Comments about ‘Health care debate about presidential trust, big government and politics too’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Dec. 9 2013 7:37 p.m. MST

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

"Washington (CNN) - The public's trust in the federal government has dropped to an all-time low, according to a new national survey."
Obamacare, IRS scandals, NSA spying, Benghazi cover-ups, fast and furious debacle, massive waste, fraud and malfeasance are very difficult for any intelligent person to put their trust in!

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

The biggest of big government projects at a time when trust in our leaders is at a low point.
I can't say they don't deserve it.
It took some time for them to kill patriotism. Now they need it back and the well is dry.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

It's the health care debate. It's immoral to make it about politics.

No One Of Consequence
West Jordan, UT

"...the core question of what government should or shouldn't do for people, and how it should spend their money."

Easy answers. The federal government should not be a factor in our daily lives and it should be leaving the spending of our money, for healthcare and any other personal expenses, up to the individual.

Hutterite: "It's the health care debate. It's immoral to make it about politics."

It was always about politics, about taking power over the people, about reducing personal control and maximizing control over the individual by the government.

Beverly
Eden, UT

We currently have a "For profit" health care system. This requires health care businesses to work out strategies that generate profits for their stock holders. It does not generate good health care practices. For example, every drug commercial you see on television costs the drug company over $200,000 for a 30 second commercial. If it is prime-time, it cost over $400,000. I counted seven drug in one commercial break. In addition, each drug company sales person is paid over $100,000 a year. They are the people you see in suits at the doctor's office or hospital - walking in with a big smile. The lobbying effort from these companies is an additional expense to stop or block Obamacare. If you strip away these expenses, the cost of drugs would drop dramatically. You can buy the identical prescription drugs in Canada and Mexico for substantially less than you can in the U.S. Oh! Don't forget the cost of "For Profit" insurance companies.

FT
salt lake city, UT

The Tea Party has also played a major role in our distrust of our goverment, with their approval rating dropping to the low 20's. Discovery of Senator Lee walking away from over $400,000 in personal debt, shutting down the goverment and costing our economy over 26 Billion dollars, and ties to the nefarious Koch Brothers to name just a few.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

The writer wrote: "the core question of what government should or shouldn't do for people, and how it should spend their money."

That is the core question. Some people think that the government should spend OUR money to nanny us. Others think that the government has no authority to nanny us nor to take our money from us to nanny us. The answer to that question is found in the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. There is no "nanny" clause in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 enumerates the duties of the Federal Government, the duties that WE have authorized the government to tax us to provide. There is no "nanny" duty on that short list of 17 duties.

Americans who demand services that are not authorized are just as culpable as the politicians who fleece us to provide those services.

When Americans learn to read they will be able to read the Supreme Law of the Land.

When Americans grow up, they will handle their own personal responsibilities.

When Americans do their civic responsibility, they will elect honest politicians, politicians who uphold the Constitution.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Why does the AP insist on calling Obamacare a health care law? And why does the DN keep printing that mischaracterization. Obamacare is an INSURANCE law. Not a health care law.

We know we cannot trust BO; he has lied throughout all his misadministration.

Hutterite,
It’s an INSURANCE debate, spawned by dirty politics. It’s immoral to call it a health care debate or to say it has nothing to do with politics.

FT,
the TEA PARTY? Shooting the messenger does not change the fact that BO lied, and whole process that gave us Obamacre was shady, to say the least.

FT
salt lake city, UT

Lost in DC
I'm not shooting anyone or disputing that BO lied or mis-led us. Just pointing out that the public has also lost faith in the Tea Party who once had very strong favorability ratings and now are distrusted even more than BO. The Tea Party is more than a messanger, they are a player in our political process. Last I saw Utahn's trust and favorability of Senator Lee was on par with Americans view of BO. How can one not have a debate of big goverment and not include the Tea Party and it's leaders?

Tators
Hyrum, UT

@ Hutterite:

It's almost humorous that you're trying to convince others that healthcare is a completely different topic from the government. It used to be. But not anymore. Government is now totally intertwined with healthcare, and also the very reason so many big new issues within healthcare are arising.
And yes, the primary reason is because of this GOVERNMENT mandate.

@ FT:

As you admitted, people all around the country, regardless of political affiliation, now know they were lied to regarding Obamacare.
As such, the Tea Party is now in a “I told you so” position. More and more people are starting to realize the Tea Party was right all along. That government is already too big and yet trying to still get bigger. That government is now too intertwined in people's personal lives. And that the runaway federal deficit is dangerous to our long-term economic good. Obamacare is becoming the perfect example of how and why those things are. Tea Party has been trying to warn about those very issues all along.

