Comments about ‘Insurance cancellations and Obama's health care law: 2 different views’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Nov. 9 2013 6:05 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
DN Subscriber 2
SLC, UT

Obama lied and people are being forced off the insurance they liked because of Obama's rules, not some mean old "big insurance" company, the story's insinuation.

The "researcher," like most liberals, seems to believe that no one is responsible for anything in their life, and that they are helpless fools unless omniscient and omnipotent Big Brother government is there to do everything for them.

It used to be that if you got sick, with no insurance, you simply paid the bill, even big catastrophic bills. Prudent people in low risk situations often purchased some insurance, either catastrophic or with high deductibles. Family, friends, churches and the community often helped out the truly needy.

Now, no one wants to pay for anything, and far too many people think they are entitled to free healthcare. Along with free phones, free internet, free food, free housing, and free educations.

Ironically, Obamacare is set up so that a large percentage (of likely Democrat voters) will pay nothing for insurance, getting free Medicaid or "subsidies." Most other people will end up paying far more than their fair share for bloated policies that meet the Obama diktat, and pay for everyone else as well.

OneAmerican
Idaho Falls, ID

Obama said we had to have the ACA to lower prices because it wasn't right to go down to the emergency room and pass those costs on to others. So now, we have the situation where the cost of health care BY LAW is being forced on others. If you're a 55-year-old female, your insurance must include maternity coverage. In other words, your plan must include the cost of coverage you don't need and will never use to reduce the cost to others who do need those services, but qualify for free federal coverage. Isn't that nice? Obama said we needed to have this law so that the 30 million without coverage could get coverage. Now between 50 and 90 million Americans who had health insurance are losing it because insurance companies, BY LAW, must cancel those policies that don't include minimum coverage as outlined in Obamacare, including maternity care for women beyond childbearing age. The whole of Obamacare is a farce.

mohokat
Ogden, UT

If you like your bankruptcy you can keep your bankruptcy

bandersen
Saint George, UT

The defenders of everything is free mentality at some point run out of the people who are paying the bills. Obamacare wasn't about Healthcare anyway. It's about big government coming in with all the answers at the expense of your liberty. The Democrats will trot out the miniscule percentage that went bankrupt over no health care so as to feel justified in taking over everybody's healthcare. All the Democrats and Republicans followers (certainly not independent thinkgers)got sucked into the deal because they wanted to believe the lie that everything is for free.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@banderson

" they wanted to believe the lie that everything is for free."

please provide one reputable quote of anyone that claimed or thought this was going to be "free."

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

"If you're a 55-year-old female, your insurance must include maternity coverage."

Was your employer-based insurance or individual policy tailored to your age pre-ACA? Were you asked if you needed maternity care when you signed up?

"In a paper about the Massachusetts plan published on April 2006, Edmund Haislmaier, a Heritage fellow in health care policy, wrote of the "truly significant and transformative health system changes that the legislation would set in motion."

Haislmaier wrote that "this concept of organizing a state's insurance markets around a central clearinghouse represents a dramatic departure from recent state health insurance reform proposals. States have spent the past 15 years trying to expand health care coverage to small-business employees, with virtually no positive results. The Massachusetts legislation represents a bipartisan commitment to move away from the policies that have largely failed to make progress in covering the uninsured for the past 15 years."

In another paper, "The Rationale for a Statewide Health Insurance Exchange," Heritage scholar Robert Moffit wrote that "the best option is a health insurance market exchange." Moffit said the exchange "would expand coverage and choice" and would represent "a revolutionary change in the health insurance market."
(politifact)

bandersen
Saint George, UT

Spring street: Socialist dreamers all think that someone else will pay for it, whatever "it" is. Of course it won't be for free. everybody loses in the socialist dream because once you choose it, you lose your freedom and everybody pays for that while getting nothing in return.

