Comments about ‘My view: Fix Obamacare, don't replace it’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Dec. 10 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

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

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.

Liberty For All
Cedar, UT

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.

high school fan
Huntington, UT

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.

Hayden, ID

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.

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

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.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY


"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 course)?

Please explain.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

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.

Pleasant Grove, UT

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.

Provo, UT

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.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

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.

salt lake city, utah

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 date.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

59% 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.]

South Jordan, UT

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.

the old switcharoo
mesa, AZ

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?

salt lake city, UT

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.

South Jordan, UT

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.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

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 wait.

South Jordan, UT

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 far left.

to comment

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