the democrats had shut them out.

    Fail 1

    One republican voted for an EARLIER VERSION of the bill. When it came back to the House in its final form, NO Republican Voted For It.

    That is still Zero (0) republican votes for the bill that passed.

    Fail 2

    Even if one had, how does that make this upcoming mess the Republicans' fault?

    Only by delusion!

    Fail 3 coming up. (And you liberals know it. That is why you are already trying to pin the blame on the republicans in advance)

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Sept. 19, 2013 12:29 a.m.

    @Roland Keyser "Republicans only started opposing their own plan when President Obama introduced it."

    You're leaving out the fact that it was tried in Massachusetts, and failed. When Obama/Pelosi/Reid pushed it, it was already a proven failure. It had failed to achieve universal coverage, and it had failed to keep costs down. Some people learn from experience, and others don't.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 10:25 p.m.

    @Roland Kayser

    You are wrong.

    It was authored by extreme leftist organizations funded by George Soros.

    Republicans had NOTHING to do with it and had no reasons to offer any alternatives to the big mess that was hillarycare as it provide alone all damage to the democratic party.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 6:53 p.m.

    "NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE! Not a conservative republican."

    And what is this supposed to prove other than repubs have flip flopped and now deem obstruction to Obama as a greater priority than sticking with their traditional principles?

    "How did a republican put anything in the ACA bill when they weren't permitted into any of the meetings which drafted the bill?"

    Swing and a miss.

    "There is no republican hand in the ACA. No input on the wording because they were denied by the democrats, and not one vote for it in either house."

    False. 0-3 now. The ACA was a Republican creation.

    "This is all democrat responsibility, and it has headed our country for failure."

    Nope. What had us heading to failure was the previous system, which allowed insurance companies to cut and deny anyone coverage for any reason.

    "I don't want to hear any complaining from you flaming Obana Fans. You think it's perfect and you got what you wanted, so no complaining."

    Wrong again. Obama fans wanted a single-payer system. Instead, we went with the GOP's reform.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 18, 2013 4:34 p.m.

    re:BadgerBadger
    "NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE!"

    November 7, 2009: The House of Representatives passed its version of healthcare reform legislation, including a public option, by a narrow 220-215 vote. In the end, 39 Democrats vote against the bill and ONE Republican voted for it.

    rom June-September 2009 the Senate Finance Committee held a series of 31 meetings to develop of a health care reform bill. This group - in particular, Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), and Mike Enzi (R-WY) - met for more than 60 hours, and the principles that they discussed, in conjunction with the other Committees, became the foundation of the Senate's health care reform bill. The meetings were held in public and broadcast by C-SPAN and could be seen on the C-SPAN web site or at the Committee's own web site.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 3:21 p.m.

    @badgerbadger:
    "I realize you fraternize with very gullible people, but that is your party, not mine."

    Instead of name calling, you might refute one single part of my post. Since they are all true, I know you can't. You also left out the part where the Republicans decided that their number one priority was to make Obama fail. So they vote NO, even on their own programs. Did you notice how many Republicans were supportive of getting involved in Syria, but immediately changed their minds when the President proposed doing it?

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 3:02 p.m.

    Nice try libs.

    NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE! Not a conservative republican. Not a moderate republican. Not a libertarian republican. Not an old one, or a young one, or a short one, or a tall one. Not a male, or a female republican. NONE. ZERO. NIL.

    So really, you want us to believe it was a conservative republican bill?

    I realize you fraternize with very gullible people, but that is your party, not mine.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 2:21 p.m.

    @badgerbadger: Obamacare was designed by the ultra conservative Heritage Foundation as an alternative to Clinton's healthcare proposals. It was endorsed by virtually all prominent national Republicans at the time including Newt Gingritch, Bob Dole, Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar and many others. Even Jim Demint, Mr. Tea Party himself, said it was an excellent model for a national healthcare system.

    Mitt Romney used it as the blueprint for Romneycare in Mass. And if Romney would have won the Republican nomination in 08, he would have run on a platform of implementing it nationally. My guess is that you would have been an avid supporter. Republicans only started opposing their own plan when President Obama introduced it.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 18, 2013 1:49 p.m.

    re:Badgerbadger
    "When Congress passed the health care law, U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, included an amendment that required lawmakers and their staffs to buy health insurance through the online exchanges created by the law.

    Grassley’s amendment was intended to test the commitment of Senate Democrats to the health care law. Would they be as supportive of the law if they had to buy insurance through an exchange? The amendment stayed."
    (politifact

    Re:MikeRichards

    If you knew anything about the U.S. Constitution (or the law) you would know it is one of the shortest constitutions in the world, thereby leaving many gaps and room for interpretation. You would also know that even those who drafted it--the Founding Fathers--disagreed on the "correct" interpretation, ie its limitations. For example, where in the Constitution is the authority of the Federal govt. to regulate illegal drugs? Why did regulation of alcohol require an amendment but not illegal drugs?

    You can claim your "interpretation is correct" but many Constitutional Law experts would provide sound arguments as to why you are wrong. Other experts would argue why you are correct. And so it goes.

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 1:44 p.m.

    Obamacare isn't about healthcare (especially the part about making it "affordable"), rather its all about government control.
    Why else is the IRS involved?

    Do you REALLY want the IRS involved in your healthcare?

    It is the job of the House of Representatives to set a budget. If they make a budget without including Obamacare thats' their right.
    All the people who WANT Obamacare can re-elect new House members in 2014 that will give them Obamacare (and more) "free stuff".
    Good luck with that!

    Obamacare is the #1 job-killer in the country. It will NEVER work for a variety of reasons. People are beginning to see the negative effects in all kinds of ways.
    I'm totally in favor of a government shutdown IF it preserves the constitutional limits of our elected leaders.
    It will be worth it!

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 1:07 p.m.

    Maverick-

    How did a republican put anything in the ACA bill when they weren't permitted into any of the meetings which drafted the bill?

    There is no republican hand in the ACA. No input on the wording because they were denied by the democrats, and not one vote for it in either house.

    This is all democrat responsibility, and it has headed our country for failure.

    Slipping in cute little lies, like this, when the popularity is slipping is classic liberal deceit.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 12:41 p.m.

    When this is fully implemented... I don't want to hear any complaining from you flaming Obana Fans. You think it's perfect and you got what you wanted, so no complaining.

    Somehow I think the same people will be complaining about healthcare (like always).

    It's never good enough, or free enough for some people. But keep in mind... nothing's free. Every cent of every insurance policy that needs to be sold before this goes into affect has to be paid for, by somebody. You can keep hoping it's not you, and it's somebody else who has to pay (your employer, your exchange voucher, the tax payers, anybody but you). But SOMEBODY has to pay the bill. There's no getting around that.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 12:32 p.m.

    LDS Liberal

    I'd be careful with the Supreme Court ruling as an argument, as you pointed out at the beginning, they supported many things that today are illegal.

    ugotabekiddin

    Your point shows why this in NOT a right wing court as some imply. In fact it is probably the most evenly divided court we have ever had. With some exception the decisions are usually 5 to 4. Kennedy often being the swing vote.

    Curmudgeon

    If Obama was such a great lawyer, why didn't he clerk on the Supreme Court, or even a federal court, as most top grads do? Maybe he was in truth a Salieri amoung Mozarts.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Sept. 18, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    @Mountanman – “The problem with your statement is that now millions of employer provided health insurance programs are going away, cancelled, deleted and eliminated.”

    Looking at the economics of this, to the extent employers get out of the health insurance business altogether (and they can move in that direction - like Walgreens just did – by moving employees onto the exchanges) this would be a job creator, not to mention the mobility it will potentially create in the labor market - nothing has been more detrimental to business startups than people not wanting to take the risk of losing their large group medical insurance.

    And have you ever wondered why so many auto manufacturing jobs moved to Canada (with their communist single payer healthcare system)? It’s because Automakers didn’t have to mess with healthcare – it’s worth more to their bottom line to just pay the slightly higher wage.

    @Mike Richards – “If some of the posters would spend as much time reading the Constitution”

    Mike, if you ever got on the SC you would make Scalia look like Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    Mike:

    Thanks for clearing up the meaning of the Constitution once again. What a relief to know that we have a bona fide Constitutional expert right here in our midst, whose qualifications eclipse those of that fellow who was president of the Harvard Law Review, and who taught constitutional law at one of the top law schools in the country. Let's see, remind us again where you went to law school, in which journals your scholarly articles were published, where (other than this forum) you have lectured on constitutional law, how many cases you have argued before the Supreme Court, and other pertinent accomplishments from your resume. Thanking you in advance . . . .

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    Funny how a right wing, activist Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the ACA. Not every so-called expert cherry picks what they want to believe.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    Actually I remember certain predictions about a Romney win too, more than one at that.
    Why does the Dnews keep printing these low information letters that are so easily proven wrong?
    Why is it a certain radio audience, perpetually repeats this misleading rhetoric as facts only to look foolish again and again?

    "ObamaCare will bankrupt us. People will die waiting for healthcare from the government. The "Secretary" will deny service to millions."

    Proselytizing seem to be a conservative standard, no matter how many times it never "comes to pass."

