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
@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.
@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.
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.
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!!
@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.
@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.
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.
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)?
@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.
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.
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
Cheerleaders:The Obama administration is being deceptive with the
numbers. They count as an enrollment any plan selected on the website,
regardless of whether payment has been made. The number who have actually
purchased insurance is far less than the number they are claiming. It's
like Amazon counting a sale whenever someone adds an item to their shopping
cart.The other number they won't tell you is how many purchases
were made by the target demographic. If Obamacare is to be sustained, a certain
number of young, healthy people must buy insurance. These are the people
expected to pay in, so that the older, sicker population may receive payments
out. The whole program depends on striking the proper balance. How do the new
enrollments balance? The Obama administration won't say. Don't you
think they would, if the news were good?Another question to ask: how
many of these enrollments came from people who had just been forced out of their
old plan by the provisions of Obamacare? They should not be counted as net gain
in enrollment, yet they are lumped in with the 5 million figure. The real net
gain is not being reported.
I have yet to see anyone turned down for health care, let alone lines of people.
Insurance yes, health care - no.Not having insurance is not the same
as not having health care. The ACA doesn't give anyone health care. It just
makes them buy insurance, either for themselves, or pay the fine to pay for
other people's insurance. So please no more whining about
health care not being available. Charity health care has always been widely
available. The ACA should have been call the FIA, the Forced Insurance Act. It
is the ultimate government subsidy, given to the already most bloated 1/6th of
the economy, including huge drug and medical supply companies, and health
insurance companies. It is the ultimate crony capitalism, brought to us by the
This article nicely summed up the disaster that is Obamacare. Leftists will not
allow their messiah’s signature law to be criticized…even if it
means denying reality, and choking down Obama’s lies.* Dear
Leader lied about the cost (said it would be $900 billion, actual cost $2.4
trillion)* Dear Leader lied when he said the average American family
would save $2,500 under Obamacare. Premiums and deductibles are going up* Dear Leader lied when he said you can keep your doctor*
Dear Leader lied when he said you could keep your existing health Insurance plan
(Ask the 4.7 million Americans lost their insurance coverage under the
“Individual Mandate” portion of ACA )* In February Dear
Leader delayed the “Employer Mandate”; portion of Obamacare for
businesses with 50-99 employees until 2016. Now why would he do this? Perhaps
providing the Dems cover until after the elections?* Open enrollment
for the Obamacare Exchanges ends March 31. The goal was 7 million; now
they’re reporting that only 4.2 million have actually signed up. Of
these, about 20% haven’t paid their first premium. * Only
about 14% of the Exchange Sign-ups were previously uninsured. Hmmm?
I prefer millions of uninsured American families as well. I like knowing when
millions of people get sick they won't seek healthcare or if they do, they
will ruin their financial security. That will make America strong and the
envy of every nation on earth.
So Mr Booth, what to do? Go go a market solution which will price half of the
population out of health care, or go to a mean and lean Canadian type system
which serves most everyone with care equal to the best in the United States?
"He points out the fact that medicine has become the domain of pencil
pushing rather than patient service. "So let me understand this.
From a provider standpoint, they are being reimbursed by the very same people
they were before ACA. There is no new government insurance. Its still
BlueCross, or United Healthcare, or Intermountian Health. These are the same
ones providing the same forms they have now for decades. But not that there is
ACA... these forms are burdensome? Really?What I really don't
like is when politics becomes intermingled with health care delivery. If the
good Doctor really wants to go back to the good old days - you know the days
before corporate medicine, he doesn't have to take insurance. He can make
the patients file the papers like the good old days. he can ask for Cash - or
extend terms - just like the good old days.Its his choice. No one
makes him bill any way he doesn't want to. That is being him and his
Sorry Ben, the ship has sailed.
Sorry Redshirt - but you're still way out of touch with reality." How many of you think that the federal government is anywhere near as
efficient as private businesses?"Are you kidding? America has
been paying much more for health care than any other country in the world, and
the results were pretty meager.Sure, private business is good at
squeezing money out of people who need health care, but that isn't the goal
here.The goal is Affordable Health care for everybody, even those
with pre-existing conditions . . . Not just a select few.Thank you
President Obama and the Democrats for your wisdom and foresight in giving this
nation the ACA.God knows the Republicans had nothing to offer the
people of this nation.
If ObamaCare were good for America, would it need to be subsidized it to get
people to enroll? Would Obama be allowed to tell us that it would
save us $2,500 per family per year when the cost is much higher than our
pre-existing insurance? Would Obama be allowed to rewrite ObamaCare
when he has no legislative authority?Would Obama be allowed to tell
us that we could keep our existing policy if we liked it and then make us change
to a policy that the government has written for us?Would Obama be
allowed to NOT tell us how many of those who signed up are paying their full
share and how many are being subsidized?Would Obama be allowed to
tell us we could keep our doctors and our hospital and them make us use other
doctors and other hospitals?What was promised is not what we've
received. Where is "truth in advertising"? Why do we allow Obama to
lie to us when we would prosecute a merchant who lied to us?
Its easy to complain. That is why Republicans II am one) like to complain
rather than put forth a comprehensive solution. When Rush Limbauh.
was asked about the ACA, he hated it of course and said his solution would be to
just pay for the 12 million that don't have insurance, that it would be
cheaper. Thats riduculous, because that is what the ACA does. You have to have
rules to cover people. He acted like the 12 million today would be the same 12
million tomorrow and next month, but its a constant moving target with people
gaining jobs and coverage and losing jobs or getting medicaire etc. Rush
wasn't trying to be a problem solver I could tell at that point because if
he thought about his solution for 2 seconds he would know it wouldn't hold
water. The ACA is not perfect, nothing is but it beats what we had
before. Everyone should have equal opportunity for healthcare, not special
privelages to unions or tax write offs and protections for employees of
corporations, then denying the individual market the same protections and
" ACA was set up to put the government in as a middleman between people and
healthcare. "And just how is that so? I've had the same
insurance for nearly 15 years now and there's not one iota of difference
today than the first day I got it except nearly 7 years ago it was moved to an
HSA high deductible plan (by the employer). Oh wait I'm sorry that
can't be true this kind of plan is the fault of Obamacare. It
couldn't have existed prior to the ACA. The only thing the ACA
says to insurance companies is the policy has to cover certain things. Bare
minimums that all ready existed in 98% of all health insurance policies. If that was Obama's tactic to gain control of the health industry
I'd have to agree with your general sentiment that he's a complete
dummy and not capable of finding his way out of a paper bag. But of
course it wasn't his intent nor is you general sentiment accurate.
So Redshirt, you would have supported the establishment of a British-style NHS?
Me too! It's what we progressives all wanted. So we agree on something!
Affordable Care Act is not government insurance. It is private insurance
companies reaping the benefits. Weh you sign up you sign up with a private (for
profit) health care company from choices on the website. Also it has
been now proven that there are millions more with health care than before and no
one has "lost their insurance" The Koch brothers put out an ad that
claimed a woman had lost her insurance. When investigated by reputable news
sources it was proven to be an absolute lie. But since it was a well funded lie,
many uninformed people believed it.Just saying these lies over and
over will not make them true. As for forms and Doctors saying it is more
complicated. It isn't. Just the exact same forms you submit through your
own private health care plan.
I can understand the political motivation to trash the ACA in this letter. It is
a hot-button issue, to be sure. As a physician who practices in Utah, I can
tell you (and almost all of my colleagues would agree) that practicing medicine
prior to the ACA was just as challenging from a regulatory point of view as it
is today. In our office we have 3 full-time employees handling insurance claims,
billing and authorizations. Why? Insurance companies. If we paid cash or if we
had a single-payor system such as Canada's, we wouldn't have these
problems. The ACA is an imperfect implementation of a conservative
Heritage Foundation healthcare fix that, unfortunately, doesn't help much.
It certainly doesn't make my life easier, but at least it provides millions
more access to healthcare. It is the way it is because of insurance companies.
Never forget that.
I would say that since it's a REPUBLICAN idea only implemented before by
ROMNEY, that it is a terrible idea. It is however, slightly less draconian and
horrible than what we had before where people were denied health care completely
leaving people to die of curable chronic diseases.So my heart does
not bleed at all for anyone that has to fill out a form. And I know for a fact
that Dr's ALWAYS make someone else fill out the forms and they just sign
them if necessary so that's just disingenuous.
If the ACA was designed to actually provide medical care to those who need care,
it would have set up a system similar to the NHS in England. Instead, the ACA
was set up to put the government in as a middleman between people and
healthcare. Now think about the Federal Government's reputation as being
streamlined and efficient. How many of you think that the federal government is
anywhere near as efficient as private businesses.You can also look
at all of the warnings coming out of the insurance industry that the ACA was
destined to cost more and would result in employers either dumping coverage or
else cutting workers hours.How about this for signs that it was
doomed. The premise behind the ACA was that young adults would sign up for it.
At the same time they told young adults that they can stay on their parents
insurance until age 26. So, the very people needed to make this a success
don't have to sign up for it.What I would like to know is what
in the ACA was put in there that has actually improved things for the majority
The law is about health care, not about controlling the economy.And Dr.
Singers' article was published here because it was 'singing' the
song the DN likes to hear.
I think whether it can be a success or not depends on how you define
"success".From a politician's point of view...
it's already a "success". More people depend on the government,
and you are assured perpetual re-election. If you are ever in trouble, you can
say the other guy will pull your healthcare and let you die...But
from a clinician's point of view.. not so much a "success".===It's mostly politics. The people wanted something
that would control cost... but ACA did nothing to control the cost of the actual
care, just the cost of the insurance (and who pays the premium). But at the
end of the day... the same bill still has to be paid. It just makes some people
feel like they are paying less. In realityville, if we don't
pay enough in premiums to pay the bills... it will go bankrupt. It has to.
Bills don't pay themselves. Premiums still have to pay the bills.I don't think ACA was designed to be a total success... it was
created to condition us.. to be ready for the ultimate solution... Nationalized
Sorry man, but not even the very worst wishes from angry, vindictive Right
Wingers is going to overturn ObamaCare.Why?Because
it's good for America, and more and more people are beginning to realize
that.Get used to decent health care across the nation. And it's
about time.It's so much better than the United States being the
most backward of western nations because of regressive policies that a certain
segment of Americans appear to to cherish.
Thanks Eeyore.When you look for the "bad" in everything, you will
find it.Eeyore: The sky has finally fallen. Always knew it would.
Eeyore: It isn't mine. Then again, few things are. -------------