Letter: Insurance website


Return To Article
  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Dec. 9, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    To "Kimber" what you should be asking youself is this: How often does Fascism work out for the best? Eventually there will be deaths, and it will be government officials allowing it to go on. In this case it probably won't be like WWII Europe, but it will be a government official saying that the government cannot pay to keep you alive, and that the resources will be better spent on somebody younger.

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 4:41 p.m.

    To Redshirt: What I am trying to stress is that for many people that don't want a single payer system, the ACA is that. If it's not that to you, that is your right. Whatever it is, it is here with the good and the bad. The website certainly had it's struggles, but it is up now and I have personally got health insurance on it for the first time in seven years. Because of the struggles, people who need it have until March 31st. I know from having been a health insurance worker that open enrollment is hard, and it couldn't have been predicted how hard it would be to enroll the nation's uninsured. It's easy for a person that has insurance to say that they don't like it, but it's not accurate to do so because they don't have it. I wish everyone well with their insurance experience and I know that the ACA experience will improve over time. I'm glad it's here and look forward to having insurance again.
    An ACA Volunteer

  • deseret pete robertson, Wy
    Dec. 6, 2013 4:49 p.m.

    It would be interesting to know -- of the people who have actually enrolled and paid a premium,How many of those are getting a gov't subsidy, and is there going to be be enough hard working people to sign up to pay for their premium.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Dec. 5, 2013 3:36 p.m.

    To "Happy Valley Heretic" you got 2 industries correct. You realize that there is a difference between setting safety standards and dictating the loan standards at banks. Safety standards protect the public. Lowering loan standards puts more people in danger.

    Just look at your list. The 2 most regulated industries, banking and insurance, are also the most disliked. Don't you think that it is a co-incidence?

    I don't know where you get your definitions, but it is quite incorrect. According to Webster's Dictionary fascism is "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" That doesn't exactly sound right wing, unless you start at Communism, then I guess you could call it right wing because it is to the right of outright communism.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    fas┬Ěcism noun
    1. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

    "It has the government directing what and how the insurance industry is to offer their products."

    How dare they set minimums to protect the ignorant!

    Like minimum safety standards for:
    Building codes

    Yep, that's fascism alright.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 4, 2013 12:46 p.m.

    To "Kimber" the ACA is NOT a compromise between the free market and a single payer system. The ACA is a very good example of Fascism. It has the government directing what and how the insurance industry is to offer their products. The ACA destroys innovation and creative ways that the insurance company uses to attract more clients.

    For example, the catastrophic policies that the young adults were buying fit their needs quite well. Insurance companies created them to broaden their base. The ACA and the Obama administration has decided that they don't like that type of policy and have done away with it.

    You say you like the free market for insurance, but think it needed regulation. The ironic thing is that all of the problems that people see with insurance result from insurance agencies meeting government requirements.

    If you think the ACA is so great, why is it so great? The web site for getting it isn't ready (by industry standards), is easily hacked and harvested for personal informatin. The ACA was sold as a way of making insurance cheaper. Since when is cheaper a 43% increase in cost?

    Tell us, what actually works with the ACA?

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    I liked the part on Red Shirt/Caltech that mentioned "why would we want a single payer system? Do you like the DMV? Very good. But the ACA is a compromise between what we have had and going to a single payer and I hope it works because I like the free market place of insurance (but it sure did need regulated). So, the ACA is a work in progress and although I'm sure that some things will be improved on, but it is a good fair law.
    Have some Happy Holidays and everyone stay well!

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 4, 2013 7:52 a.m.

    To "the old switcharoo" here is how I would define a "bad solution". If the solution was promised to cut costs, but ends up costing more (ACA has gone from $900 billion to $2.7 Trillion, and raised rates by 43% so far). If it creates a government oversight group that determines what procedures and treatments are allowable for which people (Independent Payment Advisory Board was created to allow politicians and their appointees to determine who and what gets paid for). If it gives the government more control over private industry. If it forces people to buy something they don't want to (35% of people with no insurance could afford it but chose not to buy it).

    Why would you want a single payer system? Do you like the DMV? Do you like giving politicians the ability to cut your healthcare out of political spite? Do you want to add more debt to the backs of your children and grandchildren?

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    Dec. 3, 2013 6:16 a.m.

    I can play with schematics as well Redshirt, You have to define "bad solution." Personally I think single payer and countrymen not full of hate would be a good solution but obviously anyone wearing red would disagree WITHOUT principle since republican care - Romneycare - Obamacare was their own idea to counter single payer Hillary-care.

    Republicans are like watching a 3 year old throw a tantrum because they had to eat broccoli.

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 2, 2013 4:05 p.m.

    Someone wanted to know the meaning of "pre-existing condition" and as a former health insurance worker I would like to respond. A "pre-existing condition" in the medical insurance world is when someone that has recently got a personal plan (not usually a group plan, because those are big groups that usually don't have those stipulations because of all the business brought to the health plan) But a personal plan has had a lot more stipulations brought on them. If a condition existed before the person got the plan (and if they don't have a certificate of coverage from another plan) the insurance company will not usually pay for that condition for at least a year. In addition, the insurance company could (before the ACA) deny them completely from their insurance coverage. This is what happened to me, so I am glad to have coverage for 2014 through the ACA (but be aware they are regular plans from a person's area through healthcare.gov or through the exchanges that most states have available. Good Luck!

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 2, 2013 12:31 p.m.

    To "the old switcharoo" what do you mean by "pre-existing conditions". Using that term incorrectly just paints you as an alarmist. For example. If I had a broken arm, then decided to sign up for insurance, the insurance company would have no problem selling me insurance.

    The problem is NOT pre-existing conditions. The problem has been conditions that make you uninsurable. The uninsurable problem has only become a problem as government (state and federal) have imposed mandates on insurance companies. For example, in the 1980's you could be diabetic and get insurance on the individual market. By 2005, that same condition made you uninsurable.

    The ACA is a bad solution to a problem that government created.

    It is like watching 3 year olds break a lamp then try and put it back together.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 1, 2013 11:01 p.m.

    The ACA is a compromise between a pure market, for profit, system and a single payer non-profit system. As such the ACA methodology was once endorsed by conservative Republicans until they saw political advantage in opposing it. I never wanted the ACA - I wanted single payer. The ACA will settle down and people will be adapted to it for a time, but it will do little to quell the for-profit insurance, medical, and hospital businesses' insatiable desire for profits and inflated costs. We will get a variety of socialized health care in time - it is the only solution.

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 1, 2013 10:10 p.m.

    Thanks for the positive comments, but there are also some misinformed comments below. The reason I reason I could get the health insurance is because "pre-existing conditions" have been done away with by the ACA. I had them and couldn't get insurance for close to seven years. And the fact that some peoples personal plans got cancelled is because the insurance companies were not going to put the good and fair provisions of the law into those plans. But people will now be given extra time on those plans (if they want). During this next year, they will need to look for a better plan that meet the good and fair standards of the ACA. I am excited for people like me to be able to get a good plan (for the first time for some people). There have been untruths passed around about the healthcare law and I hope people will study it out.
    Have a good one!

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Dec. 1, 2013 6:43 p.m.

    I think we should all feel sorry for insurance companies.

    All the billions in profit that they made. Now these poor folks have to ensure kids, folks with a history of cancer, and poor people.

    How dare these folks bother billionaires to ensure them? Go bankrupt and go away!


  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    Dec. 1, 2013 3:39 p.m.

    Didn't it bother you when you could get insurance and millions of other people including children were completely denied due to preexisting conditions? That was the system you liked? Not very christian was it?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 1, 2013 12:34 p.m.

    Right wing hypocrisy was clearly illustrated on Meet the Press this morning. The LIES told by the representative from Michigan were stunning.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 1, 2013 11:34 a.m.


    My career was also in computer systems from the plug board of the IBM 604 through COBOL and purchased systems. None of this would come close the complexity and hazards of an internet system. But I can say that in all those 40 years I never wrote a perfect program nor ever encountered a perfect system.

    Today I use systems written by others that are well beyond my understanding. But from the almost daily frequency of updates and revisions I still believe it is impossible to write a perfect computer system. Many of the updates and revisions are from malware created to defeat or misdirect the intent of the system. I assume the people who create the viruses, worms, and bugs of every sort do so for money.

    The amount of money at stake in the health care industry would make the rewards of current malware look like a single peanut. The number of people cheering for Obamacare failure may be a large part of America; many of these may be helping the failure.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 1, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    "Does it bother you that millions of people have and will lose their employer provided healthcare?"

    First of all millions, meaning 2 million would be about 7 one hundredth of a percent of those who have employer health insurance. Secondly they like others would only lose their employer insurance because of the ACA if the insurance is sub par, which is not likely for employer provided insurance on anything of a significant scale. So the first sentence is misleading at best and likely an outright untruth.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 1, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    I would think conservatives should get behind the ACA and help make it be successful.

    -the structure of the ACA came from the Heritage Foundation, in a conservative response to HillaryCare, a single-payer proposal from Bill Clinton.

    -the conservative idea of using states as the laboratories for ideas on governance has been employed with this type of system, led by a Republican governor, and the results are favorable. (Are states no longer to be considered idea laboratories? Did you guys abandon that idea, too?)

    -the liberal alternative is a single payer system, ala HillaryCare. By hoping ACA fails, and having a dearth of credible ideas on healthcare reform, Republicans seem to be playing right into a longer term liberal strategy of eventually moving to a single payer system.

    By all appearances, Republicans detest Obama more than they believe in their own ideas on how to reform healthcare. This is a sad commentary on the state of the GOP, and considering the demographic changes in our nation, it does not bode well for the future of Republican prospects to lead the nation.

    Simply put: "don't look a gift-horse in the mouth"

  • Ralph West Jordan Taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 1, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    Thank you Kim Summers for writing and sharing your ACA enrollment experience! Most importantly I am happy you now have ins. Having experienced serious health issues, I am keenly aware of the need! We will now sit by and watch the nay sayers, post their talking head propaganda quotes! They are shaking in their boots fearing the eminent success the ACA will eventually have because of folks like you! The ACA is Law, as we have seen there is little they can do about it now! All is left is to crow about the problems with the rollout!

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 1, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    Thanks for the news of your successful enrollment Kim. Given its history, it IS newsworthy when someone is able to use the web site successfully. However, as a software engineer of many years and many projects, some exceeding the complexity and scope of the Healthcare.gov site, I'll be waiting a while longer to sign up.

    As this most recent of many, many past examples shows, governmental agencies are notorious for producing overly expensive, bloated, fault-ridden software, your experience notwithstanding. My experience has taught me that their ridiculously inept performance thus far does not bode well for their ability to accurately assess the current status of the system. And, considering the very sensitive nature of the personal information required to sign up for this.....stuff, I've decided to let many more people act as the guinea pigs while they work out the innumerable kinks I anticipate still await them on both the front and especially the back end.

    But, in the meantime, good luck to you. I truly hope you enjoy your new health insurance coverage.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 1, 2013 7:56 a.m.

    If you want coverage you can get it.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 1, 2013 7:40 a.m.

    I am happy you got insurance but doesn't it bother you at all that millions of other people got their health insurance cancelled and now are forced to pay higher premiums, co-pays and deductibles. Does it bother you that millions of people have and will lose their employer provided healthcare? Obamacare is a scam to rob from Peter (your neighbors) to pay for Paul's (Kim's) healthcare insurance. Paul may like it just fine but the "Peters" of America got burned big time!

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Dec. 1, 2013 6:50 a.m.

    Sad that there is nothing to inspire me to do this, other than the punishment if I don't.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 1, 2013 12:05 a.m.

    Wouldn't it be great if you got health care as a condition of citizenship (NOT free) and insurance companies didn't make a dime off of it?