We live in a time where the role of government is vastly misunderstood. The LESS
government intervention in our lives, the better! It is not the role of
government to manage every aspect of our lives or to solve all our problems.
Because the federal government has been so consistent in making a mess of
things, they are the LAST ones I would want dictating my health care. The
government is not our "mommy," and the more we expect our leaders to
take care of us, the more freedom we lose to act independently.
"Republicans never seem to an realize an advantage because they refuse to
offer any realistic alternatives. People may be frustrated with Democratic
bungling, but Democrats are at least perceived as making an effort and basing
those efforts on reality."Or maybe Republicans do have
alternatives, but you never hear about them because the Democrats control the
media and want you to think that Republicans have no alternative. They have
ideas. And even IF they didn't have alternatives, it is safe to say that
the alternative of no Obamacare is significantly better than having
Obamacare.Also, why does Obama threaten to veto a bill passed by
Republicans that will make his promise of "you can keep your doctor" a
reality? Either he was not sincere in his apology (meaning he doesn't
really care about people being able to keep their doctors) or he refuses to
compromise in any way. Or both reasons.Either way, that's a
prime example of Republicans making an effort to fix the problem while the
Democrats seem intent on keeping the problems ongoing.
Well one thing is for certain - government at least for national health care -
is CERTAINLY NOT the solution. I think that is obvious now even from all the but
the most brain washed Obama folks.
@Turtles Run "...basing those efforts on reality."Like the
"reality" that a bunch of unemployed young people can afford to
subsidize everyone else's health care?
Whatever may be wrong with Obamacare, or for that matter Dodd-Frank, carbon
regulation, the Federal budget, or other policy matters, Republicans never seem
to an realize an advantage because they refuse to offer any realistic
alternatives. People may be frustrated with Democratic bungling, but Democrats
are at least perceived as making an effort and basing those efforts on reality.
@Mike Richards - "Where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have
the authority to "redistribute" wealth from one person to another
person? I can't find it."Are you this vocal about the
amount of wealth that has flowed up to the top 1% at the expense of the
" If it takes away 50%. They are enslaved to that government for half of
their life and work."And what is it called when you require
someone to pay for the benefits they actually recieve..? What percentage is
just. How much is it worth to have a military that defends us from terrorist.
What is it worth have a global presence strong enough that we don't end up
in things like the Arab Oil Embargo again? How much is it worth of your pay to
know that the medicines your doctor prescribes to you is safe, or the food in
your kitchen will not harm your family? What is that worth? 5% of your pay?
10? Is paying for what you get "enslavement". Freedom
doesn't mean everything in life should be free.
To understand more fully the failure of Obamacare, everyone should read
"Unskilled and Unaware of It" by Kruger and Dunning. Here's an
excerpt from the abstract:"People tend to hold overly favorable
views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors
suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are
unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach
erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs
them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."Read the whole
thing. It is an accurate description of Barack Obama.
RE: Mike Richards "Where in the Constitution does the Federal Government
have the authority to "redistribute" wealth from one person to another
person? I can't find it."Where in the Constitution does it
say "the United States will have a capitalist economic system?" I
can't find it.Also, if you think the Feds can't get
anything right you must be scared to death of flying - the FAA air traffic
control system you know. Shudder!
To "spring street" you only have half of the picture. You have not
answered WHY insurance prices have increased. Luckily others have answered that
question.Read "HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATES IN THE STATES" by
CAHI. They find that 20% to 50% of the cost of insurance (PreACA) was due to
government mandates.Also read "The True Effects of Comprehensive
Coverage: Examining State Health Insurance Mandates" by the BRAC. They have
a graph that shows the number of mandates rising quite fast over the past 30
years.As those two articles show, it is GOVERNMENT that is driving
What can he do if he's playing gulf all the time.
spring streetNice studies and info. You have left out some very
important facts about the average American worker. Wages and salaries have
either been flat or gone down. So, keeping up with the natural business
increases has been harder than it would have been under normal economic
circumstances. At the end of Bushs' Presidency, the economy had begun to
turn sour. I blame the 2006 election of the Democrats giving Pelosi and Reid
the purse strings for a lot of that. That plus Clinton Administrtion policies
that forced lenders to sell houses to unqualified buyers. And we had the
subsequent downturn. Now, Obama, 5 years later. No progress. But he is giving
us another huge expensive government program. This was not the time to do this.
Even many Democrats say Obama should have worked on the economy before trying
the ACA. Obama has made this economy into a longer lasting resession that is
should have been. And I don't see any light at the end of the tunnel.
Only lower wages and higher taxes and expenses continuing to come our way.
As for the 4 page Republican healthcare plan:it doesn't do much
to reduce the uninsured population. By 2019, the number of uninsured would drop
by 3 million, leaving 52 million nonelderly Americans uninsured. That means 83%
of legal nonelderly residents would have insurance coverage by 2019, roughly the
same as it is today. The Senate Democratic bill, by contrast, would reduce the
uninsured to 31 million, or 94%.It might reduce consumer
protections. The flip side of several of the Republicans' new consumer
options is a decrease in regulation. If insurance policies are sold across state
lines, critics say, there could be an incentive for insurers to locate in the
least-regulated states, allowing them to scale back coverage. And the Republican
bill, unlike the Democratic bills, doesn't specifically bar insurers from
excluding pre-existing conditions, even though that policy has broad support in
both parties. (Politifact 2010)The CBO found the Republican
alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely
keeping up with population growth. According to CBO, the GOP's alternative
will shave $68 billion off the deficit while Democrats plan will slice $104
billion off the deficit over10 yrs.(WashingtonPost)
Oh, sure DN government is the problem,so let's turn control over to the
Koch Brothers,the big corporations AND best of all Wall Street. If
we keep electing people to the Congress that push this philosophy, foolishly
advocated by this Newspaper, we will soon get what we deserve, a country ran for
the interests of the few, no longer a democracy, but an oligarchy. It is
probably already too late. But that is okay with you, is it not Deseret News?
Mike Richards-S. Jordan"What should we think when Democrats tell
us that ObamaCare is the plan that Republicans wanted when not one Republican
voted for it? If ObamaCare were a Republican idea then Republicans would have
supported it. Why would Democrats tell us that a bill that no Republican
supported was "Republican"?Perhaps Republicans wouldn't
support it because it was presented by Democrats, the leader of whom McConnell
boasted that he would make (Obama) a one-term President and wouldn't vote
for anything presented by Obama and the Dems. You may remember that, it was in
all the papers.Since then, have Republicans voted anything other
than NO? The Democrats are the party of "KNOW" Republicans are the
party of "NO"
SCfan,Well stated. But how do you decide how much government is
appropriate?Rather than pick percentages, what I would suggest is to
go back to the constitution and identify those things that must be done on a
national level based on the responsibilities given there in Article 1 Section 8.
Then anything else should either be done by the state or local government, by
private individuals, or not be done at all. It should be their choice.For example, Congress is not responsible for the insurance industry. That is
why each state has an insurance commission and a single company cannot sell
policies in multiple states. They can, however, set up an insurance company in
each state they plan on doing business in, like Blue Cross Blue Shield of Utah,
and it is subject to regulation by the Utah Insurance Commission.
Yea 4601 and Bennett had massive Republican support for his ideas right...oh
wait they voted him out because he was a RINO.
If the ACA is such an attractive program, why all the exemptions; unions,
Congress, congressional staffers, big corporations? Only the middle class, whom
the president vowed to protect, is left holding the bag.
Perhaps the reason you don’t find redistribution in the Constitution is
that they uses other words to give the same effect of their promise. Words
like, “All men”, “equal justice”, “to the
people”, Some people talk a lot about recycling. I suggest
that they most important recycle item in our civilization is the money.
What should we call it when the government takes money from some people to pay
for the personal welfare of other people. I call that "redistribution".
What do you call it? Where in the Constitution does the Federal Government
have the authority to "redistribute" wealth from one person to another
person? I can't find it.What should we think when Democrats
tell us that ObamaCare is the plan that Republicans wanted when not one
Republican voted for it? If ObamaCare were a Republican idea then Republicans
would have supported it. Why would Democrats tell us that a bill that no
Republican supported was "Republican"?How much waste is
there in government programs? Well, let's look at two examples. Solydra
lost about half a billion dollars. That was total waste. Obama made that loan
when those who determine profit/loss in the government advised against it. How
about the ObamaCare website? Anyone looking at the track record of the company
selected to produce that web site would have seen that that company was not
qualified to handle that job. Anyone care to tell us how much money will be
wasted fixing that problem?
pragmatistferlifesalt lake city, utahSorry to talk fact, but the
best aspects of the ACA were proposed by Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Bill Bennett
(R-UT). They were discarded by those drafting the ACA because the WH wanted the
Republicans to have no credit for health care reform. This was the most partisan
legislation in history with no effort to include the other side of the isle. It
was only when Sen. Wyden refused to vote for the ACA that the good provisions
were inserted. As the ACA's monstrous flaws become evident the Democrats
are all for bipartisanship.
If the government is too big, get rid of all Republicans and it will solve that
problem, won't it! I say that any politician that feels so strongly about
making our government smaller, should be willing to start with himself!So,
if it were decided to downsize on a major scale, who gets to choose what stays
and what goes? It isn't about big government, it is about WHO gets to
control that government! Get rid of anything and everyone that has to do with
the average American and keep only what is best for the very wealthy! What did
we leave England for? Republicans would give everything to the few and you
better believe that they will be from the upper class!Then we will see how
much better a smaller government will be! ha Ha ha, it won't matter by then
because they will be laughing at all the idiots who put them there!
"When Democrats, especially the liberal kind, get power, they concentrate on
trying to use government to bring about equality in America."Yup. Just like Republicans.Just like Medicare part D. Just like
No Child Left Behind."The big question of the day is how much do
we as citizens want to be enslaved to our governments?"That
might be the big question. But I can assure you, based on history, the answer
is certainly NOT to elect Republicans. Which is what many on this board tell us
patriot,"....Obamacare is about bringing America into a
Socialist model ..like Europe ...and wealth redistribution is the gateway to
that via Obamacare...."______________________________Just
when I thought I’d heard it all, I hear that Obamacare is the gateway to
wealth redistribution. I recall when years ago Republican critics made similar
silly statements about Medicare.
We're still waiting for the details of the Boehner, Cantor, McConnell and
Blunt healthcare plan.It's only been 4 years, I suppose they
need more time to fine tune the details of their 4 page program.crickets, crickets, crickets....Boehner???? Anyone????
"In Our Opinion" reflects back to the Republican Healthcare
Plan..."if you get sick, DIE and do it quickly and quietly."Romneycare and anti-Hillarycare were Republican ideas.Most of all,
Republicans forget about the press conference in 2009 in which Boehner, Cantor,
and McConnell told the American people that they had a 4 page healthcare plan
that was better than the ACA."How much the Republican plan would
cost and how many uninsured Americans would gain coverage remains unclear. Rep.
Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said "we believe we can come up with a plan where every
person in the uninsured has access to insurance."Blunt made
clear, however, that there would not be a mandate that individuals purchase
insurance or that employers offer it. He also claimed that the overall price tag
would be significantly lower than Democrat's proposals.The
four-page Republican health care outline lays out a plan that would allow
states, associations and small businesses to pool together to offer health
insurance. It would give tax credits to low and modest income Americans to help
them buy health insurance. It would also let dependents under twenty-five stay
on their parent's health insurance."
@happy2bhereI am not claiming government or the ACA is the whole
solution or maybe even a significant part of it, but claiming the government is
the problem, as the article does, is at best dishonest. Claiming that some how
the private sector is magically going to come through on its own and be
effective at this stage is preposterous As to my antidotal stories
here are a few facts, A kaiser foundation study conducted in 2009 found there
had been a 131% increase in health insurance premiums between 1999 and 2009.
inflation had only grown by 28% in that same time period. According
to a study out of Columbia University n 2008, the average profit of the 10
largest medical malpractice insurers in the U.S. was higher than 99 percent of
Fortune 500 companies and 35 times higher than the Fortune 500 average for the
same time period.As for my friends similar research shows that
between 2001 and 2004 when malpractice insurance jumped and my friends lost
their practices, there were no increases in payouts due to malpractice claims.
To "atl134" so then you admit that the way that SS was set up, it was
not sustainable.Why are you trying to contradict me using statements
that only support what I say.Even with those proposed
"fixes" it doesn't actually "fix" anything. It just
patches it and puts off repair for a few more years.Actually
anything going through the federal government has a high overhead. The overhead
for the Federal Government is 25% to 30%. You can't just look at Medicare
alone. That is like saying that your company's billing department is the
most efficiently run business out there. To say that Medicare is so efficient,
you ignore the cost for the IRS to collect taxes, and for Congress and other
government offices to make budgets and transfer money to Medicare.If
you want to do an apples to apples comparison, lets compare overhead costs of
the insurance company's accounts payable department to Medicare. I would
guarantee you that the private company will be more efficient.
re:atl134"The only way to do that is to somehow incentivize the
free market to take on ALL citizens, possibly with subsidies to get them to take
on the sick people. Oh right, we have that, it's called Obamacare."You need to shut off your Obamacare view for a moment and think
"outside the box". Obamacare does NOT incent the the free Market in any
way. Obamacare creates a huge web of laws, regulations and penalties that
Insurance companies must comply with which is exactly why so many polices are
being cancelled right now - they don't meet the MANDATED Obamacare level
and so they must be dropped. Insurance companies were ok to go along with the
scam initially because they assumed (wrongly) that they would get a HUGE volume
of new customers which has turned out to be bogus. People are NOT signing up via
the exchanges for Obamacare but they are instead just going to medicare route
due to the costs which will simply cause the whole system to implode eventually.
Obama is now considering an Insurance Company bail out !! Also you only
scratched the surface of the GOP proposals for healthcare reform...
atl134,Ya, Medicare is so efficient... it's only going
bankrupt! And it's already the largest piece of the Federal budget pie by
far. According to US Government Spending dot com this is they current spending
distribution:26% Health Care25% Pensions22% Defense10% Welfare6% Interest4% Education3% Transportation1% General GovernmentSo only 1% of all our government spending
goes towards actual Governing... "General Government".You
would think about 99% of the Government budget would be for actual governing!But if you've actually convinced yourself that Medicare is
efficient (despite all the documented and well publicized abuse and fraud
involved)... there's really no hope.ObamaCare may be great.
Like Obama said... You gotta give it a decade to find out if it's good or
bad (by then everybody ought to be addicted to their subsidies and tax credits
and there will be no going back). Try taking away anybody's tax
subsidy... it's political suicide!
@patriot"There needs to be some sort of basic coverage for ALL
citizens - not free - but low cost and coming from the free market and not the
government. "The only way to do that is to somehow incentivize
the free market to take on ALL citizens, possibly with subsidies to get them to
take on the sick people. Oh right, we have that, it's called Obamacare. I still think it's funny that you all wanted to turn Medicare
(through the Ryan budget) into a system of a marketplace where seniors get
vouchers (aka subsidies) through which to purchase health insurance. You know...
just like Obamacare (now I will point out that the reason liberals hate Ryancare
isn't because of "hypocrisy", we just like single payer and
Obamacare is a step in that direction while Ryancare is a step away from single
@Redshirt"If government is so benevolant, explain why all of their
programs that are designed to help people end up causing more problems than they
solve?"That's a faulty premise. "You gave
us Social Security, now we are trying to figure out how to keep that program
alive."Remove the cap on income subject to payroll taxes (I am
not changing the tax at all, just having it apply to all income not just the
first 150k or whatever it is). There, I just made it solvent until 2080 without
any other adjustments. "they lose more money to fraud and waste
than private companies do. They do that while costing more than a private
insurance company."They have lower overhead costs than private
companies and it only costs more because it's a plan for seniors who tend
to disproportionately be sick while the private companies (until 2014) can throw
people off their plans whenever they want declaring pre-existing conditions or
some other thing.
@EW"Anything that government has sole responsibility for, they no
longer have to compete with private companies to do things more efficiently,
with higher quality, or more thriftiness"Medicare is so
efficient (around 5% overhead whereas insurance companies have so much higher
overhead Obamacare limited it to no more than 20% or else they have to refund
the difference) and thrifty that the reason the private insurance companies
fought so hard to keep a public option out of Obamacare was that they were
concerned that the public option would get too popular and drive them out of
"The biggest loser in all this, however, seems to be the notion that big
government can solve problems better than the private sector." The botched website was designed by private contractors. And, say what you
want about Obamacare, the system we had that was the most expensive in the world
(17.9% of GDP) while leaving 1/6th of people uninsured showed that the private
sector did not have a handle on this at all.
re:Craig ClarkActually you are both right and wrong. You are correct
that health care in America needed (and still needs) an overhaul. The costs are
out of control due to the tidal wave of law suits filed and Tort Reform would
help with that in a BIG way ...but the Democrat's would have no part of it.
There needs to be some sort of basic coverage for ALL citizens - not free - but
low cost and coming from the free market and not the government. Obamacare is
NOT about health care reform. Never was. Obamacare is about bringing America
into a Socialist model ..like Europe ...and wealth redistribution is the gateway
to that via Obamacare. Ronald Reagan warned over 30 years ago about socialized
medicine being the gateway to Socialism in America and he was right. Think of
the total control the government has over its citizens with socialized medicine.
Your bill of rights are essentially compromised. If we want to reform health
care then let's do it - without wealth redistribution. Since 2009 the GOP
House has proposed several plans for health care overhaul with common sense
initiatives ...all being shot down by Harry Reid.
Re: "I predict that ACA will work well."Well, that makes one
of you.Not even the most partisan of the mindless Obama crowd will
go that far. The best that callow, benighted Obamabots can hope for is that
American health care will limp along under Obamacare, just long enough to permit
imposition of the much-worse wholly-government-owned socialized medicine that
liberals actually crave.But, Obamacare CAN'T work well. It was
never intended to work well. It's purpose is to collapse American health
care so liberal political hacks can swoop down after the battle and shoot the
straggling wounded of the best health care delivery system ever invented. Then,
their plan calls for them to impose a single-payer disaster that will give them
permanent control over who lives and dies in America, to the cheers and undying
gratitude of the low-information America their "welfare,"
"justice," and "education" systems have created.But,
it won't work. American health care will die. And, the misery and chaos
that inevitably follow will be a liberal legacy.
Ok liberals. If government is so benevolant, explain why all of their programs
that are designed to help people end up causing more problems than they
solve?You gave us the war on poverty, now we have intergenerational
poverty because of the handouts.You gave us Social Security, now we
are trying to figure out how to keep that program alive. At the same time
retirement savings are on a decline.You gave us Medicare, now that
trust fund is running dry.Obamacare has increased costs and cut
coverage on insurance plans, while taxing medical device manufacturers more.Liberalism gave us the food pyramid, now we have rampant obesity.You gave us a monetary system based on faith and credit instead of
something of value, now we have high inflation rates.What program
does the government run that doesn't end up wasting money or become
ineffective?To "marxist" and how would extending Medicare to
all be any better? They deny more claims than private companies and they lose
more money to fraud and waste than private companies do. They do that while
costing more than a private insurance company.
This entire editorial and most of the comments can be summarized in the truism,
"you'll find what you're looking for".If your
worldview is that government can't do *anything* right, you have some
(limited) examples in the launching of Obamacare to color / re-color your
worldview to that effect.But then you look like a fool when you
repeat in public that generalization over & over that government can do
absolutely nothing right, and people bring up innumerable examples of that not
being the case. "The National Weather Service? They get forecasts wrong
all the time! The CDC? Completely unnecessary, we haven't had polio in
decades!"The same can be said about many topics, including the
virtues and vices of free enterprise, Walmart, the Department of Defense,
Mormons vs non-Mormons and just about anything else in the world."Man will never walk on the moon, because the Earth is our realm, from our
Creator".It's a lot easier to deal with the world in black
and white, than measured reason & shades of grey.
Ultra Bob You write as if you have never heard of how the LDS
Church, for one, operates. Namely, pay as you go and stay out of debt. That is
an example of a religion or organized group that has done a thousand times
better at managing government and being more responsible than our current U.S.
