Published: Wednesday, Nov. 13 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
I wish those who scream negative comments about Obamacare would watch Michael
Moore's "Sicko." In fact it wouldn't hurt the D-News
editorial writers to have a look at it. That film was NOT about the uninsured,
bur rather it was about people whose health insurance had failed them - it was
about bad insurance. But I have little doubt that the screamers won't look
at anything which might shake their views.
Thank you professor Davis for a voice of reason in the tsunami of
mis-information about the Affordable Healthcare Act!
Obamacare can not be "fixed". Are liberals really pro choice? Except you
can't choose to keep your healthcare insurance if they don't like it!
Except you can't choose your doctor, if they don't like him/her.
Except you can't eat what you want to if they don't like it. Except
you can't drink a soft drink, if they don't like it. Except you
can't choose to defend your self, if they don't like it. Only liberals
are allowed to choose what's best for you, not you! Obamacare will never be
"Perhaps he was unaware how many policies would be affected". With that
it is evident this is another carry obamas water piece. Mr. Davis read page
34552 of the Federal Register and then say again he was unaware. "The
Departments mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45
percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the
end of 2013 wrote the administration on page 34552. All in all, more than half
of employer-sponsored plans will lose their grandfather status and get canceled.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans more than
half the population was covered by employer-sponsored insurance."
The author clearly lives in an alternate reality if he believes anything good
will come from this bill. First, the government should not be making these
decisions for everybody just ask those on Medicare or Medicaid already. These
two programs already covered the old and the poor so who was left without
coverage, those who didn't want to pay the price.Second, no matter
how honorable the idea might be, we still do not have the money to pay for it.
Finally, personal responsibility has to have a role here, people need to care
for themselves and to provide for themselves.
Hey Richard, Obamacare is not as GOOD as some are saying either.
This article is yet another in a long line of "government knows better than
you do what is good for you". Welcome to the new land of liberty and choice
- NOT!Sure, some people bought policies that may not have covered
what they thought they covered. But I would say most of these
"substandard" policies are exactly what the people who bought them
wanted.I have an old car that I only drive once in a while. If it
was totaled in a wreck (and no one was hurt), it wouldn't be the end of the
world. I don't want or need full coverage insurance on it. I just want the
basic liability coverage. I don't want some government bureaucrat
deciding that I can't buy that and I need to buy a new expensive policy
that covers oil changes, new tires, and car washes.
Please, what a load of bull. 1) Obamacare was written to draw the
line at grandfathered clauses as narrowly as possible. They DELIBERATELY killed
as many plans as they could.2) People's plans are
"substandard" because, shockingly enough, health care plans for men
didn't include maternity coverage. If you are male and your current plan
doesn't have maternity coverage for you (I guess you need it, right--the
chances of using it are so high!)-your plan is gone too. This happens to all
the business offered plans as well, next year. If you like your health
insurance plan, you won't be able to keep it. Or your doctor. Or your
hospital. 3) The entire bull about "Better and Cheaper"
plans. Really? Outside of a few chronically ill people, the vast majority of
plans are more expensive and cover stuff most people don't need. How many
60 year olds need maternity and newborn care? As for subsidies…. you
can't get one unless you sign up through healthcare.gov. Which, as we all
know, does not and won't work. So no one is getting subsidies. either.
Watching the argument on this federal medical care program, along with the
debate going on about same sex marriage, makes me more than ever appreciate why
there are 50 states and not just one national government. Most of these
personal issues like marriage and health care should be left to state choice
first, and federal government 2nd, if at all. However it would seem most
liberals want federal government first, and to completely ignore any states
rights (granted in the constituion) and just go with all federal regulation on
all matters, no matter how trivial or local. A system like that just does not
work. The European Union for instance has say so about playground regulations
on schools in all of the countries in Europe. Do I need to bring up how the
Soviet system crumbled under the attempt to regulate a huge country from a
centralized government? We need to get back to the system of states, and not
the federal government regulating more of American life. Our country has become
too big for only one point of view to prevail.
"People's plans are "substandard" because, shockingly enough,
health care plans for men didn't include maternity coverage."Our family is covered by a plan offered by an employer. There is no
"men's plan" or "women's plan." The males and females
in our household have the same coverage. However, "individual
health insurance policies generally don't cover maternity care, as an
investigation by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce reported. In a memo
outlining its findings based on responses from the four largest for-profit
health insurers -- Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint -- the
committee reported that most individual policies at those companies didn't
cover most of the expenses for a normal delivery. The problems
don't stop there. If a woman is pregnant and applies for coverage in the
individual market, insurers generally consider her pregnancy a preexisting
medical condition and deny coverage. The Energy and Commerce Committee
investigation also found that insurers sometimes denied coverage to expectant
fathers and those who were in the process of adoption."(Kaiser) Keep in mind that nearly half of all pregnancies are unplanned.
My daughter has a child with, shall we say, medical needs. For the last 4 years
she and her husband have maxed out, their out of pocket insurance, and have
averaged having half their income go to premiums and medical expenses. They live
on very little. So Obamacare to the rescue, right? Wrong!!!!!They will pay more money out of pocket next year, even
with the subsidies. Talk about a hidden tax on the poor! But then that is what Obamacare was intended for, a new tax and more power to
the democrats in power. It was never meant to help people with health problems.
