Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: ACA can't be a success’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, March 20 2014 12:10 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I think the reason the Administration won't tell us how many young healthy people are signing up is... they know it's not good. And that means premiums are going to have to go way up in a year or two (once we find out how short we are and can't pay the bills).

They want this bad news to be broken by the NEXT administration. So the NEXT administration looks like the bad guy (HE raised your insurance premiums, not me...).

It's a good strategy. Cover the bad news up till you get out and then blame the new guy for the fallout (kinda like when Obama took office).

I wonder if the new guy is going to run the country for 8 years whining about how he inherited this insurance mess from his predecessor...

Seems to be the formula.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

All the politicos out there are probably right... it's a total success.

What does some silly physician know about any of this anyway? It's what us politicos think about it that matters, isn't it? These physician's concerns don't even matter. I don't know why the DMN would publish a letter from a physician. This is politics. And only what the Obama defenders think should matter.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@2 bits
"And that means premiums are going to have to go way up in a year or two (once we find out how short we are and can't pay the bills)."

In a year or two the mandate penalty gets larger. Plus you're forgetting one of the things the Republicans have complained about, the so-called insurance company bailout effect that triggers if there's insufficient premium control.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Schnee,
I just think it's highly suspicious that ACA was passed in his first term (the first year I think)... but the most painful parts were marked from the start to not go into affect until 2016 (when he's gone). And other parts were put off later on.

Isn't it a little weird to pass your landmark legislation... and put implementing the bulk of it off till you are gone or almost gone?? And that assumes he would get a second term. If not... ALL of it would have happened under his successor.

===

If it's great law.. and it's great policy... why not implement it NOW?

Why must the biggest parts wait till after your re-election... and the parts with the biggest possibility of negatives for the people must wait till after you are gone?

I mean if it was so great... why not implement ALL of it in his first term (so we would know if we wanted to give him a second term or not)?

Jamescmeyer
Midwest City, USA, OK

I have to bring back up what Badgerbadger said: Insurance isn't healthcare. Even uninsured people in the United States have greater healthcare (not to mention living conditions) than most places in the world.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Schnee "...mandate penalty...bailout..."

Sure, that's what the law says, but there's an election coming in 2016. Who's to say Obama won't postpone the pain again by decree? He's between a rock and a hard place, because voters will hate the mandates and the bailouts, but his signature accomplishment goes down in flames without them.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

@Badgerbadger "I have yet to see anyone turned down for health care, let alone lines of people. Insurance yes, health care - no." OKAY, we have an excellent, if tragic, statistical experiment underway, pitting states which have adopted medicare expansion a la ACA, and those that haven't like Utah. A few of us socialists intend to compare outcomes.

HaHaHaHa
Othello, WA

When promoting this lame failure of a healthcare system, bho and his fellow deluded leftists went on and on about how there are 50 million uninsured citizens in the country. Obamacare has now signed up about 7 million if you believe the current lies? Of the 7 million it is starting to sound like maybe 15% of them are people who didn't have insurance before obamacare (remember the big lie about how nothing would change if you liked the doctor and coverage you already had), or have actually paid their premiums. Yeah that is a leftists measurement of success!
Sorry but I can't stop laughing when I hear bho cheerleaders tell us things like: "I've had the same insurance for 15 years", and then in the next breath tell us how it changed 7 years ago, and anyone with a brain knows it changed again the past year and a half, just to comply with all the new abortion and other mandates. How about the silliness of an alleged doctor, telling us about NO difference between now and pre-obamacare. Notice he didn't tell about all the increased, and more affordable healthcare he is now providing? What a joke!!

ugottabkidn
Sandy, UT

Yes Badger, it's all about insurance not healthcare and since you and I have been covering the costs of healthcare for the uninsured, it is appropriate that they start contributing. Healthcare providers across the spectrum are equally to blame that healthcare is absorbing 20+% of the biggest economy of the world. I find it ironic that it took a democratic POTUS with a obstructionist Congress that finally got a republican healthcare proposal enacted into law. Soon you will realize that the best solution would be what all other industrialized nations have figured out long ago. A single payer system. HR 676 would be the best method.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@GaryO:
"Because it's good for America, and more and more people are beginning to realize that."

I'll admit Obamacare is good for the nation except for one thing... the requirement to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. What kind of government would require anyone to purchase something they don't want or need? Answer: A socialist kind of government.

What this means is that the government can also require you to buy and eat broccoli... or pay a hefty fine.

Mr. Bean
Phoenix, AZ

@2 bits:
"In realityville, if we don't pay enough in premiums to pay the bills... it will go bankrupt."

Not so. In realityville if there's not enough premiums to pay the bills or to subsidize insurance for the poor, the government will simply raise taxes to make up the difference. A very slippery slope.

Not only that, soon the government will be deciding what kind of healthcare you are entitled to. If some old geezer needs a hip replacement, too bad. Just go home and take a pain pill, is the advice of our beloved leader.

@pragmatistferlife:
"The only thing the ACA says to insurance companies is the policy has to cover certain things."

True, and why would I be needing insurance to cover pregnancy or breast cancer?

@one vote:
"Sorry Ben, the ship has sailed."

True, and we all know what happened to the Titanic.

Kimber
Salt Lake City, UT

I agree with "Gary O"...and would like to add this isn't about "control" it's about giving more people the ability to pay their health care bills. About six million or more have signed up because they need insurance...I'm one and glad to have it after seven with none. The previous health insurance system was failing miserably and this is a good step to correct it. (I'm sure more corrections are to come). This is similar to the country addressing the problem of the elderly in 1965 when Medicare was instigated. Now, I don't think wish that would have been overturned for their parents and grandparents.

to comment

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