Comments about ‘In our opinion: The Affordable Care Act needs a bipartisan overhaul’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, July 30 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

It needs it but it won't get it.

One political party is determined to kill Obamacare. There's no negotiation or compromise with them.

Our only hope is to retain the senate and take back the house.

Salt Lake City, UT

I and many of my friends on the left begged for "medicare for all." It's doubtful Obama could have gotten that through Congress, but he should have tried.

The future of health care looks bad in the United States given our current politics. It's as though the political right wants to punish low and moderate income people through denial of health care. Politicians of all stripes need to understand there is building rage among the U.S. electorate.

Murray, UT

Obama just gave waivers to people living in US territories, including Puerto Rico. Everyone now has a waiver, except the American taxpayer.

Mainly Me
Werribee, 00

The Not Very Affordable Care Act needs to be repealed. That will require a bi-partisan effort.

Bob K
Davis, CA

A-- The entire idea was originally proposed by republicans, but, since it would cost rich donors lost income, they abandoned it.
B-- Health care reform should have been done in the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush administrations, but the lobbyists for those donors stopped it.
C-- President Obama practically made a fool of himself asking republicans over and over again to contribute ideas to the bill when it was before Congress.
D-- No bills improving the ACA have been introduced by republicans.
E-- About 50 attempts at repeal have come out of the House, while nothing on fixing unemployment, immigration or the infrastructure has been done.

The DN is correct that the ACA should be kept, but, I am sorry to say, totally dreaming to suggest that the present version of the republican party will assist in improving it.

Hospital corporations, multimillionaire doctors, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and others give obscene amounts of money to Congress. I would venture that every poor child could be fed with half that money.

Why not call for lobbying reform that might change Congress, or the end to "safe districts" that effectively kill the 2 party system?

LOU Montana
Pueblo, CO

The ACA is not this huge government handout. It assists only the most poverty stricken. What it has done is set laws that the Republicans should have passed during the Reagan years. What the

ACA does not need is the Republicans putting their GREEDY fingers into it!!

Far East USA, SC

"negotiate in good faith for substantial changes to the law with which legislators from both parties are able to live."

Negotiate in good faith.. Now there's a novel idea. Except both sides must do it to be effective.
This article only seems to chastise Obama.

The GOP has voted 50+ times to repeal it, but have yet to agree on anything in order to improve it.

The American people would welcome constructive changes. Can someone please point out ANY provisional changes that the GOP is proposing?

Virginia Beach, VA

"the Affordable Care Act shows that it needs a bipartisan overhaul"

Think so huh?

You know, the ACA could have been bipartisan to begin with. The President practically begged Republicans to help design the law, but they spurned his offer.

"I want to consult closely with our Republican colleagues . . . What I want to do is to ask them to put their ideas on the table. . . . I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward." - B. H. Obama February 8, 2010

But NO . . . Smug Republican Legislators REFUSED to do their jobs. Apparently, they didn't realize that legislators are supposed to legislate. Instead, they REFUSED to participate in crafting the MOST IMPORTANT LAW of the 21st century.

And now Republicans say "the Affordable Care Act shows that it needs a bipartisan overhaul?"

Well now . . . That window of opportunity may have SLAMMED SHUT.

Think of it as a learning experience.

When Republicans learn to elect competent representation, then they will get competent representation.

. . . Does that make sense?

seattle, WA

Do you really think that the Republican/Tea Party wants to do anything but destroy this bill?

No Republican/Tea Party member of the House or Senate dares to offer constructive changes to the ACA. It is party doctrine, akin to the laws of gravity and the wishes of the NRA, that no one can support the law known as Obamacare. Any Republican/Tea Party member who dares voice acceptance of the healthcare act would be drummed out of office, even if he/she would be offering changes that make it work better.

I don't know why the DN is offering this hint and wink to the public that suggests constructive change is possible. I doubt that Sen. Hatch's bill is all that serious either. He wishes to remain Senator for life, and knows how the political winds blow in Utah.


An appreciated comment from the DNews, but I wish that some attention had been also given to the unconstitutionality of mandating insurance via Congress, and the hardship caused by such onerous mandates. I wish to be free to choose my own insurance or to have none at all, and foot my own bills if I create them.

However, YES, there should be a bipartisan overhaul, or preferably rejection, of the "affordable" (laugh or cry out loud) health care act. In the latter, legal and preferred, course the states might legally, and one hopes wisely, broach the subject at a state level.

Thid Barker
Victor, ID

There is an old saying, "One rotten apple will spoil the entire barrel". Obamacare has terminal flaws; it will never get any better and is dying an excruciating death on its own! Like the cancer that it is, the most humane thing we can do is to put it out of its misery; repeal it before it can metastasize and continue to infect our entire economy and cause even more devastation than it has already!

E Sam
Provo, UT

Funniest op-ed ever. What evidence can you offer to suggest that the current House of Representatives has any interest whatsoever in fixing anything, at all?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

The editorial said, "Yet many who are eager to see its collapse are offering few alternatives to address the nation’s pressing health care problems."

The "nation" has no health care problem. PEOPLE have health care problems. The Constitution allows the federal level of government to tax us to pay for the seventeen duties we have assigned to the federal level of government. ALL other duties are to be left to the States or to the people.

The Federal Government is directly responsible for high health care costs. FDR froze wages. Companies started offering "health care" in lieu of wages. Now, everyone expects "free" health care. Nothing is free. Company sponsored health insurance is in lieu of wages.

Doctors need extra people on staff to handle insurance claims. Prices reflect those additional people.

People think that a doctor visit costs $20, when the insurance company pays $200 or more.

Their are 50 states. Let each one handle health care issues, as Romney did in Massachusetts. At least one of the States will get it right.

Provo, UT

The obstinate abstinence of the GOP when it comes to the ACA is embarrassing if not negligent. It is yet another example of the hijacking of my lifelong political party by extremists, and why I cannot support that radical sect any longer.

salt lake city, utah

You want to make adjustments to the ACA and as a starting point use Hatch's bill? The very first principle of the Hatch bill is the complete repeal of "Obamacare"

The next overriding principle is whatever the bill says the states can say no and do what they want.

From there they move to completely gut insurance plans of comprehensive coverage. First all mandated services are repealed, then if your plan is a good plan you will be taxed as ordinary income on everything your employer pays above 65% of the premium.

So far which of these changes look like improvements to the health care coverage of Americans?

Next they move to cost with the ever popular tax credits. No subsidies. Of course if you're poor you already don't pay federal taxes, but hey let's give you some more credits you can't use to pay that monthly premium.

And of course the whole ineffective health insurance situation will be fixed by the creme de le crème (I'm sure that's not spelled right)..tort reform.

When you all come up with something useful let us know, we'll listen.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

A wise and balanced commentary. Thank you.

Salt Lake City, UT

It is disturbing how divided people have become on the ACA and other issues, taking sides with one or the other party. A house divided cannot stand.

Those arguing for the ACA apparently do not see it as a scheme of the government to get more tax revenue. The ACA will only raise costs of health care. And, as people delay routine health procedures, since it will be paid out of pocket because the high deductible has not been met, we will see more serious/costly health care needs increase.

It is not the governments responsibility to provide healthcare. People need to stop equating health insurance to health care. healthcare is right eating, right thinking, and exercise/work it is a personal responsibility. The cost burden of the ACA will be put on the backs of taxpayers not yet born and that is not right.

Far East USA, SC

"the most humane thing we can do is to put it out of its misery; repeal it before it can metastasize and continue to infect our entire economy and cause even more devastation than it has already!"

OK Thid. For the sake of discussion, lets say you are correct.

The way I see it, in years to come, medicare/medicaid are slated to completely bust the budget. Would you agree with that? If not, what data are you looking at?

So, the way I see it, the problem MUST be addressed.

We have 3 choices as I see it.

1) reduce benefits
2) combat the rising costs (which by any measure are way out of line compared to other countries)
3) raise taxes to cover the shortfall.

So, if the GOP is successful in repealing, what is the plan going forward?
What is your plan.

I am still amazed that with all this endless talk of repeal, the GOP has not agreed on ONE plan to combat the inevitable.

One could argue that the Dems are misguided in their attempts to fix healthcare, but at least they acknowledge a problem.

The GOP acts as if the old system was sustainable.

Salt Lake City, UT

It is evident that American capitalism cannot deliver health care to the people. Health care will come to the vast bulk of our population only with socialism. There is no other alternative.

South Jordan, UT

This whole AFA was "rammed" through Congress. No Democrat would dare speak out against BHO because of the political backlash. They still won't because of the same reason! The 2,000+ page document was not read by anyone in Congress because of the rush to vote on it in the eleventh hour (Pelosi, "We'll have to read it later to find out what's in it!)

There were many bribes and payoffs to get Senators to vote for this awful bill. (i.e. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska for one.) We all knew it was a train wreck from the beginning, and nobody in the GOP voted for it. The many, many offers Republicans made were ignored. The public was outraged that the Congress was exempt from this mandate. Then came the many, many executive orders with changes made by BHO with his pen. And it continues!

We lost 3 outstanding doctors because of it, one retired, one left to go teach in a university, and the other left to go to Switzerland to practice. Obamacare needs to go in my opinion. Let the states and free enterprise handle health care, not big government and the IRS!

to comment

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