Obamacare is an economic disaster that soon will start to unfold

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    April 11, 2013 8:08 a.m.

    @ Spoc

    Discounts for cash customers are usually 10-15% IF you pay the day of services. The discounts insurance companies get are 50-60%, and they have months to pay and still get the discount. The system is stacked against the cash payer. Until that is corrected, medical will continue to price PEOPLE out of the market.

  • Spoc Ogden, UT
    April 10, 2013 10:56 p.m.

    One of the things we need to remember about insurance is that its purpose is to protect against risk. This is why we buy car insurance. Many people would have a difficult time paying for legal costs and repair costs in the event of an auto accident. So what your insurer is doing is assuming the risk of a possible accident in exchange for your premiums.

    People do not buy oil change coverage with auto insurance because it is not a matter of chance whether they will have to change the oil. The insurance company would not be assuming any risk, simply writing checks on my behalf (plus profit); a pass through transaction. Under those conditions, I wouldn't shop to get a better price. I may even get it changed more often than necessary just because I know the extra cost will be paid for by everyone else with oil change coverage instead of me.

    Buy major medical coverage and pay for the rest with your MSA. Then shop for doctors and pharmacies that give a discount to cash customers.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    April 10, 2013 10:19 p.m.

    Some of you are suggesting that Republicans didn't offer any ideas. All Republican ideas were rejected before they were stated. I think you may have forgotten that the republicans were not permitted to work on forging the ACA. The committees that worked on it were comprised of 100% democrats. The democrats were so arrogant that they didn't even let the Republicans give input until the vote. That is how thoroughly the democrats rejected Republican input.

    Then they called for the vote before anyone had time to read the 2400 pages, let alone debate it.

    Obamacare is a purely democrat concoction, and when it fails it will be purely a democrat failure.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 10, 2013 2:42 p.m.

    @JoeBlow "Why is govt a participant? 2 words. BIG MONEY!"

    And why is big money a participant? Because government has influence over just about everything that matters to them. Power is the magnet that attracts big money.

    We would be wiser to de-centralize and diffuse power. Unfortunately, Obamacare does exactly the opposite. We have put the federal government in charge of one-sixth of our economy. Corruption waiting to happen. (Already happening, to be more precise.)

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 10, 2013 1:19 p.m.

    To "JoeBlow" the answer is simple, get government out of the way of health insurance.

    Here are the problems. First, health insurance companies have over 2600 mandates on them. These include what they are to cover and how they are to report things to the government. Get rid of 50% or more of those mandates. They add 50% or more to the cost of insurance.

    Next, make it more difficult for malpractice lawsuits to be filed. This will reduce the cost that Doctors pay for malpractice. For example an OB/GYN can pay up to $360,000 per year for malpractice insurance, even if that cost is cut in half, it will make their services much cheaper.

    Next, allow companies to offer policies across state lines. This will also lower costs because it will allow companies to pool states with aging populations with states that have younger populations.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 10, 2013 12:32 p.m.

    Don't like Obamacare?

    Obamacare/ACA has a provision allowing states to devise their own universal healthcare systems starting in 2017. The state of Vermont is moving forward with a single-payer plan.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 10, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    "Nate proposed, and YOU did exactly what you said, you DISCOUNTED ANY AND ALL ideas from the other side."

    I doubt that Nate feels that way.

    We are actually having a reasoned dialogue.

    I looked seriously at all points. My counter arguments were factual and reasoned.


    "But their pricing structures are different state to state. Residents of Massachusetts often pay a different price for the same insurance as do residents of Wyoming."

    Again, true, but do any states have pricing structures that are not increasing at a huge rate? That said, I agree with you. It is minor to let Insurance companies cross state lines. I am not confident that it would help, but doubt is would hurt.

    "Wherever you find a corrupt monopoly, government is a participant. This is why we need to keep them out of it."

    I believe that you are now hitting on the overall issue and problem.
    Why is govt a participant? 2 words. BIG MONEY!
    Until we get big corporate and Union money out of politics, our politicians will cater to the corporations and the unions.

    Unfortunately, people only complain about the "other sides" big money.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    April 10, 2013 11:32 a.m.