All indications are that the Tea Pary will soon have a resurgence in popularity as people's eyes of understanding become more and more opened.

FT
salt lake city, UT

Tators
Not so sure I see any trend or indication that the Tea Party will have a resurgence but time will tell. The polls I've seen still have them at their lowest ratings since they came on to the political stage. Agree with you that their favorabilty ratings will probably trend, either positive or negative, with the country's opinion of Obamacare. The last national election the country has seen took place in Louisana and the Tea Party candidate lost against his GOP opponent who favored Medicaid expansion as laid out in Obamacare vs. the Tea Party candidate who opposed it. My gut tells me that the longer Obamacare stays in place the more favorable it will become. Obviously, that runs counter to what most DN posters say about the law. But then again, if what was said on these blogs came to fruition, Mitt Romney would be our President.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

@ FT:

I agree with part of what you say. Time will tell about any Tea Party resurgence. The Democrats have done a good job of putting a negative stereotype on them. And consequently a lot of people don't understand the Tea Party very well.

They basically stand for 4 primary things...
1) Less government spending and getting the runaway federal deficit under control.
2) Less government taxing.
2) A smaller government structure.
4) Less government intrusion in people's personal lives.

Personally, I can't see why any of that is not considered good. Those concepts align with the original principles of the Constitution.

BTW: From articles and comments I've read, it appears there are becoming more and more citizens who are now suffering from a form of voter's remorse... wishing they could have the past election over again, since Obama's trust level has gone down so substantially in the past year. There are a lot of independent voters who would now change their votes... and perhaps even some usually solid democrats.

And it will get worse when the employer-based insurance mandates take effect later in 2014.

EastCoastMemLib
Parkesburg, PA

Say no to BO wrote, "It took some time for them to kill patriotism. Now they need it back and the well is dry."

I agree! Let's find a country or two to invade or bomb back into the stone age. That action will surly stoke our collective patriotism.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

@ EastCoastMemLib:

Oh, come on. You can do better than that! Democrat sarcasm is starting to get so old.

However, Obama might be willing to try anything at this point... in order to take all the negative attention away from his Obamacare troubles.

Hemlock
Salt Lake City, UT

Mr. Obama has clear ideological goals - the government is the source of benefits and personal life management in retirement, medical care and other areas. That is a monumental effort and first he must gain trust by demonstrating that the government is prudent in their use of tax monies, is efficient and capable, can maintain confidences in personal information and does not depend on subterfuge to mold public opinion. Thus far things have not gone well. Without trust, he will have a difficult time.

FT
salt lake city, UT

Tators
I've seen those polls on buyer's remorse but think they're silly, akin to wondering what one's life would have been like if they would have married their high school sweetheart. In real life there are no do-overs otherwise Al Gore would have been President and Bob Bennett would still be a US Senator.
If the tea party can stay focused on the 4 primary principles you lay out they'll do much better. Problem is they continuosly noodle around with other issues like abortion, gun control, gay marriage, and climate change to name a few. When they start talking on these issues their support drastically drops off because their views fall outside the norm and they seem unwilling to compromise. Another thing is they need more appealing spokes people. Polls show a strong, personal dislike for Cruz, Lee, Palin and their other leaders. They need a fresh face, a "Yes we can" leader who appeals to the middle as well as the fringe.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

FT:

A "Yes we can" leader who actually does... spend more time leading and less time lying to pass his personal agenda and also spending trillions we don't have to spend... would certainly be a welcome change.

i genuinely hate the financial bondage we're leaving our kids and grandkids in... via our unfathomable federal deficit.

BTW: i've been around for quite a few elections and I've never seen a president's approval rating drop as low as our current one just one year after an election. It's actually quite telling. Hence, the statement about voter's remorse. It's more sad than "silly".

worf
Mcallen, TX

Trust?

* can you trust a man who takes hundreds of millions from citizens for vacations, and campaign trips?
* can you trust a man who sends billions of dollars worth of military weapons to many countries?
* who has not been truthful to our people?

mohokat
Ogden, UT

Trust, Obama, there are two words that do not go together. How about truth vs lies. Whoops that doesn't work either.Seems as though Obama just has run out of both trust and truth. If you like the truth you can't trust Obama.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

Trust Barack. Ha! Pretty funny stuff. Ever see the movie Liar Liar?

to comment

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