Letter: Obamacare is not like the GI Bill

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 15, 2014 3:54 a.m.

    Well, "High School Fan", it was lots more complicated than that. Insurance companies had become corrupt and needing control. They were denying people the very things they needed insurance for. And it isn't about "control" it's about fairness to people. I guess the GI Bill meant a lot to some, just as getting healthcare means to others like me. And I think that uninformed people need to get informed before stating their opinions that may not have all the facts.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 12:01 a.m.

    Obamacare is meant to be a reward for all people who work, that they can now get the health care they need, for themselves and their families.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 8:59 p.m.

    Bitter pills being swallowed is an Affordable Care Mandate.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 5:53 p.m.

    If the GI Bill provided such returns, imagine the windfall from a single payer health care system. The entire administrative and fiscal burden of the health care process could be removed from all employers in the land. All the cost of infrastructure, personnel, profit and annoying ads of insurance companies could be used to provide health care instead. People could manage their health instead of their finances.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 5:46 p.m.

    There are only two choices here: free market control or government control. If the market is uncontrolled, no company will write a policy for the chronically ill, or not have a lifetime benefit limit or let you kids stay on your policy till 26. Only the government can make them do that. The reason they will comply is that with compulsory coverage for everyone, the companies get access to millions of people they never could reach before. Free market healthcare is a myth...it doesn't exist today.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Feb. 12, 2014 1:45 p.m.

    "I am offended that President Obama compares Obamacare with the GI Bill, Social Security and Medicare."

    And so you should be! And, as soon as the President does that, I'll let you know so you can re-write this letter when it is pertinent.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 12:03 p.m.

    @high school fan
    "Why do liberals fail to see that this was never about healthcare but was about control."

    Why do conservatives always insist on telling liberals what liberals are trying to do? We're the liberals, we know what we're doing and why we're doing it and it's a belief that access to affordable healthcare is a fundamental right through the idea of that inalienable right to life.

    "they would have simply expanded Medicaid"

    We did do that. Tell the GOP Governors to actually accept the expansion money.

    "make sure everybody has coverage they would have simply allowed insurance companies to expand across state lines"

    That wouldn't have done anything for those who had to deal with pre-existing conditions. Remember, Obama opposed the mandate in his 2008 debates, the only reason he accepted it in the end was because it's necessary to prevent increasing premiums when you throw a bunch of sick people into the system when you're banning insurance companies from rejecting them.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    Obama comparing the G.I. Bill with all other government give a way programs was an indicator of how he views government and people. In his view, there is no difference between the veteren who served and the dead beat who never will give anything back to America.

    Feb. 12, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    You mention Obamacare in your thesis statement and then proceed to give explain why, in your opinion, Social Security is different from the GI Bill. And you add some tangential statement regarding Medicare. But you don't cite anything about the ACA. If I were your English teacher I'd give this back to you and make you redo it.

    I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 12, 2014 8:26 a.m.

    high school fan, I don't totally disagree with you, except I think if you were going to try and expand health care coverage (a poor substitute for actual health care reform), the control was necessary, and a good thing.

    To simply let insurance companies expand across state lines would do nothing but exacerbate the current trend of fewer, and larger insurance companies. Think banking. Deregulated, there are still some small credit unions, and banks, but the meta picture is three banks nearly brought down the world economy.

    Capitalism, left to it's own does not favor competition it centralizes..always.

    Also, how's that expansion of Medicaid going for us now?

    So I don't disagree with part of your premise of control, I just disagree with your conclusions.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 7:55 a.m.

    So easily offended.

  • high school fan Huntington, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 7:45 a.m.

    KJB and Maverick
    Why do liberals fail to see that this was never about healthcare but was about control. If Democrats had wanted to make sure everybody has coverage they would have simply allowed insurance companies to expand across state lines and they would have simply expanded Medicaid, a program already in place.
    For the cost of healthcare.gov many could have had good coverage. Now for the few who did not have most of us now will have major changes that are not good.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 5:46 a.m.

    Summarization: I get health insurance through my job and I don't like Obama./

    That's it!

    Now, had Teddy been deemed unworthy of coverage by insurance companies, he would probably think Obamacare was better than any previous program!

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Feb. 12, 2014 12:09 a.m.

    So other people can suffer as long as you've got yours? That's a winning message...