Dems cry foul as Trump calls for striking down 'Obamacare'

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • N.Y. Lib On Planet Zion Carmel Valley, CA
    April 8, 2019 10:10 a.m.

    Redshirt-

    “ I didn't dismiss it.”

    You regurgitate talking points by stating, “The ACA hasn’t helped anyone”, when you’ve previously admitted you do not possess firsthand experience with the ACA. Myself and others have explained throughout how it’s specifically “helped” us tremendously. Label this however you desire, but it’s clearly dismissive.

    “the evidence that you provided”

    Certain you truly believe this claim.

    “PEC were not a big problem.”

    You are incorrect. A simplistic internet search reveals it’s ALWAYS been a tremendous problem. Furthermore. I’m still waiting! What is the Republican plan? Apparently we have to wait until after the 2020 election to find out. In the meantime the only “plan” is to dismantle the current plan, which would leave millions without insurance. Absurd!

    “Obamacare did nothing to lower costs or help consumers.”

    Repetitive regurgitating doesn’t strengthen your argument. This has been debunked several times!

    “Government price regulations do not work.”

    Those that truly possess knowledge of healthcare systems elsewhere just laugh whenever they hear this empty talking point. Especially my fiancÉe and her family from France. You’re welcome.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 4, 2019 8:03 a.m.

    To "Lib living on Planet Utah" I didn't dismiss it, nor did I dismiss the articles you listed.

    As I stated before, the evidence that you provided only supports everything that I have stated.

    Like I said, pre-existing conditions were not a big problem before the ACA, and could be handled in a simple and easy way again that wouldn't raise insurance costs like the current regulations do.

    Obamacare did nothing to lower costs or help consumers but has raised costs and has made insurance cover less. If you want to actually make insurance more beneficial to everybody and cost less there are 2 ways to accomplish that. One way is to cut regulations, as Forbes pointed out reducing regulations will reduce insurance costs. The other way to cut costs is to get more doctors and medical providers.

    Government price regulations do not work, in fact they make things worse. In many nations where they have done that there are fewer generic medications available and they spend MORE on prescription medications than we do in the US.

    If you have evidence contrary to that, provide it. So far your evidence has supported my points.

  • Lib living on Planet Utah Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2019 1:01 p.m.

    RedShirts-

    “so you got nothing.”

    Thank you for again proving my point by dismissing my personal experience, along with the factual information cited. The fact is you’ve proven your knowledge of the ACA is severely limited. By doubling down on low information, empty rhetoric and ignorance you continue proving such with each passing post. The only “rabbit hole” one must journey down is the repetitive propaganda you continue attempting to spread as you already admitted.

    “I have not offered any misinformation.”

    Your posts are littered with false information and propaganda as you’ve admitted.

    “Pre-existing conditions were not a big problem before the ACA.”

    I’m certain you believe you have it all figured out. What’s the specific plan from conservatives Red? They’ve had years!

    “Obamacare did nothing to lower costs or help consumers.”

    Cited a personal example of how specifically the ACA has “helped” me specifically, so have numerous posters on this forum.

    “You have only shown that I was right in my assessment of the ACA.”

    Deep yawn. I’m certain you truly believe such utter nonsense. Facts matter! Tell “us” again your personal experience with the ACA Red. You’re welcome!

  • N.Y. Lib On Planet Zion Carmel Valley, CA
    April 3, 2019 12:38 p.m.

    RedShirts-

    “so you got nothing.”

    Thank you for again proving my point by dismissing my personal experience, along with the factual information cited. The fact is you’ve proven your knowledge of the ACA is severely limited. By doubling down on low information, empty rhetoric and ignorance you continue proving such with each passing post. The only “rabbit hole” one must journey down is the repetitive propaganda you continue attempting to spread as you already admitted.

    “I have not offered any misinformation.”

    Your posts are littered with false information and propaganda as you’ve admitted.

    “Pre-existing conditions were not a big problem before the ACA.”

    I’m certain you believe you have it all figured out. What’s the specific plan from conservatives Red? They’ve had years!

    “Obamacare did nothing to lower costs or help consumers.”

    Cited a personal example of how specifically the ACA has “helped” me specifically, so have numerous posters on this forum.

    “You have only shown that I was right in my assessment of the ACA.”

    Deep yawn. I’m certain you truly believe such utter nonsense. Facts matter! Tell “us” again your personal experience with the ACA Red. You’re welcome!

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 3, 2019 12:07 p.m.

    To 'Lib living on Planet Utah " so you got nothing.

    The articles you provided only add to my argument.

    Now, rather than address the issues that I brought up you are running down any rabbit hole you can to avoid the issues.

    I have not offered any misinformation. I have only used my research and yours to show that the ACA added regulations and cost. I have also shown that that if you get rid of regulations it is more effective than government price controls on pharmaceuticals.

    Pre-existing conditions were not a big problem before the ACA, and could be handled in a simple and easy way again that wouldn't raise insurance costs like the current regulations do.

    Obamacare did nothing to lower costs or help consumers but has raised costs and has made insurance cover less.

    You have only shown that I was right in my assessment of the ACA.

    If you have evidence contrary to that, provide it. So far your evidence has supported my points.

  • Lib living on Planet Utah Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2019 11:18 a.m.

    Redshirt-

    “but you haven't even supplied first hand experience.”

    Thorough reading and comprehension would possibly assist you from constantly contradicting yourself. Stated very clearly my personal experience of being hit by a drunk driver. You replied to the post.

    "Obamacare Facts”

    It also points out much more as you’re aware. Tell “us” again your personal experience with the ACA? Nada!

    “Think about it, male premiums based on him giving birth”?

    Absurd! Every type of insurance works in this manner. We ALL pay for certain things we personally don’t need. This is way your home/auto insurance premiums will increase regardless the lack of claims.

    "11 facts about the Affordable Care Act" is nothing more than a talking points list.”

    According to yourself and those that do not possess the facts, nor firsthand experience regarding the ACA.

    "The Preexisting Conditions Debate Isn’t Over.”

    Wait until how much the sky is falling when you’re negatively impacted by an accident that is out of your control or you’re labeled with a PEC.

    “Nice try.”

    Exactly my thoughts regarding the ongoing misinformation and attempt at knowingly passing off propaganda as facts. You’re welcome.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 2, 2019 4:21 p.m.

    To 'Lib Living on Planet Zion" but you haven't even supplied first hand experience.

    So then you agree the ACA is garbage.

    As "Obamacare Facts With the 9 ACA Facts That You Don't Know" points out. It wasn't intended to actually lower insurance costs. That article shows how we were lied to about the ACA lowering costs. "Facts About ACA" points out the mandates that also added to the cost of insurance. Think about it, why charge a biological male premiums based on him giving birth?

    "11 facts about the Affordable Care Act" is nothing more than a talking points list that ignores simple facts like the poor not being able to use the insurance they were given. Even its projections on deficit reduction have been debunked since that article was written.

    "The Preexisting Conditions Debate Isn’t Over" doesn't really say much. It contains opinions from politicians, but no actual data or anything other than a cry that the sky is falling.

    Those are nice articles, but they don't help your case, but only support my case that mandates add to the cost of insurance and that the ACA is garbage.

    Nice try, but do you have any information that is up to date and supports your case?

  • Lib Living on Planet Zion SLC, UT
    April 2, 2019 3:46 p.m.

    Redshirt - Lost in Deep Space 9

    “I said provide your proof.”

    “I said” firsthand experience, which you dismissed as I stated you would. Furthermore. Spend as much time researching factual information as you do knowingly citing propaganda and false information.

    “You show that you have no proof.”

    Try the source {Commonwealth Fund} you cited for starters. Possibly. “Obamacare Facts With the 9 ACA Facts That You Don't Know”. {The Balance} “Facts About ACA”. Take a deep breath,{plannedparenthood.com}
    “11 facts about the Affordable Care Act.” {WAPO}, “ObamaCare Facts.” {obamacarefacts.com} “The Preexisting Conditions Debate Isn’t Over.” {factcheck.org} Etc!

    “ACA is a piece of garbage.”

    Ongoing conjecture, especially from one that possess zero firsthand experience!

    “Pre-existing conditions were not a big problem before the ACA.”

    Constantly deflecting regarding my personal experience with PEC, along with many on this forum by regurgitating alt-right talking points only further “proves” your lack of understanding the subject matter.

    “Obamacare did nothing to lower costs or help consumers.”

    Explained in detail how it “helped” myself tremendously. Facts matter! You’re welcome.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 2, 2019 3:07 p.m.

    To "Lib Living on Planet Zion" I didn't ask where you get information. I said provide your proof.

    You show that you have no proof. If you did you would be able to give some sort of verifiable internet location where your proof is.

    As I have demonstrated, the ACA is a piece of garbage. The cost of insurance is high because of government mandates and regulation. As Forbes showed this.

    Pre-existing conditions were not a big problem before the ACA, and could be handled in a simple and easy way again that wouldn't raise insurance costs like the current regulations do.

    We also know that government price controls don't work as they disrupt supply and demand. Cato has a great article on this. If you want to lower costs the only proven way is to get more doctors and make it easier for new pharmaceutical companies to begin production.

    Obamacare did nothing to lower costs or help consumers but has raised costs and has made insurance cover less.

    I am still waiting for any verifiable evidence that your ideas have any merit. Even something biased would be more than what you have provided. Can you even provide a biased study?

  • Lib Living on Planet Zion SLC, UT
    April 2, 2019 2:23 p.m.

    RedShirt -

    “so, do you have any proof for your points. Thats right, you don't.”

    Besides firsthand experience and an invention called the Internet?

    “Can you offer up any proof? In any topic you have ever commented on you have yet to offer up any proof.”

    Cue the deflection and ongoing asinine claims due to the fact you attempted to once again regurgitate propaganda and willingly passed along false information

    “So a person who advocates for a Canadian healthcare system.”

    I’m certain you truly believe citing blatantly false information qualifies for “proof” in your mind.

    “So again, where is your proof. I doubt you have any, but I can wait.”

    I’m certain my firsthand experience doesn’t count in your mind, nor does the abundance of testimonies on this forum. Along with the endless amounts of factual information one can find by doing a 3 second Google search.

    “Even if what I have is propaganda filled.”

    Highly intellectual point. So you admit your claims are absolutely nothing but propaganda filled. “We” thank you.

    “I would say where you get your info, but it wouldn't make it past the censors.”

    I could state the same regarding the placement of your head. You’re welcome.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 2, 2019 1:17 p.m.

    To "Liberal living on Planet Utah" so, do you have any proof for your points. Thats right, you don't.

    Can you offer up any proof? In any topic you have ever commented on you have yet to offer up any proof.

    So a person who advocates for a Canadian healthcare system offers proof that Canada pays more for prescription drugs. Shouldn't you take notice? If the people who think like you can't get the numbers to work, why do you think you can do better.

    So again, where is your proof. I doubt you have any, but I can wait.

    Even if what I have is propaganda filled, it is MORE than anything you have offered.

    I would say where you get your info, but it wouldn't make it past the censors.

  • Liberal living on Planet Utah SLC, UT
    April 2, 2019 1:03 p.m.

    RedShirt -

    “You have not offered anything that is clear.”

    Deep yawn. You mean for example firsthand experience? Which you clearly do not possess regardless of the ongoing empty rhetoric.

    “According to the Commwealth Fund”

    Beyond comical! They state the exact opposite in fact. Karen Davis, served as deputy assistant secretary for health policy in the Department of Health and Human Services for all 4 years of the Carter administration before becoming president of C.F. She advocates a Canadian-style single-payer health care system. And under her leadership, the Commonwealth Fund has published a steady stream of studies that tout the joys and efficiencies of government-run health care systems. Commonwealth Fund also states that the U.S. health care system ranks last when compared with 7 major industrialized countries. Furthermore. Compared with other high-income countries, the United States spends the most per capita on prescription drugs! {Commonwealth Fund 10/5/17}

    “So, the numbers don't help your case, do you have anything else”?

    Once again your sources have been used properly, indicating their true feelings about the ACA. Enough propaganda Red. Facts matter! You’re welcome.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 2, 2019 8:57 a.m.

    To "Liberal living on Planet" I have not deflected. i have been consistent in my statements and have been quite clear. You have not offered anything that is clear or even backed up with any evidence.

    Do you have any evidence? Has anything been done that would prove your statements?

    According to the Commwealth Fund, the US spends less per capita on prescription drugs than Canada, Germany, France, and the UK. We are tied with Australia and Switzerland. We have the highest number of generics on the market other than the UK.

    On top of that, the US spends about $1000 per person on prescription drugs per year. The average spening on healthcare per person is $10,000 per year. So, even if we cut prescription cost by 50% (which is impossible) that would result in a 5% decrease in cost.

    Now, if we cut most of the 2000+ mandates on insurance that would reduce the cost by 50%.

    So, the numbers don't help your case, do you have anything else?

  • Liberal living on Planet Utah SLC, UT
    April 1, 2019 1:39 p.m.

    RedShirt -

    “since you agree with me.”

    When one doesn’t have an intellectual counter-argument they resort to ongoing deflection. Never claimed I agree with you.

    “You make no sense for the rest of your post.”

    The deflection continues. Due to the fact you clearly lack understanding of the subject matter. My post was concise and clear for those that truly possess knowledge regarding the ACA.

    “This was recently proven true when various portions of the ACA were done away with.”

    No surprise. Alt-Rightists regularly believe that empty rhetoric/propaganda is sufficient “proof”. The only thing members of this low information demographic continue “proving” is their lack of understanding the subject matter.

    “We know that government forcing drug companies to comply.”

    Certain you believe such absurd nonsense, even though my previous retort “proved” otherwise.

    “the quotes that you have removed from their context.”

    Your ongoing deflection is nauseating. Have no idea what you’re talking about! Thank you for “proving” the ongoing willingness to double down on ignorance. Still waiting for examples of what the Supreme Leader has specifically done to lower insurance cost. You’re welcome!

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 1, 2019 12:29 p.m.

    To "Lib on Planet Zion" ok, since you agree with me that mandates add to the cost of insurance, why do you fight against removing mandates?

    You make no sense for the rest of your post. Can you come up with complete quotes that you are trying to work from?

    So far, this is what we know. Each government mandate adds to the cost of health insurance. Eliminating government mandates is a proven way to lower insurance costs. This was recently proven true when various portions of the ACA were done away with.

    We know that government forcing drug companies to comply with pricing doesn't work, and will slow the advancement of medications. However, if you want to lower prescription drug costs there is a way to do that without government price controls. You can cut taxes on pharmaceutical companies, since the US taxes them at a higher rate than most any other nation.

    I await your response and clarification of the quotes that you have removed from their context.

  • Lib on Planet Zion Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2019 11:22 a.m.

    RedShirtnotHarvard -

    “so then you agree that each mandate”
    Asked and answered.

    “we can already see the effects”
    Nonsense! Such as specifically?

    “lowering drug costs”
    Again. Who’s “us”? Furthermore. There’s no reason for Americans to pay more for prescription drugs than anyone else in the world. We often do. As prices continue to soar, families struggle to pay for medicines needed daily. Some even choose between food and buying medicine. This hits older Americans especially hard. Skyrocketing prices are pushing lifesaving prescription drugs out of reach for many, including people suffering with cancer, asthma and diabetes. Those who rely on Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage who take an average of 4.5 prescriptions face real hardships.

    “companies would develop new drugs”?
    Pharmaceutical companies balance between affordability and innovation currently. Ask Canada, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Norway, ETC!

    “cancer diagnosis and need emergency care in the next 24 hours.”
    You may continue doubling down on ignorance, however your claims are grossly inaccurate. One must wait 30 days and pay their first premium prior to ANY ACA plan becoming active. Period! You’re welcome.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    April 1, 2019 8:02 a.m.

    To "Frozen Fractals" then name the mandate that doesn't add to the cost of insurance? Even administrative mandates add to the cost.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    March 30, 2019 12:19 a.m.

    @RedShirtHarvard
    "then you agree that each mandate that the government makes on insurance adds to the cost."

    Definitely not accurate. The mandate to cover pre-existing conditions increases premiums because it adds more sick people to the health insurance system. The mandate to purchase insurance decreases premiums because it adds more healthy people to the health insurance system.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    March 29, 2019 2:27 p.m.

    To "Liberal living on Planet Utah" so then you agree that each mandate that the government makes on insurance adds to the cost. So, if each mandate adds to the cost, what do you think happens when those mandates are removed?

    So far some of the things that Trump has cut from the ACA have lowered insurance costs, so we can already see the effects of that.

    If you think lowering drug costs is so effective, tell us how effective that would be. At the same time, tell us why companies would develop new drugs if the government essentially controls the price.

    You really should read up on the short term health insurance. That is a sign up for it any time option. On top of that, the ACA mandates that it cover emergency services. So, if I get a cancer diagnosis and need emergency care in the next 24 hours, I can sing up for a short term plan and be covered.

  • Liberal living on Planet Utah SLC, UT
    March 28, 2019 2:19 p.m.

    RedShirtnotHarvard-

    “so then you deny the fact that the mandate to accept anybody.”

    I absolutely deny the unfounded claims. You proved absolutely nothing and supplied nothing, but ongoing false rhetoric, conjecture and flat out propaganda.

    “Lowering the cost of drugs won't do much.”

    Thanks for proving yet again your clear lack of understanding the ACA and healthcare costs in general with each passing retort.

    “pre-ACA studies 50%”

    Sources of these “studies” you claim. Alt-Rightist propaganda outlets.

    “If you think that people only go to the emergency room.”

    The ignorance is astounding. These people are willing to pay $125 per visit with insurance (you claim) how much are they paying for visits without insurance?

    “Unless the drunk driver is an illegal immigrant.”

    You possess the Ivy League law degree. Correct? Tell me the “ways of collecting” specifically?

    “No, you can sign up for health insurance.”

    Wrong yet again! Guidelines are most certainly not loose. They’re very specific, and you have to wait 30 days after paying your first premium in order to use. You’ve clearly proven that you possess zero firsthand experience with the ACA. Facts matter!

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    March 28, 2019 1:05 p.m.

    To "Lib Survival on Planet Utah " so then you deny the fact that the mandate to accept anybody regardless of pre-existing conditions was proven by multiple sources to be one of the biggest cost increasing mandates in the ACA.

    Lowering the cost of drugs won't do much.

    According to pre-ACA studies 50% of the cost of insurance was mandates and regulations. The more you get rid of those, the cheaper insurance will become.

    If you think that people only go to the emergency room when big health problems come up, you are even more out of touch than I thought.

    Unless the drunk driver is an illegal immigrant with no insurance, no home, and nothing of value there are still ways of collecting.

    No, you can sign up for health insurance outside of the open period as long as you meet some very loose guidelines or you can purchase a short term plan (364 days) at any time. Some of those short term plans will cover pre-existing conditions.

    Facts matter, your propaganda is wrong.

  • Lib Survival on Planet Utah SLC, UT
    March 28, 2019 1:00 p.m.

    RedShirtnotCalTech-

    “Again, the point is, prior to the ACA I could go to the doctor and it only cost me $25 for an office visit. Now, the same office visit will cost me $125 or more. I pay the same as I did before the ACA...”

    Absolutely ridiculous! Certain you believe this is the “point” rather possessing factual information. Why are you knowingly posting propaganda and distorting facts? Again. Unlike PPO plans, care under an HMO plan is covered only if you see a provider within that HMO’s network. There are also typically more restrictions for coverage than other plans, such as allowing only a certain number of visits, tests or treatments. This isn’t solely due to the ACA. Furthermore. You’ve proven my claim correct once again by your own words and obvious lack of thoroughly understanding the ACA. We both know very well you are not insured via the ACA, nor do you possess firsthand experience shopping for plans on the ACA website. Yes. Your particular plan changed, this occurred just as much prior to the ACA. The simple solution is to put your President Obama animosity aside for 3 seconds, simply shop and find a plan as everyone else that has used the ACA. You’re welcome!

  • Lib Survival on Planet Utah SLC, UT
    March 28, 2019 12:26 p.m.

    RedShirtnotCalTech -

    “it isn't frivolous. The mandate to accept and cover anybody with any pre-existing condition is part of the reason why insurance premiums jumped 40% on average thanks to the ACA.”

    How absolutely absurd! More than130 million Americans have a pre-existing health conditions! Has nothing to do with premium increases whatsoever! Lower the cost of pharmaceuticals and you’ll see a dramatic drop in premiums.

    “Some people only go to the doctor when something is very wrong then pay for it out of pocket.”

    Can one possibly be more out of touch? Yes. It’s called the emergency room!

    “the insurance of the drunk driver would cover my out of pocket maximum.”

    Really? What about if the drunk driver doesn’t have auto insurance? Possibly engage in critical thinking prior to posting and proving the ongoing lack of understanding the subject matter.

    “I could sign up for insurance the day I got hit by a drunk and force the the insurance company to cover me.”

    Absolutely 100% incorrect as usual! How? Enrollment periods for the ACA are very specific. Research facts prior to posting propaganda and making ongoing ridiculous claims. Facts matter! You’re welcome.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    March 28, 2019 7:26 a.m.

    To "Lib Survival on Planet Utah" it isn't frivolous. The mandate to accept and cover anybody with any pre-existing condition is part of the reason why insurance premiums jumped 40% on average thanks to the ACA.

    FYI, you don't have to have insurance to go to a doctor and get a cancer diagnosis. Some people only go to the doctor when something is very wrong then pay for it out of pocket.

    Yes, take the drunk driver example. Right now with my high deductible plan if my entire family was in the hospital, the insurance of the drunk driver would cover my out of pocket maximum. If I didn't have insurance before getting hit, under current laws I could sign up for insurance the day I got hit by a drunk and force the the insurance company to cover me.

    Tell me, how is that fair?

    Again, the point is, prior to the ACA I could go to the doctor and it only cost me $25 for an office visit. Now, the same office visit will cost me $125 or more. I pay the same as I did before the ACA yet I get less for my money. That is what the ACA has done to millions across the US. It INCREASED the amount that people spend on health insurance and care.

  • Lib Survival on Planet Utah SLC, UT
    March 27, 2019 4:01 p.m.

    RedShirtCalTech?-

    “pre-existing conditions is easy. We handle it like most companies handled them prior to the ACA.”

    Who’s “we”? How ridiculous. Allowing insurance companies to decide, based upon frivolous rhetoric someone might obtain health insurance during a cancer diagnosis. How did this hypothetical individual receive their original cancer diagnosis without health insurance from the onset? Wait until your family is negatively impacted from an accident out of their control. For example being hit by a drunk driver at 70 MPH. Assure you this wasn’t my idea of entertainment! Lastly. Many were negatively impacted by my situation which was out of my control including my roughly 2200 employees. Absurd! You believe my health insurance company understood my situation? How naive!

    “How can you say..”
    “That’s easy”. They don’t! Forbes article was purely speculation.

    “you still don't believe”
    never claimed I didn’t believe you. unlike PPO plans, care under an HMO plan is covered only if you see a provider within that HMO’s network. There are also typically more restrictions for coverage than other plans, such as allowing only a certain number of visits, tests or treatments.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    March 27, 2019 1:40 p.m.

    To "Liberal On Planet Zion" pre-existing conditions is easy. We handle it like most companies handled them prior to the ACA. We let them determine how long you must have an insurance policy before they cover the pre-existing conditions. That way you don't have somebody get a cancer diagnosis then get insurance that the company would have to pay for. It actually encourages people to carry insurance all the time.

    How can you say that reducing regulations won't reduce costs? One of the articles from Forbes proved that cutting regulations did in fact cut costs. Sorry, you are already wrong on that point.

    So you still don't believe that I have 2 choices for health insurance I can pay the same as my pre-ACA HMO to have a high deductible plan or I can more than double my monthly cost to keep the plan that I had before the ACA. Why can't you accept the fact that the ACA added a lot to the cost of insurance? HSAs aren't popular because people like them, they are popular because they are a necessity to pay for care.

  • Liberal On Planet Zion SLC, UT
    March 27, 2019 12:52 p.m.

    RedShirtnotCalTech - Not Pasedena, CA

    "Want To Reduce Health Insurance Premiums? Repeal Obamacare's Premium Tax.”

    Absolute conjecture and nothing more. Nothing whatsoever in this article proves your absurd claim accurate. Again What’s the specific plan regarding those labeled with pre-existing conditions?

    “if we eliminate those regulations and mandates the price will come down.”

    Nonsense! Never worked before and it won’t work now. The entire logic of dismantling the ACA and taking healthcare coverage away from millions is absolutely asinine, especially without answering the question regarding those labeled with P.E.C. You tweak and fix the ACA accordingly, rather leaving millions uninsured!

    Right now I pay $200/month for my health insurance with a high deductible plan. Prior to the ACA I had a HMO where I paid about the same but didn't have to meet any deductible before the plan would pay out.”

    No deductible means the insurance company would start paying claims immediately. A deductible is a way to decrease the insurance premium, as the customer is willing to take on some of the risks. By choosing no deductible, you are putting all of the cost of the insurance company.

  • worf McAllen, TX
    March 27, 2019 10:57 a.m.

    Dems crying foul?

    Remember the false Russian collusion hysterics? The Covington high school incident? George Zimmerman? Kavenough?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 27, 2019 10:19 a.m.

    The ACA didn't reduce health care COSTS. It just didn't.

    That's not conjecture now. It's fact. We have history now. It's been in affect 6 years. We don't have to guess anymore. We have numbers. Health care costs went UP every year (more than they did in the 6 years before ACA).

    Google "Yes, It Was The 'Affordable' Care Act That Increased Premiums - Forbes"...
    "Rising Health Care Costs: Causes, by Year - The Balance"...
    "Obamacare Is Failing to Contain Healthcare Costs | Economics21"...
    "Effects of the ACA on Health Care Cost Containment | LDI"...
    "How Obamacare Raised Premiums"...

    Some people got a break on their premiums, but even those premiums have gone up every year. But that's not the actual cost of health care. That's the cost of Insurance. The cost of each procedure, office visit, medication, etc... went up.

    And why this is surprising to anybody I don't know. In the 7000 pages of ACA rules and regulations there was not one sentence that regulated the cost of health care, or was intended to reduce the cost of health care. It was just about the cost of insurance.

    We need to control the COST of healthcare IMO.

    ACA failed to do that.

  • Whale of Fortune Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2019 8:51 a.m.

    Huh. Not a single word about severability.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    March 27, 2019 8:21 a.m.

    To "Liberal On Planet Zion" ok. Read "Want To Reduce Health Insurance Premiums? Repeal Obamacare's Premium Tax" in Forbes. If just repealing one portion of the ACA reduces the cost, what would happen if you eliminated more of the ACA?

    Lets also use some logic since the ACA raised premiums significantly (see "Yes, It Was The 'Affordable' Care Act That Increased Premiums" in Forbes) if we eliminate those regulations and mandates the price will come down.

    So you don't believe my personal story. Right now I pay $200/month for my health insurance with a high deductible plan. Prior to the ACA I had a HMO where I paid about the same but didn't have to meet any deductible before the plan would pay out. If I wanted to keep the HMO I would have had to more than double my insurance premium to $500/month to maintain the same plan. Tell my, why is it better for me to pay more for the same service thanks to the ACA?

    See "Even the Insured Often Can't Afford Their Medical Bills" in the Atlantic to better understand how giving people ACA exchange plans didn't work.

  • Spoc Ogden, UT
    March 26, 2019 11:17 p.m.

    What shall we replace ACA with?

    It is really very simple.

    Authority and responsibility for regulation of most forms of insurance; liability, life, auto, home, health, etc., belongs to the State Insurance Department. As long as each state regulates the insurance industry within their own boundaries so it is not interstate commerce, it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Feds. Does that mean I cannot use my auto insurance or medical insurance when I travel out of state? No. But your policy has to follow the rules in the state where it was purchased.

    What is really sad is when we get bamboozled into thinking how great it is to have medical insurance, but cannot afford to pay the full price while we pay off the deductible. So we avoid getting care when it is needed, do not ever meet the deductible, and the premiums are never used to provide care. Guess who gets to keep the money? Not you.

    A better approach is catastrophic coverage only, which is really what insurance of all kinds is for, coupled with a Medical Savings Account (MSA).

    A better question then is, why does the ACA discourage MSAs?

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    March 26, 2019 4:10 p.m.

    Replace it with what?

    How about a model like car insurance or fire insurance? You know, risk and coverage. Stuff like that. Or life insurance or fire insurance. Some have it; some don't. There are expensive plans and cheap plans. Ask your dad. He'll explain it.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    March 26, 2019 4:07 p.m.

    Mad Hatter: Bait and switch? The SCOTUS said Obamacare was a tax, not me! It was either that or they would have been forced to find it unconstitutional: to force any American to buy something, including healthcare insurance! Calling Obamacare a tax was the bait and switch! Do your constitutional freedoms mean anything to you? If the government can force you to buy healthcare insurance, what can't they force you to buy? Think man!

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    March 26, 2019 3:12 p.m.

    "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the turnabout shows that Republicans 'say one thing and they do another.'"

    In other words, she doesn't like the Republicans doing one of the trademark practices of the Democrats. I guess it hurts when your own trick is used against you.

    Can anyone tell me what was affordable about this law?

  • Joe Leaphorn Scottsdale, AZ
    March 26, 2019 1:53 p.m.

    Basically the replacement for Obamacare being promoted by the Trump administration is nothing. It's the old, conservative view "if you can't afford it, you're too lazy". People who cannot handle catastrophic health situations need to face reality and live with it. It's back to the old days when people got sick and died when treatment was far too expensive and they couldn't afford help. This is the "individualist" mantra of the fringe element of the GOP where they argue "survival of the fittest" and too bad you're poor because you're just lazy.

    Often these are wealthy people who can afford whatever they want giving advice to those less fortunate. Rather than giving a helping hand, they are very willing to give a "helping out the door". Until a real healthcare plan PROMISED by Donald Trump in the 2016 election is revealed to the public, we can just classify this as another lie from the shyster used car salesman trying to sell another bill of goods.

    The reason Republicans don't have a healthcare replacement plan is that they never intended to have a replacement healthcare plan. It goes against their political philosophy of "cut government to the core".

  • Mad Hatter Santa Fe, NM
    March 26, 2019 1:36 p.m.

    Thid Barker - Victor, ID
    March 26, 2019 9:02 a.m.

    " . . . lets just call this tax reform! Get rid of it and replace it with real healthcare . . . "

    Here you go again with the old bait-and-switch con of 2016. Do you really want a replacement, or do you say that while only wanting repeal? We know what Donald Trump said then and what he wants now. The Republicans have been complaining about Obamacare (originally a Republican plan, by the way) since it was introduced, saying they had a better idea. But they didn't have squat. Nothing. The wanted to keep people with the same lack of access to healthcare if they didn't have the money to pay where healthcare was costing more and more each year. They even want to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid. So what's new?

    I have been remiss in not admitting that Republicans were not interested in developing a better healthcare plan. I had thought that many were serious in having a discussion, but I was wrong. My thinking has changed. I will be more mindful going forward and consider healthcare to be the #1 issue of 2020. Republican need a plan to even get onto the playing field that provides better healthcare than the existing Obamacare plan.

  • Traveller Farmington, UT
    March 26, 2019 1:21 p.m.

    It's certainly not an unprecedented move. I remember Obama's administration refusing to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act because they thought it would be found Unconstitutional, California failing to defend Prop 8 in court, etc.

  • Jim Chee Lahaina, HI
    March 26, 2019 1:19 p.m.

    Somehow the 2018 election has been forgotten in all the celebration by Republicans in their rush to take revenge on those who would dare to challenge Donald Trump. Again we have the call to eliminate Obamacare. With John McCain gone, who is there to stop them this time? Also, a greater Republican edge in the Senate is possibly of less value considering that so many Republican senators are up for re-election and the electorate is angry.

