Published: Tuesday, Oct. 8 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
It's a good thing that Obamacare isn't government run healthcare.
Every part of the system is still privately owned. Hospitals, Doctors, Clinics,
Labs, Pharmacies and Pharmaceutical Companies, and Health Insurance Companies.
Every single one of them, still privately owned and operated.
The only thing that is clear is that electing people who want to shut down the
government is probably not the best idea. The tea party has been telegraphing
this since their inception and it should come as no surprise that they shut down
the government they so despise.
A worse idea would be to leave it to big business.
The conservative tea party and Senator Lee invoked the hostage of government
unsuccessfully defund or repeal a funded established law. No following law and
procedure is the real danger to our country.
"Do you really want a government that enjoys threatening the welfare of our
citizens in charge of our health care?"Of course not
Roseanne.Because the whole healthcare system was running just fine
before. NOT.With an aging population, the trajectory of healthcare
costs will bankrupt our country.We pay the highest in the world and get
far from the best outcome.We can either do nothing (GOP plan) or try
something (ACA).I'm a gambler. Because I know the GOP plan (do
nothing) is not sustainable.
Lots of people agree with the letter writer. For decades this was
"discussed" but no one ever made a move to try and do anything. Democrats didn't waste their chance when they had the house, senate, and
presidency. Our job now should be to amend the bill over time to get it
right.If you don't have a alternative solution, its going to be
hard to be heard.
I hope Roseanne never needs to use her "private" health care.
She's likely to find they won't cover what she's already paid
for. They'll find some "pre-existing condition" (i.e., she was
born) to deny her coverage.
Agreed that Gov't run health care is a bad idea... but doesn't it seem
that the gov't is getting the necessary things done? I don't see how
shutting down a few parks, while keeping all necessary gov't services
proves your point that well. What one could assume that in the
future the gov't would become so dysfunctional as to not maintain even
services that they deem as necessary. Course if we get to that point, then the
army would be offline and whether we can see a doctor might be one of the leasts
of our worries as a country.
Having an Obamacare waiver is a prized possession. The rest of us will suffer.
As always, Roland Kayser has corrected the mis-information portrayed in
Roseanne's letter. But let's also be clear, "government run"
healthcare programs around the world have proven t be more effective and more
cost efficient than the current (pre-ACA) system found in the United States.
Insurance companies exist for one reason - to make money for their shareholders.
With that as their first priority, is it any wonder than claims go unpaid,
often for bogus reasons, because the insurance companies know that the common
man doesn't have the time, energy or money to pursue the claims further and
will probably not fight their decision to not pay a claim. Despite the clever
advertising claiming otherwise, the private insurance company's task is to
keep as much of your premium as they can. That is priority number one for
them.It has been suggested by its opponents that the ACA is the
first step on the road to a single payer government run program. I can only
hope for that day to get here sooner than later.
I watch Fox news quite often.There is always a rant that Congress has
exempted themselves and their staffs from Obamacare.No explanation. Just
that they are exempt from it.That is misleading and disingenuous. I
hear it repeated frequently.Here are the facts. The ACA
was intended for people who were uninsured or did not get employer paid
insurance.It excludes employers from pushing their employees onto the ACA
and then subsidizing their coverage.R - Chuck Grassley introduced an
amendment that Required all of congress and their staffs to get their insurance
through the ACA. NO one else is required to get health insurance
through the ACA.So, the effect is that all of Congress and their
Staff (many who are paid very little) would lose the health care subsidy that
has been around for decades.An exemption was made to allow the
employer (ie government) to continue to pay part of the insurance premiums. Why
should they lose the health coverage subsidy that they always got? SO yes, congress and staff are given an exemption that others do not get, but
they are also required to participate when no one else is.At least
know the truth.
Single payer healthcare is a good idea. It need not be 'government
run', at least not at the federal level.
I forget, was it Ronald Reagan who said, "In my estimation the Republican
far-right is hopelessly witless"?
The biggest issue I have with Obamacare is forced participation. Why not give
people a choice? If you love Obamacare, knock yourself out, sign up. But forcing
Americans to participate is just wrong. Being forced to do something is an evil
principle and is doomed to fail.
Re:MountanmanQ: Has the Obama administration allowed corporations to
"opt out" of the new health care law?A: No. The government has
granted more than 200 waivers, but these merely give companies a temporary delay
before being required to improve the coverage of cheap, bare-bones plans they
currently offer.(Factcheck 2010)"looking at the numbers of
waivers that have been given to both union and non-union groups, we don't
see any pattern that would support a case for special treatment. The number of
waivers are a small sample of all health plans, and many more waivers were given
to big companies and corporations. We looked for additional information or
evidence on this point and didn'tt find it."(Politifact 2012)Q: Is it true that there are bills in Congress that would exempt members
and their staffs and families from buying into Obamacare?A: No. Congress
members and staffers will be required to buy insurance through the exchanges on
Jan. 1.(Factcheck 2013)
@ MountainmanWhat about the military draft?
First, let's throw out the notion that ObamaCare has anything to do with
healthcare. It does not. It is no more about healthcare than Social Security
is about security. Both programs are simply TAXES that take a huge amount of
money out of the private sector and then transfer that money to the federal
government so that politicians can spend it on their pork projects with a
"promise to repay" in the form of an I.O.U. We know what
happened to the Social Security funds. They are gone. Politicians have
plundered the treasury for their own benefit without any concern for the
citizens.Now, we also know that politicians will throw all of us
under the bus if they don't get their way. Obama was given a chance to
help America and this is the way that he repays America for trusting him. He
refuses to negotiate until ObamaCare if fully funded. What more do we need to
know about ObamaCare? It was passed because of crooked backroom deals. Now
America is being held hostage if ObamaCare is not funded.Only
foolish or corrupt politicians would allow ObamaCare to continue.
Mtnman,"But forcing Americans to participate is just
wrong."On the surface, your statement sounds reasonable.
(although that was the premise of the Heritage foundation and Romneycare)What happens when someone in a young middle class family, who could
afford insurance, but decides not to, gets sick (cancer perhaps) or has an
accident.They gambled and lost. So, what happens?Do
they not seek treatment? Of course not. They head to the hospital and rack up
potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs. When they cannot pay,
the costs get spread out among everyone else.So, my medical costs go
up because this family decided to forgo insurance.Is that fair?
Ajax. Last time I check there is no military draft. We have an all volunteer
Re:MountanmanHayden, ID"The biggest issue I have with Obamacare
is forced participation. Why not give people a choice? If you love Obamacare,
knock yourself out, sign up. But forcing Americans to participate is just wrong.
Being forced to do something is an evil principle and is doomed to fail."Right I hate being "forced" to go a certain speed on
highways, wearing a seatbelt, adhering to zoning laws, buying car insurance etc
etc etc.And my kids have it right. Forcing them to go to school and
church is just wrong.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments