Unhappy anniversary

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 27, 2011 8:27 a.m.

    To "Esquire | 7:07 a.m." another thing that you probably didn't notice is that the HC law also requires that insurance companies get approval from the government before they raise their rates more than a few percent.

    Lets not forget that those that don't have insurance now, probably won't buy insurance once they are forced to do so because it is cheaper to pay the fine than buy insurance.

    Next, look at Massachusetts, thanks to their mandate that everybody buy insurance, the ER's are overflowing, and insurance costs are rising because everybody has insurance, but there are not enough doctors to go around, so the winners of that mandate are the doctors and HC providers. Now you want to take that show national?

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    March 26, 2011 5:20 p.m.

    @Lost in DC, last time I checked the President doesn't pass legislation or budgets. The Affordable Health plan is the infant, public option will be the adolescent and then the only way we will ever have affordable healthcare will be when we grow up and pass a single payer universal healthcare system. You cannot control costs when everywhere along the way from insurance company, doctors, hospitals, and other providers each tack on markup and costs that are rising at twice the rate of inflation. American citizens are getting hosed plain and simple.

  • Wastintime Los Angeles, CA
    March 26, 2011 1:25 p.m.

    It is uncontested fact that people who buy coverage pay for their own health care and take care of themseleves don't strain the rest of us. It is also uncontested fact that WE ALL currently take care of those who don't (because they visit emergency rooms for their health care and tremendously drive up the cost of healthcare for everybody).
    "Obamacare" attempts to deal with this by covering more people and requiring more people to have coverage. Those of you who don't like it must propose another idea (to the emergency room status quo) if you want to be taken seriously.
    WHAT IS YOUR PLAN? I watch for it but I never see it. So I repeat, WHAT IS YOUR PLAN? The old status quo was untenable. You don't like the new law. So WHAT IS YOUR PLAN (specifically, how will do deal with people you do not hae coverage visiting emergency rooms)?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    March 26, 2011 12:25 p.m.


    you're right, we need to do something better. Something that will actually reign in costs rather than expand and shift them like Obamacare. Wastintime talks about cost shifting, all Obamacare does is prescribe a different type of cost shifting. We need something better than Obamacare. BO LIED to get it passed. He promised all these great things, but NONE OF THEM WILL BE REALIZED. All he wanted was to force everyone onto health insurance.

    He said costs would go down - they've gone up. he lied

    he said if you like your current plan, you can keep it. Companies have been cancelling their plans as a result of Obamacare. he lied.

    people have lost their coverage AS A DIRECT RESULT OF OBAMACARE. He lied.

    his goal and end, the attainment of which justified any dishonest means available (cornhusker kick-back, Florida flim-flim, Louisiana purchase, beck-room deals, etc ad infinitum) he could come up, was to take over the delivery of health care in the US.

  • Wastintime Los Angeles, CA
    March 26, 2011 11:36 a.m.

    "A mandate is personal responsibility? I'm sorry, I find that statement an incredible stretch of reality. Personal responsibility is providing for yourself. If you choose to buy insurance to cover yourself, fine."

    Not fine.
    Those who don't have health insurance, when faced with catostrophic health costs pass the costs to the rest of us--in hospital terminology it is called "cost-shifting."

    You seem to have a broccoli obsession.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2011 9:51 a.m.

    @lost in DC

    "if someone else is paying for it (subsidies), it's a free ride. "

    Typically we don't say a student who is only getting part of their college paid for with scholarships is getting a free ride

    "And I guess you are now a strong Mitt backer?"

    Circa 2002 when he was very liberal he was my favorite republican.

    "Without that, there is no need for the unconstitutional mandate that everyone be forced to buy something."

    Okay most people like the pre-existing condition ban in the bill. You being an exception means at least you're consistent in that you know we can't do that without the mandate.