The whole program was a lie. So of course the president had to lie
about it.I thank God for Shriners, Primary Children's, St Jude,
etc. I hope the ACA doesn't outlaw them helping people who can't
afford to pay, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Maybe their care will
be deemed "junk care" by the government, but I am sure the patients will
tell you otherwise.I doubt anyone out there is thanking God for the
ACA. Entitled mentality people usually aren't grateful, or religious.
Another excellent op-ed by Richard Davis. Thanks for putting this into
perspective. It appears that the ACA will slowly make junk health insurance a
thing of the past, something that is very good for America.
@BadgerBadger"They will pay more money out of pocket next year, even
with the subsidies."Nonsense, Obamacare specifically
prohibiits a percentage as high as "half your income" being used for
healthcare costs. The very article we're commenting on says what the limit
is." The law now says a company cannot force an individual to
make out-of-pocket expenses above $6, 350. "
The “Obama lied” arguments are just silly. They are akin to the
government requiring auto makers to meet minimum safety standards and then
people going ballistic because Ford was forced to recall all their Pintos.And the idea that prior to Obamacare, policy cancellations were unheard
of in the industry is ludicrous. They happened often and in droves – the
only difference is now they are happening for the right reasons and will likely
slow dramatically after this first wave (in order to get all policies up to
par).But these facts won’t assuage the haters… facts
high school fan:Wow. Don't speak of alternate realities. Yours
is about as alternate as they get.Badgerbadger:Speaking
of hidden taxes on the poor, I thought you were a conservative. All your
comments lean strongly in that direction. Which means you should only be
concerned about overtaxing the rich. Heck, if a bill can get a few of those lazy
47 percenters to start paying some taxes, that's a good thing. Or am I
misunderstanding conservative economics? Well, no, I'm not. You can't
have it both ways.
Truthseeker: So what you are saying is that if I decided that I did not want
maternity care coverage in my health plan (I didn't plan on having
children, or even if I did I planned on 'gasp' - paying for it out of
my own pocket) then I should not be able to buy that policy. Period. Right??? I
should not have that choice?Same with a whole host of other possible
medical conditions that I might not want coverage for. Life is a risk. I buy
insurance for the things I could not afford to lose after assessing the risk. My
house is covered for fire, but not for floods (I live on a hill, away from
possible flash floods). I don't expect insurance to cover everything that
could ever possibly happen or to cover stuff that I could easily replace.Personally, I like being able to choose what risks I am willing to take
and what I want insurance to cover. I don't like some federal bureaucrat
deciding for me what I have to buy. You might like all of your life's
decisions made for you by someone else, but I do not.
More for high school fan to think about:So, if I cannot find a
decent job in this top-heavy economy, and I am employed either part time or full
time with low wages and no benefits, what happens if I get cancer or MS or get
in an accident and am paralyzed? Or what if I get an antibiotic-resistant
infection in my foot and can't afford to go to even the doctor? You say
"people need to care for themselves and to provide for themselves," but
what if I can't? Are you just going to tell me to go somewhere and die
quietly where you won't have to see it and feel guilty? Please
explain this individualist ethic you're promoting. Please tell me how this
form of economic Darwinism plays out in your reality. You're obviously
promoting Herbert Spencer's "survival of the fittest" as a
blueprint for our society. How exactly does that work in the real world? Would
you really like to live in the society you're promoting?
"those who received cancellation notices likely will have more options for
better and cheaper coverage than they do now." Nothing could be further
from the truth. Individuals will have fewer options, pay more and have higher
deductibles. Sounds like the author is parroting DNC talking points.
My frustration with this whole thing is the idea that the government has
determined that these people are being cheated by the insurance companies. The
policies are "sub-par." I guess that depends on what you want. For
example, the author mentions that many of these policies being cancelled
didn't offer maternity coverage. Well, if I'm a single man I
don't think I want to pay extra for that. Or even when my wife and I were
first married and in school, we had no money. We were required to get health
insurance to be enrolled in school. So, we got a bare-bones plan through the
school that did NOT have maternity coverage. We could afford it. When we decided
we were ready to have a baby we switched to the much more expensive plan with
maternity coverage. We paid the higher premiums while she was pregnant and had
the baby. As soon as open enrollment came again after the baby we downgraded
again. We paid for the coverage we wanted. Now the government has us pay for
what the government believes is "right."
re: "These are all good changes. They force insurance companies to cover
essential health benefits such as prescription drugs, maternity and newborn
care, hospitalization, and mental health services. Now, insurance policies
cannot market policies to people supposedly offering them coverage that will not
actually cover them."This is simply not a factual statement.
Forcing insurance companies to cover prescription drugs for persons who
don't need or want that coverage is not a "good change". Requiring people to buy coverage they don't need means that more people
will simply opt out of having coverage at all which presumably is not a
"good change".The comment that the changes are "all
good" is not very thoughtful. There is plenty of "bad" that is
difficult to miss unless one simply turns his or her head to it.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments