What's in a name? Obamacare vs. Affordable Care Act

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    March 3, 2013 9:38 p.m.

    If you really understand how "health care" (sickness care, actually) works, you know that this mess of a bill will never "fix" anything. Exchanges are not magic, and there will be many insurers that simply can't afford to accept a bunch of very ill people. If you really know anything about government, you realize that the Federal government will never actually solve this issue. They will shift the costs and run up the bills, but in the end it will still be the taxpayers and workers who will bear the burdens of this monstrosity. While some of the essential concepts might be somewhat desirable, the final product will still be astoundingly complicated, controversial, and burdensome. Don't ever kid yourself that this piece of legislation (more aptly labeled "Pelosicare," by the way), will really make anything better for this nation. Those who feared a disaster will not be disappointed, regardless of what all the supporters claim.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    March 3, 2013 9:08 p.m.

    Red state,

    I could not agree more: Let competition bring down the costs. Everyone agrees, stop the runaway costs. We Americans pay more than anyone, so how is it that in free-market capitalistic America, we pay more? Because we have a broken, twisted system that first-and-foremost rewards the insurance industry and the medical profession. The current system has turned competition on its head. That's why I was all for a government-run program to compete with private insurance. Let me choose cheap, basic, govt-run health care, or let me work hard and pay more for better private insurance with better benefits. I just don't see another way to break the system we have now, which we all agree is a failure for its run-away costs.

    But please, let's not blame the current administration, which has done MORE to bring us along than any other recent administration. If we've fallen short it isn't because the current administration has been unwilling to get us there.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 3, 2013 8:40 p.m.


    Free market:

    #1 Purchasing a TV. Drive to store A--look at the prices and TVs. Compare to prices and TVs in stores B, C, and D.

    Now explain how the free market approach works for getting an emergency appendectomy, cancer, heart attack, stroke etc.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    March 3, 2013 8:13 p.m.

    The Court told us that the ACA is a tax. That's all that it is. A little of the money may end up being spent by the Federal Government to (illegally) provide personal welfare to individuals. Personal welfare is not an enumerated duty of the Federal Government, any more than providing the military to water your lawn is a duty of the Federal Government. That will not stop liberals from taxing us, putting that money is the general fund, and then spending it on their pork projects just like they've spent all of the SS money that we've "donated" through other taxes.

    Look back over 80 years and you'll see that FDR's camel got its nose in the tent. Now Obama's caravan of camels has forced the taxpayers out of the tent.

    Insurance is a contract between an individual and a company where that company agrees to pay for unexpected medical expenses. Nothing in Obamacare even remotely resembles "insurance". It is a tax - pure and simple - a tax that will never be used for health care.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 3, 2013 8:11 p.m.

    An excellent letter.

    And may I point out that much -- if not most -- of the misunderstandings about ACA come as direct results from outright LIES told by the GOP.

    Perhaps the most outstanding was Sarah Palin's story of "Death Panels."

    What a wonderful world it would be if honesty really was a value.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 3, 2013 8:07 p.m.

    @EDM- Basic healthcare is an aspirin tablet. Of course our health care sytem was dysfunctional before the ACA. A few things drive me crazy though. First, government is not the solution to every problem (esp contrived problems)- we have other more important pillars of our society e.g. churches and civic organizations. Second, it seems that that there is a notion that healthcare should be free. Nothing is free and things can be financed over time. Third- health insurance does not equal healthcare- I'm tired of the terms being used interchangeably. Fourth, why can't we allow market forces to work in our healthcare system? Free markets drive down costs in every other area- why not healthcare? I don't mind my taxes being used to pay healthcare costs for the truly needy- but aren't there certain basic responsibilities a fully functional adult in America should be able to handle on their own?

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    March 3, 2013 7:18 p.m.

    Red state pride,

    I'll give you this: We certainly are living with an aberration of a health care system. But if you think "Obama, Pelosi, Red" are to blame, you are sadly wrong. The fact is that when Obama was first elected no less than 100% of the American public was in favor of health care reform - and most of us are still waiting and hoping for something better. Obama, unlike is predecessor, took up the call and tried to DO something about it. And although everyone agreed something needed to be done, Republicans chose a course of obstruction instead of cooperation. I'm as disappointed as you are with the current system, but I certainly don't blame those who led the call.