    "If someone wants to play Russian Roullette... rather than buying health insurance, why should I be forced to compensate for their recklessness? "

    But if insurance companies can just reject claims due to pre existing conditions or all that other stuff we already have a game of russian roulette with the insurance company even if people to get insurance. Over half of US bankruptcies are for medical expenses, in Europe it's near zero. Personally I believe the right to life doesn't stop at birth.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    March 26, 2011 7:07 a.m.

    @ Redshirt1701, you are completely wrong. The legislation requires us to have health insurance, and the private insurance companies are the ones who will benefit with 50 million new customers. The government is not taking over health insurance. That is one of the great lies of the opponents, the status quo who are making billions and don't want their cabal disrupted. Most of the legislation has not even gone into effect yet, and so if costs are up since its passage, that would have happened anyway. In my organization, we battled rising premiums of 30 to 35% each year with diminishing benefits. You cannot blame this unsustainable situation on our President or on the legislation. Instead of putting up lame excuses (see, for example, "lost in DC | 4:28 p.m."), let's do something to move us in a new direction before the system completely collapses on its own. After 60 years, we can do better.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    March 26, 2011 6:21 a.m.

    if someone else is paying for it (subsidies), it's a free ride.

    And I guess you are now a strong Mitt backer?

    If insurance companies are forced to insure bad risks, insurance costs will of necessity skyrocket. Your notion of free riding ONLY comes into play because Obamacare forces them to insure bad risks. Without that, there is no need for the unconstitutional mandate that everyone be forced to buy something.

    What's next? Will we be forced to buy life insurance to make sure our families are provided for financially if we die? Will we be forced to buy broccoli so we can have the health benefits of eating broccoli? Where does it say in the constitution that we can be FORCED to buy something?

    If someone wants to play Russian Roullette (sp??) with their finances and health by buying a bigger car and a boat and taking 7 cruises a year rather than buying health insurance, why should I be forced to compensate for their recklessness?

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    March 26, 2011 12:03 a.m.

    How can the greatest country in the world get the worst results for dollar spent? Because we sold our healthcare industry to corporations for profits. How can a country that was once so educated become so stupid that every other nation that has a non 3rd world economy can provide healthcare to their citizens? How can a nation that has given so much to the world in times of famine, floods and disaster provide so little to its own citizens? How can a nation with the greatest healthcare tools in the world restrict them to only those who can afford them? Again I say, why. Why are our healthcare results so dismal when we pay so much? Why? Because we sold our nation's health to the souless and until 2007 was a non entity. The corportation. Yes, that corrupted non regulated organization that would rather see us on the other side after we give them our inheritance. I think we could do better.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2011 7:30 p.m.

    Most of obamacare really doesn't go into effect until 2014.

    "The mandate (which has nothing to do with keeping costs down"

    Yes it does. Remember that pre-existing condition thing? If insurance companies can't drop coverage for that anymore it means people can freeride without insurance until they get sick if there's no fear of pre-existing conditions getting in the way. That causes health insurance premiums to skyrocket. The mandate prevents that free-riding and thus keeps costs down.

    "A mandate is personal responsibility? I'm sorry, I find that statement an incredible stretch of reality."

    Mitt Romney said so (literally, and that video clip of him saying it is a thing of beauty to democrats and the bane of his electoral hopes) and he's right since as I noted before the mandate prevents free-riding.

    "I guess you couldn't find in the 25000000000 pages of the bill the subsidies that will cover Obamacare for untold millions, who WILL be getting a free ride. "

    Subsidies are in the bill I'm aware of that, it doesn't mean it's a free ride though if they're still paying part of it.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    March 25, 2011 6:49 p.m.

    Many part of Obamacare ARE in effect.

    I seriously doubt a public option would control costs. But BO did not say Obamacare would keep costs down only if the public option is included, he said it would keep costs down. Period. It didn't, he lied, Obamacare failed.

    The mandate (which has nothing to do with keeping costs down) just forces people to buy something they may or may not want; and it lines the pockets of those evil insurance companies the proponents of Obamacare love to vilify.

    A mandate is personal responsibility? I'm sorry, I find that statement an incredible stretch of reality. Personal responsibility is providing for yourself. If you choose to buy insurance to cover yourself, fine. If you chose to pay as you go and not involve the insurance company, that is fine, too. Where do you get the idea you cannot get healthcare without insurance?

    And you say everyone will pay for it? I guess you couldn't find in the 25000000000 pages of the bill the subsidies that will cover Obamacare for untold millions, who WILL be getting a free ride.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2011 6:30 p.m.

    @lost in DC

    Why would healthcare prices go down? Most of Obamacare isn't even active yet so as far as price is concerned there's nothing that would change much until 2014. Also... might I remind you that our strongest form of cost control in the bill was the public option which Republicans forced us to drop. Our next strongest form of cost control is the mandate which Republicans want to take out. Really conservatives just don't like personal responsibility which is what a mandate is. There are no free rides, I don't even know how you all are saying people are going to get free healthcare when the mandate means everyone has to pay into it one way (insurance) or another (not getting the tax break for having insurance, or as others refer to it, a fine).

  • SteveD North Salt Lake, UT
    March 25, 2011 6:07 p.m.

    Once again we have the same old, tired health care debate. This never goes anywhere. however, I am going to offer up a solution. I know it will never be implemented because the powerful rich people won't like it.

    Health care Co-ops.

    Big corporations or any large group of people (States) could create their own health organizations and hire doctors or negotiate prices and set bylaws about patient rights. The feds could get them started with seed money for way less than this current debacle.
    Just like the credit unions reeled in the corruption of the banking industry. Health care Co-ops could fix the corruption of the health industry.
    And for all you ideologues, I don't listen to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. So don't waste your time trying to catagorize my thought origins.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    March 25, 2011 4:28 p.m.

    yes, insurance and health care costs WERE going up before Obamacare. Obama promised he would fix that and bring costs down. Since costs are still going UP after Obamacare, BO lied and Obamacare is a failure.

    We've heard your two stories of the fat kid and the woman with breast cancer. I guess you missed the part of the article that talked about people LOSING their insurance as a direct result of Obamacare.

    Why don't you fill us in on the numerous breadwinners who can't get life insurance because they are sick or dying and how devastated their families will be financially when the breadwinner dies without life insurance so BO can pass Obamalife and force us all to buy life insurance?

    Why don't you assail us with stories of how devastated we will all be if we don't eat enough vegatables so BO can pass Obamabroccoli and force us all to buy and eat broccoli?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 25, 2011 4:12 p.m.

    To "The Real Maverick | 12:40 p.m. " um.....you are wrong. CNS news found that 60% of Americans want the HC law repealed. Gallup found that 46% want it repealed and only 40% want it to remain the same. Even a CBS/NY Times poll found in January 2011 that more Americans want the HC law repealed.

    Um, last election didn't a bunch of Democrats lose their seats in the House? Didn't enough lose their seats that the House is now Republican controlled? Also, in the Senate didn't the Democrats lose their supermajority? Also, didn't many states vote in Republican Governors to replace Democrat ones? Wouldn't you call that Democrats losing?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 25, 2011 3:09 p.m.

    To "Pagan | 1:52 p.m. " you are really funny. You accuse me of posting the same thing over again, yet you did the same thing.

    What really made me laugh is the fact that the DN story that I listed only alludes to a liver transplant in AZ, but does not mention the specific incident. It also states that "In Illinois, a pharmacist closes his business because of late Medicaid payments." and "In California, dentists pull teeth that could be saved because Medicaid doesn't pay for root canals."

    And what do you think happens to all of the claims that Medicare denies 6.85% of all climes while industry averages 3.88% of claims. As you have pointed out before, Medicare insures more people. So, doesn't that mean that Medicare is causing more harm to the public because they are denying more care to the people who need it the most?

    So, basically, you are in favor of a system that puts more people in harms way through denial of claims.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    March 25, 2011 1:57 p.m.

    There is nothing civilized about demanding some else pay for your healthcare,

    There is nothing honest and good about demanding someone else labor for you.

    There is nothing honrable or progressive about taking people's choice and agency away.

    But this is what the left demands.

    Grow up and take care of yourself.

    there is catastrophic heralthcare insurance to take care big things, that is waht insurance is for, NOT for daily care,

    you take care of the rest.

    there are family, church, and charitable organzations, fund raisers, for those who need it.

    It is childish to demand other take of you,

    Ther is not enough money, even when it is forcibly taken via taxation and fees, in the world to pay for everyones care, everyons retiremen, and all the other social programs, these left wingers demand.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2011 1:52 p.m.

    "Medicare denies a brain tumor drug after a patient moves" - Kevin MD - Redshirt1701 | 12:42 p.m.

    You've used these before. Let me present the FACTS of them, again.

    Paula Oertel's medicare was NOT denied because of a brain tumor. Rather, it was mistakenly removed due to a address change.
    It was given back AND Medicare now covers the cost of her interferon beta, which runs about $8,000/month.

    Her brain tumor is now in remission.

    "Medicaid cuts: teeth pulled, transplant called off" DN

    Republican Gov. Jan Brewer (Az) CUT the funding to Medicaid for this Liver Transplant.

    Not Medicaid itself.

    She has gone on RECORD being against goverment healthcare.

    *'Gov. Jan Brewer: No funds for transplants' - by Mary Jo Pitzl - Az Central - 12/11/10

    *'Two Dead Since Arizona Medicaid Program Slashed Transplant Coverage' - By JANE E. ALLEN - ABC News - 01/06/11

    'Two Arizona Medicaid recipients denied potentially life-saving organ transplants have died...(sic)
    ...that the state's GOP governor, Jan Brewer, and GOP-led legislature said they could no longer afford.'

    This will be my last post for the day.

    Because UNLIKE Redshirt/1701, I ADHERE the the DSNews rules.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 25, 2011 12:42 p.m.

    To "Pagan | 11:29 a.m." you are really obstinate aren't you. I try to make a valid comparison between the 1999 numbers that you gave, and the number of mandates. The total number of mandates is out of control, and if cut in half would restore insurance to an affordable level for most Americans.

    See "ObamaCare Brings Insurance Rate Hikes" at The New American. Depending on the state, insurance rates will increase by 5% to 17% as a direct result of the new mandates given by the HC law. So, if you think about it, without the law insurance would be cheaper than it is with it.

    See "The True Effects of Comprehensive Coverage: Examining State Health Insurance Mandates" by the Batton Rouge Area Chamber for data up to 2007 concerning the number of state mandates.

    The Council for Affordable Health Insurance has a paper titled "Health Insurance Mandates in the States 2010" in table 2 of that paper, they list out the mandates. The total is 2156.

    "Medicare denies a brain tumor drug after a patient moves" - Kevin MD

    "Medicaid cuts: teeth pulled, transplant called off" DN

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    March 25, 2011 12:40 p.m.

    Keep your capitalist hands off my health care!

    That's all I can say!

    I'm one of millions of Americans, and the majority of Americans, who are happy with what was done! The minority who preaches NO and TORT REFORM who want to place our health care into the hands of those on wall street who gambled our retirements away and then gave themselves millions in bonuses have lost.

    Sorry guys! You lost! We won! And we'll all benefit now, not just those who can AFFORD health care.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 25, 2011 12:22 p.m.

    "So, what you are saying is that the entire healthcare system should be overhauled because 1.037% of the population has a problem?"

    No, we should change the system because we spend more than any other industrialized country without significantly better results in most areas.

    Republicans haven't offered a plan which increases access to healthcare for the uninsured, and believe taxpayers should not pay for the uninsured, YET our current system we all pay for the uninsured, regardless of state/fed programs. Why aren't Republicans passing laws to limit healthcare to only those who have the means to pay? Only then would their policies match their rhetoric.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 25, 2011 11:34 a.m.

    To "Pagan | 9:40 a.m. " now, as for the bankruptcies, lets go over the numbers on that one.

    According to various sources there were 1,593,081 bankruptcies filed last year. If 50% of them were due directly to healthcare expenses, that means that 796,541 people filed bankruptcy last year because of healthcare expenses. That number of people represent 0.259% of the US population. Now, to give you the benefit of the number of families effected, lets say that the average family size is 4 people. That means that 1.037% was effected by bankruptcy last year.

    So, what you are saying is that the entire healthcare system should be overhauled because 1.037% of the population has a problem. Why would you radically change the healthcare system because of 1% of the population?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2011 11:29 a.m.

    '...and then, as always, fail to expalain where that number comes FROM.' - Pagan | 9:40 a.m.

    Redshirt1701 | 11:17 a.m. post.

    '...health insurance prices have gone up faster thanks to the HC bill.'

    Thanks for supporting my point about your 'facts' Redshirt. It's true...because you say it's true.

    Not because it is.

    Your not upset about 1200 madates, but not with 1600? 2007 was BEFORE healthcare reform!

    Also, where did these mandates come from? What are they? Who authorized them?

    Don't you ever get TIRED of posting your opinions as facts?

    Before healthcare:

    * 'Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance' - By Nancy Lofholm - Denver Post - 10/12/09
    '"I could understand if we could control what he's eating. But he's 4 months old. He's breast-feeding. We can't put him on the Atkins diet or on a treadmill," joked his frustrated father, Bernie Lange...'
    4 month old?
    Alex Lange

    *'Wellpoint Drops Coverage For Some Women With Breast Cancer' - By Mary Ellen Egan - Forbes Magazine - 04/23/10

    * Insurer revoked HIV Patients coverage Reuters 03/17/10
    Person? Jerome Mitchell.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 25, 2011 11:17 a.m.

    To "Pagan | 9:40 a.m." health insurance prices have gone up faster thanks to the HC bill. You probably don't want to believe that, but what do you think is going to happen when hospitals, doctors, suppliers, and medical device manufacturers are hit with more taxes or fees? Also, what effect do you think adding the pre-existing conditions mandate to insurance will do to the cost of insurance, along with keeping kids up to the age of 26 on your insurance? Will those drive up the cost faster than what would happen without them? Be honest.

    Lets look at what has happened to mandates since 1999. Back then there were about 1200 mandates on health insurance companies. By 2007, there were over 1600, by 2010 there were 2156 mandates on insurance. So, you have an increase of 80% in the total number of mandates. Even if each additional mandate only averaged $5 per policy, that adds up very quickly.

    Plus you need to factor in the extra overhead that Doctors charge because Medicare/Medicaid don't reimburse enough to cover their costs.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 25, 2011 11:00 a.m.

    The Editorial Board characterizes the democrats as manipulating in order to pass a bill that will cost us more. At least there was discussion, debate and deliberation. But the Editorial Board endorsed the House meaningless vote on repeal without any discussion on replacing or improving the healthcare reform bill. Furthermore if the Editorial Board is going to quote polls on healthcare they need to properly characterize the results of the polls. The polls have been consistent and show a majority of Americans want it kept in place or improved. A minority of Americans want it repealed and not replaced or replaced with a GOP version.

    Almost all European countries have a form of government sponsored health care insurance. They have done it for years and none have backed off on their programs and many respects they are better off than we are. In contrast those of us in this country who are advocating a healthcare system that is more along the lines of survival of the fittest or wealthiest is not helping our future.

  • ljeppson Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2011 10:59 a.m.

    Well there is a lot a could say in reponse to this typically right wing editorial. I won't say much, but instead let me point out that you folks at the D-News have NO solution to the health care crisis faced by the majority of Americans - you only offer vague state - level fixes which are non-starters. You people talk a good line about personal responsibility. Well, to the degree you get your way and inflict suffering on millions of people via your opposition to the act, you should accept personal responsibility. I intend to see that you do so!