    It's disappointing that in Trump's last tweet-blast criticizing John McCain and re-visiting his charge that McCain voted against the "repeal and replace" legislation, there was no "replace" being considered. It was all "repeal". Trump, like the rest of the GOP, has no replacement for Obamacare. He doesn't care if millions of people lose their health insurance after promising to have a plan that was better than the current health plan the Obama administration was able to put together. It was all talk. Promises that were never intended to be kept by the ultimate con man.

    Republicans need to recognize that voters are not stupid. Fool them once, OK. But don't try a second time. And Democrats have to run on the issues and not just anti-Trump rhetoric.

  • Liberal On Planet Zion SLC, UT
    March 26, 2019 12:49 p.m.

    RedShirtnotCalTech -

    “if Obamacare is struck down, then that will lower insurance premiums.”

    How specifically? Cited, CREDIBLE source material? Exactly. Continued empty rhetoric and the egurgitation of extremist, alt-right talking points, nothing more!

    “just getting rid of Obamacare will make insurance cheaper and better. Thanks to Obamacare I have to meet my deductible first, then pay 20% after that until I hit my out of pocket maximum.”

    Absolutely absurd altogether! It certainly will not make insurance less expensive. Also. Anyone familiar with factual information is aware “deductibles” have to be met with ANY insurance plan, deductibles are not exclusive to the ACA. Stop spreading propaganda and gross misinformation! Lastly. What’s the specific plan regarding pre-existing conditions? Don’t even attempt the “charitable donation” talking points you heard on Faux News.

    “just the repeal will help more people because right now the ACA really hasn't helped many people.”

    Incorrect once again! Speaking from personal experience, once again you’re attempting to pass along propaganda as facts. Epic failure! What is your personal experience with the ACA? That’s correct. Nada!

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 26, 2019 12:39 p.m.

    steven madrigal,

    You are wrong, we haven't been waiting for two years, we have been waiting for 8 years. Remember Obama's first midterm, the Republicans started their mantra about replacing the ACA with something better? Trump just picked up on the line when he started campaigning. The Republicans and the President never have had a plan for replacing the ACA. It's about having a campaign issue not actually doing anything for the American people.

  • Yuge Opportunity Here Mapleton, UT
    March 26, 2019 12:18 p.m.

    We should repeal Obamacare.

    But, we'll never get insurance companies to go back. We are stuck with higher premiums, higher deductibles and higher copays. It was nice to have woman's health care in my policy, even though I'm a man. I will miss that.

    In the end, we spent a lot of money that could have been used to give health care to poor people. Instead, we got stiffed and some insurance companies folded, making the rest of them happy.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    March 26, 2019 12:11 p.m.

    The irony of this is that if Obamacare is struck down, then that will lower insurance premiums.

    To "unrepentant progressive" but just getting rid of Obamacare will make insurance cheaper and better. Prior to Obamacare I paid almost as much as I do now, but I only had $25 co-pays for any office visit. Thanks to Obamacare I have to meet my deductible first, then pay 20% after that until I hit my out of pocket maximum. Dumping the ACA may be able to get my better insurance back, which will cost me less overall.

    To "2 bits" but even just the repeal will help more people because right now the ACA really hasn't helped many people. Prior to the ACA uninsured people were cared for primarily through charitable hospital foundations. The ACA gave those people insurance, but the people couldn't use the insurance because it was a high deductible plan that they couldn't afford to pay the out of pocket expenses for.

    The best plan possible is to cut regulations and government mandates. Anything else is just an exercise in futility.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    March 26, 2019 12:05 p.m.

    No empathy Trump, His billions provide him and his family the best health care wealth can buy.

  • stevan madrigal Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2019 11:56 a.m.

    Replacing it with what?
    We've been waiting for over two years for the Republican healthcare plan -
    Where is it?
    What does it contain?
    How will existing conditions be covered?
    What essential benefits will it contain?
    Are pre-natal conditions covered?
    Prescription coverage?

  • Liberal On Planet Zion SLC, UT
    March 26, 2019 11:49 a.m.

    Silver Stingray -
    “Get 'er done!”

    Flipphone -
    “Obamacare was solved down our throat by socialist who demand that others take care of them.”

    Carnival Barker
    “Would you want to throw out your healthcare coverage as part of your employment compensation and turn your healthcare over to the government? Me neither!”

    Light and Liberty
    “All of this because the entitlement generation wants to follow their 'passions' without needing to work, raise a family, or defend America's constitutional values and government. High price to pay indeed.”

    Members of the highly intellectual, forward thinking demographic again using not only gross misinformation and propaganda, but now sound bites from Larry the Cable Guy regarding the removal of health insurance for millions, while proving HRC’s description regarding this “ilk” 100% accurate again! Furthermore. My guarantee is my income is at least quadruple {if not more} than the four of you combined! Lastly. I’ve worked all my life, no one has “taken care of me” and it most certainly wasn’t my plan to be involved in a catastrophic automobile accident only to have my conditions from my injuries labeled as a “pre-existing condition”. Facts matter!

  • Back Talk Federal Way, WA
    March 26, 2019 11:45 a.m.

    This does nothing for the Republicans unless they can fairly quickly come up with a replacement . Dems wont help negotiate anything other than Obamacare 2.0.

    Still, if the law is deemed unconstitutional maybe that can put pressure on both sides to make a deal.

