The Patient CARE Act offers an alternative to ACA

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2014 9:20 p.m.

    BUMoose really called out Hatch's proposal for what it is "garbage". I challenge Senator Hatch to give up his government paid for health plan and then go meet with folks who have pre-existing condition and explain to them face-to-face that they cannot obtain health insurance because of their pre-existing condition. Then if Senator Hatch (heaven forbid) were to come down with a "pre-existing" condition - then he could feel what it is like to be denied insurance. Until he has some first hand knowledge of how real people live, I don't see how he can help craft real solutions.

    Senator Hatch, with all due respect - come and meet with sick people who have been denied coverage and who can't afford health care in our existing "market driven system" and then I challenge the Deseret News to publish their interview with you. Hold one of your "town hall meeting" with real people who have real health problems and who are left out of the system - then you will have some moral authority to make proposals.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    April 3, 2014 1:44 p.m.

    To "Schnee " let me make it easier to understand. If I couldn't afford to go to the doctor before the ACA, what makes you think I now have the money to pay for the deductible to get care now?

    I couldn't afford it before, and I can't afford it now. Either way I go to the ER and get care. The difference is now you pay for me twice. Once for the insurance, then again at the ER.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2014 8:42 a.m.

    This should have been labeled as paid for advertisement.

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    April 3, 2014 8:02 a.m.

    mikhail- "Conservatives are not a cheerleading squad for one party or another - which seems to be something that progressives seem to misunderstand - but want the best for the people ...'

    When it comes to the ACA, too bad the people disagree - they and Obama liked Romneycare so much they voted for Obama twice once he embraced Mitt's plan.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 6:01 p.m.

    "The ACA forces all Americans to purchase insurance plans from insurance companies. If you think Democrats were not influenced by national insurance companies to pass the ACA you are living in a dream world. "

    Lieberman (living in the land of insurance companies, Connecticut), Lincoln, and Landrieu in particular were consequential in stopping Obamacare from having a public option. Of course... the only reason there is no public option is because these few and the Republicans filibustered it (and Reid could only manage 51+ for the public option, not 60+).

    "Hatch is a progressive "

    I wish. As a Progressive myself, I'd be much happier with him if he were. Oh and Progressives supported the Civil Rights movement. There was a large swath of Democrats that did oppose it, if you said that you'd be correct... the Dixiecrats then became Republicans who proceeded to win all the Southern states since then for the most part.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 5:50 p.m.

    "If I couldn't afford care before the ACA, what makes you think I can afford it now?"

    Subsidies. Unless you hypothetically made the amount in between current Medicaid and Medicaid expansion in which case you don't get subsidies because the law assumed every state would expand Medicaid... and then your state didn't. Those people have a problem and definitely there needs to be some sort of fix in place (perhaps just extending down the range of income that gets subsidies).

    "The ACA has pushed up costs, reduced what insurance covers, and will add to the national debt."

    The first is not true compared to what the original trendline was (you know... "bending the cost curve") and the last few years have seen the slowest growth in healthcare costs in half a century. The second is an odd claim since conservatives keep complaining that these plans cover a bunch of unnecessary stuff that they don't want to pay for. The third is not true; the repeal of Obamacare bill was scored by the CBO as increasing the deficit 100 billion over ten years.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 2, 2014 5:18 p.m.

    Come on, SC fan, use some sense. "If ACA is such a re-election running away from it?" It's because some people (with "Conservative" leanings) are slow to catch on, and those people just happen to live all over America. Two years from now, most of those people will be won over to the ACA.

    You are saying SS was "forced upon the American people?" . . . just like the ACA? Well then, the ACA is in some pretty good company, because Social Security has been extremely beneficial to Americans, and after several decades, most people know that. That is why it is here to stay too. BTW, in the beginning Social Security was also incessantly slammed by Republicans, just like the ACA.

    Your reflexive "tort reform" mantra does NOT pertain here, although I can see why Republicans incessantly harp on it. Tort reform would make it more difficult for people to sue malefactors, and the Republican Party is top heavy with malefactors.

    I get it.