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 25, 2011 10:34 a.m.

    Thank you for reminding us of the $104 billion nonsense from Michelle Bachmann.

    From politifact:
    The spending provisions were in the plain language of the bill; they did not vary dramatically from past congressional practice; and the bill was made public for 72 hours before the vote.

    Additionally, the CBO extensively analyzed the bill and reported its findings.

    What are the components of the $104 billion?
    $40 billion, went to the state Childrens Health Insurance Program, to fund it for 2014 and 2015.
    A new Prevention and Public Health Fund -- a state-based effort aimed at preventing chronic disease -- got the second biggest chunk, $15 billion over 10 years.
    The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation got $10 billion over 10 years to test payment and service-delivery models that might reduce health care spending and improve care.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 25, 2011 10:13 a.m.


    In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.

    In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Under the act, the federal government gives annual lump sums to the states to use to assist the poor. In turn the states must adhere to certain criteria to ensure that those receiving aid are being encouraged to move from welfare to work.

  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2011 10:01 a.m.

    Add one more cost the 104 billion hidden in the 2010 budget that is being spent every week that the continuing resolution is in place. This law is the worst of all worlds it increases costs, adds unnecessary beaucracy, and encourages more inefficiency in the delivery system all just to say we did something.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2011 9:40 a.m.

    'It makes healthcare more expensive, and pushes people into government programs.' - Redshirt1701 | 8:08 a.m.


    Healthcare was going up BEFORE hand.

    To claim that was the RESULT of healthcare reform is false, as...

    the other side has offered zero things to bring the cost of healthcare...DOWN.

    To support my point:

    'Health costs double for workers over decade' - MSNBC - 09/15/09

    'According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average premium for a company-provided family health insurance plan rose from $5,791 in 1999 to $13,375, a 131 percent jump.'

    *'Only in America: Bankruptcy Due to Health Care Costs' - James E. Dalen, MD, MPH - 08/04/09
    '...health care expenses were the most common cause of bankruptcy in the United States in 2007, accounting for 62% of US bankruptcies compared with 8% in 1981.'
    - American Journal of Medicine

    I realize you will 'counter' this by saying medical bankrupcies 'only' account for 1% of all bankrupcies...

    and then, as always, fail to expalain where that number comes FROM.

    With your many, many alias', of course.

    Great job moderator.

    I guess that 'limit to x4 comments' dosen't apply to Redshirt.

  • John Charity Spring Alloway, NJ
    March 25, 2011 9:19 a.m.

    The Founding Fathers believed that the government had no business getting involved in social welfare programs. The Fathers knew that this Country would be stronger if its people were expected to provide for themselves, because the people would become stronger.

    In World War II, there were many who thought that Uncle Joe Stalin was a benevolent genius because he proposed a system in which the people would have every want and need, including health care, provided by the government. History has proven that Stalin was neither benevolent or a genius, and his political system has since collapsed in failure.

    The question arises: who should patriotic Americans follow, the Founding Fathers or Josef Stalin? The answer should be obvious, but it is apparently not obvious to some.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 25, 2011 8:08 a.m.

    To "Esquire | 6:47 a.m." the problem is that this bill does the complete opposite of what it was supposed to do.

    It makes healthcare more expensive, and pushes people into government programs.

    In the end, it will put more people's health insurance into the hands of the government. With so many people's care at the hands of government officials, who will be there to protect people from the government?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    March 25, 2011 6:47 a.m.

    This partisan editorial would be more useful had it addressed how to deal with the underlying problems. The legislation is conceded to be far from perfect, but it is a step in the direction of action, rather than inaction and protecting the status quo. The American people need this resolved, and the critics offer nothing. There will certainly be pain in the implementation process, but positive can-do spirit, followed by constructive action to make modifications, is what is in the interest of the American people, rather than the interests of special interests.