And continued funding of Obamacare is a good thing?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    Sept. 4, 2013 2:40 p.m.

    My argument against ObamaCare is that it is too complicated to work, in that many separate groups must embrace it or it will fail. In addition to Corporations, Unions, Doctors, and Health Insurance Companies, it must also be supported by "The States". Many states refuse to support it, because they can't afford the increase costs of Medicaid. The results of this are tragic. My grown daughter is unable to work because of a painful medical condition. This makes her ineligible for health insurance. However, she gets a small monthly amount for Child Support of her daughter. That makes her ineligible for Medicaid in this state. It also makes her ineligible for the supplemented insurance to be provided by ObamaCare. Since she has no personal income, she can't afford the non-supplemented insurance premiums. So instead of getting health insusrance, she will be charged a penalty fee (tax?) for not having insurance, which of course she cannot pay. Talk about your Catch-22! ObamaCare is good intentioned, but fails on so many levels. A single payer system would have been better than this.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    To "atl134" yes, the government does seek for large profits. Remember the original estimates for the ACA was going to cut the deficit. It can't cut the deficit without taking in more money than it costs. They had a huge profit margin designed into the original cost estimates. They both have a profit motive, it is just that the government system doesn't care if they don't meet budget.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 5:03 p.m.

    "how is it different when the government decides what treatments they will reimburse vs. who insurance companies will cover?"

    One of those two has a profit motive, the other doesn't.

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    Not just on this topic, but Republicans offer little except constant griping.

    Better brace yourselves, friends and neighbors, for when this great country elects Hillary to the White House next election, most likely for 2 terms.

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    If my friend's cancer wasn't going to be covered by an insurance policy, Frank would be helping to pay for it.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 11:20 a.m.

    Fellow constitutional scholars:
    Congress can do basically anything needed to promote the General Welfare. Congress can also regulate interstate commerce. Health care is the very essence of interstate commerce. Obamacare is completely, utterly, absolutely, unarguably, totally Constitutional. And yes, a tiny disputed part of it is a tax, as decided by the Supremes.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" how is it different when the government decides what treatments they will reimburse vs. who insurance companies will cover? Either way you have to pay for your care out of pocket.

    As for getting a single payer system, that is a farce. If single payer systems are so great, why is it that Canada, England, France, and other nations with single payer systems are turning and adding private insurance companies into the mix to cover things that the government can't afford to cover?

    To the liberals who support Obamacare, explain how you can continue to defend a program that has been proven to be a failure before it is fully implemented. It was sold to us with the promise that it would cut the costs associated with healthcare. Instead it has raised costs. When premiums have remained the same it is because coverage has decreased. People are losing jobs, losing coverage, or are having their hours cuts because of this program. So tell us, what is there to defend?

  • Mr. Bean Pheonix, AZ
    Sept. 2, 2013 9:51 p.m.

    The phrase "regulate Commerce" was used mostly to refer to government restrictions on commerce, such as trade bans, price regulation, and prohibitory tariffs back in the day.

    In the Commerce Clause the verb "regulate" has three objects, not just one: interstate, foreign, and Indian commerce. Rules of interpretation would require reading "regulate" the same way for all three.

    A major reason for giving Congress authority to regulate foreign commerce was to enable Congress to keep out foreign goods to encourage American manufactures and rectify an unfavorable balance of trade. And a major reason for giving Congress power to regulate the Indian trade was allow Congress to block or limit sale of certain goods to the Natives, specifically liquor and firearms.

    "Regulate commerce" does not mean for the government to take commerce over lock, stock, and barrel.

    "They justified it because it is a tax."

    What? All the court did was to say... if you must 'penalize' for something call it a 'tax.' But, that determination was wholly unneeded since the IRS can 'penalize' for failure to file an income tax return and/or pay the tax on time.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    Sept. 2, 2013 8:52 p.m.

    @Roger Terry:
    "Frank, I would welcome some specifics on a Republican health-care plan to replace the ACA."

    It's quite simple... extend Medicaid to poor folk under 65. Wait, it already is. Problem solved!

    Rich folk can afford to buy health insurance. And if they don't and go bankrupt, that's their tough luck. People go bankrupt all the time... and for a variety of reasons.

    @Eric Samuelsen:
    "And yes, it's perfectly constitutional. Sorry, but it is. General Welfare clause, Commerce clause. So that argument's a fail."

    It says 'promote the general welfare' and 'regulate commerce' not take them over.

    'General Welfare' is not an enumerated power and thus is left to the states to provide, per the tenth amendment. If a power is not listed, the US Congress is not authorized to write a law requiring an unlisted power and would need to seek a Constitutional amendment.

    'Regulate' and 'promote' means make sure the food we eat is safe which is relegated to USDA. And it means make sure the drugs we use are safe which is relegated to FDA.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 2, 2013 8:44 p.m.

    Sour grapes? What do you expect of a vine that grew out of the sour ground in which ACA was planted. One-party creation, one-party vote. Supreme court validation based on calling the penalty assessment a "tax", even though the President had said it was not. Shows you that even Congress and the President don't know what they're doing. The Constitution should be amended to include blessing by the Supreme court before any legislation is considered "
    passed". In fact, maybe right now, before the Supreme court takes any more cases, they should tell us what it really says. Justice Roberts and those with him have made it clear that only they and not Congress, not the President; probably not those who created the U.S. Constitution know what they really meant when they crated laws for our country.

  • Grundle West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 2, 2013 7:00 p.m.

    Actually Samuelson, it is your argument that is a fail. The supremem court did not justify the decision becasue of "... General Welfare clause, Commerce clause." They justified it because it is a tax.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 2, 2013 5:42 p.m.

    I just **love** the responses by the leftists trying so desperately to defend this monstrosity by whining about the lack of a Republican answer. It's like saying to someone that you'll stop strangling them if they give you a good reason why they should stop.

    A person needs no reason to not be molested.

    Shoving this latest example of Big Government overreach down people's throats is **NOT** justified regardless of whatever alternative or lack thereof that the Republicans might have (I've read of many alternative ideas by the Republicans). Obamacare itself, and the bloated, inefficient, ineffective, corruption it represents is reason enough to avoid it, as demonstrated do well by the many entities who have either already been granted waivers/exceptions or are anxiously attempting to gain them.

    Simply put, it's a disaster about to befall us.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Sept. 2, 2013 5:05 p.m.

    J Thompson,
    If President Obama proposed a bill stating that Thanksgiving turkey is particularly yummy with corn bread dressing, that bill wouldn't get a single Republican vote. Republican opposition to this President is the one constant in our current political climate. That doesn't change the fact that the main ideas animating Obamacare were conservative, Republican ideas. Liberals wanted single-payer. Still do.

    That's what's weird about the ACA. Conservatives detest it. Liberals grudgingly support it, because it's a little better than the status quo. And yet, it's going to work just fine. It's hardly perfect legislation. But it's going to be fairly popular, once it gets going, because what we have now is a jury-rigged mess of a system that doesn't work well for anyone.
    And yes, it's perfectly constitutional. Sorry, but it is. General Welfare clause, Commerce clause. So that argument's a fail.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 2, 2013 12:59 p.m.

    The obvious better solution is more uninsured families and massive healthcare profits, hospitals, big pharma, and health insurance profits. That is what is great about the lack of a plan.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Sept. 2, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    There is no "Republican" ObamaCare plan. No Republican voted for it. No Republican supports it. Republicans have read the Consitutition. They can count to 17. They can see that when they've counted ALL the duties allocated to the Federal Government, that ObamaCare or any form of "personal health care" is not on that list. They are true to their oath of office. They will not be swept up into the dust bin created by Democrats. They will not violate their oath of office just to be popular. They will not twist the Constitution to mean something that it does not mean. They will be "Statesmen" and not "politicians".

    Those who can read know that ObamaCare is not a duty of the Federal Government. Those who care about law will not ask the Goverment to do something that is not authorized. Those who serve in Government who care about law will not offer to do something that is not authorized.

    Those who voted for ObamaCare have told us through their actions that they just don't care about us or the Constitution. Obama is their leader. Reid and Pelosi are their voice.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 2, 2013 11:54 a.m.

    let's go back letting Insurance companies pick and choose who they will and won't cover.

    Let's continue letting them say anyone who has been sick, is sick, or may get sick can't get insurance.

    Let's continue to let them take money only from the healthiest Americans,
    and watch as they do everything they possible can to NOT pay out.

    The sooner Republicans figure out the "Insurance industry" are NOT the same as the "Healthcare Industry" -- they sooner they might see that the way things used to be is doomed.

    Listen up uber-cons --
    I'll be the 1st to admit Obamacare is not THE answer,
    but it is one step closer to the Insurance company less Single-payer system the rest of the industrial nations enjoy.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 2, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    Discontinuing funding of Obamacare doesn't stop the law from being the law... it just eliminates things like the subsidies for individuals and businesses to have assistance with insurance. You'd be making it even more painful than you think it'd be.

    Sept. 2, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    Yes, ObamaCare is fatally flawed. But let's fight for something that brings us closer to better, less costly healthcare for all. For more information, see today's blog entry on the Utah Healthcare Initiative webpage.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    Sept. 2, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    I say we go back to the repub plan.

    Lets leave millions uninsured and running to the ER. Lets have millions of Americans go bankrupt because of health care costs. And lets give out millions in bonuses to insurance underwriters who cut peoples' coverage just when they need it the most.

    That'll solve our health care problem...

  • Roger Terry Happy Valley, UT
    Sept. 2, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    Frank, I would welcome some specifics on a Republican health-care plan to replace the ACA. Complaining is easy. But we have yet to see the "replace" part of the GOP's famous "repeal and replace" mantra. Why do they offer no specifics? Perhaps they have already tried. The Heritage Foundation came up with an idea. Mitt Romney pushed his plan in Massachusetts. But when the president included those ideas in the ACA, suddenly these Republican ideas were no longer valid and had to be rejected. For purely partisan reasons. This leaves the GOP with what? Nothing. Which is exactly what they have been offering in the place of the ACA. Please offer a new idea before you criticize old conservative ideas any further.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Sept. 2, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    Instead of criticizing the corporations that are cutting their employee's hours due to greed, Frank criticizes a law that is intended to help actual people. Note Frank: Corporations are NOT people.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Sept. 2, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    My how sour are the grapes today...

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    Sept. 2, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    And you forgot the unions. They fought for it, and now they want out!
    So 0bama will give them a pass because they all voted for him, he has to.
    Then we have the 20,000 new IRS hires, so the IRS will know about our income,
    the kind of houses we live in, the number of people who live in our homes, what
    church we go to, and the NSA can tap into our private phone calls,
    and now they will know everyone's health. Gee I see nothing wrong with that!
    How would you like to be someone running against this entrenched administration?
    By the way, let's not forget the people who will sit and rule on whether
    you get service or a pain pill, as 0bama said. And then the seniors appeared
    at Sen Mike Lee's office to protest. I heard that they have stopped covering
    existing conditions because there were so many of them.
    And then they call us free!

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 2, 2013 7:45 a.m.

    Shhhh, Not good for the Democratic party to tell Americans the truth about the consequences of Obamacare before the 2014 elections, hence the implementation delays until then!

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Sept. 2, 2013 7:38 a.m.

    Per a recent analysis by the Rand Corporation:

    The federal Affordable Care Act will lead to an increase in health insurance coverage and higher enrollment among people who purchase individual policies . . .

    While there have been some reports that the cost of individual policies may jump sharply under health reform, a RAND analysis of 10 states and the United States overall predicts that there will be no widespread premium increase in the individual health insurance market.

    However, researchers caution that the cost of policies in the individual market will vary between states and will be influenced by individual factors . . .

  • Michael Matthews Omaha, NE
    Sept. 2, 2013 4:53 a.m.

    It will be for those 20,000 hired by the IRS....
    Oh and insurance companies... who always figure a way to get a bigger piece out of the pie when mega changes happen.
    Oh... and people who are good a committing an over-bloated gov't run system.

    And to be fair... tens of thousands of people with pre-existing conditions. And some young adults who stay on Mom and Dad's coverage.