Comments about ‘Richard Davis: Obamacare not as bad as its critics say it is’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Nov. 13 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

Thank you professor Davis for a voice of reason in the tsunami of mis-information about the Affordable Healthcare Act!

Hayden, ID

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 fixed!

Ogden, UT

"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."

high school fan
Huntington, UT

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.

clearfield, UT

Hey Richard, Obamacare is not as GOOD as some are saying either.

Orem, UT

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.

Provo, UT

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.

clearfield, UT

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."

Keep in mind that nearly half of all pregnancies are unplanned.

Murray, UT

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?


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.

Steve C. Warren

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.

Salt Lake City, UT

"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. "

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

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 rarely do.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

high school fan:

Wow. Don't speak of alternate realities. Yours is about as alternate as they get.


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.

Orem, UT

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.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

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?

Federal Way, WA

"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.

Woods Cross, UT

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."

Little Rock, AR

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.

to comment

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