@Tyler Ray"Obama promises to cut deficit in half. Literally does the
opposite."Actually with this years' projected deficit of
700 billion, that is almost a cut in half from the 2009 deficit. You're
confusing deficit with national debt. "Promised to reform
immigration policy."Tell Boehner to vote on schedule a vote on
the senate bill..."IRS Targeting Conservative groups- No
clue."They targeted liberal groups too, in fact a liberal group
was the only one to get its tax exempt status revoked."He says
you can keep your insurance, he says this will help the poorOops, I guess
you can't keep your insurance."The subsidies do help the
poor. The Republicans wanted to get rid of those by defunding it. The vast
majority of people can keep their insurance, the ones being thrown off it can
find plans on the exchanges that are basically the same, or they had junk
policies that were no good trash as soon as anyone got sick.
Health care and health insurance are two different issues. Many people have
relied on health insurance to help cover the cost of their health care. Some
have not. Some people find the cost of health care - especially in times of
health crisis - to be overwhelming. Some are forced into bankruptcy because the
cost of health insurance didn't seem to be worth the risk. If everyone is
forced into buying health INSURANCE, the risk is spread over a greater
population, with a more likely lowering of the cost of health INSURANCE. I
don't think that having more money to pay health CARE will necessarily
drive down the cost of health CARE. The costs of health CARE may continue to
increase, based upon other factors.Government mandated health
INSURANCE is a scam. Those who claim that insurance companies are greedy and are
ripping them off deserve to see the consequences of socialized ripping-off of
those who entrust their health CARE to a governmental bureaucracy. Be careful
what you wish for, you may get it.
Obamacare may not be as bad as critics say - but it doesn't matter. It is
far far far far worse than supporters promised. That is the only salable fact
Personally I think (but have no proof) that when the insurers issued these non
grandfathered often junk health insurance policies, they knew full well that
they would have to be cancelled and that the cancellation notices that were sent
out would quickly become public to contradict the president's "you can
keep it" promise and create a political conundrum. It must not be forgotten
that the insurance companies were doing very well under the old system and had
to be brought kicking and screaming to the ACA. And now, bought and paid for
politicians are paying the debt they owe to them.
Re: "Check the exchange. Don't just tell everyone you did because you
hate Obama, then quote the price you got from your insurance company, and say
it's the exchange price. Thanks Obama!"You should be
thanking me.My premiums jumped nearly 400%, so yours could be
subsidized.Thanks, Obama. And vitaminfrog.
Let's just looks at some events of this presidency.Obama
promises to cut deficit in half. Literally does the opposite.Promised to
reform immigration policy.Benghazi, he says he knew nothing about it. He
said he found out on the nightly news.IRS Targeting Conservative groups-
No clue.He says you can keep your insurance, he says this will help the
poorOops, I guess you can't keep your insurance.He delivers his
terrible apology.All in all you have an imcompetent, dishonest,
disengenuine, socialist president.
airnaut (3:11 p.m.),I expect the government to fulfill its promises.
I had no choice about paying into Social Security and Medicare. The government
forced me to participate. Everyone who has been forced to pay for promised
services has the RIGHT to receive what he has paid for.You may want
to give someone else your benefits. You may be able to live off your savings.
My savings are the payments that I made to Social Security. The government left
nothing for me to invest. After paying 15% (yes, the full share) all of my
life, the government took money from me to pay for their Ponzi scheme. It
appears that you're in favor of them taking another 18% from your gross
income to create another Ponzi scheme.How many times will you be
forced to pay for something that will be spent and replaced with I.O.U.s before
you learn that government borrows money from China to pay for the services that
@Joe(I didn't plan on having children, or even if I did I planned on
'gasp' - paying for it out of my own pocket)Ok, So how is that a
straw man argument? If you plan on paying for a baby on your own the cost will
somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000. Let's pretend you can pay that on your
own(most people can't, but i'll assume you've done well for
yourself.) What happens if the baby is born 2 months early? Most of the time a
baby will be in the NICU until around their original due date. That's at
least another $30,000 worth of hospital/doctor bills. If you don't pay
them, because you didn't chose insurance(and again, even if you personally
could pay, most people can't), me, and every other insured person pays that
bill in increased hospital rates and premiums. Or the hospital lets those who
can't pay die. Joe, either we mandate payment for services upfront or
everyone needs some sort of coverage. The system you propose isn't working,
and hasn't for a long time. If not Obamacare what's your solution?
Obama has lied 5 times about people being able to keep their insurance plans.
What makes you think he is telling the truth now?
@ patriotYou got it exactly right. I recently watched a speech Bush
delivered to congress after 9/11. It was genuine and patriotic. He even called
key democrats his friends and thanked them. Oprah and other media members always
try to get Bush to badmouth Obama. He never has taken the bait.Compare that to Obama's so called "Apology" for misleading the
people about keeping their insurance. The only apology Obama has made is to
other countries for being American.Bush may not have been the
smartest president, nor did he make all the right decisions, but he showed more
class than Obama ever could.