    To answer your question, Would I go to Britain for health care? Well, I was treated there once with no trouble. More recently, when I returned from Singapore with severe back pain and a fever, I had one of the worst experiences in my life trying to get basic health care right here in the US! In 25 years of working and living and overseas, I've never encountered a system more twisted than our own.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 3, 2013 6:47 p.m.

    France has been rated as one of the best healthcare systems in the world.

    The French system combines private and public sectors to provide universal health coverage to all. Most citizens receive their insurance through their employer and almost everyone has supplemental private insurance. The majority of medical bills are paid for by the government (funds from payroll and income taxes) and the remainder is footed by individual's supplemental private insurance.

    #2 Italy

    Italy provides universal health care to the whole population with the 20 regions exercising control and the central government providing regulatory assistance.

    The Time magazine article, " Why Medical Bills are Killing Us" is a great place to start a conversation.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 3, 2013 4:12 p.m.

    @Kent - what other "industrialized nation" has 300 million people and a functioning health care system? What's the population of Great Britain? Approx 60 million? And the third largest employer in the world is the BHS. Let that sink in. Would you go to Britain for health care?
    I tend to think that since we have these little "laboratories of democracy" called states maybe we should allow states to work out their own healthcare systems and see where it works best and let other states follow suit if they choose to.
    I certainly don't favor a single-payer system but I agree with you that a single payer system would be better than this travesty that Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al have created.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    March 3, 2013 3:10 p.m.

    In response to Red's argument, I wonder how it would work to sever health insurance from employment but not have any government involvement. Well, here's how it would play out. Businesses would no longer offer health insurance as a benefit, but those businesses would also not increase the pay of the employee so that he or she could purchase insurance on the so-called free market.

    How can you claim with a straight face that "a centralized bureaucracy attempting to make healthcare arrangements for a nation of 300 million will fail utterly"? Every other industrialized nation on earth (and many Third World countries) are indeed making this work. And they are doing it at half the cost of our bloated, inefficient system because, believe it or not, government bureaucracy is better suited to offer health care than the private market is.

    We should scrap the ACA and move to a single-payer system. We'll eventually get there anyway, but why waste 10 years and trillions of dollars? There are some things the free market is just not suited to do well, and health care is one of them.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    March 3, 2013 2:44 p.m.

    Exactly right Red State Pride! Along with a president who lies everyday, the really sad part of this whole process and legislation is that some people really believe that this is affordable. It was expensive to start with, and has already been projected to cost 3 times more the the original projections. Only a moron would believe this is truly an "affordable" care act!

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 3, 2013 2:04 p.m.

    "Affordable Care Act" and "Progressive" are terms Orwell wold have referred to as "newspeak". Just because you call something affordable doesn't make it so- especially when the facts prove otherwise. Calling yourself "progressive" doesn't mean you are interested in progress ( see George Will's column today). Your idea of "progress" may not necessrily be progressing the nation to a better place.
    I will admit that there are some good points to the ACA but that doesn't mean it's good legislation. I think it's important to separate health insurance from employment. Employers don't pay for car insurance. But, the fact is that a centralized bureacracy attempting to make the healthcare arrangements for a nation of 300 million will fail utterly. The fact is that in allegedly free country people should be able to decide whether or not to have health insurance and they certainly should be able to buy an insurance policy that fits their needs and not their needs as determined by the Secretary of HHS.
    At any rate, it's the law of the land now- call it what you will.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    March 3, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    Excellent article! Well written, and a compelling argument.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    March 3, 2013 12:23 p.m.

    Thanks Mr. Reiser for pointing out this information in a non-confrontational manner. I think if all of us on either side of the political spectrum, and especially myself included, would sit down and learn the facts behind someone's premise or proposal, we would most likely find common ground in the many things. Unfortunately many or most of us - and, once again, I definitely include myself in that category - listen to people we have come to trust, for whatever reason, usually because their opinions resonate with us, and we cheat ourselves out of finding the truth and letting the truth benefit us all.

    So thank you Boo. You've done a good thing today.

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    March 3, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    Thanks for this article....I agree!

    An ACA volunteer

  • Gandalf Salt Lake City, UT
    March 3, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    Excellent comments Boo. Black and white, them vs. us thinking is counterproductive.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 3, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    I wish we had actually gotten some of the provisions of health care that the republicans are so angry about. Real health care, not the ACA.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    March 3, 2013 8:35 a.m.

    This is a great "my view" article. The truth exposed and well stated!