Obamacare needs a doctor

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 12:06 p.m.

    @ pmacdee:

    What you stated is not all factual. There are many examples of people who have had their health insurance policies for many years before Obama came into office that are now losing them.

    My neighbor who is 62 received notice of cancellation of her policy last month that she had had for over 7 years, and was quite content with it. They want her to replace it with an "upgraded" policy that adds maternity and birth control "benefits" (not needed) at an extra cost of $267 per month. Needless to say, she thinks this new ObamaCare is a fiasco.

    She claims she's been a lifelong Democrat, but now says never again. She hasn't liked some of Obama's actions in the past. But it's now action time once those policies start hitting people in their pocketbooks.

    The updated numbers as of last night show there are now 4.2 million people who have lost their pre-existing health insurance policies... most of which were in existence before ObamaCare was ever voted on. It's no wonder a solid majority of Americans are now opposed to ObamaCare.

  • Valjean Los Alamos, NM
    Nov. 8, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    procuradorfiscal is right. The ACA needs an undertaker, not a doctor.

    The old system for providing medical care was a mess and badly needed reforming. But ACA actually makes it worse, by accentuating the very things that were wrong with the previous system. It's impossible to adequately discuss why in the 200-word limit on comments here, but the gist of it is that individuals need to be responsible for paying for routine medical care, with insurance covering what insurance is good at covering -- catastrophic risks. And preexisting conditions ought to be covered with something like an annuity, analogous to life insurance but paying out when a chronic condition develops. ACA does absolutely nothing to take us in that direction. Instead, its proponents characterize purely catastrophic insurance as "junk policies."

    And the reason for that is that ACA is full of internal contradictions. It is simultaneously trying to increase coverage, while indulging in some poorly means-tested income redistribution, abd while controlling costs. Two of these are worthwhile goals, but they are goals that are in tension. It's rare that any single institution can simultaneously pursue goals that are in tension, and ACA is no exception.

  • pmacdee newbury Oark, CA
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:24 p.m.

    Folks, if an insurance plan was not changed by you or your insurance company since before the ACA was signed, you can keep that policy as long as both you and the insurance company want.

    That is a fact.

    The only plans that have to be cancelled are plans put in place after the ACA was signed that don't meet the minimum requirements. Nothing wrong with minimum requirements. Your car was built to minimum requirements even though you might prefer to run a soapbox derby cart down the freeway, it is illegal.

    It's that simple.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:46 p.m.

    I have this sinking feeling that in one year those of us who have employer provided insurance are going to either lose it or see the cost jacked up dramatically. Probably ought to schedule that knee surgery before next November while you still can. Of course when that happens Barack will tell us all he feels bad for the predicament a "few Americans" find themselves in....That will more than ease the pain I'm certain. The hope is gone but the change never ends...

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:22 p.m.


    My comments weren't meant to defend/address Obama's statement. I won't argue with the assertion that it is a lie, because Obama has continued to repeat it without qualification so many times. But, the fact remains that the large majority of people are covered by employer plans or the federal govt (Medicare/Medicaid) and won't see significant differences. But insurers could decide to make changes--not required by ACA-- for employer plans on their own. Those who self-insure through individual policies, (5-6%) Congress and staff, will be the ones purchasing (or paying a penalty) healthcare insurance through the exchanges.

    Changes in rates and coverage has always been the trend in insurance pre-ACA. Time will tell whether ACA is a success or failure.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 6:35 p.m.

    @ Truthseeker:

    When Obama said you could keep your existing plans, he said "period". There were no asterisks listed that said "see the fine print." All the stipulations you keep mentioning have been added on after his promise was made. To be honest, they sound more like an attempt to cover up for what most people now feel are proving to be lies.

  • Designcreature Cashmere, WA
    Nov. 7, 2013 6:15 p.m.

    What I would like to know is what happens if an insurance policy is cancelled and the policy holder hasn't been able to sign up for coverage under ACA, then he or she has an accident or illness, are they covered until a new policy is in place or do they just do without and eat the expense themselves. Is there no safety net for these people?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 7, 2013 5:34 p.m.

    As usual, those who ignore Obama's lies are also those who think that someone else should pay for their health insurance. They claim that because THEIR premiums didn't go up or because they receive a subsidized policy, that ObamaCare meets THEIR needs.

    Someone has to pay the complete premium. If you're not paying fully for the coverage that Obama thinks that you need, then you're demanding that someone else in America pay for your personal welfare.

    Where in the Constitution is the Federal Government authorized to give you personal welfare? Contrary to what Obama says, that clause is not to be found. He would like you to believe it. He would like you to believe anything and everything that he says. Unfortunately, he lies. He lied about ObamaCare. Now he's lying again cover those other lies. You can believe him if you want, but when Kathleen Sebelius decides that ObamaCare will not pay for your healthcare, don't blame those of us who warned you that socialized medicine is not a right and that it is not in the Constitution.

    You'll pay, and you'll get nothing in return, not even an apology.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 7, 2013 4:33 p.m.

    CA implementation of ACA differs from other states.

    "While the ACA aims to improve the quality of insurance plans offered, it does not require that insurers cancel all of their contracts at the end of this year. In other states, (not CA) consumers are able to keep their policies until they expire in 2014, giving more time to make thoughtful choices.

    Insurers, including Kaiser and Blue Shield, wanted the California Legislature to require that all existing individual contracts expire at the end of this year, Rocco (CA deputy commissioner for health policy and reform) said. That could give them a marketing edge because of their size and the short window to make choices, she said. But her department opposed it, and lawmakers didn't go along.

    The insurers were more successful with Covered California, which adopted the requirement, Rocco said."

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    "It qualifies as acceptable only those health insurance policies that comply with its own definitions. The act’s requirements inevitably limit market choices and constrain consumer behavior." The Editorial Board writer of this statement needs to stand back and think through exactly what he or she means. If the government is going to create standards in order to protect consumers when buying so many products, why should health insurance companies be exempt.

    If the Editorial Board did their home work they would know that state insurance commissions have been struggling with junk insurance policies for decades. Quite frankly it is fine with me that insurance policies have to cover pre-existing health problems, or that they no longer have caps on expenditures so that that insured families or persons can worry less about a bankruptcy. Let me suggest to you naysayers, get off your high horses and recognize that these changes are long overdue. It levels the playing field for all insurance companies as it requires them to provide "decent" coverage. It also takes away the deceptive tactics insurance companies have gotten with in the past.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 7, 2013 2:11 p.m.


    What were the specifics of your old policy--deductibles, coverages, hospitalization etc? How does it compare to coverage under a policy offered on the exchange--deductibles, co-pays, visits etc?

    Anthem Blue Cross in CA is being sued for "tricking" the plaintiffs to give up their policies which would've been grandfathered under ACA to switch to a different plan.

    "Under the new law, policies must cover a comprehensive set of benefits. If they don’t, they can be "grandfathered" in, but only if the plans have not been changed at all.

    To be grandfathered, the plans must have operated continuously since before the law’s enactment in 2010 and have made no significant changes. This means the insurer can keep the insurance plan essentially as is, without having to implement many (though not all) of the new law’s requirements.

    But the regulations defining what constitutes a significant change are tight -- and if it’s breached, the plan is on the road to oblivion. HIPAA rules say that if an insurer wants to end a policy, it needs to give 90 days notice, as well as information about alternative coverage plans."

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 2:06 p.m.

    If people wanted RomneyCare, they should have elected Romney. He would have encouraged states with serious healthcare problems to look at Massachusetts for possible solutions. He would not have forced states without serious problems to pay for those who have them. Readers, ask yourself; were you happy with your medical care before ObamaCare? I know I was. But my insurance provider downgraded benefits to comply with ObamaCare's restrictions on good plans.

    All you folks who think Obama was only outlawing "junk plans" ought to wake up to the fact that really good plans (often called Cadillac plans) are being taxed out of existence (except for labor union members). I lost one, but I'm not a union member, so I don't deserve a really good plan.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 1:13 p.m.

    2 bit
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    Name one Marxist government that had better healthcare than we had.



    FYI 2 bits,
    a lady in my ward went to Mexico for surgery because her premium coverage Insurance company denied and refused to pay for it.

    BTW --
    Why would the richest people in America,
    who's prefessional careers depends of the very best Healthcare money can buy fly all the way to "Socialist" Germany for treatments?

    And --
    Is Rush Limbaugh really going to make good on his word and go to Costa Rica for his Healthcare like he promised?
    [I don't listen to him, so I don't know.]

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 1:05 p.m.

    Aw the foolish notions people have. Government is not the answer, nor is crony capitalism, both supported by the Democratic and Republican parties. If you want to blame the current debate and mess of healthcare, just look in the mirror, for all of you are either a democrat or a republican and the architects of the mess called Healthcare. How about free markets and individual responsibility, both favored by independent,freedom loving people. I consider myself one of the last to love both!

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 1:04 p.m.

    People are asking "Why would the President willfully lie a few years ago, knowing it would later get him in trouble?
    Good question.
    But the right answer makes a lot of sense.

    Had the President been totally truthful back then, 2 things would've subsequently happened:

    1) Citizens would've revolted against it. And with very little public support, even Democrat congressmen would not have dared vote for it meaning it would never have passed into law. And/or...

    2) Obama would never have gotten re-elected and he knew it. As his legacy pet project, it would never have had the support to propel him to a 2nd term. By making it sound better than it actually was, enough independent voters gave him the benefit of the doubt, which allowed him a his additional term.

    Concerning RomneyCare:

    There are 2 major differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare. RomneyCare was not nearly as complex and ACTUALLY did (does) allow people to keep previous policies. Also, it is administered at the state level, instead of by the federal government, which gives it more regional flexibility and costs less to administer.

    Those are the primary reasons the President willfully lied to the public.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 1:03 p.m.


    Lets see here how many ways I can spell LIE. LIE, LIE, LIE and on and on. Seems that it always comes up the same spelling. How can you be so confuse what the subject of my comment is?

    You are much like the truthful one you just keep spinning until your buried.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    To "Ranch" it is amazing to see all of the death penalty liberals out here condemning people to die at the hand of government healthcare.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 12:52 p.m.

    @atl134 "Any of this applies to around 5% of Americans (11-15 million estimated). The other 95% aren't affected."

    When the employer mandate kicks in next year, what is happening now to the self-insured will happen to the employer-insured. The Obama administration estimates that it will affect 51% (mid-range estimate) and may affect 69% (high-end estimate) of Americans.

    The fact is, they made this estimate three years ago. This was his own administration talking. Meanwhile Obama was going around saying "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." It was a flat-out lie.

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    Nov. 7, 2013 12:39 p.m.

    Yes medical bankruptcy is a real problem and the PPACA does not fix that.
    If you have a low income but do not qualify for premium assistance you could easily pay $4000 per year in premium and $12,000 in family deductible for a total of $16,000 out of pocket in one year. And if that happens again the next year you now have $32,000 in medical expense that you can't pay off because you have auto loans, mortgage, and credit cards that are also due. And that doesn't count the lost wages that health ins. doesn't cover, or motel rooms for you or your spouse as well as meals. So you go bankrupt.

    Who would be in charge of single payer? If it's the Gov't how many agents, actuaries, secretaries, clerks, etc. now lose their jobs with private ins. cos.?
    Also if you think the Gov't does a great with health ins. go to a Reservation and ask the Native Americans who have been receiving that Gov't supplied health care how great they think it is.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    @2 bit
    Lots of Americans go to Canada for healthcare, particularly for prescription drugs. Other Americans go to Mexico for more affordable care...

    The US system of healthcare isn't bad... but it's health insurance system is atrocious. We have the most expensive system in the world.

    I didn't know you were a fan of junk plans created after 2010 since really that's what you're outraged about. Any other plan being replaced has a near-identical equivalent on the market that only covers more.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    atl134: "Anyone who had a healthcare plan before the ACA was passed, and likes it, and the insurance company still offers that plan, can still keep it."

    ...unless of course the company was forced to cancel that plan because it had something in it that an Obamacare regulation didn't like...or if the insurance company made ANY changes to the policy (something companies do all the time)...or if didn't cover something like maternity benefits for retired folks...or...or...or...

    This whole thing is about the same as if Obama decided everyone should have to own an electric car. So he gets a law passed requiring that all new cars to be sold must be electric - all the while lying to everyone that if they like their current gasoline car, they can keep it.

    After the law is passed and he is successfully re-elected, then he tells you that he really meant that you can keep your gas car only if it gets 70 mpg and you never changed the oil or bought new tires for it.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 12:33 p.m.

    It's amazing how many so-called conservatives are willing to just let people die. Some "pro-life" stance. Not.

  • 2 bit Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 12:25 p.m.

    Did the people in the USSR, East Germany, China, North Korea, Venezuela, etc, have healthcare benefits you would trade your pre-Obama healthcare for? I wouldn't, but I've always had insurance through my employer. But I can see how some people (the people on Medicaid) would think our system stinks.

    Name one Marxist government that had better healthcare than we had. I would include Canada and UK (even though they are not Marxist). I don't know of ANYBODY in the US who would go to Canada, UK, China or North Korea to get medical care. There's a reason for that. Despite the leftists in Washington insisting that we have the worst healthcare system in the world... people who can afford it keep coming to the USA for innovation and leading edge medical care. If it's so bad... why do so many people come here to be healed?

    The reason is... it's not as bad as the intentionally skewed reports indicate. People actually like the level of care they get in most private US hospitals (which have to do a good job to stay in business).

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 12:19 p.m.


    And to further your point to alt134, Obama said it several times on several different occasions. It wasn't just "one" slip of the tongue. And many Democrat Senators echoed his very words to their constituents at home. So now, many of those same Senators who are up for reelection next year are really mad that there are images of them saying these things that they know will be played back on TV by the Republicans during next years campaign season. This is going to be funny watching the biggest spinning walkback in political history by Obamas party.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    The letter is right. Obamacare needs a doctor. Lets send it Dr. Kevorkian. He will make sure it gets the care it needs.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:50 a.m.


    Plans that were created after Obamacare passed????

    Does the words "If you like your plan you can keep it PERIOD" have any meaning? Those were the words spoken by the truthful one after Obamacare passed. In other words you may understand HE LIED willfully and blatantly!! Pack that water atl134.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    @ Liberal

    Good point! Those evil Insurance Companies have built their business by getting rid of paying customers.

    That water you are carrying for the Truthful one must be getting heavy.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:41 a.m.

    @ Esquire:

    Take a guess as to where the term "junk insurance policy" came from. If you answer "from democrats who are trying to cover for the President's previous lies and are now trying to do damage control"... then you are absolutely right.

    None of the 3.2 million (most recent figure) people who had their previous health insurance policies cancelled considered them "junk". Otherwise, they wouldn't have owned them. They had the liberty to get whatever policy worked out best for their particular circumstances... something the government is incapable of doing... and something individuals will no longer be able to do.

    What is junk (garbage) is forcing a 57 year old man, who had a vasectomy 20 years ago, to pay for maternity and birth control coverage. Or (as a previous comment mentioned) a similar aged woman to buy prostrate and birth control coverage... things that are totally irrelevant to those individuals and which adds substantially to the cost of their insurance.

    The President's promise to keep what we had regarding our insurance policies and choice of doctor didn't include any if's, and's or but's. He actually said "period", which means no exceptions.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    @Daniel Leifker
    Nevermind, California... um, I'm not sure if they ran their own or are on the fed system. Anyway there should be something better on the exchanges than what you're seeing.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    Anyone who had a healthcare plan before the ACA was passed, and likes it, and the insurance company still offers that plan, can still keep it.

    It is only plans created after ACA was passed that fail to meet ACA minimum care standards that are rejected and in pretty much every case there's an equivalent plan on the market, oftentimes by the same insurer. The exception are the junk plans that are dirt cheap and cover so so little that it makes the bronze plans look like they cover a lot. Any of this applies to around 5% of Americans (11-15 million estimated). The other 95% aren't affected.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    The number one cause of personal bankruptcy is medical expense. I've never seen evidence you care about this, so I have a completely different frame of reference. I believed something should be done about this, so I favored "medicare for all." Would you have favored that? I doubt it. Neither did the insurance business, so we have an attempted fix popularly called Obamacare, which protects the insurance business but in so doing creates all sorts of complications, resolvable in time however. So, Deseret News, it comes down to this - keep Obamacare and allow it to evolve, repeal Obamacare and put up with medical created bankruptcy, have medicare for all, or go single payer. Which do you favor? I favor single payer now. You won't because you don't understand we already have a centrally planned economy. The question is, who benefits?

  • Kouger Lehi, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:18 a.m.

    You have two choices "Dr. BO" or "Dr. No" - Same result however, Obamacare's gotta go!

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    The Real Maverick May I suggest you read the Salt Lake Tribune then.

    Esquire. May I suggest you read the Salt Lake Tribune then.

    liberal larry. That still is not going to help millions who now have no coverage, and can't afford the new Obamacare, with higher deductables.

    2 bits. Please note that the Republicans and Democrats in Congress are now proposing many needed changes.

    LDS Liberal. The insurance companies had no choice but change the plans to comply with Obamacare.

  • Herbert Gravy Salinas, CA
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    If you like your lies, you can keep telling your lies. Period!

  • Cactus Moroni, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    Obama said over and over that "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" because he knew that when his lie came to light, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN would not hold him accountable. If the media will not hold him accountable, why not go ahead and lie?

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 10:53 a.m.

    @LDS Liberal "...it was not Obama...."

    Nonsense. Insurance providers didn't just wake up one morning and decide to drop plans. They are dropping those plans because Obamacare's new regulations say they are unacceptable. Most of them are plans that have met the needs of their subscribers for years.

  • 2 bit Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    You are being VERY careful to make sure no splatter gets on your Obama.

    Make sure we know it's the evil "INSURANCE PROVIDERS" telling them their policies have been cancelled. Obama and the Govmt had nothing to do with it!

    You said, "it was not Obama, it was not the Gv'mnt!".
    Well... that's not true. It was the ACA that required the plans be cancelled. That's a fact.

    Why did the evil Insurance Companies cancel the policies? Because Obama's law REQUIRED them to be cancelled!

    These plans have worked for many years, and the people on them liked them, but the plans must be cancelled (by law). Do you think the evil Insurance Companies would have cancelled the policies and risked loosing those premiums if ObamaCare didn't REQUIRE they cancel them?

    You gotta quit being so blatant in your partisanship. Obama CAN make mistakes. You don't have to cover for him.

    You said, "Let's at least look at the facts and reality and not let bias and opinions skew the truth"

    Fact... the LAW required the plans be cancelled.

    I wish you would take your own advice on partisan bias.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 10:47 a.m.

    I can decide for myself which insurance is junk and which is good for me and my family. He promised us that if we liked our health care plan, we could keep it. "Period."

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 10:36 a.m.

    "Yet three years later, hundreds of thousands of Americans are receiving letters from their insurance providers telling them their policies have been cancelled" ~ DN editorial editors


    Can't even read what they wrote themselves....

    here, let me paraphrase your own words for you --
    "their INSURANCE PROVIDERS telling them their policies have been cancelled".

    note: it was not Obama, it was not the Gv'mnt!

    Let's at least look at the facts and reality,
    and not let bias and opinions skew the truth.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    IF Barack really didn't know he was lying - if he REALLY didn't know what he was telling the nation for over three years and 35 times was a lie then naturally he would have come forward already and talked to nation on national TV and come clean. He would have said - I told you this but in reality that wasn't true and I was misinformed. I am sorry. Here is what I will do to make it right...

    But instead what we are getting is the classic response from a liar who was caught....more blame and and changing the story...more lies and arrogance.

    you decide. It is pretty clear to me the man was lying on purpose.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    so Barack just didn't know huh? That's what this article is telling us? Really? Over 35 times he repeated the "you can keep it if you like it..period" lie and somehow he just didn't know. In 2010 his White House aids Knew ...we now know that ...but I guess Barack doesn't go to meetings ??? Really?? This is absurd. Of course he knew but he didn't care. With Barack the ends justify the means and with every past scandal the man figures he will just let the media cover for him ...but not this time. Barack knew the cancellations would occur but he also knew he wouldn't get re-elected without the lie. He chose the lie and as for the aftermath this arrogant man just figured the media would cover for him as they always have. His short sightedness and arrogance propel him just like Nixon with Watergate - he thought he could get away with the lie.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    needs a doctor??? What about an executioner?

  • JMHO Southern, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    Esquire's statement sums up the mantra of socialism: "On the whole, not just focusing on a small minority, the results will be better than what we had." The individual has no place in society. If you are a "small minority" it is imperative the government make decisions for you. Maybe the government decides to ban SUV's because they are only useful for a "small minority" of people. It's all good. Not.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:22 a.m.

    Esquire: The progressive patronizers are at it again. The reasoning goes something like this: "All of you with those 'junk' policies just are incompetent at deciding what you want and that requires those of us who do know what's best for you to tell you that we are getting rid of your 'junk' policies for you. We are so sorry that you can't think for yourself. Just listen to us, keep your mouth shut, and give us your liberty too and you will thank us in the end. It is obvious that you can't handle freedom, so just be compliant and we will tell you what to do next!" Did I get it right? Oh no, I can see the steam coming through the internet at the very thought of uncovering the scam. That dang internet. We need some controls there too.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    Re: "Certainly, President Obama would have known that the fallout from a false statement eventually would cause great damage to his administration"...

    I seriously don't think the President realized that his statement COULD turn out to be false. And I assure you he wouldn't have made it IF he thought it would cause great damage to his administration.

    I think he is so out of touch with the details (even of the details in the 2000 pages of regulations in his own law) that he really didn't know that this would become a problem.

    He SHOULD have realized that many existing plans would be REQUIRED to be cancelled (by the rules in his law)... because they didn't meet the ACA requirements.

    But I think he really believed that if he said they could keep their plans... they could keep the plans. But that makes me wonder if he has actually read his own law (entirely) and he didn't even know that his own law would FORCE these plans to be cancelled (because they don't meet ACA standards).

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:34 a.m.

    @Esquire and Liberal Larry:

    While many of the plans that are being cancelled did not meet all the requirements of the "one size fits all" PPACA it does not necessarily follow that they didn't fill the needs of the person on the plan. My friend is over 55 and female. Her current plan is being cancelled because it doesn't have maternity coverage, prostate exam coverage, and does not cover birth control. She does not need any of those types of coverage and chose a plan that didn't provide them.
    Within the next 6 years the last of the Baby Boomer women will turn 55 and will no longer need any of these 3 types of coverage but will be forced to purchase policies that provide them in order to make the coverage more affordable for those who need them. And with the exception of prostate exams the men of that generation will also have to purchase coverage they don't need.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:32 a.m.

    @2 bits

    "I also have to admit that the Tea Party Republicans caused this knee-jerk response from Democrats (because they tried to kill it)."

    I respectfully disagree: Democrats have made this a virtually lock-step partisan issue from day one.

    Obama's own oblivious rigidity (and malicious use of force - such as militarizing park rangers) combined with Reid's complete arrogance are their own doing and merely vindicate the Tea Party

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:14 a.m.

    I agree that it needs some improvement. But ANY attempt to even touch it is greeted with such paranoid rally-the-troops mentality from the Democrats, that literally NOTHING can be changed.

    I also have to admit that the Tea Party Republicans caused this knee-jerk response from Democrats (because they tried to kill it). From now on... every attempt to even TOUCH it by a Republican will be seen as a mortal threat to the Democrats, and they will naturally over-react because of the past history. Democrats letting Republicans even TOUCH it would be like giving your baby to the person who tried to kill it. Aint gonna happen.

    So if ANYTHING in ObamaCare is going to change... it's going to have to be done by Democrats alone again. Because literally ANY attempt to participate or improve it by a Republican will instantly and mindlessly be painted as an attempt to kill it (by Democrats and the media).

    So I hope Democrats can get their heads on straight and fix it. Because there's NOTHING Republicans can do at this point. ANYTHING they try will be vilified and shutdown.

  • Daniel Leifker San Francisco, CA
    Nov. 7, 2013 7:21 a.m.

    The Affordable Care Act is starting to become comical.

    My own medical insurance plan was cancelled and replaced with a new plan in 2014 that is about 75% more expensive. Yesterday I got a notice from one of the largest healthcare providers in my state inviting me to call them for a quote, so I called.

    The sales person recommended a no-frills plan for $527 a month. (I currently pay $322.) The deductible was a staggering $5000 with lots of fat co-pays.

    I asked if they had anything cheaper, and the sales person said, "Yes, we have a plan for $519 a month, but I don't recommend it because it has no benefits." I was shocked by this and investigated further. The $519 plan pays zero until I reach a $4500 deductible, and then it kicks in (sort of). $519 x 12 months + $4500 = $10,728 per year that I would have to pay out of my own pocket each year before I get $1 in benefits. The sales person burst out laughing at how ludicrous this was. I didn't laugh.

    I am thinking about just dropping medical insurance and paying the penalty.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Nov. 7, 2013 6:41 a.m.

    Popularity of the Affordable Care Act is slowly increasing, according to a recent Reuters poll.

    The right wing media is going absolutely, hyperbolically, bananas over the fact that President Obama forgot to add the simple words, "unless you have a really. really, lousy policy.

    Remember, in the first month of the amazingly successful Romneycare, only 123 people signed up!

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 6:25 a.m.

    You clearly have bought the right wing rhetoric lock stock and barrel. I would have thought with your resources, a little independent research was possible. The numbers show that the people who have lost policies or had enormous increases had what is referred to as junk policies. They now have the ability to find better policies. On the whole, not just focusing on a small minority, the results will be better than what we had. There are problems with the start-up, but it does not mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. This paper has revealed itself as in line with Fox, not the mainstream. I can only assume this is driven by your ownership.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 7, 2013 5:56 a.m.

    Obama used the oldest scam in history; bait and switch. The bait was, "If you like your plan, you can keep it". The switch is, if I like your plan, you can keep it.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 5:54 a.m.

    Oh gee, another Dnews article bashing Obamacare. That's not something I haven't seen every week for the past 3 years...

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 2:53 a.m.

    Re: "Obamacare needs a doctor"

    It'd be better for real America and real Americans if it got an undertaker.