  • anotherview SLO, CA
    April 2, 2014 5:11 p.m.

    Hatch's CARE plan is similar to one floated by the Republicans during the healthcare debate which the CBO estimated would cost as much or more as Obamacare, yet increase coverage for very few currently uninsured.

    In 2009 the Washington Post reported:

    " According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.

    In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that ...The Republican alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely keeping up with population growth. Compare that to the Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people.

    The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan."

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    April 2, 2014 2:55 p.m.

    One previous poster inferred a tie between insurance companies and republicans in fighting against ACA. But a serious real look at who benefits from the ACA shows who is collaborating. The ACA does not provide health care, or health insurance on its own. The ACA forces all Americans to purchase insurance plans from insurance companies. If you think Democrats were not influenced by national insurance companies to pass the ACA you are living in a dream world. Can you imagine the joy of an industry where the government forces everyone to buy your product.

    As for Hatch and a republican policy, he is as tied to the insurance industry as the Democrats. Hatch is a progressive in the same vein as the progressives, liberals that fought against civil rights, gave us prohibition, segregated the military and Washington DC just prior to WWI, espoused eugenic ideology promoting abortion among the minorities as a means of dare we call it for what it was, genocide.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    April 2, 2014 2:15 p.m.

    If ACA is such a good program, then why are Democrats running for re-election running away from it? If it is such a good plan, then why is it consistantly unpopular with the majority of people? That ACA might end up like SS and be forced upon the American people, taking away any CHOICE, is certainly possible, and obviously the main objective of the ACA in the first place. It is just a matter of if YOU, whoever you are that supports government controlled health, care really know what you want. People who have experienced such in other countries know that there are many shortcomings to such a system. As Charles Krauthammer said, we in America had without a doubt the best health care system in the world. And the most expensive. The way to get costs down on health is through tort reform and stop the massive costs of malpractice. There should in America be many options for health care, at many different prices and services, depending upon the individules needs. ACA is really a first step to single payer, which has been a liberal dream forever.

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    April 2, 2014 2:06 p.m.

    @The Real Maverick

    "The bottom line comes down to Mitt being a republican and Obama not."

    NOT true. As Forrest's momma said, "Stupid is, as stupid does." Conservatives are not a cheerleading squad for one party or another - which seems to be something that progressives seem to misunderstand - but want the best for the people, based upon principles which progs also don't seem to understand.

  • UT Brit London, England
    April 2, 2014 2:00 p.m.


    Hmmm pre existing conditions cover is just an act of humanity.

    Birth control is easy, you see pre natal, birth and post natal cost a lot lot more than going on the pill or other contraceptives. Somewhere in the tune of several thousand dollars cheaper. Makes sense no?

    The rest of the first world knows this, thats why the US is last in nearly every healthcare metric in comparison to other first world countries.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 2, 2014 1:30 p.m.

    It's kinda funny to see the same repubs who cheerlead Mitt Romney and his Romneycare become so furious at Obamacare. Yet, ask any of these cheerleaders what the difference is.



    The bottom line comes down to Mitt being a republican and Obama not. Had Bush passed Obamacare instead of kicking the can down the road, utah would have accepted Obamacare with open arms and already expanded Medicaid.

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    April 2, 2014 1:22 p.m.

    Do you Obamacare disciples really believe that the pre-existing condition limitations and the birth control enhancements are going to produce health care of higher quality and of lower cost? Really? What evidence do you have that such has happened in the history of the world?

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    April 2, 2014 1:19 p.m.

    I find it astounding at what appears to be an organized effort by progressives to attack Deseret News editorials which likely reflect the opinion of the majority of those people who actually subscribe to and read the DN.

    I also find it remarkable that there are actually people who believe that a government can produce a market condition superior in cost savings and quality to that produced by private concerns in an open and competitive market. What evidence do these progressive kool-aide drinkers have that there is any business that is performed in superior manner by a government? In the matter of health care, the market involves the same number of people, the same illnesses, the same technologies, the same providers. What changes with Obamacare? Oh, yes, it is forcing people, under threat of "taxation," to purchase an insurance product that they would not purchase on their own. Therefore, "free market" does not apply. What evidence do you paragons of "good intentions" have that the government will provide something that costs less and delivers more than what has already been delivered in the past, or may be delivered as market conditions change?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 2, 2014 1:08 p.m.

