"it will literally destroy all of the alternative health care systems. All
of the existing health insurance companies will be put out of business."Are you suggesting that these things happened in Massachusetts? If
not, then your claim is unsupportable.
"When Obamacare gets fully entrenched it will literally destroy all of the
alternative health care systems. All of the existing health insurance companies
will be put out of business.”Blaine obviously does not
comprehend the ACA, which will ADD 30 million new customers to the insurance
companies' rolls. It's unfortunate that Congress didn't enact a
single-payer system like expanded Medicare for all Americans, not just those
over 65. But even that would not necessarily destroy private health insurance,
as insurance companies could offer private plans to cover medical costs not
covered under Medicare, as they do now.
Romneycare IS the same as "Obamacare". Obamacare is directly derived
from Romneycare, which was enacted in reliance on a proposed program developed
by the ultra-conservative (far right wing) Heritage Foundation. Romneycare, at
the behest of the Republicans, even has the mandate which requires everyone to
have insurance. I really find it amusing that the far right is now contending
against the exact program the proposed to counter Hillary Clinton's health
care initiative. That appears quite hypocritical to me.
The letter is one huge AM radio hyperbole.But all I can say is the
letter writer has NEVER;Lived in another State, Never lost a
job, Never had someone in his family he's responsible for all ill.Maybe he should consider himself "Lucky" in life, and stop
being so condesending and judgemental of those who haven't been so blessed
and perhaps showing some compassion [i.e., putting yourself in someone elses
shoes] and think about the other 350 Million Americans instead of just himself
and his circumstances.
Obamacare is not about "care", it is about allowing the federal
government to take another 18% of our income. The debate made it very clear
that a fifteen person government panel would make all "health care
decisions". Under Romney's plan, the doctors and hospitals were free
to make all health-care decisions. Under Obamacare, one size has to fit
everyone. Under Romney's plan, you could pick and choose any insurance
plan that met your needs. The biggest problem, as Romney also
pointed out, is that the 10th Amendment requires that healthcare be left to the
States; it is not a duty of the Federal Government. Obama ignores the
Constitution. He wants that 18% so badly that he would set aside the
Constitution and his oath of office to uphold the Constitution to get his hands
on the money.It is already evident that Obamacare has cost each
family an average of $2,500 in higher premiums and that it will cost hundreds of
thousands of jobs, if fully implemented. When no one is working, who will pay
" it is about allowing the federal government to take another 18% of our
income."How much of our income was taken when Mr Bush and the
GOP congress instituted Medicare Part D?What was the cost to our income
and deficit when we decided to start wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?How much
of our income is taken when healthcare costs continue to rise exponentially?Mike, I can appreciate your concern for government spending. What I do
not understand is that you seem to only rail against the govt spending when the
Dems do it. You seem to think that if we all vote "R" that
the same kind of spending will not continue. There is not anything the
Obama has done that is any more "socialistic" than what past Republicans
have done. That certainly applies to healthcare.In reality, the
country does not run much different no matter who is in control.I
never understand why people are so enamored with their party, either right or
left.And you are as immersed in that ideology as much as anyone I know.I just don't get it.
Mike, there is no one size fits all with regards to Obamacare. It uses private
insurance companies. The companies are the ones that determine what is covered,
what isn't, what levels of coverage to allow and so forth.Obamacare is a boon to the insurance companies. There are no options within
Obamacare that do not use those insurance companies. This is the same as it is
with Romneycare.The 15% that you hear on the radio has been debunked
but the talking heads just ignore it to cause simple minded listeners to freak
out and avoid wanting Obamacare (Even though it was there idea).The
IRS has stated that they will not enforce any penalty tax on someone who
doesn't buy insurance. If they won't enforce it, then it isn't a
penalty because there is nothing to force you to purchase it.Obamacare hasn't even gone into effect but people are blaming it for
increasing the costs of healthcare. How can something that isn't there
raising rates? Once the new additions are made, the costs will decrease as the
burden expands beyond the current users.