Obamacare is a failure. They announced another "delay" until after 2014
for the individual mandate. How many "delays" do there have to be before
this thing gets repealed. They just did this so it takes place after the midterm
i was a democratic voter until Obama lied and wanted for me to pay for pack a
day smokers and could keep the insurance I had and I have already checked after
obama's new speach that price has increased and is still effected by the
ACA of which i supported and had high hopes for. I for one have read much of the
act which has taken 87 hours and i am not done if my opinion does not count no
american's should and i am changing from a registered democrat to
independant leaning toward republican due 100%to the ACA and what has happened
to my family due to it.
I get it that some plans are not so good. I get it that some insurance
companies lie and cheat the consumers.But why are the state
insurance commissioners not capable of dealing with that stuff? Why does this
have to be a federal government issue, and why do we need a
"one-size-fits-all" approach?I don't think this
adequately explains why the State Governments are not in a better position to
deal with the issues of insurance problems.
Change is hard and propaganda works. Now were Romney and Newt
communists plotters when they came up with mandatory health insurance as a plan?
The new conservatives (neocons), Tea-party if you will, can't
even agree with the conservative ideas from 20 years ago.
Wow, could the author use anymore of the WH talking points or does he just get
his stories written there and forwarded to him? Nobody has even seemed to ask
if there is any legal authority in the ACA for the President to arbitrarily,
under his authority, change the date of enrollment?This is still
going to create all kinds of problems for insurers trying to figure how many
other features will arbitrarily change when the President figures his poll
numbers are so low he has to unilaterally do something. I'm sure that the
President just lost a whole bunch of supporter from executives from insurance
companies that now have to re-instate policies the law told them to cancel.
Also, how many of those re-instated policies will have their premiums raised.
How many folks will not be able to afford the re-instated policies? This is the
most gigantic load of manure ever foisted on the American people since Nixon and
Richard Davis: Waterboy for the Progressives, BYU Professor.Wow.
EvetsEagle Mountain, UTDr. Davis:I can't believe
you teach at BYU and yet in this article you support a plan that takes away our
right to choose.Freedom of choice is a God given right and as many
have stated their rights have been infringed upon by taking away their choice
because government knows best.========== So then, You are for a woman's right to choose, legalization of marijuana,
and Gay Marriage then?Because I really don't care much
I LOVE OBAMACARE!!! Our household has been purchasing our own health insurance
for the last 5 years since my husband became self-employed. We have had to pay a
small fortune to receive the kind of coverage we had previously received through
group-based employer plans. We had to sacrifice a lot of things to afford this
insurance but we were fortunate enough to be able to do so. I always worried
what would happen if business went down and we could no longer afford the
insurance everyone needs. On the day the website opened up, we registered for an
almost identical Blue Cross plan with excellent coverage at a savings of about
$8000 per year for our family. We had very little trouble purchasing our
coverage online. Self-employed people who are not eligible for group rates will
definitely benefit from OBAMACARE.
EvetsEagle Mountain, UTDr. Davis:I can't believe you
teach at BYU and yet in this article you support a plan that takes away our
right to choose. Maybe I can, BYU has changed a lot since I graduated. ============ 1. You do not have the right to choose (not to have
adequate insurance) and make those of us who do pay for it.2. If you
have to right to live, you have the right to die. The problem is, our
Constitution requires our Government to choose your right life for you when you
can't. So, the only way you can truely opt out of taking personal
resonsibility and opting out is to tatoo a big old "Do Not Assist, Do Not
Help, Do Not Resesitate" across your chest so when help arrives, they know
you did not participate or pay for their help -- you wanted Government out of
your life, so you'll get it.3. BYU hasn't changed, you
Dr. Davis:I can't believe you teach at BYU and yet in this article
you support a plan that takes away our right to choose. Maybe I can, BYU has
changed a lot since I graduated. Freedom of choice is a God given right and as
many have stated their rights have been infringed upon by taking away their
choice because government knows best.BTW your comparison to making car
manufactures put in seat belts does not fly because when seatbelts were required
the government still allowed one to use his old car without them. I am sure
there are some still being driven around today. And I am sure those old cars
serve there owners well for their specific need.
"First, these were private policies individuals bought since 2010 because
their employer did not provide coverage."This is not entirely
true. Any plan purchased and in effect prior to 2010 that had even the smallest
changes no longer qualified.And if the employer mandate had not been
delayed, we would be seeing about 70 to 120 million cancellations of employer
based policies as well, just as was predicted by the CBO in 2010. Else why do
you think Obama gave them a year reprieve. Out of the goodness of his heart or
because he wanted what is best for businesses? Hardly. He did it because the
pain of loss combined with those who are losing their plans now would have
produced riots in the streets."Not so bad"? You cannot be
serious. Making such an argument after what we have seen and learned about this
disaster is beyond rediculous, it's deliberately ignorant and designed to
prop up the Chosen One. Can you honestly believe that those people
with cancer and other serious illness are going to find a policy they can afford
when they lose their existing coverage? Can you be that naive and callous?
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahWho wants ObamaCare?[A:
Capitalists -- your buddies in the Insurance companies and Wallstreet]Who doesn't want ObamaCare? The Republicans don't want it.
[Not true, it was their idea]59% of the people didn't want it.
[Count me in that -- I want a Single Payer Public Option, just like saw in
Belgium.]Those who take personal responsibility for their personal
welfare don't want it. [The problem is those who did not take
responsibility are costing those of us who do, That is why there is now the
mandate.]BTW -- I'm curious, since you claim that Social
Secuiryt and Medicare are not "Constitutional" -- are you still
planning on drinking from the public trough?
Wow. If you stop Obama-hating you might see the positives.I was
insuranceless for 10 years after a car accident that was not my fault. My leg
did not heal correctly, and became a "pre-existing condition"(even
though I desired no care for my leg). $900 a month for a policy. So, I
didn't buy insurance. Now I'm 33. My site is CoveredCalifornia. I
tried creating an account several times. On October 17, bingo. Ecstatic. Bronze
plans started at $1, but chose a Blue Shield PPO Silver 94 plan for $53. NO
deductable. Highest copay $7. Turn off Hannity and Limbaugh. You don't have
to take my word. Go to the site. Without creating an account, calculate 33 year
old male, income $16,800. You will see my plan.Everyone is
complaining that they don't need maternity care, etc. If people don't
use those required benefits due to their sex, etc, as you all say, it will NOT
have a big impact on the price of insurance. Check the exchange.
Don't just tell everyone you did because you hate Obama, then quote the
price you got from your insurance company, and say it's the exchange
It is evident by his statements that Richard Davis is more a professor of
political science Fiction than of political science .. but one cannot expect
more from Davis .. he is simply following the lead of his beloved president by
adhering to the beliefs and principles of this president and the democratic
party, all of whom cherish their number one goal of " From each according to
his ability, to each according to his need " ..
All you have to do is see the lobbyist parties that wrote the law to see who
will benefit from it. Who in the health care industry under this law takes a
cut. No one. Then you have added the extra government red tape and oversight
into it. That costs money for both sides, the government and the healthcare
industry.Insurance companies do not drive costs down. They are not
in business to lose money thus adds more cost to the system. The low users pay
more for the high users of the system. We need more doctors, nurses
and hospitals to help drive the costs down. It is about supply and demand.
Hospital corporations don't want to see more doctors and nurses and
hospitals in the system, it would drive profits down. So it does
nothing to help lower the cost of medical treatment but raises it, therefore it
has to cost the people more in insurance premiums and in taxes. It is simple
economics. Simple math if the cost(C) stays the same and (A) pays
less then (B) has to pays more to equal out. C=A+BAffordable I say
"My heart sank when I got an email late last month from my friend Robert,
who has been battling multiple sclerosis for the past decade. He wrote to tell
me that he was among the many Americans who in recent weeks received letters
from their insurance companies saying that their policies won’t be
available next year.Insurance companies are sending those letters
primarily because the policies they will no longer offer don’t provide
enough coverage — or have deductibles that are too high — to comply
with the Affordable Care Act. In MANY cases, however, the policyholders getting
those letters are simply victims of a business practice insurers have engaged in
for years: discontinuing policies because they’re no longer
"sufficiently" profitable. Robert understandably was
worried. Considering his very serious and costly preexisting condition —
his medications alone cost more than $5,000 a month — Robert was nervous
as he started looking for a replacement policy. How much more would he have to
pay to stay insured?Robert could barely believe what he heard: he
could get better coverage than the policy being discontinued — and pay
less — thanks to Obamacare."(Wendell Potter)
It's a bit discouraging to learn that BYU is now populated with professors
who buy into the "collective" mentality of the Democrat party. The
self-reliant pioneers who settled Utah must be turning over in their graves. The
President lied. Are you saying professor that if the truth about what is
happening now was shared with the American people in 2010 that the law would
have passed? Are there "bad" policies out there? Sure. But wouldn't
it have made more sense to come up with a program to help this small population
of people rather than a complete takeover of the US health care system by
politicians who know nothing about building a simple e-commerce website much
less health care?
I have government insurance, Medicare, and love it, you should have it too. It
would cut out the middleman of the health insurance industry that drives costs
up 15-20%/year, making it difficult for exporters of American made goods to
compete on the world market. Leeches on society, must be removed.
Who wants ObamaCare? The Democrats want it. They want any program that
"gives" money to the voters, even if they have to borrow that money from
China. Obama wants it. He's from Chicago where he's very familiar
with "insurance" and so is every shopkeeper in that city. Those who
want someone else to pay for their personal welfare want it. They don't
care who pay as long as it is someone outside their household.Who
doesn't want ObamaCare? The Republicans don't want it. Not one of
them voted for it. The States don't want it. 59% of the people
didn't want it. Those who take personal responsibility for their personal
welfare don't want it. No matter what the rhetoric presented
from Obama and his followers. ObamaCare is not what was promised and it never
will be what was promised. It needs to be removed completely until it is fixed
and then, after everyone knows exactly what ObamaCare is and how it will affect
each of us, then it can be voted on. Obama knows that it would never pass again
if he had to be truthful about it.
Re:VivalaMigraSounds like the insurance company or someone is
jerking you around. Premium increases do not result in a loss of
grandfather status.BUT, significant increases in deductibles will.
An individual and/or family deductible or out-of-pocket maximum cannot be
increased by more than a percent equal to medical inflation + 15%. My guess is that the insurance carrier is just looking for more profits. More information can be found at Cigna's "Grandfathered health
plan provisions FACT SHEET."
The right wingers were going to find something to screech about anyway when ACA
launched. Rational presentations like this article mean nothing to them. That
said, the website fiasco and Obama's failure to explain IN ADVANCE what
people with inadequate coverage could expect to happen, has played into tea
party hands. I would anticipate another government shutdown in January by an
emboldened tea party.
higvDietrich, IDWhat right does the government have to tell an
insurance company what to do? They are private businesses and up to them to
decide...7:39 a.m. Nov. 14, 2013==========What right does the government have to tell -- a Food companyan Import companyan automobile manufacturera Constrution
companya Explosives companya Mining companya Resturanta
Hazerdous Waste ompanya Broadcasting companya Drug companya
Chemical company ...what to do?They are private businesses and
up to them to decide...---Do you see how that works?
What right does the government have to tell an insurance company what to do?
They are private businesses and up to them to decide if they cover pre existing
conditions. MAny will go broke if they do. Government is causing many of them
to go out of business. A business should be able to decide how to run not
Wait until it gets loaded down with 10 to 15 million Mexicans getting subsidized
by Americans roped into their support.
This is the reason I don't donate to BYU. Davis is a Democrat party
operative masquerading as a professor at BYU.
Professor Davis would not be speaking so charitably if he faced cancellation of
his medical insurance. Working for a university, he probably won't have to
deal with it, but chances are that half of the people living in his neighborhood
will. Perhaps Deseret News could invite a few of Mr. Davis' less fortunate
neighbors to pen op-ed columns in a few months.
I suggest this BYU professor leave the academic bubble and see what is happening
in the real world.For the past 6 years, I've worked at a small
company which has offered insurance plans fully compliant with the ACA
regulations. Because of slight premium inflation, they were deemed to have lost
their grandfather status, so they are being replaced in 2014 with new plans.
These plans offer the exact same medical benefits, but the deductibles are all
twice what they were. The premiums are also much higher, anywhere
from 200 - 600 percent more, depending on the age and family size of the
employee. In other words, instead of paying around $250 per month for a family
plan, some have to pay up to $1200 per month. The ironic part is one
of the main arguments made by the Obamacare proponents is that it's unfair
to have unhealthy or sick people pay more for coverage than the young and
healthy. In order to achieve this they are destroying the previously uniform
rates offered by employers to all employees. In all of the years I've
worked, I've never seen an employer charge employees differently for the
same plan, until now.
@BadgerBadgerFor a family making around 50k the most their premiums are
allowed to be, under Obamacare, is around 9% of income. There's no lifetime
or annual caps under Obamacare which you say they're running into under
their old plan. There's no ability under Obamacare for insurance companies
to drop people due to pre-existing conditions but there is in the previous
system your relatives would be subject to.And you know how I know
I'm right that your relatives will pay less? For weeks now and even in this
thread conservatives have been complaining that the mandate just forces healthy
people to have to pay more just to cover the others who are sick. Those sick
people are your relatives. It is literally impossible for Obamacare to harm
every single person and even conservatives concede that, so they claim that the
only people this helps are a small number that are very sick. You claim not even
those are helped. So I guess we're in a magical fantasy world where we can
spend billions of dollars on subsidized care and somehow things get worse for
everyone? That's nonsense.
While it may be true that the recent revelations about obamacare mean that it
isn't so bad, the fact is that: what is finally coming to light will pale
in comparison to the really ugly sides of this "health" plan. This is
nothing less than the biggest intrusion by the feds in our lives. It is the
Titanic of government promises. It is so far beyond the competency level of any
organization, especially the federal government, that one can only wonder how we
let it get this far. There is not one significant federal program that is under
budget. This complete implimention of this plan would make the other expenses
seem trite in comparison.
