Richard Davis: Obamacare not as bad as its critics say it is

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 6:46 p.m.

    @Tyler Ray
    "Obama promises to cut deficit in half. Literally does the opposite."

    Actually with this years' projected deficit of 700 billion, that is almost a cut in half from the 2009 deficit. You're confusing deficit with national debt.

    "Promised to reform immigration policy."

    Tell Boehner to vote on schedule a vote on the senate bill...

    "IRS Targeting Conservative groups- No clue."

    They targeted liberal groups too, in fact a liberal group was the only one to get its tax exempt status revoked.

    "He says you can keep your insurance, he says this will help the poor
    Oops, I guess you can't keep your insurance."

    The subsidies do help the poor. The Republicans wanted to get rid of those by defunding it. The vast majority of people can keep their insurance, the ones being thrown off it can find plans on the exchanges that are basically the same, or they had junk policies that were no good trash as soon as anyone got sick.

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 2:35 p.m.

    Health care and health insurance are two different issues. Many people have relied on health insurance to help cover the cost of their health care. Some have not. Some people find the cost of health care - especially in times of health crisis - to be overwhelming. Some are forced into bankruptcy because the cost of health insurance didn't seem to be worth the risk. If everyone is forced into buying health INSURANCE, the risk is spread over a greater population, with a more likely lowering of the cost of health INSURANCE. I don't think that having more money to pay health CARE will necessarily drive down the cost of health CARE. The costs of health CARE may continue to increase, based upon other factors.

    Government mandated health INSURANCE is a scam. Those who claim that insurance companies are greedy and are ripping them off deserve to see the consequences of socialized ripping-off of those who entrust their health CARE to a governmental bureaucracy. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 11:18 a.m.

    Obamacare may not be as bad as critics say - but it doesn't matter. It is far far far far worse than supporters promised. That is the only salable fact

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Nov. 15, 2013 7:12 a.m.

    Personally I think (but have no proof) that when the insurers issued these non grandfathered often junk health insurance policies, they knew full well that they would have to be cancelled and that the cancellation notices that were sent out would quickly become public to contradict the president's "you can keep it" promise and create a political conundrum. It must not be forgotten that the insurance companies were doing very well under the old system and had to be brought kicking and screaming to the ACA. And now, bought and paid for politicians are paying the debt they owe to them.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 11:22 p.m.

    Re: "Check the exchange. Don't just tell everyone you did because you hate Obama, then quote the price you got from your insurance company, and say it's the exchange price. Thanks Obama!"

    You should be thanking me.

    My premiums jumped nearly 400%, so yours could be subsidized.

    Thanks, Obama. And vitaminfrog.

  • Tyler Ray Taylorsville, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 5:45 p.m.

    Let's just looks at some events of this presidency.

    Obama promises to cut deficit in half. Literally does the opposite.
    Promised to reform immigration policy.
    Benghazi, he says he knew nothing about it. He said he found out on the nightly news.
    IRS Targeting Conservative groups- No clue.
    He says you can keep your insurance, he says this will help the poor
    Oops, I guess you can't keep your insurance.
    He delivers his terrible apology.

    All in all you have an imcompetent, dishonest, disengenuine, socialist president.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 14, 2013 5:17 p.m.

    airnaut (3:11 p.m.),

    I expect the government to fulfill its promises. I had no choice about paying into Social Security and Medicare. The government forced me to participate. Everyone who has been forced to pay for promised services has the RIGHT to receive what he has paid for.

    You may want to give someone else your benefits. You may be able to live off your savings. My savings are the payments that I made to Social Security. The government left nothing for me to invest. After paying 15% (yes, the full share) all of my life, the government took money from me to pay for their Ponzi scheme. It appears that you're in favor of them taking another 18% from your gross income to create another Ponzi scheme.

    How many times will you be forced to pay for something that will be spent and replaced with I.O.U.s before you learn that government borrows money from China to pay for the services that it promised.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 5:06 p.m.

    (I didn't plan on having children, or even if I did I planned on 'gasp' - paying for it out of my own pocket)
    Ok, So how is that a straw man argument? If you plan on paying for a baby on your own the cost will somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000. Let's pretend you can pay that on your own(most people can't, but i'll assume you've done well for yourself.) What happens if the baby is born 2 months early? Most of the time a baby will be in the NICU until around their original due date. That's at least another $30,000 worth of hospital/doctor bills. If you don't pay them, because you didn't chose insurance(and again, even if you personally could pay, most people can't), me, and every other insured person pays that bill in increased hospital rates and premiums. Or the hospital lets those who can't pay die. Joe, either we mandate payment for services upfront or everyone needs some sort of coverage. The system you propose isn't working, and hasn't for a long time. If not Obamacare what's your solution?

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihiuahua, 00
    Nov. 14, 2013 5:00 p.m.

    Obama has lied 5 times about people being able to keep their insurance plans. What makes you think he is telling the truth now?

  • Tyler Ray Taylorsville, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 4:33 p.m.

    @ patriot

    You got it exactly right. I recently watched a speech Bush delivered to congress after 9/11. It was genuine and patriotic. He even called key democrats his friends and thanked them. Oprah and other media members always try to get Bush to badmouth Obama. He never has taken the bait.

    Compare that to Obama's so called "Apology" for misleading the people about keeping their insurance. The only apology Obama has made is to other countries for being American.

    Bush may not have been the smartest president, nor did he make all the right decisions, but he showed more class than Obama ever could.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihiuahua, 00
    Nov. 14, 2013 4:25 p.m.

    Obamacare is a failure. They announced another "delay" until after 2014 for the individual mandate. How many "delays" do there have to be before this thing gets repealed. They just did this so it takes place after the midterm elections.

  • democratt??? usa, AR
    Nov. 14, 2013 4:19 p.m.

    i was a democratic voter until Obama lied and wanted for me to pay for pack a day smokers and could keep the insurance I had and I have already checked after obama's new speach that price has increased and is still effected by the ACA of which i supported and had high hopes for. I for one have read much of the act which has taken 87 hours and i am not done if my opinion does not count no american's should and i am changing from a registered democrat to independant leaning toward republican due 100%to the ACA and what has happened to my family due to it.

  • jmillsintacoma Tacoma, WA
    Nov. 14, 2013 4:06 p.m.

    I get it that some plans are not so good. I get it that some insurance companies lie and cheat the consumers.

    But why are the state insurance commissioners not capable of dealing with that stuff? Why does this have to be a federal government issue, and why do we need a "one-size-fits-all" approach?

    I don't think this adequately explains why the State Governments are not in a better position to deal with the issues of insurance problems.

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Nov. 14, 2013 3:47 p.m.

    Change is hard and propaganda works.

    Now were Romney and Newt communists plotters when they came up with mandatory health insurance as a plan?

    The new conservatives (neocons), Tea-party if you will, can't even agree with the conservative ideas from 20 years ago.

  • Jeff W. El Paso Co, CO
    Nov. 14, 2013 3:46 p.m.

    Wow, could the author use anymore of the WH talking points or does he just get his stories written there and forwarded to him? Nobody has even seemed to ask if there is any legal authority in the ACA for the President to arbitrarily, under his authority, change the date of enrollment?

    This is still going to create all kinds of problems for insurers trying to figure how many other features will arbitrarily change when the President figures his poll numbers are so low he has to unilaterally do something. I'm sure that the President just lost a whole bunch of supporter from executives from insurance companies that now have to re-instate policies the law told them to cancel. Also, how many of those re-instated policies will have their premiums raised. How many folks will not be able to afford the re-instated policies? This is the most gigantic load of manure ever foisted on the American people since Nixon and G.W. Bush.

  • Pop1 Riverton, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 3:30 p.m.

    Richard Davis: Waterboy for the Progressives, BYU Professor.

    Wow. Just, Wow.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Nov. 14, 2013 3:11 p.m.

    Eagle Mountain, UT
    Dr. Davis:

    I can't believe you teach at BYU and yet in this article you support a plan that takes away our right to choose.

    Freedom of choice is a God given right and as many have stated their rights have been infringed upon by taking away their choice because government knows best.


    So then,
    You are for a woman's right to choose,
    legalization of marijuana,
    and Gay Marriage then?

    Because I really don't care much for hypocrites.

  • jayterrie Pittston, PA
    Nov. 14, 2013 2:13 p.m.

    I LOVE OBAMACARE!!! Our household has been purchasing our own health insurance for the last 5 years since my husband became self-employed. We have had to pay a small fortune to receive the kind of coverage we had previously received through group-based employer plans. We had to sacrifice a lot of things to afford this insurance but we were fortunate enough to be able to do so. I always worried what would happen if business went down and we could no longer afford the insurance everyone needs. On the day the website opened up, we registered for an almost identical Blue Cross plan with excellent coverage at a savings of about $8000 per year for our family. We had very little trouble purchasing our coverage online. Self-employed people who are not eligible for group rates will definitely benefit from OBAMACARE.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Nov. 14, 2013 1:49 p.m.

    Eagle Mountain, UT
    Dr. Davis:
    I can't believe you teach at BYU and yet in this article you support a plan that takes away our right to choose. Maybe I can, BYU has changed a lot since I graduated.


    1. You do not have the right to choose (not to have adequate insurance) and make those of us who do pay for it.

    2. If you have to right to live, you have the right to die.
    The problem is, our Constitution requires our Government to choose your right life for you when you can't. So, the only way you can truely opt out of taking personal resonsibility and opting out is to tatoo a big old "Do Not Assist, Do Not Help, Do Not Resesitate" across your chest so when help arrives, they know you did not participate or pay for their help -- you wanted Government out of your life, so you'll get it.

    3. BYU hasn't changed, you have.

  • Evets Eagle Mountain, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 1:19 p.m.

    Dr. Davis:
    I can't believe you teach at BYU and yet in this article you support a plan that takes away our right to choose. Maybe I can, BYU has changed a lot since I graduated. Freedom of choice is a God given right and as many have stated their rights have been infringed upon by taking away their choice because government knows best.
    BTW your comparison to making car manufactures put in seat belts does not fly because when seatbelts were required the government still allowed one to use his old car without them. I am sure there are some still being driven around today. And I am sure those old cars serve there owners well for their specific need.

  • tsobserver Mapleton, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 1:19 p.m.

    "First, these were private policies individuals bought since 2010 because their employer did not provide coverage."

    This is not entirely true. Any plan purchased and in effect prior to 2010 that had even the smallest changes no longer qualified.

    And if the employer mandate had not been delayed, we would be seeing about 70 to 120 million cancellations of employer based policies as well, just as was predicted by the CBO in 2010. Else why do you think Obama gave them a year reprieve. Out of the goodness of his heart or because he wanted what is best for businesses? Hardly. He did it because the pain of loss combined with those who are losing their plans now would have produced riots in the streets.

    "Not so bad"? You cannot be serious. Making such an argument after what we have seen and learned about this disaster is beyond rediculous, it's deliberately ignorant and designed to prop up the Chosen One.

    Can you honestly believe that those people with cancer and other serious illness are going to find a policy they can afford when they lose their existing coverage? Can you be that naive and callous?

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Nov. 14, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    Who wants ObamaCare?
    [A: Capitalists -- your buddies in the Insurance companies and Wallstreet]

    Who doesn't want ObamaCare?
    The Republicans don't want it. [Not true, it was their idea]

    59% of the people didn't want it.
    [Count me in that -- I want a Single Payer Public Option, just like saw in Belgium.]

    Those who take personal responsibility for their personal welfare don't want it.
    [The problem is those who did not take responsibility are costing those of us who do, That is why there is now the mandate.]

    BTW -- I'm curious,
    since you claim that Social Secuiryt and Medicare are not "Constitutional" --
    are you still planning on drinking from the public trough?

  • vitaminfrog Walnut, CA
    Nov. 14, 2013 11:42 a.m.

    Wow. If you stop Obama-hating you might see the positives.

    I was insuranceless for 10 years after a car accident that was not my fault. My leg did not heal correctly, and became a "pre-existing condition"(even though I desired no care for my leg). $900 a month for a policy. So, I didn't buy insurance. Now I'm 33. My site is CoveredCalifornia. I tried creating an account several times. On October 17, bingo. Ecstatic. Bronze plans started at $1, but chose a Blue Shield PPO Silver 94 plan for $53. NO deductable. Highest copay $7. Turn off Hannity and Limbaugh. You don't have to take my word. Go to the site. Without creating an account, calculate 33 year old male, income $16,800. You will see my plan.

    Everyone is complaining that they don't need maternity care, etc. If people don't use those required benefits due to their sex, etc, as you all say, it will NOT have a big impact on the price of insurance.

    Check the exchange. Don't just tell everyone you did because you hate Obama, then quote the price you got from your insurance company, and say it's the exchange price.

    Thanks Obama!

  • Delaware Jack Dover, DE
    Nov. 14, 2013 11:33 a.m.