One painted red and the other is painted blue. It's the same car of
conservative design.If you don't like Obamacare you should call
the Heritage Foundation.
And Romney was taking credit for being the "grandfather" of Obamacare
until those in his base learned that he was bragging about his "moderate
credentials" before a general audience. Romney is many things to
many people. As Andrew Sullivan wrote in the Daily Beast, Romney is very
skilled at closing the deal. The first debate was critical. He rose up,
according to Michael Gerson, but now is having to backtrack on various
statements he made in appealing to the millions of people watching. His
"moderate" views expressed in the debate have upset many in his Party.
They don't understand that he was only doing what was necessary to
"close the deal".Romney is notorious for telling his
audience what they want to hear. He is good at varying his message to suit the
prospective customer. However, one can be certain that his plan is always to
adhere to the ultimate goal of reducing taxes on the rich and cutting the costs
of government by eliminating programs the poor and middle-class have come to
depend on.He, like the missionary who gets the door slammed in his
face, just picks up and moves to the next house.
This letter is a wonderful example of one of the major problems with many
letters that are selected for print.Inaccuracy of facts does not
disqualify letters being printed.
Re:Mike RichardsRomney repeatedly claimed that a new government
board was “going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they
can have.” Not true. It could make some binding recommendations about such
things as what drugs or medical devices would be paid for by Medicare, but it
has no legal power to dictate treatment or ration care.The board is
a 15-member panel that’s tasked with finding ways to slow the growth of
Medicare spending. So, its work concerns Medicare, not everyone seeking health
care. And, according to the law, the board can’t touch treatments or
otherwise “ration” care, or restrict benefits.
The letter forgot to mention that Obamacare will usher in the Zombie Apocalypse.
Those who have taken the time to read the Obamacare bill from cover to cover and
then taken the time to note the problems with the bill will never want
Obamacare. We are NOT free to change insurance companies. A
"secretary" will decide who is covered and what is covered. The
government has listed the cost of healthcare at 18%, which will be funnelled
into the treasury as Obamacare ramps up and as people are forced to buy
insurance from the government.The IRS WILL collect the tax. The IRS
collects taxes from those who owe them - no matter what lies Obama tells us
about Obamacare NOT being a tax and, now that it has been declared a tax by the
Supreme Court, that he will not enforce the collection of that tax. Just how
does he propose to pay for the services, by writing rubber checks as he has done
for $5 TRILLION of expenditures?Just because Obama said that it is
based on Romney's bill doesn't make it true. Read Obamacare.
Don't be fooled by Obama's lies.
"When Obamacare gets fully entrenched it will literally destroy all of the
alternative health care systems." If only.Seems to me this is
the major problem with American health care. We have too many systems. And even
with all of them, we still leave millions of people out in the cold.Folks, we don't have to reinvent the wheel. There are, right now, 40 or
50 health-care systems in the world that we could simply adopt and be far better
off than we are with our schizophrenic hodge-podge of health-care chaos. We pay
twice as much per capita as the next most expensive system and are ranked lower
than several Third World countries. Yes, we are exceptional. And we'll be
more so if the Republicans take over.
Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah"The biggest problem, as Romney
also pointed out, is that the 10th Amendment requires that healthcare be left to
the States; it is not a duty of the Federal Government."From
your ideological and conservative interpretation of the Constitution, can I
assume that you are opposed to both Social Security and Medicare? It appears
that you would want these two programs eliminated and the states develop
something similar for their respective residents.Just to be
accurate, you oppose any program not specifically mandated in the Constitution
as you interpret it, is that correct? So you oppose public funding of
EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING beyond defense? You don't like the interstate
transit program under Eisenhower? You don't like the EPA under Nixon? And
we've already mentioned that you don't like Medicare under Lyndon
Johnson.Does this mean that if Utah develops excellent programs for
its residents, people from other states should move there to take advantage of
these good programs? It could be like moving across state borders looking for
the best health insurance. One could almost see Utah replacing Florida as an
ideal retirement destination.
"The citizens of Massachusetts like it. They voted for it."Massachusetts citizens did not vote for it. The State Legislature voted for
it, just as the U.S. legislature (Congress) voted for Obamacare. But you're
right to say citizens of Massachusetts like it, just as U.S.citizens will like
the very similar Obamacare once it is fully implemented."All of
the existing health insurance companies will be put out of business. All of
their employees will be laid off; equipment and facilities will be sold or
discarded and when they are gone it will be almost impossible to get them
back."True, but health insurance companies don't provide
health care, they merely create mountains of insurance paperwork as they drive
up costs by competing for the preferred customers and try to disqualify the
less-attractive customers. Perhaps the laid-off employees will find new job
opportunities in a more vigorous health-care industry that focuses on health
care rather than health insurance.
This letter is completely useless. All Glenn Beck/Faux News/AM radio gloom and
doom. You know, Romney didn't implement Romneycare because he thought the
idea was bad, he actually believed in it, but just like every other idea the man
has had he switched positions on it when he found that it hindered his never
ending campaign for president. Imagine that, he flip flopped again and you all
just can't admit it.
"All of the existing health insurance companies will be put out of
You know the biggest difference between Obamacare and Romneycare? One was
passed while Obama was president, so it is BAD. The other one was passed while
Romney was governor, so it is GOOD. Anything Obama = BAD. Anything Republican
= GOOD. Until Obama proposes it. Then it is BAD.
Salsa,You either agree with the Constitution or you reject it.
Nobody has the right to redefine it. Your rethoric tells us that you reject the
Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 lists The authorized duties of Congress.
The 10th Amendment tells us that ALL duties not authorized ate left to the
States or to the people. You're either for the Constitution or you're
against it. Since you're not FOR the Constitution, just what are you for?
Oh Mike Richard, Mike Richards. Your hyperbole is always entertaining. I know
you think everyone to the left of Attila the Hun is a Communist, but it just
No matter whose is "better", the point is, the healthcare system should
NOT be run by the government period, federal, state, or local. This is going
against the Constitution of the United States and our government officials are
just proving they could care less about this important document by completely
disregarding it and those who are for it are just proving they are incapable of
taking care of themselves and want the government to do everything for them.
When are we are American citizens going to realize we need to be responsible for
ourselves, expecting nothing from our government??? We give them an inch, they
will take a mile and before you know it, we are going to be taxed so heavily by
the "take care of the Americans programs" we are going to be poor and
People attacking the messenger have reached a new low. They openly reject the
Constitution but the won't tell us WHOSE plan the favor. Do they want
Obama to dictate to us? Do they want Reid to dictate to us? Do they want
Pelosi to dicatate to us?We have a Constitution to protect us
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. That is the purpose of the Constitution! Those who reject the Constitution, even as they attack the messenger, are
telling us that they believe in anarchy.You can't have it both
ways. Either you believe in the Supreme Law of the Land, or you believe that we
have no rules and no laws.Which do ypu believe?
Massachusetts health care was a Mitt Romney initiative. That makes it good.The ACA was a Barack Obama initiative. That makes it bad.The fact that
they're identical is irrelevant.Right?
@ J Thompson -- I believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
I also believe that the Supreme Court (one of the branches of government under
the Constitution) upheld Obamacare and said it isn't unconstitutional. So
when someone says Obamacare is unconstitutional, I think that perhaps that
person is less concerned about whether or not something is constitutional and
instead is saying that they disagree with the law. "Constitutional" does
not mean "laws I like" and "unconstitutional" does not mean
"laws I don't like."
Mike Richards: "You either agree with the Constitution or you reject it.
Nobody has the right to redefine it."So you are against all the
Amendments then? "Nobody can redefine it." That means no one can
change it. You can't have it both ways. If the Constitution is perfect
than the Amendments are an abomination. Your rhetoric tells us that
you reject all Amendments to the Constitution, you reject the Bill of Rights and
the subsequent Amendments. You can't have it both ways.
Either the the Constitution and be redefined or it can't. If it
can't, please start a push to rescind all the amendments. Might as well
start with 2 since Bear Arms isn't listed in the Constitution, all guns
must go away. Don't forget 1, That is a powerful Amendment there.Everyone needs to understand that the document wasn't perfect and was
made to be redefined as the needs of the country changed over time. That is
what makes the document so strong and enduring. Fixed views for the document
are not only limiting to the document but also to the country it spawned.
Makid, What in the world are you advocating? The Constitution
includes ALL the Amendments. The Amendments are PART of the Constitution. No
PERSON, including Obama has the right to define for us what the Constitution
says. We have a defined way to change the Constitution. Three-fourths of the
States have to agree on the amendment. Surely you understand the process. My
grandchildren understand the process. Don't use empty rethoric
to mask your contempt of the process. Obama cannot dictate our form of
goveenment. WE have already dictated that process to him and sealed that
process with the blood of patriots.
Mike Richards South Jordan, UtahContinuing the back-and-forth."You're either for the Constitution or you're against it.
Since you're not FOR the Constitution, just what are you for?"Well, you are a true believer, that's for sure. Might we also assume
that in addition to your political views, your religious views are as firm and
anyone who does not believe as you do is wrong? This sounds too much like the
application of Sharia Law in fundamentalist Islamic cultures. Would you like
the "rules" of the Old Testament applied and enforced in our nation?
One could imagine you joining in on a stoning because there is a religious
directive for this action.As for my views on the Constitution, I
take a more progressive approach and try to interpret it in light of the times.
But, yes, I support the Constitution. Those who wrote the Constitution had
absolutely no concept of how America would be 200 years in the future. So they
allowed interpretation and flexibility. That is my position! Just because I
disagree with you doesn't make me wrong! Neither does it make you right!
J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UTOnce again for your information,
Obamacare is based on Romneycare and was recommended by the Heritage Foundation
(and Mitt Romney) as a plan for the United States. Nixon wanted to mandate
universal health care and have business pay for it. And Wednesday Romney again
stated that he wanted to keep many aspects of Obamacare, i.e. Obamneycare. He
said all this before all Americans watching that night except (wink, wink) maybe
he was sending a message to conservatives that he didn't really mean what
he was currently saying.And yes, you have your interpretation of the
Constitution, but that in no way lessens my interpretation of that same
document. So I can say what I say with the same sense of truth as you might
claim. However, I am interested in making a better American and believe
sincerely that the Constitution was created as a dynamic and living document.
Mike, the Constitution was written prior to the Amendments.Amendments are adjustments that redefined Constitution. That’s
something which you have stated you are against. You did state the following:
"Nobody has the right to redefine it."This tells everyone
that you are against all changes to the constitution as "Nobody has the
right to redefine it."Now, the Constitution gives the power to
create laws to Congress, sign laws to the Presidency and affirm the laws are
constitutional to the Supreme Court. If a law is voted on and passes
Congress, is signed by the President and is affirmed by the Supreme Court, then
the law is Constitutional.Each new law that is enacted by Congress
is further redefining the nature of the Constitution. That is how the document
is meant to be understood. Anyone who does not understand this should not state
that something is against the Constitution because it isn't directly stated
there.I am sorry that this seems like a hard concept for many people
to grasp. The Constitution is a document that is designed to flow like a river,
changing as needed to affirm its nature as the foundation of the country.