All I remember is that people have been complainining for decades that Insurance
Co. sold/offered contracts that were NOT good policies and that there should be
"LAWS to change it" and the gubment should restrict ..blah blah blah....
now the US is trying to fix the situation and everybody is complaining blah blah
blah..We can go into war on a wink and a nod but heaven forbid changes and
updates to health care industry
When I first heard "affordable" was being addressed --- I thought that
they were going to do something about the MD shortage -- like streamline the
production line. A US trained physician is probably about middle
aged before he earns that first nickel that he can call his own. And we wonder
why doctors are so danged expensive. Consider that Bachelor degree
(higher is better) non-medical degree preferred is needed to get through the
screening for medical school. Special entrance exams to pay for; application
fees to pay for; minimum of 4 more years for bare-bones GP; more for specialty.
Did you know that family practice is a specialty? After graduating, he needs to
get matched for a few additional years of hands-on-experience under supervision
as intern/ resident. There are some that don't get placed.
Then he gets to take (and pay for) the assorted liscencing exams before he can
practice on his own. Add basic equipment, liabilty insurance, technical staff to
deal with bureacratic requirements And those years of student
loans have been quietly ticking away, building interest.The ACA does
*nothing* to address affordability. Everything about it drives costs higher.
The really bad part has been delayed to next year: the massive increase in cost
for employer paid health plans. Healthcare costs already consume $1 out of
every $5 the economy produces or twice as much as any other country. This
little bit of collusion between the healthcare industry and the government will
make that number grow faster than ever. Making our healthcare more unaffordable
than ever is not "reform".
Want to know why Obamacare is a bad idea?1) It's too expensive.
It will excessively burden tax-paying Americans (thanks, you 53% who pay zilcho
to keep our country running). It will make the cost over-runs of Medicare and
Medicaid (waaaaay into the $$$billions since implemented) look like an 8-yr
old's tea party. As a nation we are over $17 trillion in debt. That, my
friends, is the equivalent of 17,000 billions. Do the math yourself. 17,000
BILLIONS. That isn't chump change.2) It's all about
force, ie, it limits free agency.Case closed.
How do I know Obamacare is as bad as I think? Because of recent headlines:11/13/13:"Obamacare is in much more trouble than it was one
week ago" Washington Post, Ezra Klein "Democratic Unity On
Obamacare Is Collapsing"-Business Insider"Editorial:
Prognosis for Obamacare isn't improving" Chicago Tribune"White House fires up its Obamacare spin machine"-Politico"Reid calls special ObamaCare meeting" -The Hill"Dem
Senator: IPAB Needs to Be Revisited"-CSpan, video at Washington Free
Beacon"Low Obamacare enrollment figures turns up heat on White
House" Reuters"Officials Say They Don’t Know Cost of
Health Website Fixes" NY Times"Doubts about HealthCare.gov
repair date" Politico11/12/13:"Bill Clinton says Obama
should honor health care promise"-CBS "Poll: Obama approval
ratings drop, Americans say he's not trustworthy"-CNN"Dems to White House: Fix Obamacare, and fast"-Washington Post11/11/13:"Memo warned of "limitless" security risks
for HealthCare.gov"-CBS"Who counts as an Obamacare enrollee?
The Obama administration settles on a definition." Washington Post"WH Count of Obamacare Enrollees Will Include Those Who Haven’t
Bought, Paid For Plans"-National Review
Mr. Davis reminds me a lot of the folks who denied, denied, denied (til the day
he left office)that Richard Nixon did anything wrong.I suppose Mr.
Davis deserves a couple of "up" votes for his loyalty to EVERYTHING
Obama, but the fact is, Obamacare is unsustainable, and, if allowed to stand,
will ruin most Americans financially.
Are you joking me? More than 4 million people lose their plans, the government
sets up a huge failure of a website and hires convicts as "navigators"
to whom we should pass our financial information and Social Security numbers and
we should all be OK with that? We should be OK with raising premiums that we
can't afford because Obama's economy stinks and the middle class is
shrinking while the lower class grows?
Re:Badgerbadger"There is another sibling that will probably reach his
maximum as well, even though he doesn't suffer from a lifelong disability.
He has maxed out every year since he was born, 4 years now (has a G-tube).
Hopefully next year will be the last time, but who really knows."My understanding is that:ACA eliminates yearly and lifetime caps.
Therefore, once someone has fulfilled their deductible (ACA covers one
preventive visit/yr with no co-pay and 2 additional visits with a small co-pay
even for the cheapest plan) their insurance plan will continue to cover a
certain percentage of costs (amt varies according to bronze/silver/gold/platinum
plan) without regard to yearly or lifetime maximums. How much has
your sibling had to pay out-of-pocket when he maxed out every year pre-ACA?
Are you kidding me? For you to make such an outrageous comment that Obamacare
isn't that bad ought to be a warning to anyone who in the past has trusted
your judgement. People really need to think on their own rather than
trust a big-government, end-all do-all progressive. America
succeeded for many years because of a limited government by the people. The
recent unraveling of America is a reflection of incompetent governance. I
thought Jimmy Carter was bad. Now, in comparison to our current president, he
was a genius.