Hamath
Omaha, NE

@ Spring Street
Banderson's sentiment is more along the lines of getting something for nothing. For example, when my mother-in-law signs up for the insurance, she will have insurance for the first time in 5 or 6 years. She has a pre-existing condition that made it too expensive for her. Her costs for insurance, which would be very expensive under the previous system, will be much much cheaper because of the subsidies. She is effectively taking money from someone. Someone will have to pay the difference in what she is paying and what the insurance companies needs for her risk, so she gets a part of coverage for free. You can quote me if you want on this.

LoveLife
Riverton, UT

@spring street:

How about from the healthcare website itself?

If you do a search for "Obamacare Website Quietly Deletes Reference to 'Free Health Care'you can get links to those archived web pages.

That line was still up on the website as recently as September 15-just two weeks before enrollment was supposed to begin.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@banderson
while I appreciate you sharing your views on what you think socialist believe that is not what i asked you for I asked you for a reputable quote of anyone claiming that the ACA was going to be free.

@love life
thanks for the reference however as usual it does not say what you claim. The reference is to community health centers were people can go and free or low cost care. these community health centers have existed and ran under that model for decades and have nothing to do with free health insurance through the ACA.

LoveLife
Riverton, UT

spring street:

Why then did the ACA website change the line from "Where can I get free or low-cost care in my community" to "Where can I get low-cost care in my community?".

If they are trying to get people to sign up and pay for insurance, why were they advertising free community clinics at all?

If community health centers have nothing to do with the ACA, why are they even on the ACA website?

You asked, "please provide one reputable quote of anyone that claimed or thought this was going to be "free." I gave you that-straight from the horse's mouth. Don't be so shocked when low-information voters expect their free healthcare after the website says, "Where can I get free or low-cost care in my community?"

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money"-Margaret Thatcher

LoveLife
Riverton, UT

spring street:

Ironically, the same time I was making my last comment, a new article was posted right here on DN, named, "Utah community health centers get another chunk of federal funds".

The article pretty much debunks what you wrote about the community health centers not having anything to do with the ACA.

From the article: "The Affordable Care Act, enacted in 2010, established the Community Health Center Fund that will divvy up $11 billion over a five-year period for the operation, expansion and construction of community health centers throughout the nation."

Another shocking line from the article: "In fact, health centers play a key role in implementation of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare."

So, in the ACA new money is divvied out to build more community health centers. The Obamacare website promises free healthcare via community health centers. I will stick to my original assertion that Obamacare (via the website) did indeed promise free healthcare.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

Thank you Lovelife: Socialists don't claim anything about the cost of anything because it falls under the category of 'somebody', which in essence means, it is for free. However, if you believe that charity belongs to God and individuals to perform, not government, you also believe that free markets require individual responsibility and accountability, something that socialism doesn't care about. If you want some credibility, show me who is paying for what under ACA and I'll be glad to discuss it further.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@lovelife
you are right, I was not aware they were expanding the community centers with ACA funds. While I would usually support the idea of expanding the community health centers to serve those that typically cannot access care it does make me wonder how such a model fits in with the concept of the ACA that is suppose to make insurance accessible to the people that typically would need such centers.

@banderson
I am glad you like lovelife's comments perhaps in the future you can model your comment more after theirs, presenting your opinions about the topic (not engaging in stereotyping the other) and presenting credible evidence to support it.

Gary
Federal Way, WA

The article as written was only half done, poorly written. A lot of things were left out I believe intentionally leaving more questions than answers. As you note in the article the person asked the guy if he checked with Exchanges and he said no he didn't want to. The answer is actually with checking the exchanges in your state and you will find coverage that meets your needs. All the policies being canceled is happening because they were junk policies in the first place. Get sick, end up in the hospital and you'd have to fork over the first $10,000 or more before the insurance helps out. How smart is that? No one in their mind would buy a plan like this and yet 51% of the americans did. Don't they understand math and know how to look for plans in the exchanges that we have now that can cover them much better. In other words you pay for what you get. As for socialism, that is when the government takes complete control. There is no such thing as Socialism with ACA as there are many plans to choose from by the insurance companies. You look then choose.

to comment

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