    Everyone from Deloitte to McKinsey has a prediction, all orders-of-magnitude different. And these are our "brightest" MBAS doing the numbers. Meanwhile some companies are thinking of self-insuring -- a great idea, actually. In truth, ObamaCare does unleash the very market forces conservatives want, by allowing many different options within exchanges. The fact is, the WSJ and the "conservatives" hate ObamaCare because they hate Obama. Voila tout.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 10, 2013 10:53 a.m.

    @lost in DC

    To be fair to JoeBlow, he may have discounted a few of the ideas, but he did it while agreeing with them in principle.

    @JoeBlow "Tax incentives?"

    Yes, if by that you mean, not taxing HSA funds at all.

    "They [largest companies] are operating in most states as it is."

    But their pricing structures are different state to state. Residents of Massachusetts often pay a different price for the same insurance as do residents of Wyoming.

    "Unregulated, I am confident that the largest health care companies will drive out the competition with the help of congress...."

    They do that now *with* regulations. The less we allow Congress and the White House to tamper with any industry, the less favoritism they can inject into it. Wherever you find a corrupt monopoly, government is a participant. This is why we need to keep them out of it.


    I have no investment in Romneycare or in Bailout Bob's plan. They were the wrong approach, for the same reasons that Obamacare is wrong.

    "It was not the blueprint many Democrats wanted to pursue."

    Then why did they vote for it?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 10, 2013 10:02 a.m.

    Interesting NONE of the BO apologists have DEFENDED Obamacare.

    What do we propose?
    Nate proposed, and YOU did exactly what you said, you DISCOUNTED ANY AND ALL ideas from the other side.

    The 90s writers did not propose a 2500 page monstrosity bought with bribery and graft, unread before passage. Are slick willy’s 43 and 49 percent victories “majorities” yet?

    Romneycare was amended after he left MA by the leftist legislature there. But you are correct, it is NOT a good model.

    Blue devil,
    It’s called marginal rate of return. If the additional business costs more than what it is worth, you don’t chase it. Reducing your employees to part-time and hiring more allows you to capture that business and NOT incur Obamacare costs. Great for the CEO’s bonus, BAAAAD for the employees, so Obamacare FEEDS the 1%.

    Truthseeker (ignorer??)
    It’s an OPINION piece. It is DESIGNED to tell one side.

    Obamacare was developed in bi-partisan committees? Between who? Moderate dems and liberal dems? EVERY repub idea rejected! That’s hardly bi-partisan!

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    "I want to know, how is Romneycare working in MA?"
    It’s not. The costs have skyrocketed and there is not full insurance

    And that was the biggest reason Romney lost (many conservatives stayed home from the election because they felt Romney was Obama light - I disagree - but the election was lost by Republicans because of decreased conservative turnout - not because of increased liberal turnout)

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    The Massachusetts health care plan is experiencing the same funding problems that the ACA has encountered. It is sadly naive to believe that they work "just fine." The ACA is a grand vision which was initiated by Mitt Romney in MA, universal health care at an affordable price. In application, it is a confusing disappointment. The projected initial cost of under $1 trillion has risen to $2.7 trillion and according to the Supreme Court, states are not required to adhere to federal Medicaid guidelines. Middle class families have yet to feel the weight of their financial obligation. Unfortunately, it is apparent that the ACA provides neither universal or affordable health care.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 10, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    Another one-sided article about Obamacare. Is this going to be a daily feature of Deseret News?

    I want to know, how is Romneycare working in MA?

    Obama offered tort reform, if Republicans were willing to work with him. The CBO projected tort reform (which several states already have) would've saved $54 billion over 10 yrs. By contrast the CBO estimated a public option would save $110 billion over 10 yrs.

    As for expanding the ability to purchase policies in other states--what a nightmare for physicians-- dealing with more insurance companies and plans. It is not clear what recourse a resident of one state would have if an out-of-state insurance company unfairly denied a claim etc.


    Obamacare was developed over many months, in bi-partisan committees. It was very clear that Republicans opposed healthcare reform--even a plan offered by Bob Bennett. Democrats adopted as a blueprint, Romneycare, because not only was it enacted by a Republican, but it was built on ideas from conservative think tanks. It was not the blueprint many Democrats wanted to pursue.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    April 10, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    Don't you mean Romney care? This is Romney's plan for Mass, which works just fine for them.
    It's not perfect but it's a step in the right direction.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 10, 2013 9:05 a.m.

    Mtnman. Check out the tort reform that was done in Texas. It has not produced the huge drop in insurance premiums.

    Nate. I assure you that I am open to any and all good solutions. Unfortunately, our politicians, and many many people in this country will discount ANY and ALL ideas from the other political side without consideration.

    Lets look at some of your proposals.

    Encourage health savings account. Ok, how? Tax incentives?

    Nationwide competition. I agree with that, however, some of the largest companies already have a huge percentage of the business. They are operating in most states as it is. There have been many mergers and the competitive field is shrinking.

    Reforming Tort. Im ok with that also, but Texas did not find that it made much diff in premiums. Additionally, we need reasonable tort when someone does an appendectomy on the wrong patient.

    Unregulated, I am confident that the largest health care companies will drive out the competition with the help of congress (through campaign donations and lobbying). THeir profits will continue to increase and costs will go up.

    When we prevent out legislators from voting on issues where they were lobbied, we will get_better laws.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 10, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    We need to take it a step further, get employers out of the equation entirely and get a single payer system in place.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 10, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    @JoeBlow "OK, Obamacare stinks. Fine. What do YOU propose?"

    You seem to be inferring that no alternative solutions have been offered. This is simply not true. Obamacare's failures were accurately predicted, and many, many alternative solutions proposed. The problem is that they were ignored.

    What do I propose? First, repeal. Then realize that the high costs which currently exist are a result of excessive government involvement in health care in the first place. Our current system is over-regulated and inflexible. The solution is not more of the same. We have forgotten that free markets produce the widest range of products and services at the lowest prices.

    Free market solutions could include: encouraging health savings accounts, removing obstacles to nationwide competition in the insurance industry, reforming the tort system, de-coupling health insurance from employment, deregulation across the board. Many other solutions will emerge when individuals and health care providers are free to contract with each other without outside interference.

    It was a big mistake to ram Obamacare through the legislative process without discussing alternatives. We have lost half a decade. We need to get back on track. Repealing Obamacare is the first step.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 10, 2013 8:30 a.m.

    Ok... lets see. Companies are going to down size.... turn away business, because they don't want to pay for insurance.

    Let me see...... the argument for not having higher taxes is that business will just pass the higher cost on to the customer. Now seeing how this will impact all businesses, all will see the same fiscal hit. In the case of taxes, the cost will simply be passed on to the consumer.

    Same argument for minimum wage.

    But with health care cost, oh no.... companies will down size. Lay off employees. Reduce hours. It's cats and dogs living together....

    Lets get to some consistent arguments here. This is a cost. It will hit all businesses. It may indeed mean an increase in consumer prices. But it is not going to change the fundamentals of business. Businesses will staff to meet demand. Plane and simple.

    It is simply a cost - not something that is going to shake the fundamentals of capitalism.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 10, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    Our healthcare cost are expensive largely because of tort lawyer's malpractice suits which we all pay for and emergency room non-payers who's costs are passed on to those who do pay. In addition, we can not expect the best medical care, the best and most advanced pharmaceuticals in the world to be cheap! If you want cheap healthcare go to a 3rd world country but remember you get what you pay for! Mitt Romney was right that repealing Obamacare, expanding insurance companies ability to compete across state lines and changing tort laws would do far more to stabilize costs than having the government running healthcare with all its additional mandates and taxes. Too many Americans were so fixated on "free" government subsidized heathcare without pre-existing conditions that they never listened to the warnings about Obamacare. If you think your healthcare costs are high now, wait until next year!

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    April 10, 2013 7:53 a.m.

    And our current system is a total disaster. It is also a prime example of the Republican Party's version of socialism. (Socialize expense; Privatize profits)

    We are all paying for the care of those who cannot or will not obtain insurance.

    Instead of spouting stuff like this, where are the suggestions for a system that will actually work?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 10, 2013 6:30 a.m.

    Funny, in the 90s conservative writers and organizations touted Obamacare as their city of gold! I wonder what changed?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 10, 2013 5:05 a.m.

    There sure are lots of critics, but very few with ideas.

    Whats even worse is those who say, "US healthcare system is the best in the world. Thats why it is expensive" and think that nothing needs to be done.

    OK, Obamacare stinks. Fine. What do YOU propose?