Making the Affordable Care Act work

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Aug. 23, 2013 6:53 p.m.

    @Nate – “I don't understand why you worry so much about which party is helped or hurt.”

    I’m with you… I could care less about party. Unfortunately my perception today is that many many people care only about the party-line, as evidenced by the vitriol towards anything Obama is for… and some of his proposals and policies have been center-right.

    And as a point of confession, Obamacare was not my first choice for how to reform the healthcare system (which certainly needed reforming) - the Wyden-Bennett bill was far superior IMO. That said, it does not follow (logically) that trying to make the implementation as smooth as possible (through waivers or delays) is prima facie evidence that the law is unworkable and doomed to fail.

    Since the law was passed by Congress and upheld by the SC and its namesake was re-elected by a majority of the country, in my view it should be given every chance to work. Wouldn’t you want the same for any law which had gone through the same process, or do you believe only laws that have some super-majority are worthy of implementation?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 23, 2013 3:17 p.m.

    Re Redshirt MIT

    Had Republicans cooperated we could have had a better Obama care, with their cooperation we still can.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Aug. 23, 2013 1:14 p.m.

    I hear this editorial making the usual talking points about how flawed the ACA is, but I did not notice them identifying just what are these "flaws". The first "flaw" I see is that employers can essentially opt out by reducing employee work hours to below the minimum required before employer paid health insurance is required. Deseret Industries is reportedly taking advantage of that loophole, as are other companies that have not in the past provided for employee health insurance and don't want pay any health insurance under the ACA. But the biggest "flaw" is that it does not really provide for universal coverage and it keeps the health care insurance industry making big profits that just unnecessarily add to the cost of healthcare.

    It is, and always was, a give away to the health insurance industry, and it remains as always a unequal burden on employers.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 23, 2013 12:52 p.m.

    The single most effective way to improve Obama care would be to put Congress under Obama care. Then there would be sincere efforts on both sides of the isle to make sure they get it right.

  • baldy Provo, UT
    Aug. 23, 2013 10:09 a.m.

    Here is my "thoughtful comment". Hopefully this time it can pass the censor as part of a 'civil dialogue".

    DN wants us to lend our support to the smooth implementation of ACA because it's the law of the land. That's the main contention of the editorial.

    I am here to call the DN out on their selective support for laws of the land, and the inconsistency of their editorial positions.

    Anyone who reads the DN with any regularity will know that the DN does not ask us to lend our support to the smooth implementation of efforts to deport illegal immigrants.

    But this is also the law of the land.

    So what's the deal DN? Support the laws you like and diss the ones you don't like?

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Aug. 23, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    I disagree with the comment suggesting that doctors would oppose this government program. There are many who support mandatory health insurance.

    By making everybody have health insurance it ensures that the medical profession will have a ton of business, even more than they already have. More to the point their increased business will be funded by the taxpayer. No need for doctors to worry about those too poor to pay or who won't pay for any reason; we will HAVE to pay, HAVE to be insured, and unwilling clients will come in at least two flavors:

    1. Those who pay angrily contributing to the system because they have to but, true to their principles, refusing to use the service, a gift to the medical profession without their having to do anything for it.

    2. Unwilling subscribers who decide they may as well use the "services" because they are paying for them, causing them to become dependent on health care rather than provident living to safeguard their health.

    The system will, of course, under pressure, and people will get restricted services. All of this will often be bad for health and very bad for freedom.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Aug. 23, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    @Tyler D "Call me cynical..."

    I don't think you're cynical, but frankly, I don't understand why you worry so much about which party is helped or hurt. Why not just consider the merits of the law itself? Either it's good for America as a whole, or it's not. Forget about party. I don't give a crud about party.

    The fact is, Obamacare is unworkable. The administration has tacitly admitted this by disregarding the implementation schedule prescribed by the law itself, and by granting waivers to so many friends of Obama.

    If it's bad for friends of Obama, it's also bad for us. But the administration is being arbitrary about who gets a waiver. This is not rule of law, it's rule by whim -- the very essence of tyranny.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 23, 2013 7:16 a.m.

    The tea party will never get the need for affordable health care for all. There are some that go crazy over Social Security.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Aug. 23, 2013 7:05 a.m.

    @Nate – “Because if we just let it run its course, it's going to hurt a lot of people.”

    Perhaps Nate, but I don’t buy it for a couple reasons.

    Call me cynical, but in my experience there are very few (if any) politicians that care more about helping people (all people, and not just the ones they are in the pocket of) than getting re-elected.

    And 2nd, even by your utilitarian calculation my original point still holds. The Republicans could do far more “good” by letting this thing fail and then gaining power for the next generation.

    Sorry, but I think the opposition is motivated by other factors.

  • G Blake West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 23, 2013 3:27 a.m.

    I've been covered by private, federal, and no insurance, and I can tell you the worst year of my life was the year I spent on SSI Disability due to a chronic disease. You proponents of Obamacare have no idea how bad it's going to get. There is nothing more excruciatingly and grindingly slow and nonresponsive than the federal government. I would rather see insurance abolished before I'd see the federal gov't wrest control of healthcare; at least that way the market would drive prices back to a more realistic level.
    Stop thinking of just yourselves, and try to grasp what this abomination will do to everyone, once all healthcare is run by a relative few bureaucrats in Washington. Wake up, or you'll get exactly what you deserve.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 9:26 p.m.

    Slippery Slope...

    If republicans are successful in repealing the ACA...

    Good-bye Social Security and Medicare!

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 9:20 p.m.


    Sounds like your just fine with the army of IRS agents determining whether you get that heart value replacement. Huh? Yes this is the same bunch that targeted and intimidated Tea Party and other conservative groups prior to the 2012 election. You said " Do you actually think a bunch of wall street investor bankers have your interest better at heart than the government would?" Perhaps a better question for you BlueDevil is how much do trust the IRS? Now you get to deal with the IRS in an attempt to justify the prolonging of your father or mother or disabled child's life. Good luck! Obamacare was NEVER meant to solve healthcare in the first place. This ugly pig was introduced for ONE purpose and that is to chain the nation to socialism. Ronald Reagan predicted that in the 1960's. When you have members of congress of the presidents own party calling the implementation of this a "train wreck" you ought to get the idea there is a problem...ya think???

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Aug. 22, 2013 8:01 p.m.

    "Obama is not on ObamaCare.
    Obama is not covered by ObamaCare
    Obama's friends get exemptions from ObamaCare."

    Neither am I.... so what is the point. In fact, everyone covered by their employer - private or public sector - will not be on Obamacare. What in the heck point is this all supposed to mean.

    Give me Liberty, not ObamaCare death panels!

    Death Panels.... now I haven't heard that one in a long time. Yes... lets have United Care Death Panels... or Intermountain Health Death Panels, or BlueCross/BlueShield death panels...... who in the heck do you think the doctors are talking to now when they need to get authorization for a procedure or medication? Do you actually think a bunch of wall street investor bankers have your interest better at heart than the government would?

    I really wish this non-sense would end and we could move on to more productive topics..... death panels..... yes.... and they will be wearing storm trooper boots and uniforms too....

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 6:08 p.m.

    Nice bit of fiction you posted about costs going down. I see you cited no sources; tell me, did you always score well in your creative writing courses?

    Better to have no plan than a plan that causes damage. But alternatives WERE offered. Obviously you have been watching too much MSNBC to say there were no alternatives offered.

    Twin lights,
    No plan is better than a plan that causes damage, regardless of what newt says.

    Conservatives learn from mistakes, liberals propagate them to try and hide the fact that the emporer has no clothes.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 5:33 p.m.


    The beauty of ideas is that you can try them out. When Romneycare was tried in the laboratory of Massachusetts, costs went up and satisfaction went down. Conservatives have learned from the experience, and do not want to replay the same disaster on a wider scale.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Aug. 22, 2013 5:09 p.m.

    10CC and Kent C. DeForrest

    Even Newt Gingrich recognizes this. He recently said "I will bet you, for most of you, you go home in the next two weeks when your members of Congress are home, and you look them in the eye and you say, 'What is your positive replacement for Obamacare?' They will have zero answer,"

    If that is what Newt thinks, then the reality is likely worse.

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 5:09 p.m.

    The train has already wrecked. My employer never could and still can't afford to offer health benefits to part-time workers, so the hours of those workers has been cut to less than 28 hours. They cry, "I don't need the health insurance. I need the hours. Can't I opt out?" ACA says, "No, you can't opt out and by the way if you don't have health insurance I am going to tax you until you buy it. Problem solved."

    Is this all the best minds in Washington can come up with? They solved the problem of uninsured citizens by taxing them until they buy insurance. We can do better. Much better!

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 4:59 p.m.

    Let's go through a few of the arguments presents by those who are more "liberal". One lady told us that "foregoing powers" extends beyound the sentence in which that dependant clause was written. I wonder what her 7th grade English teacher would think. I know that in my 7th grade English class that my teacher would have failed me if I tried to take a dependant clause out of context and apply it to something outside of its sentence. I would also offer to buy that lady a dictionary so that she could read for herself the difference between "general" and "personal", but she's told us how successful her husband is in payng offshore workers $0.18 per hour instead of paying workers in the United States at least the minimum wage to know that she can easily afford to buy her own dictionary.

    Another poster pretended that if we accept the Constitution that we are really rejecting the Constitution and accepting the "Articles of Confederation". I wonder if he also went to that school in California where fact and fiction are intermixed.

    Obama counts on our ignorance to enable his arrogance. Apparently, he is not alone.

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 4:52 p.m.


    Your comment is actually somewhat off-topic, but I'll bite . . .

    The notion that Keynesian economics is flawed is a subjective statement and a matter of opinion, which you are absolutely entitled to express in an opinion forum such as this; but it is no more valid than my opinion that the Austrian School laissez faire capitalist dogma preached by the likes of Hayek, Hazlitt, von Mises, and Rothbard is deeply flawed and often leads to some pretty undesirable outcomes. I'm sure that you could produce evidence supporting your viewpoint that you would consider incontrovertible and I would consider spurious, at best; and I could do likewise.

    Given this, it is probably best to leave the purist economic ideology on the shelf (where it belongs) when discussing the relative merits (or lack thereof) of the ACA, and to stick, as much as possible, to the possible healthcare outcomes.

    Just my $0.02 (which I earned in the public sector) . . .

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 4:25 p.m.

    Thanks, 10CC. You said it perfectly.

  • Lew Scannon Provo, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 4:23 p.m.

    @Mike Richards:
    "When this Nation was founded the people limited the power of the Federal Government. The People limited the power of the Executive Branch."

    Actually, Mike, the Constitution you love to narrowly interpret greatly expanded the power of the federal government. This was necessary because the Articles of Confederation had created a weak federal government that put our nation in danger of quick extinction. In other words, when the nation was founded, as you point out, the federal government was indeed very limited, and the People corrected that with the Constitutional Convention. Are you suggesting we go back to the Articles of Confederation?

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 4:03 p.m.

    Here's the truly ironic part of all of this:

    ACA, like RomneyCare, represents the best *conservative* ideas on healthcare reform forwarded by the *conservative* thinktank the Heritage Foundation as a response to HillaryCare, which was of course, anethema to conservatives during Clinton's first term.

    Those advocating the repeal of Obamacare offer no substantive replacement.

    If there was honesty among the Republicans pushing to repeal Obamacare, they would announce they have no ideas on healthhcare reform and essentially "You're all on your own. Good luck!"

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 3:55 p.m.

    The Affordable Care Act is the law as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. Once is is implemented and the tea party fades away, the insurance companies will work to improve it. The minority that dogmatically oppose it are the same people that thought the unfunded Iraq war was a good idea and would catch Bin Laden. The President is effective on both counts.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Aug. 22, 2013 3:53 p.m.

    To "Makid" did you even read what you just posted.

    We are adding more sick people to the insurance pools. That in itself will make costs go up.

    As you pointed out the price for the insurance may go down, but the cost to cover each individual person will go up.

    The CBO pointed out recently that the ACA will raise the cost of insurance over 20% for people buying on the open market. If I am paying less for that insurance, where does the money come from? Who is paying for the subsidies?

    This is like wind turbines. Yes I can buy one and install it using subsidies to get power nearly as cheap as coal or gas, but who is paying the subsidies? The cost remains the same, while the price to the consumer can be artifically made low through subisidies that can dry up at any moment.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 3:42 p.m.

    @Tyler D "If so, then why fight it?"

    Because if we just let it run its course, it's going to hurt a lot of people.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 3:22 p.m.

    making Obamacare work huh? My wife and I used to have a 1972 Impala that we inherited from her mother. This pig had everything broken that could be broken - nothing really worked right and on top of it all it got about 8 mi per gallon. We went through the long list of fix ups that were needed with the mechanic and quickly came to the conclusion that it was not worth making it work. Best thing to do is just take it to the dump...which we did.

    Over 2000 pages of regulations in Obamacare, insane mandates and restrictions, impractical policies and the list goes on... On top of it all the cost of personal health care rises dramatically and the cost to the nation tops out at over 2 trillion (originally projected at 800 billion). Employers are forced to cut their work force and employees are forced into working two jobs instead of one full time job. The state health exchanges are a mess and we haven't even thrown the switch yet on this train wreck (train wreck is how the democrats in congress describe it).

    Obamacare is the result of liberal policy planning.

  • hoggityboo Carthage, IL
    Aug. 22, 2013 2:45 p.m.

    It's not very fun to watch an entire nation, foolishly following Keynesian economic fallacies, striving futilely to free themselves from the grip of bad policy, and digging themselves in deeper. When you add to that the insult of a newspaper article perpetuating the myths and the fantasies, it's downright disheartening. It's like watching a group of Keystone cops arrive at the scene of a bank robbery and instead of catching the criminals they aid in their escape.

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 2:30 p.m.

    To all those saying that costs will go up, don't read this next part.

    Under the ACA, insurance rates for those in Utah will be 36% cheaper than the current Avenue H exchange for individuals and small businesses. This is before taking into account any subsidies for income levels.

    Utah is also getting 99 different plans. This provides more options and can lower your insurance rates even lower than the 36% discount.

    Can you imagine the uproar that this must have caused those thinking that rates will be high until healthy young people opt in? Just imagine rates if that were to happen, they would drop another 40 to 50 percent.

    Let's drop the rhetoric and see what will happen, fears on both sides have yet to actually happen. Layoffs aren't as big as expected, rates are lower than expected and the economy is still growing. Maybe this isn't the end of the world as some on the Right have forecast and maybe it isn't the "End all be all" that some on the Left forecast.

    This will end up in the middle which sadly is still to much to the Left for some but it is still Constitutional.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    Aug. 22, 2013 2:27 p.m.

    Obamacare is a nightmare. Yes, it may help a few people, but it hurts more then it helps. It hurts the middle class who are married. Affordable care is great, we just shouldn't be REQUIRED to have it.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Aug. 22, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    "For three years, Senate Republicans refused to confirm anybody to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, in order to damage the possibility of a smooth rollout of the health reform plan. Guerrilla efforts to cut off funding, dozens of votes to repeal, attempts to discourage states from participating in Medicaid expansion or crafting exchanges, threatening letters to associations that might publicize the availability of insurance on exchanges, and threats to have a government shutdown, or to refuse to raise the debt ceiling, unless the president agrees to stop all funding for implementation of the plan.

    When a law is enacted, representatives who opposed it have some choices. They can try to repeal it, they can try to amend it to make it work better --if the goal is to improve a cumbersome law to work better for the betterment of the society and its people, they can strive to make sure that the law does the most for Americans it is intended to serve, while doing the least damage to the society and the economy or they can step aside and leave the burden of implementation to those who supported and enacted the law.

  • Mary E Petty Sandy, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    Wake up America!

    ObamaCare - He who has the gold makes the rules.

    Obama is not on ObamaCare.
    Obama is not covered by ObamaCare
    Obama's friends get exemptions from ObamaCare.

    Give me Liberty, not ObamaCare death panels!

  • hoggityboo Carthage, IL
    Aug. 22, 2013 2:10 p.m.

    You can't make a pig fly.
    You can't make Keynesian economics "work"
    That's why you have government programs, in a futile effort to make Keynes fallacies actually work in the real world.
    Hasn't happened yet, and never will.

  • BigLebowski Mesa, AZ
    Aug. 22, 2013 2:07 p.m.

    Saying that Obamacare is not perfect but a step in the right direction is like putting lipstick on a pig. Bad legislation is still bad legislation no matter how you try to spin it. From my limited understanding of this law, its success relies on young healthy people buying insurance to help subsidize the rest. I have a hard time believing that a healthy 27yr old will pay $3k/yr for insurance that they don't think they need, rather than just pay a $900 tax penalty.

    We are being ripped off with health care. We pay $9500/person/yr in this country, compare that to $5100 in Canada and $3800 in Japan. Is our health care 3x as good as Japans? No. We just pay that much for it.

    I have no confidence that this legislation will reduce health care costs. My health insurance premiums were $550/month in 2009, they are $930/month now. Same high deductible plan.(that's $5k/yr people) I don't know what they will be in 2014, but shudder to think that there is a chance they could be higher.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Aug. 22, 2013 1:56 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal – “Obamacare WILL fail… Obamacare's collapse WILL hurt people.”

    @Nate – “Obamacare is too flawed to fix. We need to use every means at our disposal to turn it back at the outset.”

    If so, then why fight it?

    Clearly blame for its failure would fall on its namesake. From a political standpoint, this might ensure the Republicans congressional majorities and the presidency for a generation, in which case your guys would have every opportunity to bring about the utopia of Any Rand’s vision.

    Unless of course you think it won’t fail…

    @2 bits – “It was intended to destroy private insurance and get the public so upset with our system that they will BEG for the Government to take over.”

    So let me get this straight – the biggest government, communist program in history (I heard it from Glenn) is going to fail and then the people are going to say, “yeah, give me more of that?”

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 1:32 p.m.

    Let it fly off the rails. Better to see a train wreck than desolation across a continent!

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    Aug. 22, 2013 1:18 p.m.

    Anyone who still thinks that it is a good idea to let the US Gov't take care of you should visit their nearest Reservation and ask the "Native Americans" (aka American Indians) how well that is working out for them.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 1:18 p.m.

    First "you have to pass it to find out what's in it"... (now that's a bad sign if I've ever seen one).

    Then "after passing it, you have to wait until after the next election to start implementing it"... Another bad sign.

    Then after passing it without reading it... waiting 4 years... and THEN the President tells you it would be a train wreck to implement it now, you gotta wait another year (or another election)... IF this were such good legislation... Wouldn't you make it law as soon as you signed it into law? Not 4 year later, after the election is over!

    How would anybody expect this to be super-good legislation with all these intentionally blind-eye moves required, and intentional delays built in to avoiding election years engineered into it's implementation?

    If it was so great... why didn't we need it the minute it was signed?

    Why must we wait till after the election? And then even more delays of this super-good system even after that?

    The reason is... it's NOT good.

    Democrats know that, so it has to happen AFTER an election (not before).

  • sleepy39 Kaysville, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 12:47 p.m.

    Obamacare is wildly unpopular and shouldn't be implemented. This 15,000 page fiasco puts the IRS in charge of it's enforcement policies and will create more red tape, death panels, and raise claim costs. Why do some people continue to think this is a good idea? I commend Sen. Mike Lee and others in Congress who continue to oppose this terrible bureaucracy. It will not help American families like they promised, it will only hurt them.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Aug. 22, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    "When the Medicare drug plan passed Congress in 2003, Democrats had many reasons to be furious. The initial partnership between President Bush and Senator Edward Kennedy had resulted in an admirably bipartisan bill -- it passed the Senate with 74 votes. Republicans then pulled a bait and switch, taking out all of the provisions that Kennedy had put in to bring along Senate Democrats, jamming the resulting bill through the House in a three-hour late-night vote marathon that blatantly violated House rules and included something close to outright bribery on the House floor, and then passing the bill through the Senate with just 54 votes -- while along the way excluding the duly elected conferees, Tom Daschle (the Democratic leader!) and Jay Rockefeller, from the conference-committee deliberations.

    The implementation of that bill was a huge challenge, and had many rocky moments. Imagine if Democrats had gone all out to block or disrupt the implementation -- using filibusters to deny funding, sending threatening letters to companies or outside interests who mobilized to educate Medicare recipients, putting on major campaigns to convince seniors that this was a plot to deny them Medicare, etc"
    ("The Unprecedented, Contemptible GOP Quest to Sabotage Obamacare")

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Aug. 22, 2013 12:27 p.m.

    For you Obamacare supporters, lets see what it has done:

    "Over 100K New Jersey Residents to Lose Their Affordable Health Plans under Obamacare" National Review

    "Businesses claim Obamacare has forced them to cut employee hours" - CNBC

    "How Many Businesses Are Exempt? The Final Number of ‘Obamacare’ Waivers Is In…" the Blaze

    "Walmart Bails On Obamacare-Sticks Taxpayers With Employee Healthcare Costs" Forbes

    "UPS cuts health coverage for spouses with other insurance option" Reuters

    "Obama's health care law to raise claims cost 32 percent" DN

    So, lets see, thanks to Obamacare we have more uninsured people, more expensive insurance, and companies doing everything to get out from under Obamacare. I don't think any of those were the goals of the ACA. The only area that the ACA is successful in is pushing the US towards a single payer system.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Aug. 22, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18:

    "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

    In addition to these powers to charter and operate federal banks, the clause was linked to the General Welfare clause and the constitutional powers of tax collection and the ability to borrow money to give the federal government virtually complete control over currency.
    Later applications

    The clause has been paired with the Commerce Clause to provide the constitutional basis for a wide variety of federal laws. For instance, various reforms involved in the New Deal were found to be necessary and proper enactments of the objective of regulating interstate commerce.

    Also, in addition to this combination of clauses being used to uphold federal laws affecting economic activity, they also were used to justify federal criminal laws.

    You do realize that the Founding Fathers and others thereafter have always disagreed on the "correct" interpretation of the Constitution.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 22, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    When this Nation was founded the people limited the power of the Federal Government. The People limited the power of the Executive Branch. The People limited the power of the Legislative Branch. The People limited the scope of the Court. But, the people realized that things would change. They allowed for that change by incorporating into the Constitution the means by which the Constitution could be amended.

    When 67% of Congress agrees that an Amendment is necessary, they have the authority to write that amendment, which must then be accepted by 75% of the States. The process is easy to understand but difficult to implement.

    Obama can read. He knows that the Federal Government is only authorized to collect taxes for the duties enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. He can read the polls. He knew that an amendment would never pass. So, he extended his power and he encouraged Congress to disregard the Constitution.

    The DN's editorial implies that an end-run around the Constitution is acceptable.

    I disagree!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 11:40 a.m.

    Polls show that the majority of people either support Obamacare or oppose it because they don't think it's liberal enough.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 11:07 a.m.

    Ronald Reagan, 1961: “If you don’t stop Medicare and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” Well my parents and I have not told my children and grand children about the good ole days without Medicare when life spans were ten or more years shorter and the senior poverty rate was significantly higher. It is good to see that we still have cynics that are predicting similar failures and travesty of a program trying to solve a problem. My hunch is that the current bill will need improvement but it is offers a better direction to go. What other direction should we go? where?

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Aug. 22, 2013 10:59 a.m.

    "The polls show it's wildly unpopular"? Polls would also show that those people have no idea what they are talking about.

    The polls would show that retired people on MEDICARE are scared the government will take over their healthcare. Good job propaganda.

    It appears that many seniors believe the small payment they make for a medicare supplement, is the entire price for PRIVATE healthcare insurance for a sick 70 year old. My goodness. Try $3000 a month if you could even get a private insurance company to talk to you. So sure, lets cut out medicare and see who starts screaming.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 10:49 a.m.

    US laws allowing slavery were the law of the land, so according to the opinion, we should not have fought against them?

    This is not universal health care, it does nothing to reduce costs (only employment and economic growth), and universal health care drives down the quality of the health care.

    It failed in MA where fraud ballooned and access to health care did NOT increase, but go ahead, keep your head in the sand.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 22, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    The Deseret News has sold us down the river.

    Has it forgotten the "deals" made to get ObamaCare passed? The Louisiana purchase? Exempting Nebraska? Exempting unions? Twisting the rules in the Senate? Not allowing Congress to debate the bill? Nancy Pelosi's statement?

    Have they forgotten that 59% of the people did not want ObamaCare? Have they forgotten that Obama told us that is was not a tax? Have they forgotten that Obama promised that insurance costs would decrease $2,500 per family per year?

    Have they read their own newspaper articles where all of those things were printed?

    To add further insult, they censor anyone who calls them on it. They use their influence to tell us to get behind Obama, to tell us to let him run all over us.

    After all the abuse that the LDS people have received at the hands of the federal government, does the Desert News think that snuggling up to Obama is what the people of Utah will do?

    The Deseret News has become another notch on Obama's belt in the suppression of respect for America principles. He must be laughing himself silly after learning about this editorial.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Aug. 22, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    ACA is not "wildly unpopular." The latest Gallup poll shows the USA essentially divided on the issue. DN, check your facts.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    Well, I'll be washed, ironed and starched! A sane op-ed piece!
    Look, the ACA will probably work reasonably well, and will just as certainly have some problems. Let's find 'em, figure 'em out, make things better.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    The ACA will not work. It was not intended to work. It was intended to destroy private insurance and get the public so upset with our system that they will BEG for the Government to take over.

    It wasn't intended to actually solve the problem. It was intended to set the stage for the NEXT step. It's just a baby-step towards where the left thinks we really need to be. It was never intended to be the whole solution (in case anybody thought ObamaCare was the greatest thing ever and was going to fix everything).

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 8:42 a.m.

    Mike Lee is right. Obamacare is too flawed to fix. We need to use every means at our disposal to turn it back at the outset.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    The best way to deal with the ACA is to pass legislation that would make its implementation contingent on a balanced budget. The US camel's back has had a straw too many, already.

  • LiberalEastCoastMember Parkesburg, PA
    Aug. 22, 2013 7:52 a.m.

    A voice of sanity crying from the wilderness.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Aug. 22, 2013 6:59 a.m.

    Finally. Sanity.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 6:01 a.m.

    Re: ". . . reality now demands compromise . . . ."

    That's not reality doing the demanding. Rather, it's political expedience. A cynical politician, hoping to derive political advantage from the system's planned, inevitable failure.

    Obamacare WILL fail. It was designed to fail. Obama wants it to fail. Leavitt can't prevent that. No one can. He's just positioning himself to be able to say, "If only people had listened to me then . . . vote for me now."

    Obamacare's collapse WILL hurt people. It was designed to do so. Obama wants it to do so.

    It's classic Cloward-Piven, community-organizaer, collapse-the-system socialist politics. Like Obama's sequester, it's designed to create pain amongst the rubes. That pain will be used to justify liberals' real aim, a completely socialized, economy-killing, dependence-promoting, single-payer, rationed-care system.

    It's part of the liberal plan to create permanent crises they can blame on everyone but themselves, offering themselves as saviors, watching out for the little guy.

    The same little guy that's hurting from the pain they caused.

    Liberalism -- what a scam!

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Aug. 22, 2013 4:20 a.m.

    I object strongly to the term "wildly unpopular" -- it might better be "unpopular with those who listen to publicity by rich doctors, rich hospital corporations, and rich pill makers".
    Most Americans realize that universal health care will drive down the costs that threaten to bankrupt many cities and all of us citizens.
    "Imperfect, but aimed at the right goal" is a better description.

    Does anyone really think that the multi millions spent lobbying Congress, forcing 40 votes in the House for nonsense, might not be better spend taking care of children?

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    Aug. 22, 2013 12:23 a.m.

    In my opinion: Fixing this train wreck is impossible. Time to get the wreckers in and scrap the whole mess. It's time to start over with something that isn't designed to fail from the start.