Mr Davis, most people across the country aren't buying your view point,
besides, the Obummer disaster is just beginning. The crushing cost of it all
turn will turn it into the biggest financial disaster in world history. Obama
has defrauded the American people, and if it were you or I telling those kinds
of lies, we would end up in the clink for a long long time. Wait until 2014 when
it hits businesses. It's about Freedom to choose what you want in life Mr.
Davis, Freedom! That may be a strange concept for you, but not me.
It definitely is not as bad.....it is so much worse !
It's nice to see the Deseret News run a more balanced assessment than what
I'm used to from some of the syndicated columns that are regular features
here. The defunct Rocky Mountain News that I grew up with had as its front page
motto "Give light and the people will find their own way".
@SCfan – “Thanks again for clearing all that up for the rest of us
Tyler.”Sure thing… glad I could help. I know it’s
challenging what with all the spin-based media out there, so feel free to ask me
for clarification anytime that cognitive dissonance gets a bit too shaky.[sarcasm off]Actually think you make a legitimate point
about state vs. federal authority and we might be better off if experiments with
different healthcare systems were left to the states (i.e., and reap the
benefits of best practices). But it raises the question – why
weren’t states (with the exception of MA) trying new approaches to bring
down costs and cover more people? They’ve had decades with little to
show.Second, the Interstate Commerce Clause seems to grant some
measure of authority to the Feds unless each state can be allowed to restrict
interstate commerce of everything from medical equipment to insurance as they
see fit… otherwise they would be powerless against other states
undercutting their efforts and we would just see a race to the bottom (e.g., why
selling insurance across state lines is problematic).
Noodlekaboodle: Are you serious? What kind of a question is that???No hospital is going to let my newborn child die if I didn't have
maternity coverage (or a certified check for any amount). Thousands of kids are
born every year in this country to people with no insurance coverage
whatsoever.If I'm not mistaken, maternity coverage is to cover
the costs of pre-natal care and the actual delivery. If the newborn had health
problems, that would be covered by my catastrophic coverage (after the mandatory
deductible).You are going to have to come up with a better straw-man
argument than that.
Are you kidding me?1. This bill was passed strictly by one political
party only - not one single vote from the opposition. Does that not mean
anything to you?2. This bill was passed by coercion, by sweetened deals in
Nebraska and Louisiana to 'butter up' senators from those states.3. The House was going to give their representatives a whole weekend to read
the bill, digest it and comment on it, but in the final analysis they rammed it
through in hours not allowing people to do so - the famous line from Nancy
Pelosi "we must pass this bill so that we can find out what is in it"4. Then the congressional record contains language that states that 40-66% of
people will lose their coverage, something that those who drafted it never told
us.5. So Professor Davis you believe in coerced decision making rather
than letting people make their own choices - you study political science. What
kind of governments do that? Nazism, Communism, Fascism etc. Is this the kind
of government you want? 6. I am a graduate of BYU - I am offended by your
article - it violates LDS doctrines...
my foot fungus doesn't smell as bad as critics say....probably ought to ask
those directly impacted by the smell!!
AltYou want to believe more lies?Try the truth on for
size.There is another sibling that will probably reach his maximum
as well, even though he doesn't suffer from a lifelong disability. He has
maxed out every year since he was born, 4 years now (has a G-tube). Hopefully
next year will be the last time, but who really knows.Then you
forgot to add the premiums. Oh, and the parents and other siblings might need
care at some point. So now there are many individuals. Add all that up and you
are around $20,000. That will be a little less than half their income this year.
DeForestTo falsely state what someone else believes, and
then mock them for those falsified beliefs is unbelievable low. It is bigotry at
its finest! It says a lot about you, like you only listen to what the left tells
you about what the right believes, you don't have a clue about conservative
economics, and from that sad place, you still choose to be rude and insulting.
Sad that an employee of a university not only excuses a lie, but vigorously
defends it. I thought universities were supposed to be in the business of
pursuing and propogating truth! Silly me!
Re: "Many of the conservative commenters here seem to think that President
Obama's intent with the ACA was simply to deceive and enslave us."Yeah! We've been saying it all along.Obama has
demonstrated that his intent is to socialize and control health care, to assure
that important decisions about American's lives are in the hands of leftist
politicos and bureaucrats, enabling them to use that power -- literally of life
or death -- to control us.I'd call that enslaving us.He's also on record perpetrating sophistry and knowing, intentional lies,
trying desperately to sell what he knows is a really bad idea to the
low-information America liberal educational and social-program policies have
created.And yeah -- socialized medicine would, indeed, remove a
middleman, making direct government control of our lives much more efficient and
crushing. But, only committed socialists would say that like it was a good
thing.Bottom line -- Obamacare is a war against America. Liberal
sophistry being used to sell it is a weapon in that war. Opposition to Obamacare
is American patriotism.