    Any replacement plan would need to retain the positive aspects of Obamacare like some coverage for preexisting conditions for new policy members and allowing dependents to keep coverage up to age 27. The preexisting condition issue is the hardest issue to address.

    We will see what is proposed.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    March 26, 2019 11:06 a.m.

    @2 bits - Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 26, 2019 10:24 a.m.
    I might be able to support this IF he had a replacement in mind that was better.
    Without a replacement plan... I can't support it. Just repealing it would hurt too many people who have come to depend on it. It would be cruel to just end it, without replacing it with something. "

    Now, that's a sensible position. I think many people feel the same way. Orrin Hatch and the GOP had claimed for many years that THEIR plan was better and cheaper. Trump said the same thing. Where was this miracle plan? They held the White House and both the House and Senate. Still no better plan. Turns out, they had no plan-never did. They lied.
    The ACA never claimed to be perfect-just a starting point to be tweaked on a regular basis. It would have the potential to be very good by now. But, Republicans fought it at every turn just for spite. The GOP loved the concept when it was called Romneycare. If Romney had won the election, it would have been supported as a great achievement.

  • scrappy do DRAPER, UT
    March 26, 2019 10:52 a.m.

    He is well on his way to building constitutionally lead courts that will surely pull the plug on this fully unconstitutional mandate

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    March 26, 2019 10:50 a.m.

    Of course he does. After all, it helps minorities be healthier.

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2019 10:49 a.m.

    Where is the "tremendous" health care Trump promised us? Right next to Mexico paying for the wall apparently.

  • SuzViews Mesa, AZ
    March 26, 2019 10:48 a.m.

    Is this a talking point for #2020 or does he have a healthcare policy proposal to replace the Affordable Care Act? His party has had years to develop one to improve on or replace it. “I criticize by creation, not by finding fault.”
    – Marcus Tullius Cicero

  • Silver Stingray St George, UT
    March 26, 2019 10:44 a.m.

    Get 'er done!

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 26, 2019 10:24 a.m.

    I might be able to support this IF he had a replacement in mind that was better.

    Without a replacement plan... I can't support it. Just repealing it would hurt too many people who have come to depend on it. It would be cruel to just end it, without replacing it with something. Hopefully something better, not something worse.

    We need to move forward to what's next, not back to where we were before.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    March 26, 2019 10:16 a.m.

    He's going to replace it with something really, really incredible day one of his 2nd term. It will be easy.

  • Onion Daze Payson, UT
    March 26, 2019 10:07 a.m.

    Did the use of "BO" for a former president slip by the monitoring folks? Glad Mr. Lost in DC is not unhappy with Bonnie Oscarson.

    "No, BO’s injustice department did it all the time."

  • Flipphone , 00
    March 26, 2019 10:07 a.m.

    Obamacare was solved down our throat by socialist who demand that others take care of them.

  • one old man MSC, UT
    March 26, 2019 10:01 a.m.

    trumpf may have just made healthcare the number one election issue in 2020.

  • Steve Cottrell Centerville, UT
    March 26, 2019 9:34 a.m.

    Should this be an issue to be dealt with by the two houses of Congress rather than one for the Trump administration?

  • Light and Liberty St George, UT
    March 26, 2019 9:31 a.m.

    Obamacare was rammed down the American public's throat by people wanting free healthcare as a right. Socialism, pure and simple, thus taking away millions of citizen's private property rights, and allowing a mob to rule because they wanted to get something for nothing and almost singlehandedly destroy freedom and the greatest nation the world has ever known. All of this because the entitlement generation wants to follow their 'passions' without needing to work, raise a family, or defend America's constitutional values and government. High price to pay indeed.

  • JLindow St. George, UT
    March 26, 2019 9:13 a.m.

    Throwing out the requirement that people maintain coverage would be the least intrusive change a judge could impose.

    Throwing out the entire ACA on a technicality, causing massive disruption to the health insurance market and placing the health coverage of tens of millions of Americans in jeopardy would be the most intrusive change a judge could impose, and is apparently what the Trump administration would like to see happen.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    March 26, 2019 9:03 a.m.

    Rare for the justice department to decline to defend a federal law? No, BO’s injustice department did it all the time.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    March 26, 2019 9:02 a.m.

    Since the SCOTUS declared Obamacare is a tax, lets just call this tax reform! Get rid of it and replace it with real healthcare, not another tax! Trying to call healthcare as a tax is an oxymoron! Protect private, employer provided healthcare as first priority! Would you want to throw out your healthcare coverage as part of your employment compensation and turn your healthcare over to the government? Me neither!

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    March 26, 2019 8:59 a.m.

    Well, isn't that what Trump and the GOP campaigned for in 2016? They wanted "Obamacare" trashed and promised something better and cheaper. Americans will get what the minority wanted all along: kill "Obamacare", as it appears that the Trump administration is full throttle to do so.

    Yet, it was a two part promise. I anxiously awaited their proposals to rewrite the current healthcare system, avoid the ensuing chaos, and give Americans a cheaper, better system with the current Administration and GOP controlled Senate.

    However, I am not holding my breath to see what the Trump party was/is going to propose. How easy it is to destroy. How difficult it is to build.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    March 26, 2019 8:58 a.m.

    Oh Boy. Trump thinks the Mueller report exonerated him. (Even his hand picked AG says it doesn't exonerate Trump). Now, look for him to go on a vindictive rampage, further damaging our country and tens of millions of Americans. Time for the States of NY and VA to bring charges.