Comments about ‘Obamacare may not be as expensive as we thought’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, April 17 2014 11:55 p.m. MDT

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

re: ordinaryfolks

Plus, consumer confidence is up, the debt is lower than thought, and while prices are creeping up there is minimal inflation.

Let see irrational righties (such as Redshirt who has as many handles after his name as a popular CBS TV show) spin that.

newhall, CA

We find ourselves in another election year and the democrats will do whatever it take, even fudge the numbers to secure votes and ensure they remain in power in order to continue their path to socialism. How nice.

Salt Lake City, UT

"The government is not profiting as much from teh ACA as they could if they got rid of the slacker clause."

"If you want to get insurance to be made cheaper without the subsidies, get rid of the mandates. "

Two things:
1. The mandate is the slacker clause. Mitt Romney himself even argued that the mandate is there so that people take personal responsibility (the mandate in his Masscare of course).
2. The mandate is one of the things that keeps costs down because it gets the healthier people into the system.

Cedar Hills, UT

In 2009 the bogus cost estimate sold to us by Barack was 800 billion for Obamacare. Today the cost is already over 2 trillion. Let's see that is about triple the first estimate. So Obamacare is not as expensive ?? Say what??

USS Enterprise, UT

To "Schnee" I don't mean get rid of the slacker mandate. I mean get rid of the 2000+ mandates that insurance companies have to comply with.

See "The Cost of Health Insurance Mandates in Washington" at the Washington Policy Center website.

I am saying get rid of the mandates so that insurance costs can be brought down to a reasonable level.

Salt Lake City, UT

Even with all this positive good coming out of the ACA, Orin Hatch starts spewing the same lame old rhetoric this week about "Obamacare is a disaster!" The only disaster is that he is so wrong! It's better than anything he has presented.

Kaysville, UT

To RedShirt

You obviously like to comment about the ACA, more than learn about the ACA. Just google "hmo insurance profit limitations"

"The ACA requires health insurers in the individual and small group market to spend 80 percent of their premiums (after subtracting taxes and regulatory fees) on medical costs. The corresponding figure for large groups is 85 percent."

The point in having insurance even with a high deductable is you will have treatment when you need it for high cost items and won't overutilize healthcare due to an overgenerous healthplan and probably won't go bankrupt, ruining your credit and passing those cost along to others...ie not being a freeloader. Yes expensive medical bills are common and if the hospital doesn't get paid, those costs are passed onto others. This system requires more personal responsibility.

Mcallen, TX

Not as expensive?

USS Enterprise, UT

To "cmsense" so you are saying that is it now cheaper to pay for the poor 2 times, rather than once?

Remember, we pay for the poor's health insurance, then we pay again when they go to the ER for medical care. Explain why that is a good thing?

If that isn't enough, what is the point of health insurance with a high deductable? It costs me less to have my car get fixed after an accident than it does to get my arm put in a cast, yet I pay 4 times as much for health insurance. The purpose of insurance is to handle unexpected, but now we are making health insurance cost more and cover less. Why bother with insurance since it won't cover much of what I need?

to comment

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