@Joe CapitalistIf you decided to pay on your own and you had a child born
with a medical emergency would you be ok if they told you to bring a $10,000
certified check or the kid dies?
What's the old saying? Liberals are in favor of anything as long as
it's mandatory. I couldn't believe Mr Davis' column. How can
anyone think that the US Govt is capable of making the healthcare arrangements
for 300 million people? Not to mention the fact that we supposedly live as free
men in an allegedly free country- except we need permission from unelected
bureaucrats before we can buy a health insurance policy or even buy a home with
cash. I'm a man- I don't maternity insurance. I don't need
mental health coverage. I can buy my own contraceptives. I'm 44 years old
and I'm pretty certain what my sexuality is so I don't need an
operation to transgender myself. What I need is an insurance policy that
protects me and my family in case of a catastrophic event - I can pay everything
else myself and get a better rate paying cash. I've had it with all
these control freak people who can't stand the thought of someone in this
country making a decision on their own.
Someone needs to get the facts right. My families plan was terminated due to
the fact it would not qualify for the guidelines of the Affordable Care Act.(And
we liked it for the past 3 years) That is exactly what it said, and we had
insurance through my wife's employer. Not purchased on our own but through
her company that employees 14 people. Uh, I also drive a Dodge Truck and own an
SUV, is our gov. going to tell me now they don't qualify to be on the road
so I have to buy a Prius? And a Prius for everyone that can not afford one??
Holy crud this stuff just makes me sick.
Many of the conservative commenters here seem to think that President
Obama's intent with the ACA was simply to deceive and enslave us. Nonsense.
As imperfect as the ACA is, the intent all along was to provide some decent,
affordable health care to the roughly 50 million Americans who could get none.
That it is imperfect is unfortunate, but it would be working a lot
better if all the states had done what they insisted on: having the right to set
up their own health insurance exchanges. Most of the states that have used this
option are exemplary. By the same token, the federal government would have had a
better program if it had been allowed to set up one single exchange for the
entire country, instead of having to deal piecemeal with the varying
requirements for all the states that later chose to go back on their demand of
setting up state-by-state exchanges. And which are those states? Red states.
Another example of Republican hypocrisy. Demand something and then sabotage it.
This is an EXCELLENT opinion piece. Pleased to see it in Desert News.Hope that it is widely read because it provides an excellent unbiased
I applaud you, Dr. Davis, for blasting the stereotype of the weak and
inconsequential college professor: you have proven that you can carry the
President's water with the best of them. The policy I had one year ago has
been cancelled,and I can tell you first-hand that my insurance was not
substandard or inferior; it was just more affordable than the government can
allow and still pay for millions of others who need more care than a young adult
like myself needs. What Obama has given me is the opportunity to pay more for a
plan I don't want out of the goodness of my heart so that he can use the
additional revenue to cover a group of people I have never met. I should at
least get a monthly letter and photograph from the families I support by
complying with Obamacare.
Anybody can choose their own healthcare, but if you want insurance to pay for
it, a person has to live by the insurances rules. Some of the personal plans
don't want (or don't think they can) follow the fair rules that are
part of the ACA (No pre-existing conditions, no caps and so forth) and so they
are cancelling the personal plans. Those people need to choose the good plans
available in the ACA. The bigger plans don't generally have that problem
because it's part of a big group that have chosen it. Those plans have to
abide by the fair rules in the ACA to stay in existence.
So what will the White House reaction be too all this Obamacare implosion?? My
guess is we will soon see Barack back out on the campaign trail attempting to
white wash his clueless followers with more propaganda and then have his
friendly media film the whole thing to suggest all is well with OBamacare.
Propaganda is about all that is left to salvage for Barack at this point....the
scam is exposed.
re:Happy Valley HereticBush didn't lie about WMD's. Our
own CIA provided him with the intel and ALL members of congress of both parties
saw the intel. Get your facts straight. The WMD intel was the best we had at the
time and Bush made a judgement - which I didn't agree with - to not wait
for more certain confirmation but instead go forward and invade and get rid of
the threat. The difference here is Bush made a judgement call that was proven
later to be wrong but his intent was GOOD and HONEST. Baracks intent with
Obamacare was DISHONEST from the start. Big difference.
@SCfan, actually Tyler said the lies being blown out of proportion are silly.
Much like comparing Clintons lies about an affair to Bushes lies
about WMD that started a war and cost thousands their lives, yep lying about
infidelity is the same as lying to start a war.Maybe it isn't
so much the lies as the ability to comprehend the difference between "No
honey, you don't look fat in those pants" and "Saddam Hussein has
got nukes, and nerve gas, and board with a nail sticking out of it and he's
got your home address.