    It is evident by his statements that Richard Davis is more a professor of political science Fiction than of political science .. but one cannot expect more from Davis .. he is simply following the lead of his beloved president by adhering to the beliefs and principles of this president and the democratic party, all of whom cherish their number one goal of " From each according to his ability, to each according to his need " ..

  • golsen7 Bonneville, ID
    Nov. 14, 2013 11:26 a.m.

    All you have to do is see the lobbyist parties that wrote the law to see who will benefit from it. Who in the health care industry under this law takes a cut. No one. Then you have added the extra government red tape and oversight into it. That costs money for both sides, the government and the healthcare industry.

    Insurance companies do not drive costs down. They are not in business to lose money thus adds more cost to the system. The low users pay more for the high users of the system.

    We need more doctors, nurses and hospitals to help drive the costs down. It is about supply and demand. Hospital corporations don't want to see more doctors and nurses and hospitals in the system, it would drive profits down.

    So it does nothing to help lower the cost of medical treatment but raises it, therefore it has to cost the people more in insurance premiums and in taxes. It is simple economics.

    Simple math if the cost(C) stays the same and (A) pays less then (B) has to pays more to equal out. C=A+B

    Affordable I say not.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 14, 2013 11:01 a.m.

    "My heart sank when I got an email late last month from my friend Robert, who has been battling multiple sclerosis for the past decade. He wrote to tell me that he was among the many Americans who in recent weeks received letters from their insurance companies saying that their policies won’t be available next year.

    Insurance companies are sending those letters primarily because the policies they will no longer offer don’t provide enough coverage — or have deductibles that are too high — to comply with the Affordable Care Act. In MANY cases, however, the policyholders getting those letters are simply victims of a business practice insurers have engaged in for years: discontinuing policies because they’re no longer "sufficiently" profitable.

    Robert understandably was worried. Considering his very serious and costly preexisting condition — his medications alone cost more than $5,000 a month — Robert was nervous as he started looking for a replacement policy. How much more would he have to pay to stay insured?

    Robert could barely believe what he heard: he could get better coverage than the policy being discontinued — and pay less — thanks to Obamacare."
    (Wendell Potter)

  • surferlou Albuquerque, NM
    Nov. 14, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    It's a bit discouraging to learn that BYU is now populated with professors who buy into the "collective" mentality of the Democrat party. The self-reliant pioneers who settled Utah must be turning over in their graves. The President lied. Are you saying professor that if the truth about what is happening now was shared with the American people in 2010 that the law would have passed? Are there "bad" policies out there? Sure. But wouldn't it have made more sense to come up with a program to help this small population of people rather than a complete takeover of the US health care system by politicians who know nothing about building a simple e-commerce website much less health care?

  • bobdc6 park city, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    I have government insurance, Medicare, and love it, you should have it too. It would cut out the middleman of the health insurance industry that drives costs up 15-20%/year, making it difficult for exporters of American made goods to compete on the world market. Leeches on society, must be removed.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 14, 2013 10:11 a.m.

    Who wants ObamaCare? The Democrats want it. They want any program that "gives" money to the voters, even if they have to borrow that money from China. Obama wants it. He's from Chicago where he's very familiar with "insurance" and so is every shopkeeper in that city. Those who want someone else to pay for their personal welfare want it. They don't care who pay as long as it is someone outside their household.

    Who doesn't want ObamaCare? The Republicans don't want it. Not one of them voted for it. The States don't want it. 59% of the people didn't want it. Those who take personal responsibility for their personal welfare don't want it.

    No matter what the rhetoric presented from Obama and his followers. ObamaCare is not what was promised and it never will be what was promised. It needs to be removed completely until it is fixed and then, after everyone knows exactly what ObamaCare is and how it will affect each of us, then it can be voted on. Obama knows that it would never pass again if he had to be truthful about it.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 14, 2013 10:02 a.m.


    Sounds like the insurance company or someone is jerking you around.

    Premium increases do not result in a loss of grandfather status.

    BUT, significant increases in deductibles will. An individual and/or family deductible or out-of-pocket maximum cannot be increased by more than a percent equal to medical inflation + 15%.

    My guess is that the insurance carrier is just looking for more profits.

    More information can be found at Cigna's "Grandfathered health plan provisions FACT SHEET."

  • LongTom brookline, MA
    Nov. 14, 2013 8:32 a.m.

    The right wingers were going to find something to screech about anyway when ACA launched. Rational presentations like this article mean nothing to them. That said, the website fiasco and Obama's failure to explain IN ADVANCE what people with inadequate coverage could expect to happen, has played into tea party hands. I would anticipate another government shutdown in January by an emboldened tea party.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Nov. 14, 2013 8:14 a.m.

    Dietrich, ID
    What right does the government have to tell an insurance company what to do? They are private businesses and up to them to decide...

    7:39 a.m. Nov. 14, 2013


    What right does the government have to tell --

    a Food company
    an Import company
    an automobile manufacturer
    a Constrution company
    a Explosives company
    a Mining company
    a Resturant
    a Hazerdous Waste ompany
    a Broadcasting company
    a Drug company
    a Chemical company

    ...what to do?
    They are private businesses and up to them to decide...


    Do you see how that works?

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Nov. 14, 2013 7:39 a.m.

    What right does the government have to tell an insurance company what to do? They are private businesses and up to them to decide if they cover pre existing conditions. MAny will go broke if they do. Government is causing many of them to go out of business. A business should be able to decide how to run not Oboma.

  • Ironweed Chattanooga, TN
    Nov. 14, 2013 7:24 a.m.

    Wait until it gets loaded down with 10 to 15 million Mexicans getting subsidized by Americans roped into their support.

  • play by the rules SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 6:52 a.m.

    This is the reason I don't donate to BYU. Davis is a Democrat party operative masquerading as a professor at BYU.

  • Phil_C. San Jose, CA
    Nov. 14, 2013 1:57 a.m.

    Professor Davis would not be speaking so charitably if he faced cancellation of his medical insurance. Working for a university, he probably won't have to deal with it, but chances are that half of the people living in his neighborhood will. Perhaps Deseret News could invite a few of Mr. Davis' less fortunate neighbors to pen op-ed columns in a few months.

  • Viva la Migra American Fork, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 11:54 p.m.

    I suggest this BYU professor leave the academic bubble and see what is happening in the real world.

    For the past 6 years, I've worked at a small company which has offered insurance plans fully compliant with the ACA regulations. Because of slight premium inflation, they were deemed to have lost their grandfather status, so they are being replaced in 2014 with new plans. These plans offer the exact same medical benefits, but the deductibles are all twice what they were.

    The premiums are also much higher, anywhere from 200 - 600 percent more, depending on the age and family size of the employee. In other words, instead of paying around $250 per month for a family plan, some have to pay up to $1200 per month.

    The ironic part is one of the main arguments made by the Obamacare proponents is that it's unfair to have unhealthy or sick people pay more for coverage than the young and healthy. In order to achieve this they are destroying the previously uniform rates offered by employers to all employees. In all of the years I've worked, I've never seen an employer charge employees differently for the same plan, until now.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 11:53 p.m.

    For a family making around 50k the most their premiums are allowed to be, under Obamacare, is around 9% of income. There's no lifetime or annual caps under Obamacare which you say they're running into under their old plan. There's no ability under Obamacare for insurance companies to drop people due to pre-existing conditions but there is in the previous system your relatives would be subject to.

    And you know how I know I'm right that your relatives will pay less? For weeks now and even in this thread conservatives have been complaining that the mandate just forces healthy people to have to pay more just to cover the others who are sick. Those sick people are your relatives. It is literally impossible for Obamacare to harm every single person and even conservatives concede that, so they claim that the only people this helps are a small number that are very sick. You claim not even those are helped. So I guess we're in a magical fantasy world where we can spend billions of dollars on subsidized care and somehow things get worse for everyone? That's nonsense.

  • wer South Jordan, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 11:07 p.m.

    While it may be true that the recent revelations about obamacare mean that it isn't so bad, the fact is that: what is finally coming to light will pale in comparison to the really ugly sides of this "health" plan. This is nothing less than the biggest intrusion by the feds in our lives. It is the Titanic of government promises. It is so far beyond the competency level of any organization, especially the federal government, that one can only wonder how we let it get this far. There is not one significant federal program that is under budget. This complete implimention of this plan would make the other expenses seem trite in comparison.

  • BigBuddha Chandler, AZ
    Nov. 13, 2013 10:41 p.m.

    All I remember is that people have been complainining for decades that Insurance Co. sold/offered contracts that were NOT good policies and that there should be "LAWS to change it" and the gubment should restrict ..blah blah blah.... now the US is trying to fix the situation and everybody is complaining blah blah blah..
    We can go into war on a wink and a nod but heaven forbid changes and updates to health care industry

  • OlderGreg USA, CA
    Nov. 13, 2013 10:25 p.m.

    When I first heard "affordable" was being addressed --- I thought that they were going to do something about the MD shortage -- like streamline the production line.

    A US trained physician is probably about middle aged before he earns that first nickel that he can call his own. And we wonder why doctors are so danged expensive.

    Consider that Bachelor degree (higher is better) non-medical degree preferred is needed to get through the screening for medical school. Special entrance exams to pay for; application fees to pay for; minimum of 4 more years for bare-bones GP; more for specialty. Did you know that family practice is a specialty? After graduating, he needs to get matched for a few additional years of hands-on-experience under supervision as intern/ resident. There are some that don't get placed.

    Then he gets to take (and pay for) the assorted liscencing exams before he can practice on his own. Add basic equipment, liabilty insurance, technical staff to deal with bureacratic requirements

    And those years of student loans have been quietly ticking away, building interest.

    The ACA does *nothing* to address affordability. Everything about it drives costs higher.

  • Massresident TOPSFIELD, MA
    Nov. 13, 2013 8:39 p.m.

    The really bad part has been delayed to next year: the massive increase in cost for employer paid health plans. Healthcare costs already consume $1 out of every $5 the economy produces or twice as much as any other country. This little bit of collusion between the healthcare industry and the government will make that number grow faster than ever. Making our healthcare more unaffordable than ever is not "reform".

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    Nov. 13, 2013 8:29 p.m.

    Want to know why Obamacare is a bad idea?

    1) It's too expensive. It will excessively burden tax-paying Americans (thanks, you 53% who pay zilcho to keep our country running). It will make the cost over-runs of Medicare and Medicaid (waaaaay into the $$$billions since implemented) look like an 8-yr old's tea party. As a nation we are over $17 trillion in debt. That, my friends, is the equivalent of 17,000 billions. Do the math yourself. 17,000 BILLIONS. That isn't chump change.

    2) It's all about force, ie, it limits free agency.

    Case closed.

  • LoveLife Riverton, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 6:28 p.m.

    How do I know Obamacare is as bad as I think? Because of recent headlines:

    "Obamacare is in much more trouble than it was one week ago" Washington Post, Ezra Klein

    "Democratic Unity On Obamacare Is Collapsing"-Business Insider

    "Editorial: Prognosis for Obamacare isn't improving" Chicago Tribune

    "White House fires up its Obamacare spin machine"-Politico

    "Reid calls special ObamaCare meeting" -The Hill

    "Dem Senator: IPAB Needs to Be Revisited"-CSpan, video at Washington Free Beacon

    "Low Obamacare enrollment figures turns up heat on White House" Reuters

    "Officials Say They Don’t Know Cost of Health Website Fixes" NY Times

    "Doubts about repair date" Politico

    "Bill Clinton says Obama should honor health care promise"-CBS

    "Poll: Obama approval ratings drop, Americans say he's not trustworthy"-CNN

    "Dems to White House: Fix Obamacare, and fast"-Washington Post

    "Memo warned of "limitless" security risks for"-CBS

    "Who counts as an Obamacare enrollee? The Obama administration settles on a definition." Washington Post

    "WH Count of Obamacare Enrollees Will Include Those Who Haven’t Bought, Paid For Plans"-National Review

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 6:16 p.m.

    Mr. Davis reminds me a lot of the folks who denied, denied, denied (til the day he left office)that Richard Nixon did anything wrong.

    I suppose Mr. Davis deserves a couple of "up" votes for his loyalty to EVERYTHING Obama, but the fact is, Obamacare is unsustainable, and, if allowed to stand, will ruin most Americans financially.

    Nov. 13, 2013 5:56 p.m.

    Are you joking me? More than 4 million people lose their plans, the government sets up a huge failure of a website and hires convicts as "navigators" to whom we should pass our financial information and Social Security numbers and we should all be OK with that? We should be OK with raising premiums that we can't afford because Obama's economy stinks and the middle class is shrinking while the lower class grows?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 13, 2013 5:46 p.m.

    "There is another sibling that will probably reach his maximum as well, even though he doesn't suffer from a lifelong disability. He has maxed out every year since he was born, 4 years now (has a G-tube). Hopefully next year will be the last time, but who really knows."

    My understanding is that:
    ACA eliminates yearly and lifetime caps. Therefore, once someone has fulfilled their deductible (ACA covers one preventive visit/yr with no co-pay and 2 additional visits with a small co-pay even for the cheapest plan) their insurance plan will continue to cover a certain percentage of costs (amt varies according to bronze/silver/gold/platinum plan) without regard to yearly or lifetime maximums.

    How much has your sibling had to pay out-of-pocket when he maxed out every year pre-ACA?

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 5:41 p.m.

    Are you kidding me? For you to make such an outrageous comment that Obamacare isn't that bad ought to be a warning to anyone who in the past has trusted your judgement.

    People really need to think on their own rather than trust a big-government, end-all do-all progressive.

    America succeeded for many years because of a limited government by the people. The recent unraveling of America is a reflection of incompetent governance. I thought Jimmy Carter was bad. Now, in comparison to our current president, he was a genius.

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 5:22 p.m.

    Mr Davis, most people across the country aren't buying your view point, besides, the Obummer disaster is just beginning. The crushing cost of it all turn will turn it into the biggest financial disaster in world history. Obama has defrauded the American people, and if it were you or I telling those kinds of lies, we would end up in the clink for a long long time. Wait until 2014 when it hits businesses. It's about Freedom to choose what you want in life Mr. Davis,
    Freedom! That may be a strange concept for you, but not me.

  • micurmudgeon Traverse City, MI
    Nov. 13, 2013 5:06 p.m.

    It definitely is not as is so much worse !

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Nov. 13, 2013 5:02 p.m.

    It's nice to see the Deseret News run a more balanced assessment than what I'm used to from some of the syndicated columns that are regular features here. The defunct Rocky Mountain News that I grew up with had as its front page motto "Give light and the people will find their own way".

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Nov. 13, 2013 4:50 p.m.

    @SCfan – “Thanks again for clearing all that up for the rest of us Tyler.”

    Sure thing… glad I could help. I know it’s challenging what with all the spin-based media out there, so feel free to ask me for clarification anytime that cognitive dissonance gets a bit too shaky.

    [sarcasm off]

    Actually think you make a legitimate point about state vs. federal authority and we might be better off if experiments with different healthcare systems were left to the states (i.e., and reap the benefits of best practices).

    But it raises the question – why weren’t states (with the exception of MA) trying new approaches to bring down costs and cover more people? They’ve had decades with little to show.

    Second, the Interstate Commerce Clause seems to grant some measure of authority to the Feds unless each state can be allowed to restrict interstate commerce of everything from medical equipment to insurance as they see fit… otherwise they would be powerless against other states undercutting their efforts and we would just see a race to the bottom (e.g., why selling insurance across state lines is problematic).

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 4:49 p.m.

    Noodlekaboodle: Are you serious? What kind of a question is that???

    No hospital is going to let my newborn child die if I didn't have maternity coverage (or a certified check for any amount). Thousands of kids are born every year in this country to people with no insurance coverage whatsoever.

    If I'm not mistaken, maternity coverage is to cover the costs of pre-natal care and the actual delivery. If the newborn had health problems, that would be covered by my catastrophic coverage (after the mandatory deductible).

    You are going to have to come up with a better straw-man argument than that.

  • Turtle Owasso, OK
    Nov. 13, 2013 4:42 p.m.

    Are you kidding me?

    1. This bill was passed strictly by one political party only - not one single vote from the opposition. Does that not mean anything to you?
    2. This bill was passed by coercion, by sweetened deals in Nebraska and Louisiana to 'butter up' senators from those states.
    3. The House was going to give their representatives a whole weekend to read the bill, digest it and comment on it, but in the final analysis they rammed it through in hours not allowing people to do so - the famous line from Nancy Pelosi "we must pass this bill so that we can find out what is in it"
    4. Then the congressional record contains language that states that 40-66% of people will lose their coverage, something that those who drafted it never told us.
    5. So Professor Davis you believe in coerced decision making rather than letting people make their own choices - you study political science. What kind of governments do that? Nazism, Communism, Fascism etc. Is this the kind of government you want?
    6. I am a graduate of BYU - I am offended by your article - it violates LDS doctrines...

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 4:29 p.m.

    my foot fungus doesn't smell as bad as critics say....probably ought to ask those directly impacted by the smell!!

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 4:26 p.m.


    You want to believe more lies?

    Try the truth on for size.

    There is another sibling that will probably reach his maximum as well, even though he doesn't suffer from a lifelong disability. He has maxed out every year since he was born, 4 years now (has a G-tube). Hopefully next year will be the last time, but who really knows.

    Then you forgot to add the premiums. Oh, and the parents and other siblings might need care at some point. So now there are many individuals. Add all that up and you are around $20,000. That will be a little less than half their income this year.


    To falsely state what someone else believes, and then mock them for those falsified beliefs is unbelievable low. It is bigotry at its finest! It says a lot about you, like you only listen to what the left tells you about what the right believes, you don't have a clue about conservative economics, and from that sad place, you still choose to be rude and insulting.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 4:18 p.m.

    Sad that an employee of a university not only excuses a lie, but vigorously defends it. I thought universities were supposed to be in the business of pursuing and propogating truth! Silly me!

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 4:05 p.m.

    Re: "Many of the conservative commenters here seem to think that President Obama's intent with the ACA was simply to deceive and enslave us."

    Yeah! We've been saying it all along.

    Obama has demonstrated that his intent is to socialize and control health care, to assure that important decisions about American's lives are in the hands of leftist politicos and bureaucrats, enabling them to use that power -- literally of life or death -- to control us.

    I'd call that enslaving us.

    He's also on record perpetrating sophistry and knowing, intentional lies, trying desperately to sell what he knows is a really bad idea to the low-information America liberal educational and social-program policies have created.

    And yeah -- socialized medicine would, indeed, remove a middleman, making direct government control of our lives much more efficient and crushing. But, only committed socialists would say that like it was a good thing.

    Bottom line -- Obamacare is a war against America. Liberal sophistry being used to sell it is a weapon in that war. Opposition to Obamacare is American patriotism.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 3:51 p.m.

    @Joe Capitalist
    If you decided to pay on your own and you had a child born with a medical emergency would you be ok if they told you to bring a $10,000 certified check or the kid dies?

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 3:03 p.m.

    What's the old saying? Liberals are in favor of anything as long as it's mandatory. I couldn't believe Mr Davis' column. How can anyone think that the US Govt is capable of making the healthcare arrangements for 300 million people? Not to mention the fact that we supposedly live as free men in an allegedly free country- except we need permission from unelected bureaucrats before we can buy a health insurance policy or even buy a home with cash.
    I'm a man- I don't maternity insurance. I don't need mental health coverage. I can buy my own contraceptives. I'm 44 years old and I'm pretty certain what my sexuality is so I don't need an operation to transgender myself. What I need is an insurance policy that protects me and my family in case of a catastrophic event - I can pay everything else myself and get a better rate paying cash.
    I've had it with all these control freak people who can't stand the thought of someone in this country making a decision on their own.

  • JPP pleasanton, TX
    Nov. 13, 2013 2:47 p.m.

    Someone needs to get the facts right. My families plan was terminated due to the fact it would not qualify for the guidelines of the Affordable Care Act.(And we liked it for the past 3 years) That is exactly what it said, and we had insurance through my wife's employer. Not purchased on our own but through her company that employees 14 people. Uh, I also drive a Dodge Truck and own an SUV, is our gov. going to tell me now they don't qualify to be on the road so I have to buy a Prius? And a Prius for everyone that can not afford one?? Holy crud this stuff just makes me sick.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 2:46 p.m.

    Many of the conservative commenters here seem to think that President Obama's intent with the ACA was simply to deceive and enslave us. Nonsense. As imperfect as the ACA is, the intent all along was to provide some decent, affordable health care to the roughly 50 million Americans who could get none.

    That it is imperfect is unfortunate, but it would be working a lot better if all the states had done what they insisted on: having the right to set up their own health insurance exchanges. Most of the states that have used this option are exemplary. By the same token, the federal government would have had a better program if it had been allowed to set up one single exchange for the entire country, instead of having to deal piecemeal with the varying requirements for all the states that later chose to go back on their demand of setting up state-by-state exchanges. And which are those states? Red states. Another example of Republican hypocrisy. Demand something and then sabotage it.

  • Leftcoastrocky Los Angeles, CA
    Nov. 13, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    This is an EXCELLENT opinion piece. Pleased to see it in Desert News.

    Hope that it is widely read because it provides an excellent unbiased analysis.

  • mrathel Johns Creek, GA
    Nov. 13, 2013 2:37 p.m.

    I applaud you, Dr. Davis, for blasting the stereotype of the weak and inconsequential college professor: you have proven that you can carry the President's water with the best of them. The policy I had one year ago has been cancelled,and I can tell you first-hand that my insurance was not substandard or inferior; it was just more affordable than the government can allow and still pay for millions of others who need more care than a young adult like myself needs. What Obama has given me is the opportunity to pay more for a plan I don't want out of the goodness of my heart so that he can use the additional revenue to cover a group of people I have never met. I should at least get a monthly letter and photograph from the families I support by complying with Obamacare.

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 2:04 p.m.

    Anybody can choose their own healthcare, but if you want insurance to pay for it, a person has to live by the insurances rules. Some of the personal plans don't want (or don't think they can) follow the fair rules that are part of the ACA (No pre-existing conditions, no caps and so forth) and so they are cancelling the personal plans. Those people need to choose the good plans available in the ACA. The bigger plans don't generally have that problem because it's part of a big group that have chosen it. Those plans have to abide by the fair rules in the ACA to stay in existence.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 12:58 p.m.

    So what will the White House reaction be too all this Obamacare implosion?? My guess is we will soon see Barack back out on the campaign trail attempting to white wash his clueless followers with more propaganda and then have his friendly media film the whole thing to suggest all is well with OBamacare. Propaganda is about all that is left to salvage for Barack at this point....the scam is exposed.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 12:54 p.m.

    re:Happy Valley Heretic

    Bush didn't lie about WMD's. Our own CIA provided him with the intel and ALL members of congress of both parties saw the intel. Get your facts straight. The WMD intel was the best we had at the time and Bush made a judgement - which I didn't agree with - to not wait for more certain confirmation but instead go forward and invade and get rid of the threat. The difference here is Bush made a judgement call that was proven later to be wrong but his intent was GOOD and HONEST. Baracks intent with Obamacare was DISHONEST from the start. Big difference.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    @SCfan, actually Tyler said the lies being blown out of proportion are silly.

    Much like comparing Clintons lies about an affair to Bushes lies about WMD that started a war and cost thousands their lives, yep lying about infidelity is the same as lying to start a war.

    Maybe it isn't so much the lies as the ability to comprehend the difference between "No honey, you don't look fat in those pants" and "Saddam Hussein has got nukes, and nerve gas, and board with a nail sticking out of it and he's got your home address.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    Richard - these are all tired old talking points from the White House that have been proven false. The entire Obamacare scam is just that - a scam - that is now being exposed and these talking points don't mean anything when people - in the millions - are getting cancellation notices and then being faced with new premiums 2-3 times higher and with doctors they have never met. Even more scary is the employer mandate is going to kick in in less than a year which will means even more cancellations. This is a disaster Richard and it is time to drop the talking points and realize the Obamacare scam is out in the open now and even Bill Clinton has acknowledged that.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 12:25 p.m.

    procuradorfiscal: "Fact is, insurance companies will pay for absolutely NOTHING. Every nickel of corrupt, vote-buying Obamacare largesse will be paid out of my pocket. And yours. And that of every other working American."

    This is a great argument for a one payer system, and you are correct that is the way it's suppose to work, every able bodied American paying their share. Not some of us paying more and more to counter the Republican's plan ERHCP (Emergency Room Health Care Plan) that Reagan signed into law. Come to think of it, that's the last time a republican did anything about the healthcare problem in America, I mean beside complain and hinder.

    Socialized medicine wouldn't have private insurance companies as a money changer between you and your doctor.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 12:15 p.m.

    Before Obamacare I could get insurance for $46.00 per month, after Obamacare the premium goes to $160.00 and the deductible surges $1,000 over the last one.

    Wow you must of had total garbage coverage as I can't get dental coverage here in Utah for that cheap.
    Your rates and deductible went up to where mine have been for nearly 4 years, welcome to responsible coverage.
    You must have never used your great insurance or they would have told you that it only covered part of your left.

    As far as part time vs full time, well that's just the sainted "Job Creators" creating more wealth for themselves, and a separate issue. If we use the conservative approach maybe if we give them more tax breaks. Or No corporate tax since they pass it on to the consumer anyway we should just take all taxes from the workers.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    One of the stated goals of Obamacare was to decrease the cost of health care in America. In that regard, though it may be too early to grade, Obamacare is failing miserably. Premiums are increasing. Health costs are not coming down at all. Overall health spending has decreased the past few years, but that had nothing to do with Obamacare as it is only now being implemented, other than some insurance mandates on pre-existing coverage and covering family to age 25.

    Additionally, premiums that are lower are primarily due to subsidization. The family may realize an overall decrease to their premiums, but overall the premium has increased in cost. It is just being subsidized by someone else.

    Obamacare is a mess from a financial/cost perspective, an organizational perspective, a PR, a legal, social...basically in every way it is an utter failure.

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 12:10 p.m.

    It is not perfect and is a work in progress, but it has very good bones. Also, as a prior There are accusations that people were lied to about being to keep their own plan. Yes, in theory a person can. But if the insurance company decides to cancel a person, that says more about the insurance company doing it than it says about the ACA. The ACA is designed to make things fair for the insured person and if an insurance can't keep the requirements, then the insured probably should change to a plan that qualifies (no pre-existing condition, no caps and so forth).

    I have seen progress on the website, but be aware there are also third parties like Arches that help an individual with their questions.

    Best wishes to all in this undertaking!

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    Tyler D

    So Obama did not lie. Thanks for clearing that up. I always thought Bush had lied about WMD in Iraq. And Clinton lied about Monica Lewinski. Guess I was wrong. Obviously Presidents get a whole different set of standards of truth that don't apply to the average person. Thanks again for clearing all that up for the rest of us Tyler.

  • misterhaze Easy, TX
    Nov. 13, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    Everyone already knows about Obamacare and most people call it "bait and switch". So let's remove those people loosing health coverage, other people are still loosing coverage on top of that. Wegmans Grocery in upstate New York cut employee health benefits due to the Affordable Care Act. There are numerous other companies cutting insurance, Trader Joe's comes to mind, because they are forcing the employees into the exchanges. Then your premium in the exchange doubles, not to mention the deductible surging. Before Obamacare I could get insurance for $46.00 per month, after Obamacare the premium goes to $160.00 and the deductible surges $1,000 over the last one. How is this not as bad as it seems? I can point to many problems with this health care legislation, shouldn't you have mentioned some of the other issues going on as well. For the entire U.S. workforce, employers have added far more part-time employees in 2013—averaging 93,000 a month, seasonally adjusted—than full-time workers. People can't survive on part time work and this law is forcing them into it.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    Re: "These are all good changes. They force insurance companies to cover essential health benefits . . . ."

    Sorry, Prof, that's just standard socialist perfidy.

    Fact is, insurance companies will pay for absolutely NOTHING. Every nickel of corrupt, vote-buying Obamacare largesse will be paid out of my pocket. And yours. And that of every other working American.

    I know, that's a hard concept for mindless liberals to wrap there arms around, but, it's a fact, Prof -- there is no health-care fairy.

    It's just a disingenuous liberal myth, being disingenuously sold to low-information voters, in the hope of corruptly obtaining unfair political advantage over those committed to telling the truth, in order to exercise illegal and unconstitutional control over Americans they don't really like.

    That's all.

  • JS101 Little Rock, AR
    Nov. 13, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    re: "These are all good changes. They force insurance companies to cover essential health benefits such as prescription drugs, maternity and newborn care, hospitalization, and mental health services. Now, insurance policies cannot market policies to people supposedly offering them coverage that will not actually cover them."

    This is simply not a factual statement. Forcing insurance companies to cover prescription drugs for persons who don't need or want that coverage is not a "good change".

    Requiring people to buy coverage they don't need means that more people will simply opt out of having coverage at all which presumably is not a "good change".

    The comment that the changes are "all good" is not very thoughtful. There is plenty of "bad" that is difficult to miss unless one simply turns his or her head to it.

  • a_voice_of_reason Woods Cross, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    My frustration with this whole thing is the idea that the government has determined that these people are being cheated by the insurance companies. The policies are "sub-par." I guess that depends on what you want. For example, the author mentions that many of these policies being cancelled didn't offer maternity coverage. Well, if I'm a single man I don't think I want to pay extra for that. Or even when my wife and I were first married and in school, we had no money. We were required to get health insurance to be enrolled in school. So, we got a bare-bones plan through the school that did NOT have maternity coverage. We could afford it. When we decided we were ready to have a baby we switched to the much more expensive plan with maternity coverage. We paid the higher premiums while she was pregnant and had the baby. As soon as open enrollment came again after the baby we downgraded again. We paid for the coverage we wanted. Now the government has us pay for what the government believes is "right."

  • NYWB Federal Way, WA
    Nov. 13, 2013 10:02 a.m.

    "those who received cancellation notices likely will have more options for better and cheaper coverage than they do now." Nothing could be further from the truth. Individuals will have fewer options, pay more and have higher deductibles. Sounds like the author is parroting DNC talking points.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 9:33 a.m.

    More for high school fan to think about:

    So, if I cannot find a decent job in this top-heavy economy, and I am employed either part time or full time with low wages and no benefits, what happens if I get cancer or MS or get in an accident and am paralyzed? Or what if I get an antibiotic-resistant infection in my foot and can't afford to go to even the doctor? You say "people need to care for themselves and to provide for themselves," but what if I can't? Are you just going to tell me to go somewhere and die quietly where you won't have to see it and feel guilty?

    Please explain this individualist ethic you're promoting. Please tell me how this form of economic Darwinism plays out in your reality. You're obviously promoting Herbert Spencer's "survival of the fittest" as a blueprint for our society. How exactly does that work in the real world? Would you really like to live in the society you're promoting?

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    Truthseeker: So what you are saying is that if I decided that I did not want maternity care coverage in my health plan (I didn't plan on having children, or even if I did I planned on 'gasp' - paying for it out of my own pocket) then I should not be able to buy that policy. Period. Right??? I should not have that choice?

    Same with a whole host of other possible medical conditions that I might not want coverage for. Life is a risk. I buy insurance for the things I could not afford to lose after assessing the risk. My house is covered for fire, but not for floods (I live on a hill, away from possible flash floods). I don't expect insurance to cover everything that could ever possibly happen or to cover stuff that I could easily replace.

    Personally, I like being able to choose what risks I am willing to take and what I want insurance to cover. I don't like some federal bureaucrat deciding for me what I have to buy. You might like all of your life's decisions made for you by someone else, but I do not.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 9:22 a.m.

    high school fan:

    Wow. Don't speak of alternate realities. Yours is about as alternate as they get.


    Speaking of hidden taxes on the poor, I thought you were a conservative. All your comments lean strongly in that direction. Which means you should only be concerned about overtaxing the rich. Heck, if a bill can get a few of those lazy 47 percenters to start paying some taxes, that's a good thing. Or am I misunderstanding conservative economics? Well, no, I'm not. You can't have it both ways.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Nov. 13, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    The “Obama lied” arguments are just silly. They are akin to the government requiring auto makers to meet minimum safety standards and then people going ballistic because Ford was forced to recall all their Pintos.

    And the idea that prior to Obamacare, policy cancellations were unheard of in the industry is ludicrous. They happened often and in droves – the only difference is now they are happening for the right reasons and will likely slow dramatically after this first wave (in order to get all policies up to par).

    But these facts won’t assuage the haters… facts rarely do.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    "They will pay more money out of pocket next year, even with the subsidies.

    Nonsense, Obamacare specifically prohibiits a percentage as high as "half your income" being used for healthcare costs. The very article we're commenting on says what the limit is.

    " The law now says a company cannot force an individual to make out-of-pocket expenses above $6, 350. "

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    Another excellent op-ed by Richard Davis. Thanks for putting this into perspective. It appears that the ACA will slowly make junk health insurance a thing of the past, something that is very good for America.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    My daughter has a child with, shall we say, medical needs. For the last 4 years she and her husband have maxed out, their out of pocket insurance, and have averaged having half their income go to premiums and medical expenses. They live on very little.

    So Obamacare to the rescue, right?


    They will pay more money out of pocket next year, even with the subsidies.

    Talk about a hidden tax on the poor!

    But then that is what Obamacare was intended for, a new tax and more power to the democrats in power. It was never meant to help people with health problems. The whole program was a lie.

    So of course the president had to lie about it.

    I thank God for Shriners, Primary Children's, St Jude, etc. I hope the ACA doesn't outlaw them helping people who can't afford to pay, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Maybe their care will be deemed "junk care" by the government, but I am sure the patients will tell you otherwise.

    I doubt anyone out there is thanking God for the ACA. Entitled mentality people usually aren't grateful, or religious.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 13, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    "People's plans are "substandard" because, shockingly enough, health care plans for men didn't include maternity coverage."

    Our family is covered by a plan offered by an employer. There is no "men's plan" or "women's plan." The males and females in our household have the same coverage.

    However, "individual health insurance policies generally don't cover maternity care, as an investigation by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce reported. In a memo outlining its findings based on responses from the four largest for-profit health insurers -- Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint -- the committee reported that most individual policies at those companies didn't cover most of the expenses for a normal delivery.

    The problems don't stop there. If a woman is pregnant and applies for coverage in the individual market, insurers generally consider her pregnancy a preexisting medical condition and deny coverage. The Energy and Commerce Committee investigation also found that insurers sometimes denied coverage to expectant fathers and those who were in the process of adoption."

    Keep in mind that nearly half of all pregnancies are unplanned.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    Watching the argument on this federal medical care program, along with the debate going on about same sex marriage, makes me more than ever appreciate why there are 50 states and not just one national government. Most of these personal issues like marriage and health care should be left to state choice first, and federal government 2nd, if at all. However it would seem most liberals want federal government first, and to completely ignore any states rights (granted in the constituion) and just go with all federal regulation on all matters, no matter how trivial or local. A system like that just does not work. The European Union for instance has say so about playground regulations on schools in all of the countries in Europe. Do I need to bring up how the Soviet system crumbled under the attempt to regulate a huge country from a centralized government? We need to get back to the system of states, and not the federal government regulating more of American life. Our country has become too big for only one point of view to prevail.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    Please, what a load of bull.

    1) Obamacare was written to draw the line at grandfathered clauses as narrowly as possible. They DELIBERATELY killed as many plans as they could.

    2) People's plans are "substandard" because, shockingly enough, health care plans for men didn't include maternity coverage. If you are male and your current plan doesn't have maternity coverage for you (I guess you need it, right--the chances of using it are so high!)-your plan is gone too. This happens to all the business offered plans as well, next year. If you like your health insurance plan, you won't be able to keep it. Or your doctor. Or your hospital.

    3) The entire bull about "Better and Cheaper" plans. Really? Outside of a few chronically ill people, the vast majority of plans are more expensive and cover stuff most people don't need. How many 60 year olds need maternity and newborn care? As for subsidies…. you can't get one unless you sign up through Which, as we all know, does not and won't work. So no one is getting subsidies. either.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 7:33 a.m.

    This article is yet another in a long line of "government knows better than you do what is good for you". Welcome to the new land of liberty and choice - NOT!

    Sure, some people bought policies that may not have covered what they thought they covered. But I would say most of these "substandard" policies are exactly what the people who bought them wanted.

    I have an old car that I only drive once in a while. If it was totaled in a wreck (and no one was hurt), it wouldn't be the end of the world. I don't want or need full coverage insurance on it. I just want the basic liability coverage. I don't want some government bureaucrat deciding that I can't buy that and I need to buy a new expensive policy that covers oil changes, new tires, and car washes.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 6:59 a.m.

    Hey Richard, Obamacare is not as GOOD as some are saying either.

  • high school fan Huntington, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 6:55 a.m.

    The author clearly lives in an alternate reality if he believes anything good will come from this bill. First, the government should not be making these decisions for everybody just ask those on Medicare or Medicaid already. These two programs already covered the old and the poor so who was left without coverage, those who didn't want to pay the price.
    Second, no matter how honorable the idea might be, we still do not have the money to pay for it. Finally, personal responsibility has to have a role here, people need to care for themselves and to provide for themselves.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 6:55 a.m.

    "Perhaps he was unaware how many policies would be affected". With that it is evident this is another carry obamas water piece. Mr. Davis read page 34552 of the Federal Register and then say again he was unaware. "The Departments mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013 wrote the administration on page 34552. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their grandfather status and get canceled. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans more than half the population was covered by employer-sponsored insurance."

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 13, 2013 5:59 a.m.

    Obamacare can not be "fixed". Are liberals really pro choice? Except you can't choose to keep your healthcare insurance if they don't like it! Except you can't choose your doctor, if they don't like him/her. Except you can't eat what you want to if they don't like it. Except you can't drink a soft drink, if they don't like it. Except you can't choose to defend your self, if they don't like it. Only liberals are allowed to choose what's best for you, not you! Obamacare will never be fixed!

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Nov. 13, 2013 5:23 a.m.

    Thank you professor Davis for a voice of reason in the tsunami of mis-information about the Affordable Healthcare Act!

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 1:23 a.m.

    I wish those who scream negative comments about Obamacare would watch Michael Moore's "Sicko." In fact it wouldn't hurt the D-News editorial writers to have a look at it. That film was NOT about the uninsured, bur rather it was about people whose health insurance had failed them - it was about bad insurance. But I have little doubt that the screamers won't look at anything which might shake their views.