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    Mike --
    Please go back to September 17, 1787

    So woman can not vote,
    Blacks can be slaves,
    and Governors can sign extermination orders against Mormons.

    BTW - Obama hasn't violated his oath,
    so says the Supreme Court, and regardless of what you say.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 18, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    If some of the posters would spend as much time reading the Constitution as they spend telling us what they think government should do, we would not have ObamaCare. The Constitution allows Congress to tax us for seventeen authorized duties. All other "duties" are to left to the States or to the People. Personal health care is not on that list of federal duties.

    Obama, who some consider to be a Constitutional expert, surely understands Article 1, Section 8, yet he proposed and signed a bill that clearly violates the authorized duties of the Federal Government. That tells us all that we need to know about Obama. He took an oath of office to defend the Constitution. He violated that oath.

    ObamaCare will bankrupt us. People will die waiting for healthcare from the government. The "Secretary" will deny service to millions. The government will spend ObamaCare funds on porkbarrel projects, just as they've spent Social Security funds.

    When we allow government to tax us for unauthorized programs we have failed as citizens to do our job, which is to control government. It's time to study the Constitution. It's our contract with the government.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 18, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    Maverick. You are wrong. I never guaranteed Romney would win. I hoped he would win but predicted he would lose because the majority of Americans have discovered they can vote themselves entitlements from the national treasury-at least until we can't borrow any more money or pay the interest on the debt. We are getting closer to that day and Obamacare will hasten it!

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    "Obamacare will bankrupt our country, guaranteed!"

    I'm pretty sure that you guaranteed a Romney victory. How'd that work out for ya?

    Why anyone would believe in your guarantees is beyond me. Ever heard of the story of the boy who cried wolf?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 9:25 a.m.

    If Obamacare is so bad why did the GOP endorse it in the 90s?

    If Obamacare is so bad why didn't the Bush Administration do anything about health care for 8 years?

    If the GOP had gotten off their lazy bums to do something... Anything! About health care over 8 years we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Instead, they didn't do anything.

    And they still have yet to do anything.

    Sorry repubs, ya'll can't complain until you come up with solutions!

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 18, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    "The RNC echoes others conservative claims that the law is hindering part-timers from finding full-time jobs. But the RNC’s 8.2 million figure was the total number in June of part-time workers in the U.S. seeking full-time work — what the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls “part-time for economic reasons” — and there’s no evidence from BLS numbers that the law has had an impact on such workers. There were more in this “part-time for economic reasons” category in March 2010, when the Affordable Care Act was signed into law (9.1 million). The latest figure, from August, is 7.9 million."

    There is more discussion on jobs and Obamacare at factcheck org)

    Congress is not exempt. In fact, Congress is the ONLY large employer which is required to use the healthcare exchanges to purchase insurance. (It was included in the bill by Republicans trying to kill the bill).

    There have been some "waivers" issued during the implementation process to allow companies to make the various changes/adaptations required.

    Obviously the letter writer needs more accurate sources.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    I'm pretty sure the ObamaCare is going to go GREAT and everybody's going to be dancing in the streets and thanking Obama for saving us. Years from now we'll probably all be looking back on Obama as our savior (or blaming him for America going into bankruptcy).

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 18, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    Roland: The problem with your statement is that now millions of employer provided health insurance programs are going away, cancelled, deleted and eliminated. Obamacare is a huge job killer and if you have been paying attention to the news, it is already happening. The Achilles' heal of Obamacare is far too few people paying into the system and massive increases of people taking out with taxpayer subsidizes. Obamacare is nothing more than the largest welfare program in the history of the world! There is no hope of us ever paying for it! Obamacare will bankrupt our country, guaranteed!

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 7:23 a.m.

    Everyone who has employer provided health insurance is "exempt". The whole system is designed to cover people who don't have coverage.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 5:31 a.m.

    Uh, 'cause Congress isn't exempt from Obamacare, and that no such exemption has ever been requested? Factcheck.org has an excellent, factually accurate story that explains the whole thing. The DN won't let me link to the story, but it's easy to find; just google Congress exempt from Obamacare? Congress is NOT exempt from participating in the Obamacare exchanges.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 12:25 a.m.

    "especially Congress, have requested and been granted exemptions to the law."

    Ben, a Republican put this into the law hoping that Obama would find a problem with this and veto the bill. President Obama didn't fall for this trap.

    So you may want to talk to your GOP about that.

    The rest of the issues you brought up have been thoroughly debunked for years now. I cannot help you if you don't want to do any research on your own. Unfortunately, I'm guessing you already know that there are realistic responses to your questions but you already have your mind made up against Obamacare because of Obama and don't want to look any of this information up.