Richard - these are all tired old talking points from the White House that have
been proven false. The entire Obamacare scam is just that - a scam - that is now
being exposed and these talking points don't mean anything when people - in
the millions - are getting cancellation notices and then being faced with new
premiums 2-3 times higher and with doctors they have never met. Even more scary
is the employer mandate is going to kick in in less than a year which will means
even more cancellations. This is a disaster Richard and it is time to drop the
talking points and realize the Obamacare scam is out in the open now and even
Bill Clinton has acknowledged that.
procuradorfiscal: "Fact is, insurance companies will pay for absolutely
NOTHING. Every nickel of corrupt, vote-buying Obamacare largesse will be paid
out of my pocket. And yours. And that of every other working American."This is a great argument for a one payer system, and you are correct
that is the way it's suppose to work, every able bodied American paying
their share. Not some of us paying more and more to counter the
Republican's plan ERHCP (Emergency Room Health Care Plan) that Reagan
signed into law. Come to think of it, that's the last time a republican did
anything about the healthcare problem in America, I mean beside complain and
hinder.Socialized medicine wouldn't have private insurance
companies as a money changer between you and your doctor.
Before Obamacare I could get insurance for $46.00 per month, after Obamacare the
premium goes to $160.00 and the deductible surges $1,000 over the last one. Wow you must of had total garbage coverage as I can't get dental
coverage here in Utah for that cheap. Your rates and deductible went up to
where mine have been for nearly 4 years, welcome to responsible coverage.You must have never used your great insurance or they would have told you that
it only covered part of your left.As far as part time vs full time,
well that's just the sainted "Job Creators" creating more wealth
for themselves, and a separate issue. If we use the conservative approach maybe
if we give them more tax breaks. Or No corporate tax since they pass it on to
the consumer anyway we should just take all taxes from the workers.
One of the stated goals of Obamacare was to decrease the cost of health care in
America. In that regard, though it may be too early to grade, Obamacare is
failing miserably. Premiums are increasing. Health costs are not coming down
at all. Overall health spending has decreased the past few years, but that had
nothing to do with Obamacare as it is only now being implemented, other than
some insurance mandates on pre-existing coverage and covering family to age
25.Additionally, premiums that are lower are primarily due to
subsidization. The family may realize an overall decrease to their premiums,
but overall the premium has increased in cost. It is just being subsidized by
someone else.Obamacare is a mess from a financial/cost perspective,
an organizational perspective, a PR, a legal, social...basically in every way it
is an utter failure.
It is not perfect and is a work in progress, but it has very good bones. Also,
as a prior There are accusations that people were lied to about being to keep
their own plan. Yes, in theory a person can. But if the insurance company
decides to cancel a person, that says more about the insurance company doing it
than it says about the ACA. The ACA is designed to make things fair for the
insured person and if an insurance can't keep the requirements, then the
insured probably should change to a plan that qualifies (no pre-existing
condition, no caps and so forth).I have seen progress on the
healthcare.gov website, but be aware there are also third parties like Arches
that help an individual with their questions.Best wishes to all in
Tyler DSo Obama did not lie. Thanks for clearing that up. I always
thought Bush had lied about WMD in Iraq. And Clinton lied about Monica
Lewinski. Guess I was wrong. Obviously Presidents get a whole different set
of standards of truth that don't apply to the average person. Thanks again
for clearing all that up for the rest of us Tyler.
Everyone already knows about Obamacare and most people call it "bait and
switch". So let's remove those people loosing health coverage, other
people are still loosing coverage on top of that. Wegmans Grocery in upstate
New York cut employee health benefits due to the Affordable Care Act. There are
numerous other companies cutting insurance, Trader Joe's comes to mind,
because they are forcing the employees into the exchanges. Then your premium in
the exchange doubles, not to mention the deductible surging. Before Obamacare I
could get insurance for $46.00 per month, after Obamacare the premium goes to
$160.00 and the deductible surges $1,000 over the last one. How is this not as
bad as it seems? I can point to many problems with this health care
legislation, shouldn't you have mentioned some of the other issues going on
as well. For the entire U.S. workforce, employers have added far more
part-time employees in 2013—averaging 93,000 a month, seasonally
adjusted—than full-time workers. People can't survive on part time
work and this law is forcing them into it.
Re: "These are all good changes. They force insurance companies to cover
essential health benefits . . . ."Sorry, Prof, that's just
standard socialist perfidy.Fact is, insurance companies will pay for
absolutely NOTHING. Every nickel of corrupt, vote-buying Obamacare largesse will
be paid out of my pocket. And yours. And that of every other working
American.I know, that's a hard concept for mindless liberals to
wrap there arms around, but, it's a fact, Prof -- there is no health-care
fairy.It's just a disingenuous liberal myth, being
disingenuously sold to low-information voters, in the hope of corruptly
obtaining unfair political advantage over those committed to telling the truth,
in order to exercise illegal and unconstitutional control over Americans they
don't really like.That's all.
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.
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."
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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
@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. "
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Hey Richard, Obamacare is not as GOOD as some are saying either.
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.
"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."
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
Thank you professor Davis for a voice of reason in the tsunami of
mis-information about the Affordable Healthcare Act!
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.