Published: Tuesday, Dec. 10 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
The ACA is a step toward relieving the suffering which goes with the current
health care system. So far so good, but not anywhere near good enough. As the
writer points out, the ACA has Republican fingerprints all over it - it's
pretty much Romneycare. Ultimately though, for-profit and health care rights
can't coexist. In the current system, and under the ACA, profits trump
compassionate care. Health care - it's an important difference between
Democrats and Socialists.
The problem is this is European socialism be forced down the throats of
Americans who believe people should take care of themselves, not look to the
government for everything from food stamps to subsidized health care. We
already have a working system, provided by the generosity of local hospitals and
their emergency rooms. Anyone can get free health care, not withstanding the
longer wait times. It is a health care delivery model that has worked for
decades, why fix what isn't broken? Now folks who don't need health
will be forced to pay for non productive members of society including the sick
and elderly. A palliative care option only for those over 65 and no longer
productive members of society would finally return fiscal sanity to medicare.
Socialism is not the answer. Restore our freedom, not dependence on government
subsidies and handouts.
You miss the point here, it is not healthcare that people are opposed to, it is
the manner in which this was presented. There were lies, misrepresentations,
ignorance of what really was included, manipulations and many other negatitive
actions taken by politicians. The young never would have voted for this if the
truth had been told.This is a program that was not needed as it does not
fix the issues but in fact negatively impacts most of us. Government once again
proves that they are incapable of fixing anything.
According to a poll conducted by the New York State Medical Society, 44 percent
of the 409 doctors questioned said they are not participating in the
nation's new healthcare law, while another 33 percent said they are still
unsure whether they will choose to become Obamacare providers. In a similar poll
in California, 70% of doctors say they will not participate in Obamacare. In
spite of the website disaster, millions of cancelled healthcare policies and
millions more to come (employer mandate) "fixing" this rejection by
physicians will be the most difficult part.
Any plan that forces everyone to purchase something that is designed for the
free market system is doomed to failure. Heritage Foundation has an updated
plan for health care which is a far cry from the one cited by the author of this
editorial. The plan needs to look to free market solutions. Having a
governmental solution for the extreme situation of 1% of the need might fit, but
any move towards a governmental - especially Federal - management of health
insurance will turn into a reduction in efficiency, affordability, and will not
work well. Oh, and lets quit confusing health insurance with health care.
There are people out there who still chose to pay for their health care without
purchasing health insurance. Get the Federal Government out of the cradle to
grave business. Allow the goodness of people to help those in need. Stop
forcing individuals to do that which someone else believes is good for them. I
vote for revocation with no replacement for Obamacare. Let the market function
how it does best - with a minimum amount of governmental regulation.
One of our friends just e-mailed us. She signed up for the gold plan, which
gives her much better coverage than her current catastrophic plan, and she saves
$100.00 per month.The ACA will really be a boon to individual
professionals covered by the bogus, huge deductible, restrictive, plans now in
place.Thank you President Obama.
Libertyforall,"A palliative care option only for those over 65
and no longer productive members of society would finally return fiscal sanity
to medicare."So just let those over 65 die (without pain of
I just LOVED this -- "Yes, Obamacare is a market-friendly reform
conceived in 1989 in the womb of today’s tea party: the Heritage
Foundation (Heritage Lectures #218 “Assuring Affordable Health Care for
All Americans" by Stuart M. Butler). It was born into legislative life by
none other than Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett in the 1993
“Consumer Choice Health Security Act.”"In March of
1992, the Heritage Foundation published "The Heritage Consumer Choice
Plan," which explained the pathway best suited to achieve universal
coverage. Number two on the list? “Require all households to
purchase at least a basic package of insurance, unless they are covered by
Medicaid, Medicare, or other government health programs. … All heads
of households would be required by law to obtain at least a basic health plan
specified by Congress. …The private insurance market would be
reformed to make a standard basic package available to all at an acceptable
price. … Employers would be required to make a payroll deduction
each pay period, at the direction of the employee, and send the amount to the
plan of the employee's choice.”======= The
GOP suggested it, The GOP needs to buck up and own it.
I don't care whose idea it was. The whole structure of Obamacare is broken,
and piecemeal changes won't fix that. We need to repeal this mess and start
over. Let's do the tweaking from the original position -- not from the
position of trying to redeem this pile of legislative garbage.After
repeal, if we want a law that says youth should be kept on their parents'
insurance until they're 26, or one that pushes insurers to accept
pre-existing conditions, or one that makes it harder for lawyers to sue doctors
out of existence, or one that makes it easier to establish health savings
accounts, then fine: let's consider each measure on its own merits.Sweeping changes are almost always a bad idea, and putting the federal
bureaucracy in charge is even worse.
Conveniently omitted from the article is the fact that Republican health care
plans of the past had bi-partisan support and were read before they were passed.
The anger against this plan, now bi-partisan, comes from Democrats not
accepting any Republican proposals. Not one of the 22 Republican amendments was
adopted. Republicans don't have to do a thing. The ACA is
collapsing of its own accord. Liberal Larry found one person who is benefiting
from the plan. The vast majority of Americans will be shocked at the rise in
their premiums and deductibles.