Government with a 17 trillion debt. That along with waste and fraud that is
uncontrollable. You had to have posted what you did to bait a conversation, but
I just had to respond. As for government with profit incentive, do you realize
that the part of the country that is currently having the biggest financial boom
is in fact the Washington D.C. area, where there is a glut of money, (taxed not
created) making many people very rich? There is a ton of profit incentive in
U.S. Government. Only instead of creating it, they tax us to get it.
Spring StreetAnecdotal stories don't prove anything. You say
that the private sector has failed in health care. There are many who would use
their own anecdotal stories to claim the private sector has succeeded. Truth
is, both government and private sector have successes and failures with this
issue. The solution to health care problems however was not and is not some
massive overwhelming single bill (ACA) that tries to solve and change
everything. It should have been trashed, and several smaller problem specific
pieces of legislation worked on and enacted in a bi-partisan fashion. The
Democrats and Obama pushed for this massive bill only when they had a
super-majority. It's no wonder that now some 57% of Americans don't
like the result. Had the Republicans done something like this with a super
majority they would likely be getting the wrath of Americans too.
PaganRE: "Because, corporations are so 'good' for
you… when Walmart asks for donations…for your fellow
co-workers"...Good point. At least every penny you give to
Walmart is completely voluntary. We will know that evil corporations have
become equal in their ability to get into your wallet when Walmart and other
corporations can impose TAXES on you (like the government).At least
with corporations like evil Walmart... any donations are completely voluntary
(not the same for the government is it)? And every penny you spend at Walmart
is completely voluntary (not the same for government is it)?You have
so much bitterness for Walmart... why not save some of it for the Government?
The government asks for WAY more "donations" than Walmart. So why is
one good... and the other evil?At least I can CHOOSE whether to
donate to Walmart or not.
Government is a big problem for criminals, cheats, liars, and others who make
war on our attempts at civilization. That’s why we have government. If
we didn’t have this sort of people in our society, we wouldn’t need
a big government. Comparison of the rights and freedoms of today for
Americans to those Americans of old; seems to point to the success of the
American government. If the conservatives could point to any example of a
government, a religion, an organized group or any other collective effort that
has done as well, it might give validity to their lies. Government
with a profit incentive will not be a good government.
claiming the government is the problem with our healthcare system ignores the
fact our healthcare system was severely broken long before the ACA came along. I
had friends that a decade ago had to give up their practices and go back to
hospital work because the insurance companies were cutting payouts at the same
time they were erasing the rates to buy insurance. Government may or may not
prove to be a an aid to this problem but certainly leaving it to the private
sector has failed.
RE: "The only difference between a citizen and a subject is the size of the
government"...And may I add... "And who has the right/ability to
defend themselves".IF the populace is defenseless against
government abuse... they are "Subjects" not "Citizens".When the PEOPLE control the government.. they are "Citizens".When the Government controls the people... they are "Subjects".Currently we are still "Citizens"... but the trend towards being
"Subjects"... is actually quite alarming.The Progressive
agenda seems to be to enable the Government to rule over us... not for us to be
able to rule the Government. THAT needs to be turned around.
Because, corporations are so 'good' for you… when
Walmart asks for donations… for your fellow co-workers.
If the "profit incentive" is so important to quality why is the Inter
Mountain Medical Center non-profit? Why are schools non-profit or government
run. Why don't we go to war by contracting with mercenaries? Perhaps the
Editorial Board should look at health care as more than a typical commodity.To say the roll out is a disaster is a bit much. Is it really a
disaster if the final result is more people have health insurance? In places
like California reports indicate better than expected sign up statistics. Oh,
and that is where the State government has taken the initiative to help
facilitate the exchanges. For political reasons only, other states have elected
not to. So governments can make things work if they want to.
The ideal of the United States of America is represented by a statue called the
Statue of Liberty. Not the Statue of Equality. When Democrats,
especially the liberal kind, get power, they concentrate on trying to use
government to bring about equality in America. The result, if allowed, would
ultimately bring about government forced equality, at the expense of liberty.
If government takes away 100% of a persons work product then they are a slave.
If it takes away 50%. They are enslaved to that government for half of their
life and work. The big question of the day is how much do we as citizens want
to be enslaved to our governments? Having no government would create anarchy,
but too much would create tyranny. Where do you draw the line? I say around 20
to 25 percent at most. We Americans should have a great majority of our lives
for our own use, and not that of government.
In my lifetime I've seen instances where government was able to be the
solution to the problem, but honestly I've seen instances where government
WAS the problem. If you can't acknowledge that... there's no use
discussing it with people who think Government can do no wrong.Every
administration has made mistakes. And every government that's ever existed
has had problems. When you get the cult-like mentality like seems to surround
Barack Obama (and Progressives in general)... no improvement CAN even be
discussed, because they feel the need to defend government at all cost and shoot
down anybody who brings up anything even SLIGHTLY critical, or that could be
improved.Republicans did the same knee-jerk reaction when Bush was
president. It's not a PARTY thing... it's a PARTISAN thing.
Partisan cult-like devotion is the problem.I learned my lesson
during the Bush years. I only hope that young people who only started to
become politically aware during the Obama years can learn the same lesson before
they become totally brainwashed by the partisan coolaid, and become convinced
that government is the only solution to their problems.Government
can BE the problem.
Amen to the title. Anything that government has sole responsibility for, they no
longer have to compete with private companies to do things more efficiently,
with higher quality, or more thriftiness. There is no thrift in government at
all: the annual federal budgets increase by as much as 10% each year no matter
the federal revenue. Budgets in the private sector do not work this way, and
why? Because they have to get people to buy their stuff and that means people
have to want to consume their services. They have to be competitive. They
can't just raise taxes to grow their budgets. They have more accountability
in their spending, because if they spend into the red, they're out of
business. Not so government. We're paying more for less benefit. If you want to argue that quality suffers in the private sector, you can make
the argument that you get what you pay for. There are plenty of government
regulations over private industry which may actually help increase safety and
quality of life for Americans, but there are many others that just increase the
cost of doing business without benefit.
The argument that "Republicans" are to blame is nonsense. Not one
Republican voted for ObamaCare. Not one! The argument that the
Federal Level of government should provide healthcare is also false. Personal
welfare is not on the list of authorized duties of the Federal Government. If
healthcare is offered, it would be a duty of the States or of the people. Even
the Supreme Court waltzed around that question by saying that ObamaCare is a tax
and that the Federal Government has the power to tax us. They have not ruled on
whether the ObamaCare tax is legal or not because it has not been implemented
and because lower courts must first rule before the Supreme Court (an appellate
court) can rule on the legallity of that tax.The argument that
without ObamaCare millions of Americans would be without healthcare is false.
ObamaCare has caused millions of Americans to LOSE their health insurance. It
has caused anyone not subsidized by public money to pay much more for less
coverage. ObamaCare was poorly conceived and poorly implemented.
No wonder the Democrats would like to blame the Republicans for Obama's
Government is not nearly as often the problem as it is portrayed to be,
including in these pages. It's easy, and indeed lazy, to simply disparage
government, and thereafter not have to participate in it or propose better
solutions. Our society isn't falling apart, we're tearing it apart.
The DN editorial continually references FOX NEWS Entertainment.No
problem.The news arm of the Republican Party is dutifully echoed by
the news arm of the Republican Party in UTAH.Again...No problem."...president Ronald Reagan’s “nine most terrifying
words” seem to resonate most: “I’m from the government and
I’m here to help...”.In the spirit of
pro-republicanism...President Ronald Reagans' nine most
terrifying words...I'm a REPUBLICAN ICON and I'm here to
Ok. The private sector contractors let us down and the Affordable Care Act
isn't all it was sold to us. More importantly however, is the republican
party's wholesale failure to work with the democrats to fix and improve the
Act, or alternatively to offer a rational alternative.
To regard government as the problem is an easy out to avoid focusing on a
difficult issue. The ACA never would have been enacted had there not been the
lack of a comprehensive healthcare program in America. That was the problem.
president Ronald Reagan’s “nine most terrifying words” seem to
resonate most: “I’m from the government and I’m here to
help.” Today the terrifying words have been downgraded even more to
"We are from the government and we are here to take over". It's hard to be a liberal these days. The entire premise of liberalism is
built on the sandy foundation of Obamacare - the grand socialist wealth
redistribution scam. The scam was sold on top of a Mount Everest pile of lies
and deceit starting with the way it first passed congress with democrats being
"bought off" with tax payer money and then never ever reading the bill
before passing it. "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" which
is the latest lie .. perhaps the worst of all. This is outright fraud. Now we
see Barack attempting to exempt his BIG union bosses from the law. Government in
America is destroying America - very simply put. It will have to come from the
good grass roots citizens to put a stop to this progressive melt down. Are there
Take a second and think what our society would look like without social
security, medicare and food stamps. If that's hard to imagine, travel
south to Mexico City and walk the slums. A civilized society needs goverment
for the betterment of all.
I predict that ACA will work well. The underlying principles are sound,
combining free market competition with strong public standards to prevent
inequities and unnecessary human suffering. Anyone who has seen the tragedy that
is the Primary Hospital ER knows that our former system was a major injustice.
"One of his basic philosophies was that government, despite the misgivings
of his opponents, could solve problems and make life better for Americans.So much for that." Then you go on to talk about the website?
Really? Try talking to the millions who now can't be dropped
because of pre-existing conditions, or the millions who now will qualify for
Medicaid, or how about the hundreds of millions who won't immediately be
affected at all by the law but who's future could with one layoff include
all of the above. Enough of this it wasn't bi-partisan
nonsense. It was a Republican idea in the first place and Republicans still
objected to it. Then Mitch McConnell made the mistake of openly saying they
would stop everything Obama tried. In addition Republicans had killed health
care reform for 70 years. There was no way to have a bipartisan
bill because there was not an ounce of Republican support for health care
Yes, and government should not control liquor sales, marijuana sales and
gambling in Utah.
Yes, the war In Iraq and melt down of the private banking sector prove that.
Again with the all-or-nothing thinking.Govt is not all bad or all
good. There needs to be a balance.Unfortunately, the thinking
lately from some is to shut down the EPA and shut down the FDA.(but the
minute something IS shut down, they scream bloody murder)That would
work great if Corporations have not shown us time and time again that they will
do extremely unscrupulous things in the name of profit.That is
mostly why health care costs have skyrocketed.
Incompetance abounds in the Government. A huge chunk of it is at the very top. A
billion here, a trillion there so what. Oh but his credentials were(now get
this) a community organizer.
The only difference between a citizen and a subject is the size of the
The failure of ObamaCare is a prime example of why the Federal Government was
authorized to only handle seventeen duties by the Constitution. The Founding
Fathers had just fought a bloody war with a "top heavy" government in
England, a government that thought that it had the right to dictate to people
worldwide. England learned that its sphere of influence did not extend into
America. Perhaps Mr. Obama will soon realize that his sphere of influence does
not extend past the Oval Office when he ventures far beyond the limits imposed
on his office by the Constitution. Although he thinks differently, he has no
authority to legislate or to pick and choose which parts of a law he will
enforce or the time table that he will use to fully implement legislation that
he signed into law.Although the news media has not reported
faithfully on his every action as President, what it has reported shows that his
every attempt at making business decisions has failed, from the seizing of two
car companies to spending hundreds of millions of dollars on Solyndra to
spending even more hundreds of millions on a failed website.
" but the lack of a profit incentive, together with politics...generally get
in the way of efficiencies." Profit incentive is the reason may senior care
centers give lousy care. And of course the most efficient care for seniors
would be to have them die at 70 years or less. That's efficiency I
don't want. Health care doesn't belong in the for profit system.
"The biggest loser in all this, however, seems to be the notion that big
government can solve problems better than the private sector." Well, that
depends on the problem. Big problems require big solutions. Health care is a
big, big problem. Now, medicare is quite well run both itself and the
supplementary private plans which go with it. You may note that medicare is run
by the federal government. Before medicare, health care for seniors was a big,
big problem. They were dying in poverty before their time - I know this for a
fact because I witnessed it. Before medicare the only effective health care for
the elderly was provided by the VA for vets (also big bad government). I begged the Obama people, though they never listened to me (it was
practically impossible to get the White House to listen) to extend medicare to
all. That would have worked, only requiring a re-scaling of current systems.
Instead to accommodate the private insurance business we got Obamacare.
Obamacare does not establish the government won't work, but it shows the
White House chose the wrong option.