    To "Pagan" I would rather file bankruptcy than die or increase my risk of death like the socialized medicine countries experience.

    But if you want to tell me how the ACA has changed anything I am ready to hear it. If I couldn't afford care before the ACA, what makes you think I can afford it now?

    To "KJB1" you do know that the Jim Crowe laws were passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court until people finally challenged them and got them removed. The same can be said about prohibition. Just becuase a law is passed does not mean it is good or cannot be eliminated.

    To "freedomingood" actually conservatives had a lot of ideas that would have lowered costs for health care. They wanted to enact tort reform, allow policies to be sold across state lines, and a bunch of other things that would have lowered costs by cutting government regulation.

    To "joeandrade" how is the ACA better than what we had before? The ACA has pushed up costs, reduced what insurance covers, and will add to the national debt.

  • David Centerville, UT
    April 2, 2014 12:48 p.m.

    I am dumbfounded by the supporters of Obamacare. It has proved more expensive than we were told (premiums have gone up, not down). We were told that we could keep our doctors (a lie). We were told we could keep our insurance (another lie). The website is a joke. In many cases people cannot go to their preferred hospitals. It seems completely different than what we were told it would be.

    It is impossible to return to pre-Obamacare time and attempt to create a health system that would be much more beneficial. But we can insist on political leaders in DC to rewrite sections of the law that are unacceptable.

    Obama's pride is keeping us from correcting the law where it would be in everyone's best interest to do so.

    I highly doubt that Obama would have won election if he had been truthful--telling Americans that many would lose their insurance, their doctors, their premiums would rise, select groups would receive exemptions from the law, other groups would be allowed delays in implementation and enforcement, etc.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    The Editorial Board should disclose if they are getting advertisement revenue from "the patient care Act" proponents. That is fundamentally fair and transparent.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    Weary of this papers negative spinning and whining editorials. Have relatives that have healthcare thanks to the Act. Helped one person enroll in 15 minutes last week.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 2, 2014 12:27 p.m.

    "This dnews editorial brought I mean bought and paid for by Orrin Hatch and the Republican party."

    Actually, Orrin wrote an editorial about how bad Obamacare was and never once mentioned that he had helped to pen a replacement.

    I dont think Hatch or the Republican party are too keen on the Patient Care Act.

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    Any health plan should be judged by its effect, not whether it establishes Utah's independence or whether it supports the president's vision of the federal government as the ultimate provider. It shouldn't be considered a political victory or defeat, but rather does it solve the problem. Give Utah's plan a chance and, like the ACA which is work in progress, adjust if needs are unmet.

  • The Hammer lehi, utah
    April 2, 2014 12:18 p.m.

    The ACA is a joke. Obama had to lie to people to get it to pass. It seems a bunch of people staying in their parents basement all day have nothing better to do than try and defend the ACA. I pity you because if you were one of the people out there working and earning your money to pay for healthinsurance you would see that the ACA made health insurance more expensive for the working man. It destroys the middle class advantage and makes them pay more for their insurance.

    At least the the patient care act will actually bring back real insurance, and discourage Cadillac plans and medicaid abuse.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 2, 2014 12:11 p.m.

    @ techpubs, your comment is a rationalization and kind of misses the point. Yes, he should should have worn a seat belt. We don't know how much difference it would have made. To say is speculative. A higher coverage limit would help, yes, but we don't know what it is. In any case most policies don't cover enormous bills like this. Again, you make speculative assertions. The point is, if he had health insurance, his situation would be vastly improved, especially as the ACA barred lifetime limits. Your speculative "what-ifs" are meaningless because they don't reflect reality. In the end, we need a comprehensive system as Europe has.

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    April 2, 2014 12:05 p.m.