The letter starts out with a false statement: "our chosen movement toward
fairer delivery of health care. Yes, Americans have, in fact, chosen health care
reform as a priority."No Republican voted for ObamaCare. Not one
Republican voted for it. Not one.59% of the people said that they
were against ObamaCare BEFORE it was passed.ObamaCare is full of
contradictions. It is a mess. No legislator who actually read it could have
ever passed it. Even Obama refuses to implement ObamaCare fully. He is in
violation of his oath of office when he decides when and how he will enact a law
that he signed.ObamaCare must be thrown out entirely. The States,
if they chose and if their Constitutions allow, are the place to require
health-care insurance. Nothing in the Constitution allows the government to
require health-care insurance. Justice Roberts played dumb by calling ObamaCare
a Tax. He refused to measure ObamaCare against the 17 duties allocated to the
Federal Government. He added to the nonsense coming out of Washington. When he
had the chance to require Congress to follow the law, he shirked his duty.Get rid of ObamaCare. Get rid of all of it.
A little research outside of Google shows two things. First that the whole
mantra about increasing premiums and declining benefits is pretty much
exclusively about those buying private health insurance. A fact conveniently
left out of most articles and posts. Also those actions are because the new
policies have to include no life time caps, no pre-existing conditions, and
other beneficial ACA requirements. No surprises here.Secondly polls
quoted are cherry picking at it's best. The New York State
Medical Society Poll is a prime example. The basis of the poll is
that doctors hate practicing medicine in New York in general. Only 23% would
recommend it to medical students, and over 65% say their income has gone down in
the past 5 years all having nothing to do with the ACA but rather the state of
New York. So when you get to the ACA questions..guess what they still
aren't happy.As a side note the Kaiser Foundation found in
their survey that the vast majority (didn't give a number) of doctors have
no idea of how the ACA will directly effect their practice, even at this late
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, Utah59% of the people said that
they were against ObamaCare BEFORE it was passed.[That may be true --
I'm against it, most of us wanted the Single-Payer option.]And
as the letter so insightfully points out -- Obamacare was the Tea-party,
GOP idea, put forward and championed by Utah's Senators Orrin Hatch,
and Bob Bennett. [who you voted for, own it.]
I find it ironic that the author of this letter labeled anybody disingenuous
when he has mastered the art.- Previous plans by Republicans were
repeatedly shot down by Democrats. Democrats supported this out of party
politics and no other reason. Many have since fled from it during their
campaigns for reelection.- Previous plans by Republicans may have had
features similar to parts of ACA but none was as comprehensive in scope as ACA.
There is no way to make a case that this was originally a Republican plan.
It's laughable and the author does himself a disservice with the claim. It
destroys any sense of objectivity and credibility he is trying to portray.liberal larry: Yes, there will be a few winners in this deal. But for
every winner. there will be dozens of losers. So bring out you anecdotal support
but, remember, every anecdote is potentially an outlier so it is the weakest
form of argument. You would be better served looking at a more comprehensive
data set than a sample of one.
Sure mountain man, 70% of doctors will not make an appointment for you because
you bought your Blue Shield private insurance from a government website. Do any of you actually know what the ACA is?
BO is going down as one of the strongest willed Presidents of the 21st century.
The ACA will define his Presidency more so than the ending of two wars, the
killing of Bin Laden, reducing the size of the federal workforce, or the
creation and enforcement of tougher banking laws. If the current trends in
health costs contine to decline (over 200 billion projected in taxpayer savings
in the next 6 years)and the law remains in affect one could expect his
popularity to exceed what Clinton's or Regean's were when they left
office. Time will tell more so than the current bellowing of ill-informed,
right wing zealots.
FT: I love it when an argument shows its weakness by devolving into name-calling
(eg: right-wing zealots). It's especially delicious when the name-calling
cannot be supported by the facts. The facts are that Democrats running for
reelection are questioning the ACA. MSNBC, the liberal bastian of talking heads,
is just one example of liberal media outlets who question the ACA. Are they
included in your grouping?Any argument you may have been trying to
make before that comment now sounds hollow. Your obvious emotion over the issue
let's us know you are arguing with your feelings instead of your brain.
What is it about Democrats that makes them think that anything published by the
Heritage Foundation MUST be supported by ALL Republicans (and independents)...
like it's a law or something?I mean Democrats may be a bunch of
lock-step follow the focus group and do what the party boss tells you kinda
people... but that doesn't mean independents and Republicans have to follow
the marching orders they get from the focus groups or the party bosses.To me it doesn't matter what the Heritage Foundation says. That
doesn't bind me or my ideals in any way. This guy (and many Democrats)
pretend that since the Heritage Foundation published something back in the
90s... everybody's required by political-law to follow and support their
recommendations or any proposal like them.I just don't get that
type of logic.There are real problems with this law. I don't
care if we replace it, but we need to fix it. And ANY effort to change his law
is greeted by a bristling rally-the-troups response by Harry Reid and others.
Excellent editorial. Republicans are having a hard time stomaching the idea that
a conservative plan, pushed into law by a moderate president they have branded a
flaming liberal, is going to succeed (with a few tweaks along the way, of
course). Time to move on to the next faux crisis, GOP. What's it going to
be this time? Millionaires desperately needing more tax loopholes? Can't
Kent DeForrest: Since you think Obama is moderate, please describe what you
would consider liberal positions that are to the left of his. I think as you go
through this exercise that if you can get left of Obama, you can't get very
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments