Obamacare recourse

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    April 30, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    Mike Richards:: Currently the federal government owes the Social security trust fund over 4 trillion dollars. So your trash talking that s.s. isnt succesful is pure Bull S. The affordable healthcare act will save our country trillions in healthcare costs. Source. The CBO. Spin it anyway you want but trey to use facts not hysteria or lies.

  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    April 30, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    Another example of a democratic leader actually doing something good for the country, and the GOP kicking and screaming all the way. Republicans are the party of NOTHING. they have never done anything ,and never will. Unless you consider wars and destroying economy's as doing something. They are a disease, like a cancer and need to be removed.

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    April 30, 2013 9:32 a.m.

    @Lew Scannon
    Your comment is non sequitur to mine. Stop labeling health care as Romney v. Obama v. Brand X and come up with a fiscally viable plan for universal health care. Hiding behind a party affiliation or demonizing someone else is counterproductive and disingenuous.

  • casual observer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 30, 2013 9:26 a.m.

    One's view of the ACA seems to depend on whether you are on the giving or receiving end. As long as it is a win-lose situation our nation will be polarized. From "A chicken in every pot," to raising taxes today, people usually vote their pocketbook.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 30, 2013 7:29 a.m.

    "God gave us agency. Government, and those who support a nanny state, take away that agency ". First of all your characterization of a state that provides social welfare programs as a "nanny" state is absolutely false. Secondly freedom in a complex society and world is not just the ability to do what you want when you want. Thirdly, in a complex society and world there are many restrictions imposed from influences other than the government on not what we want to do but what we need to do, and often the role of government is to restrict or shape those influences so we can do what is necessary to have freedom from prejudice, hunger, illness, a corrosive environment etc.

    In a modern world it is often the case that a restriciton of one persons freedom to do what they want opens up the freedoms of millions to do what they have to.

  • Iron Rod Salt Lake City, UT
    April 30, 2013 3:35 a.m.

    I wonder how many of the 200 plus injured people injured in the Boston bombing had medical insurance? A large percentage of Americans have no medical insurance. Correct me if I am wrong but all residents of Massachusetts are required to have medical insurance but what about the visitors and those with out medical insurance? Those hospitalized (not working) will they have the resources to pay their unexpected medical bills? If not who who will pay for their bills? Some interesting ideas to consider before rejecting Obama Care.

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    April 29, 2013 11:56 p.m.

    Think about it for just five seconds, what does capitalism need to thrive? A well educated workforce? Ok. Good infrastructure to get goods to market, employees to work? Yep. A healthy workforce? No doubt! Its too bad that unfettered capitalism also breeds greed. Its too bad that the private businesses can't just come up with some sort of system to pay into to make sure we have these necessities that allow businesses to thrive. Its too bad the government has to step in and assume these roles, but give me ONE, just one good example of where some sort of corporate shangri la exists as I have described... please. Truth is capitalism needs some sort of socialism to even work. That or we can keep getting passed by by the rest of the world. But we have pride right? Knowing that we were stubborn and tried to just hand over the keys to the chicken coup to the foxes, assuming they were so smart that they would just take care of everything, ignoring the masses because they probably don't know any better right? At least according to the foxes they don't.

  • high school fan Huntington, UT
    April 29, 2013 10:24 p.m.

    The results of the Affordable Care Act, higher taxes, higher medical costs, higher insurance coverage, fewer doctors and less full time jobs. They said they had to pass it to know what was in it, we'll now we are beginning to see what is in it and all of us will be negatively affected. None of us should be happy with this health care law.

  • SUNNY ALL DAY Saint George, UT
    April 29, 2013 8:56 p.m.

    Business is in business to make a profit.


    Business is not in business to hold hands with employees.

    You make a profit by cutting expenses.

    Give your employees a target for their hate by helping them blame your profit decisions on someone else besides you.

    If an owner makes decisions to cut hours, pay and benefits and can successfully shift the blame for that decision onto someone else, she/he will do it in a heartbeat as long as the decision puts more money in her/his pocket.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    April 29, 2013 7:17 p.m.


    So if you hate "the nanny state" so much, I'm guessing you're against Utah's liquor laws? No more FCC to regulate obscenity on the airways? No more laws that deny gay couples the right to get married? No more tax dollars for abstinence-only sex ed?

    Wow, Mike. How progressive of you.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    April 29, 2013 6:26 p.m.

    Those who actually believe that a voluminous mish-mash law like this is actually going to improve either health, health insurance, or the economy have to be at the extreme upper end of the naive scale. This thing is a total disaster, and will devastate many people, organizations, and systems that were actually working pretty well before. As usual, government is the problem, not the solution. Time to deal in reality, people.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 29, 2013 6:03 p.m.

    Your best recourse...vote for those who would implement a single payer universal system that gets health care out of the realm of employers and insurance companies entirely. Health care is for people, all people need it, and assigning the responsibility for it to employers is blatantly unfair.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 29, 2013 5:00 p.m.

    The question is not whether we need ObamaCare. It's not even whether government has the authority to tax us for ObamaCare. The question is whether a free people need a nanny government to tuck them in every night to keep them from bruising a toe. (The Court ruling allowed us to be taxed. It did not address the issue of whether THIS tax is allowable. Before ruling on that subject, ObamaCare must have time to damage us. At the time of the ruling, ObamaCare was not far enough along in its implementation phase that we could show monetary damages.)

    NO free people anywhere in the world "needs" a nanny government.

    NO free people anywhere in the world can allow the government to pass the cost of their personal healthcare to some "rich guy".

    NO free people who desire to remain free can allow the government to take away their right to fail.

    God gave us agency. Government, and those who support a nanny state, take away that agency - they say for our own good. That never was God's plan and it never will be.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 29, 2013 2:49 p.m.


    You ought to view "The Retirement Gamble" on Frontline at PBS.


    Like with many changes in life, there will be bumps and perhaps a painful switchover process as ACA becomes fully implemented. Additonally we may discover changes that need to be made.
    Most employers are not decreasing the number of full time employees (btw ACA requires employers provide insurance for those working 30 hrs or more/week or to pay a penalty). Some companies already tried to decrease employee hrs but then abandoned it due to major pushback/pressure.

    Bottom line, however is Republicans are determined to resist change whether it is renewable energy, healthcare etc., while other countries are leading the way in adopting and developing new technologies etc, the U.S. risks falling behind.

  • Lew Scannon Provo, UT
    April 29, 2013 2:35 p.m.


    Not as many times as you have been.


    The reason we got Romneycare instead of universal health care is because Republicans will never allow America to join the civilized world. Of course, they even voted against Romneycare. I love how they disown their own ideas.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 29, 2013 1:46 p.m.

    To some people, life is just one big joke. They laugh at the misery of others. They snicker behind our backs at our "self-caused" misfortune.

    Being fleeced by the government is not funny. That corrupt politician who convinced you that your employer "contributes" half of your Social Security tax is both a liar and a fraud. YOU pay the full 15% of Social Security and Medicare and you always have. That 15% comes before deductions and exemptions. If you make $50,000, Uncle Sam takes $7,500 of it before you deduct yourself, your spouse, your children, or any contributions to charity. They take theirs before your write off any property taxes or medical expenses or education expenses. They take their money first, before you can invest it in your own retirement fund. They don't allow you to exempt yourself from their Ponzi scheme.

    You tell us that we're not capable of living without Uncle Sam as a nanny. That's a lie. It has always been a lie. It will always be a lie. Crooked politicians need us. We don't need them.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 29, 2013 1:00 p.m.

    "Many people depend on Social Security because the government took away their ability to invest their money to meet future needs."

    I too thought this line most comical. I suppose that over the last year or so that the rate dipped to 5%, most everyone took that extra little bit of their pay checks and dumped it right into their retirement investment accounts.... right? I am sure there is data to support this.... Next.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 29, 2013 12:34 p.m.

    @ Mike: "Many people depend on Social Security because the government took away their ability to invest their money to meet future needs."

    Really? And before Social Security was passed how many people were "investing" for their retirement? (Let me give you a hint: The reason the current generation is paying for the past generation is because the past generation when SS was implemented had no resources to pay for their own care and livelihood - and their children couldn't do it on their own.)

    Once again, your claims bear little resemblance to facts.

  • Copy Cat Murray, UT
    April 29, 2013 12:15 p.m.

    How many times are we going to be "suckered"?

    Don't know the number, but it won't end until the government can no longer steal or borrow enough money to buy the votes. Then they will turn to violence to control the people, and taking away the guns from the people is in preparation for that, as the money is running out.

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

    "Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly a half-billion dollars in taxpayer money over the last two years to building improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams.
    But senior Army officials have said repeatedly, “No, thanks.”

    Yet in the case of the Abrams tank, there’s a bipartisan push to spend an extra $436 million on a weapon the experts explicitly say is not needed.

    Keeping the Abrams production line rolling protects businesses and good-paying jobs in congressional districts where the tank’s many suppliers are located."

    _ __ _

    This should make us all LIVID. Our politicians are wasting money and they know it.
    Nothing like an expensive jobs program.

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    April 29, 2013 12:04 p.m.

    Universal health care - good idea. The ACA - bad implementation of a good concept. Ready, fire, aim!

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 29, 2013 11:40 a.m.

    Many people depend on Social Security because the government took away their ability to invest their money to meet future needs. Today, many people think that taking 18% of the private wealth out of circulation in the guise of ObamaCare will benefit society. It will not. It is the largest tax increase in our nation's history. It cannot pay for everything that Obama promised, any more than Social Security paid for everything that FDR promised. It is just another Ponzi scheme that transfers wealth from the workers to those who vote for government handouts.

    Yes, a single issue is worth our vote. Our nation cannot survive when corrupt politicians convert private assets into payments for pork-barrel projects. Is our memory so short that we don't remember the "payoffs" in exchange for votes? The Washington Times wrote that 733 "exemptions" were granted and that four States, New Jersey, Tennessee, Ohio and Massachusetts are exempt. Many unions are exempt. Ask Senators Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu what the price was for their votes.

    The process was fraudulent. The results are political. The promised benefits will never materialize.

    How many times are we going to be "suckered"?

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    April 29, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    It has been observed that those clamouring for repeal are those that few if any major health issues in their family. Healthcare is not big oil and should not be profitized as such. If you really want to control healthcare costs then impliment a single payer system and take insurance companies out of the process because it adds 30% right on top before you even see a doctor.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 29, 2013 10:30 a.m.


    That is rather accurate, it is said that the recession is the main driver of the low increase in healthcare spending. However, I would also note that the vast majority of Obamacare does not go into effect until 2014 so the full effects of Obamacare are definitely not apparent in the data yet anyway.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 29, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    What a petty and silly letter.

    And then you folks wonder why you're referred to as the party of, "No?" As completely out of touch with Americans and obstructionist?

    It's time for you folks to reform. Time to change. Stop always being so difficult. Time to give the American people what they want. A rational and respectful GOP full of solutions rather than complaints.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    April 29, 2013 10:02 a.m.

    So, HaHa etc., income rose at .3 percent per year between 2009 and 2011? Yes, but it increased rather handsomely for the top 7 percent of households. For the other 93 percent, it decreased. If you earned under $188,000, you lost ground (on average) during that time. This highlights the real problem. With most of the gains going to the top tier, the people who make America great are getting a smaller and smaller piece of the slowly expanding pie. We need to look at Germany for an example of a smarter way to distribute corporate ownership and profits. Germany is also a huge net exporter, leading the world until recently, when China overtook them. By contrast, we haven't had a trade surplus since 1975. Yup, 37 straight years of trade deficits.

  • Lew Scannon Provo, UT
    April 29, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    I agree. Let's vote for representatives who will get rid of Obamacare . . . and replace it with a single-payer system for the whole country, based on any of 20 systems already proven in other countries to provide quality health care for half the price of our mess.

    That means, of course, that we can't vote for a Republican. The Republicans want what we used to have or, better yet, a purely market-driven system that will exclude everyone who can't afford health insurance. That group ought to hit 100 million in a few short years, if the Republicans have their way.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 29, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    "So at the 3.9% growth rate you are calling wonderful, health care costs are rising 13 times as fast as income. "

    Whether it is rising at 5 times as fast as income, or 10 times, or 2 times, the bottom line is that it has been raising at an unsustainable rate.

    Something has to be done. Is that Obamacare? I think not.

    But when the GOP has been in control, they have done nothing to address the problem. In fact, Medicare part D, passed under complete GOP control was the largest entitlement expansion since Social Security.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 29, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    " Obama's deep recession"

    Any reasonable person would admit that the economy was tanking hard when Obama took office.
    We were losing 750,000+ jobs per month.

    One can argue that the recovery should have been quicker, but the recession was in full bloom prior to Obama.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 29, 2013 9:11 a.m.

    Great post utahbluedevil. Weak rebuttals.

    Face it repubs, your health care reform from the 90s is working just fine as Romneycare I mean Obamacare.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 29, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    You both forgot to include the part about this data goes back to 1960 - and this is the lowest rate of increase since that date. We're going to completely ignore the other recessions that happened during that period... or the fact that the depth of this recession was 2007-2009.... not 2009 - 2012. Health care spending kept its full bore charge higher during those 3 years... but lets go ahead and ignore that... it is not convenient to the argument.

    And absolutely... lets not try to take the good, that seems to have been working.... the things that were supposed to break the back of the system, allowing for pre-existing conditions and expansion of care to children up to the age of 25 - those things that have now been in force for a couple of years.

    Is the system perfect. Heck no. But as long as one side wants to wear blinders, and just say no to everything, and not accept those parts that are working..... we're lost.

    Yes, the economy has an impact. But no one says they are not going to treat their cancer, or cancels long term care because a recession is on.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    April 29, 2013 8:17 a.m.

    Durham, NC

    "From todays news..

    :America's national health care spending grew by 3.9% each year from 2009 to 2011,"

    Yes, but per-capita income only rose 0.3% each year.

    So at the 3.9% growth rate you are calling wonderful, health care costs are rising 13 times as fast as income.

    The growth in the price of health care has been the problem all along, and it is clear that Obamacare has not addressed the real problem at all.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    April 29, 2013 8:00 a.m.

    "America's national health care spending grew by 3.9% each year from 2009 to 2011, the lowest rate since the federal government began keeping these records in 1960. That slow growth appears to have continued into 2012, when expenditures totaled an estimated $2.8 trillion"

    Interesting? Assuming your numbers are even accurate,I think Obama's deep recession had more to do with this situation, then obamacare. Recessions tend to do that, just check most any other industries financial statistics during the same period. Besides, obamacare legislation wasn't even passed until mid-late 2010, and other then new taxes (which are an economic killer by themselves), a lot of it wasn't even in-acted until a year or two later.

  • HS Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 29, 2013 7:54 a.m.

    What a ridiculous letter. We're suppose to vote on one issue alone? Our representatives will vote and work on a lot of other issues as well. Additionally, even if the Congress does get turned over to the GOP and both houses overturn Obamacare, the President will veto it. It's time critics stop being the party of NO and look to work and compromise on this issue and other issues. The GOP refused to get involved in the health care legislation and decided to be obstructionist instead. That tactic back fired and four years later they're like a convict trying to get an re-trial.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 29, 2013 7:34 a.m.

    I can't see the future but I can see the past, and what I've seen is that despite the ideological rantings of someone who owns a business when push comes to shove it is demand for goods and services that is the primary driver of employment levels in all ready viable businesses. You can talk about cutting hours, laying off employees but if the business has demand they can't meet things will quietly go back to where they were. Let's just see in 2016 how it all looks. My bet is that those who are complaining at that point are those businesses designed to take advantage of low wage earners with low pay and few if any benefits, and you can't build or sustain an economy with those kinds of jobs.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    April 29, 2013 7:17 a.m.

    To the many thousands like me and my family who are beginning to see their financial and health security vastly improved due to the requirements of "Obamacare": We do have a responsibility. In the upcoming 2014 congressional elections, vote only for candidates who promise specifically to support and expand the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, regardless of their political party.

    Please don't allow the health insurance industry's propagandists and a few mouths bleating nonsense on hate radio stations to fool you into believing their lies.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 29, 2013 6:02 a.m.

    From todays news..

    :America's national health care spending grew by 3.9% each year from 2009 to 2011, the lowest rate since the federal government began keeping these records in 1960. That slow growth appears to have continued into 2012, when expenditures totaled an estimated $2.8 trillion."

    The slowest raise in cost since 1960. Now we may never be able to measure exactly how many people lost their jobs because of Obamacare, but the first hard facts are in.... medical care cost increases have slowed to the slowest level since records have been kept.

    "The fact that Obamacare's early provisions have already had an impact is an encouraging sign, said Josh Gordon, policy director at the Concord Coalition. It shows policy levers can be pulled to slow health care spending down," he said."

    So lets fix what is wrong with it, and lets not let emotions taint judgement here. I know this doesn't follow the rights narrative of what is supposed to happen - but life seldom does follow anyones narrative.