Comments about ‘Letter: Health insurance’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Oct. 29 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

"According to NBC News, approximately 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million Americans who buy their insurance individually should expect to receive a cancellation letter over the next year."

Oh boy we caught BO in a lie. Simple minds looking for simple solutions..or simple talking points.

The projection comes from the grandfathering clause of the law. If you had individual purchased insurance in 2010 your plan was exempt from many of the ACA requirements going forward. However..because the individual policy market has a high turnover rate in both participants and plan details, many of the new individual plans don't meet ACA standards and will have to change.

So, the ACA is not "causing/forcing" the 14 million people who had individual policies in 2010 to lose their policies. If however you have changed our policy or have entered that market since 2010 (knowing full well the consequences) your policy will have to comply.

HaHaHaHa
Othello, WA

Very nice Forrest

limiting my free speech, doesn't change the color of your nose! Yeah we get it your part of the 47% or your friend is or your kid is, just waiting around for all the free stuff santa barry is going to bring you. That is the only side of the equation you look at. Covering the cost of theft makes me spend $1000 more at the grocery store every year. The government subsidizing my 47% neighbor's rent down the street, makes my rent $2000 every year so what is your point? The difference is private market decision, and public FORCED purchasing. Your a big government guy, thinking its their job to make life fair.
I would love to bet you on your ER scenario. I will lay odds that your precious obamacare will not change the ER situation one bit. Going to be funny watching all those who couldn't afford insurance before, get left with 10 grand of "out of pocket" healthcare expenses, just because the have insurance now, and got their "foot in the door"!
I

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

So HaHa.. now they're left with 10 grand in out of pocket rather than the whole 100,000. Or do you recommend that they just blow off the whole "got my foot in the door" and stick you with the entire 100 grand?

Either you think everyone should have access to health care, and everyone should pay for that access or you think, only those who can afford access should have that access, or you think everyone should have access and only some should pay (I'm leaving out everyone should pay and some should have access). You choose. Once you choose then tell me how you are going to do it and why it's moral.

HaHaHaHa
Othello, WA

@ pragmatist

Why on earth would you, in all your genius, ever think my moral is going to match up with your moral? Why do you lay out a 100K scenario? Why not 1 million? Does that make a difference to you? is 100K a moral procedure that requires coverage, but 1 mill is a limit that goes beyond your morality requirements? ....or do you have an unlimited price on moral welfare requirements?
Referring again to your question above: what makes you think the patient receiving free insurance, because he couldn't afford it pre obamacare, is more likely to pay the 10K then the 100K. I say he is going to pay neither. He is just as likely to claim bankruptcy from the smaller amount as he is the larger amount, so what have you really solved? Either way we get stuck with the whole amount, because it really comes down to a pool of free handout public money.
Going back to your morality, I say life isn't fair. Some are going to die when other live. Even with your precious obamacare, there will still be injustices involved. You've solved NOTHING!

to comment

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