    You said "Simply put, in January of 2017 President Santorum (or Gingrich, Perry, Palin, whoever) cannot just yank health care away from 15 million+ people and expect that to be OK."

    Unfortunately that is exactly what the PPACA has done and will continue to do once President Obama stops pushing back start dates on implementation of new rules for employer sponsored coverage. Now everyone knows that while the standard comeback is "They are getting a better policy that covers more things." But many people didn't need coverage for the things they didn't have in their old policy.

    So why is it OK for the PPACA to cancel your old policy and force you to purchase a new more expensive policy with coverage you didn't need or want?

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    April 2, 2014 11:54 a.m.

    You said "The ACA was passed for a reason. Take a look at the pages of your own paper. In today's online edition, there is a story of a young man in an auto accident who is facing massive medical costs. He was uninsured."

    Yet two other actions would have prevented him from being in this situation.
    1. Had he worn his seat belt which may not be required in Utah but is in many other States he probably would have less severe injuries and only a short stay in the hospital.
    2. Had his girlfriend had better medical coverage on her car insurance policy most of the bills would be paid by auto insurance.

    Also we were not told why he didn't have his own medical insurance. So there is a very real possibility that even with coverage under the PPACA he might not have been able to pay for his share of the expenses.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    April 2, 2014 11:27 a.m.

    Great job, Hatch! Now all you need is access to a DeLorean and 1.21 Gigawatts of power.

  • joeandrade Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 11:20 a.m.

    The ACA does need to be greatly improved and expanded. It was an imperfect compromise because of the obstructionism of insurance and pharmaceutical companies, the GOP, and other vested interests in a 'market-based' system - including Sen. Hatch and his donors and sponsors.

    ACA is far better than what we had before; it can and will be improved and expanded - perhaps eventually becoming a full, national Medicare system - and hopefully NOT 'free'market' based or enhanced.

    The latest Hatch Dispatch includes its usual arrogant statements, but this time it outright lies. Hatch tries to make 3 anti-ObamaCare points - using a very bold font:

    Higher premiums and fewer choices? - perhaps yes for a very few - a lie when it comes to most people;

    Seniors losing plans, benefits, doctors? - not the sources I read;

    Job creators suffer uncertainty? - just the opposite! Job creators (I was one some years ago) can do their entrepreneurial magic without worrying about their employees' health care - they can just enroll in ObamaCare.

    So Hatch’s facts are distorted, at best, and his arrogance marches on unabated! The Deseret News should be as critical of Hatch as it is of Obama.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    April 2, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    To SCFan and in agreement (mostly) with FatherOfFour if any of the predictions on the number of participants by the next presidential election from Father's 13M to the national projection of 16M are correct that constitutes a large block of voters. Assuming the majority of them are happy with what they've got if the Republicans campaign on their same old repeal platform that creates a large block of voters who would probably be one issue voters and vote against the Republicans and their repeal threat. We probably see this same scenario most often concerning gun rights. I doubt any political party would risk alienating that big of a block of voters.
    Where I disagree with Father is on the names he threw out as the next president. If any of the polls currently out there are correct and I realize it is extremely early the next president won't be a he at all but rather a she. And if that is the case it really is Katie bar the door on the healthcare issue.

  • Ralph Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    GaryO, as you well know, the people foaming at the mouth, soaking in FoxNews/Hannity/Beck/whatever-demogogue are not true conservatives.
    True conservatives seemed to die out in the '80s.
    In reality, the conservatives have been calling for change (in a different direction) more than liberals for the last 25 years. That's when the "conservative" movement left me behind.
    Instead of being voices for a tempered, reasoned approach to issues, these so-called conservatives are perpetually whipped up into a frenzy by their favorite propaganda machine (gee, which one?).
    You'd be hard pressed to find an well-informed, rational-thinking conservative these days.
    I pine for the good ol' days of conservatism.

    April 2, 2014 10:02 a.m.


    I am not saying it is set in stone. However, 7 million people are currently using it, (plus those who took advantage of the SCHIP and Medicaid expansion). If we assume that the next two years will see 50% of the enrollment that this last open enrollment period had, that would be another 6 million before the next presidential election. Plus, a few of the republican governors who had previously rejected the Medicaid expansion are now indicating they will accept it. Simply put, in January of 2017 President Santorum (or Gingrich, Perry, Palin, whoever) cannot just yank health care away from 15 million+ people and expect that to be OK. The idea of just getting rid of Obamacare is gone. That ship has sailed. Come up with a better proposal or stick with it.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    April 2, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    To all of you who seem to believe that the ACA is set in stone just as the Ten Commandments, sorry to inform you. In our system, a new Congress and different President can change anything they want to. It's not if they can, the question is will they. If enough Americans find ACA not up to what was "promised" by President Barack H. Obama, then elections in the future will ride on those changes being made. And, as things look now, the first such election might be coming in 2014.

    P.S. The Koch Brothers? REALLY? I know some of you get your talking points from left wing web sites, but do you really think the Democrats are going to win by trying to demonize people about 1% of Americans have ever heard of? All the Republicans will have to do is counter with George Soros. Harry Reid is getting pretty senile if he thinks that is the ticket to victory.

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 9:10 a.m.

    Alas, what's done is done. It doesn't matter if the Republicans offer 4 new alternatives to the ACA. Over 7 million people are part of the ACA program, and it is not going away.
    If Orrin Hatch was really interested in improving the healthcare system, he would start proposing changes to the ACA to make it better.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    April 2, 2014 9:08 a.m.

    Here's the deal conservatives, you looked the other way about rising healthcare costs and insurance companies abuses and then you're angry when liberals take your own proposed ideas from Mitt Romney and use them to START fixing the healthcare system.


  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 2, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    "The PCA would allow greater flexibility for insurance companies to craft their products to meet the needs of their customers, allowing them to provide the kind of streamlined, less expensive plans that have been cancelled by the ACA. "

    Insurance companies could go back to selling junk policies which offer little to no coverage.

    The CARE Act also requires people to pay more taxes on their health insurance premiums.

    Finally, it protects people with pre-existing conditions, as long as they have had continuous coverage BUT what about people who haven't had continuous coverage?

    The CARE Act is merely a return to the status quo.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    April 2, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    The fact that once again under Hatch's proposal an individual could be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition is enough of a reason to toss this mess right in the garbage where it belongs. The time has come to improve on what we have, not start over. Republicans should get on board and help with that process or get out of the way.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 2, 2014 8:36 a.m.

    As much as you wanted, tried and encouraged the ACA to fail, it is not fitting that the website was glitchy on the last enrollment day. On the other hand, in spite of your efforts, and indeed fate and the efforts of those trying to make it work, it seems to be a success. Or at least heading in that direction. That's a lot better than what you're proposing, but not nearly close enough to the single payer system we need.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    April 2, 2014 8:12 a.m.

    You guys do realize that the ACA was signed into law four years ago, right? And upheld by the Supreme Court two years ago?

    Maybe your wishful thinking will help Romney defeat President Obama while you're at it...

  • vern001 Castle Rock, CO
    April 2, 2014 8:09 a.m.

    "The PCA would allow Medicaid patients to get private insurance instead of government coverage, which would likely lower costs to taxpayers."

    What??? Where has the editorial board of the Deseret News been for the past thirty years? Is it not amply clear that for profit insurance companies actually RAISE costs to consumers? Their entire business model is based on paying out the least amount for claims while raising premiums as high as they possibly can. Insurance companies' overhead is much higher than that of Medicare, for example--it costs money to pay those CEOs and advertise and fund their claims denial apparatus. So Medicare's overhead is something like 2-3% versus 10-20% for insurance companies.

    Not to mention that if we look at the rest of the Western world, they basically all have single-payer systems (otherwise known as socialized medicine) and they offer universal coverage for HALF of what we spend.

    So any movement to privatize more of our healthcare system will lead to higher costs, not lower costs.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 2, 2014 8:05 a.m.

    Let me say that this paper getting fully on the anti-Obama bandwagon is beyond disappointing. The ACA was passed for a reason. Take a look at the pages of your own paper. In today's online edition, there is a story of a young man in an auto accident who is facing massive medical costs. He was uninsured. This is what the ACA is trying to avoid. Please, connect the dots. Millions signed up, many waiting to the last minute which caused the system to falter. This is, in the end, success. Your snarky attacks serve no purpose. Turning to farcical bandaids as alternatives does not solve the problem. If you weren't so partisan and negative, you could encourage your readers to comply with the law of the land, and we can move forward with any fixes that the ACA could use. Perhaps a constructive attitude from this paper would be beneficial rather than falling into the slimmy mess of the haters. This paper owes its readers at least the semblance of adhering to the 12th Article of Faith inasmuch as you are the voice of your sponsor/owner.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    April 2, 2014 8:02 a.m.

    I read the DN to get a different perspective from the paper and it's readers. But, I am often amazed at how bias and decievious it's editorials are. Also, its puzzling how contrary posts are often rejected for using the same language and punctuation the paper itself uses. Concerning this editioral the writer quotes
    "The PCA would allow Medicaid patients to get private insurance instead of government coverage, which would likely lower costs to taxpayers. The PCA approach would go a long way toward making Medicaid sustainable for future generations."
    Excuse me, but that's exactly what the ACA does. It allows consumers to get guarenteed private insurance which increases the pool of users while lowering costs (that's what the research shows, we'll have to wait to see the data instead of relying on Faux News).
    The DN's editorials often lack sound reasoning instead relying on emotionally based arguments that appeal to the communities conservative views. But we should expect better than that from our local paper and hold them to the same standards they impose on their readers who submit rebuttals.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    April 2, 2014 7:48 a.m.

    Hatch's PCA is a scam. It taxes your insurance payments so you get nailed twice. It makes no provision for covering pre-existing conditions unless you've been "continuously insured." This is called a Catch-22: "We'll cover your condition, but only if you're already covered." That's a good one. Of course, it is April.....

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    April 2, 2014 7:27 a.m.

    The only thing this American is wary of, is the maniacal obstructionism of the conservatives.

    In spite of a gigantic mis-information campaign by the right, especially Koch Brother funded groups, the ACA has had close to 7 million people sign up. If the red states had been on board the number of sign-ups would be huge.

    Liberals have led the way on civil rights, Social Security, Medicare, labor laws, etc. and in 5 years we will add the ACA to that list!

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 2, 2014 7:19 a.m.

    We are almost midway through 2014.

    Sorry repubs, this whole health care reform ship has already sailed.

    Maybe you folks should have done something other than kick the can down the road when you had the power to actually do something for the American people (2000-08).

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    April 2, 2014 7:09 a.m.

    There should always be many alternatives to the ACA. Hopefully the ACA will end up being one of many options Americans will have to choose from for their medical care. Leave the ACA where it belonged, namely, for the presently uninsured who can't get insurance due to not having a job, or having an expensive pre-existing condition that private insurers won't take or will cost too much for the average citizen to pay for. That last, by the way, is the best part of the spirit of ACA. Whether it will be reality is yet to be seen. The last thing the ACA should become is a single payer/single provider system. That will end up with you getting your teeth pulled instead of having root canals and expensive crowns. Believe me, I lived in England for 2 years, and it is no myth about their bad and frequently missing teeth. All courtesy of the National Health Care system over there. Which if you don't have money, you're stuck with.

    April 2, 2014 7:05 a.m.

    The Patient Care Act? Really? Even the House republicans won't touch that with a ten foot pole. They can't get it past their own party.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    April 2, 2014 6:57 a.m.

    On the one hand "This is better than the ACA" isn't saying much; when you're throat-ramming something as clearly and knowingly divisive, immoral, and government-centered as obamacare, you know something is horribly wrong with it.

    On the other hand, PCARE certainyl sounds like a decent alternative, assuming we're excluding the status quo. Then again, I haven't read it yet.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 2, 2014 6:53 a.m.

    The Patient Care Act has not exactly been embraced by the GOP. If anything, it has been almost completely ignored.

    The GOP base seems to have the belief that healthcare system in America has been working fine. It does not appear that they see any need to address or change it. That boggles my mind.

    I will give Hatch and company credit for at least putting forth specific proposals. It is (or should be) a starting point for actual debate and far more constructive than just screaming REPEAL over and over.

    As in many things, the first step is to acknowledge that we have a problem.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    April 2, 2014 6:44 a.m.

    So I just read on Senator Hatch's website his "proposal" but it doesn't actually say how the patient care act is going to work, it mainly seems to be saying that it's better than the ACA. But those 5 pages are not a plan, is there somewhere that you can find the actual plan, not a list of talking points that explains nothing.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 2, 2014 4:35 a.m.

    "This latest snafu doesn’t come as a surprise to a nation weary of President Barack Obama’s signature health care legislation."

    Not so.

    Although Republicans are extremely slow in recognizing it, Americans are becoming more and more weary of Republican obstructionism and resistance to progress.

    Haven't you Right Wingers begun to notice the huge gap between what you thought was true, and what is actually true?

    No . . . FOX "NEWS" and Rush Limbaugh do not report the news. They simply reinforce your prejudices in an attempt to turn your misperceptions into a reality. They think they can create a bandwagon of misperception that a whole lot of people will want to jump on, thus creating a Republican voting majority and the desired reality.

    It's not working though. Sensible people are jumping off by the thousands.

    More people support than oppose the ACA, and if Republicans insist on challenging it, you might well lose seats in Congress . . . So just keep on doing what you're doing.

    Republicans have certainly lost the trust of the more discerning Americans.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 2, 2014 4:14 a.m.

    The Republicans are on the wrong side of history once again. Such is the nature of American

    Before Democrats proposed the ACA, huge oligopolistic insurance companies had Republican legislators in their pockets, and Republican politicians gave NO THOUGHT at all to health care reform. Republican politicians were not about to stop a gravy train that had proven so lucrative to exploiters who funded their campaigns and otherwise lined the pockets of Republican "public servants."

    Thus, Americans paid more money for health care than anywhere else in the world, and achieved only middling results. Republican Party leadership was by and large extremely happy with perpetuating a status quo that made chumps out of American citizens while enriching exploiters with close ties to Republican politics.

    Democrats persevered in pushing through the ACA, while Republicans, who now hypocritically champion their own government-sponsored health care "alternative," screamed SOCIALISM.

    Republicans should stop wasting time and resources, and actually do something for this nation instead of obstructing progress. More Americans now support the ACA than oppose it. The Repubs should just get on board and work to improve it, not replace it.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 2:07 a.m.

    Letting people keep junk policies is hardly a benefit... at least not for anyone who gets sick.

    "The PCA would allow Medicaid patients to get private insurance instead of government coverage, which would likely lower costs to taxpayers. "

    There is no reason to believe it'd lower costs to taxpayers, and you know why? One of the gripes about Medicare/Medicaid is the claim that it doesn't pay out enough. If it's not for profit, and is allegedly shortchanging hospitals/doctors, then it can't possibly be more expensive than private insurance. Public options just are cheaper, that's why the insurance lobby worked so hard to get rid of the public option from Obamacare.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    April 2, 2014 1:26 a.m.

    This dnews editorial brought I mean bought and paid for by Orrin Hatch and the Republican party.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 12:40 a.m.

    From the article.

    '..Hatch has proposed the Patient CARE Act, a more market-based approach to health care.'

    In 2014.

    Americans have been filing bankruptcy due to medical causes, since 1980.


    Dollar short, and a day late.

    America will not look for alternatives from the GOP, only AFTER Democrats created a solution.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 12:16 a.m.

    "The PCA would allow greater flexibility for insurance companies to craft their products to meet the needs of their customers, allowing them to provide the kind of streamlined, less expensive plans that have been cancelled by the ACA." Of course allowing stripped down plans would make the granting of individual subsidies as allowed under the ACA, much more difficult, as you must know. On the basis of that alone I would reject the PCA.

    Moreover, the House of Representatives won't pass the PCA. For example, the American Enterprise Institute finds it insufficiently "market oriented."