That apple is an apple, except for the flip flop spin used by the Romney
Romneycare is not the same as obamacare. And we need something much more
extensive than both. We need canadacare, the single payer system. Health is
about people, not insurance. Obamacare doesn't make it. Romneycare is
MakidBefore things get completely out of hand, let's review the
facts.The Constitution was passed WITH 10 amendments already in
place. The Constitution contains the process by which it can be
revised (Article 5).NOBODY, not you, not the President, not Reid,
not Pelosi, or anyone else has the right to REDEFINE the Constitution. The
Constitution is what it is, not what Obama tells that it is, or Reid or Pelosi.
It stands on its own without the need for their clarification.NO LAW
is Constitutional just because Congress has passed it and the President has
signed it. It is required that each law be measured against what WE, THE
PEOPLE, have authorized the Federal Government to do in our behalf. The Court
decides that, not Obama. Obama thinks otherwise. FDR though other wise. LBJ
thought otherwise.No new law can change the Constitution. Only the
PEOPLE in 3/4ths of the States can change the Constitution - as declared in
Article 5.Please read the Constitution and the method that has been
approved to change it before trying to instruct us on what it is all about.
To Mike Richards 2:12 p.m. Oct. 5, 2012You either agree with the
Constitution or you reject it. Nobody has the right to redefine it. Your
rethoric tells us that you reject the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 lists
The authorized duties of Congress. The 10th Amendment tells us that ALL duties
not authorized ate left to the States or to the people. You're either for
the Constitution or you're against it. Since you're not FOR the
Constitution, just what are you for?------------------------The fact, Mike, is that the ONLY thing you're for is YOUR
interpretation of the Constitution. The FACT that the way you interpret the
Constitution and what it really says and means are two different things. I
again invite you to really study it instead of just giving it the cursory
reading tht you say you've done. It is a truly magnificent document in its
depth and breadth, and it is only through long, hard study that you can truly
understand and appreciate it. Give yourself a chance to really understand it --
you will be amazed at what it truly is.
Mike Richards says: "No PERSON, including Obama has the right to define for
us what the Constitution says." Not to belabor a point made or
alluded to by other commenters, Mike, but did it ever occur to you that your
statement means that YOU (following your practice of shouting with all caps) do
not have "the right to define for us what the Constitution says." So
please stop. Your hyprocisy is becoming tiresome.
Mike: "NO LAW is Constitutional just because Congress has passed it and the
President has signed it. It is required that each law be measured against what
WE, THE PEOPLE, have authorized the Federal Government to do in our behalf. The
Court decides that, not Obama. Obama thinks otherwise. FDR though other wise.
LBJ thought otherwise."The SCOTUS (Supreme Court) has affirmed
that Obamacare is constitutional. Therefore it is valid and can go forward as
it is.Amendments are additions and expansions of the Constitution.
Believe it or not, I do understand how they work. They expand the power of the
Constitution from the original intent of the architects of the document.Laws passed by congress, signed by the president and affirmed by SCOTUS
are constitutional. That is the point behind checks and balances. Each law, by
nature uses the Constitution as its foundation. If it didn't, SCOTUS would
strike the law as unconstitutional.Think of Amendments as additions
and renovations to a house, Laws are additions and modifications to the yard.
Some make the property better, while others make it worse.Some
understand this, others want to form an HOA to force their ideals on others.
LDS LiberalI have lived in several different states. I have lived
in 3 foreign countries. I have worked for a health insurance company.
Therefore, I know more about the subject than any of my critics.
Of course those who think that the Constitution is outdated, that it is just a
piece of paper, that believe in "royalty", would try to tell us that
they have the right to "change" the Constitution at their every whim.
Obama, the self-proclaimed "Constitutional Expert", has no use for the
Constitution. He, like FDR, thought that it should contain a list of
"freedoms" bestowed on the people by the government, i.e., the right to
a job, the right to own a home, the right to healthcare. That concept takes us
right back to King George, who gave us the "right" to serve him as he
dictated. I agree with Mike Richards, completely. Those who disrespect the Constitution, including the posters who have
minimized its importance and its position in limiting government, have done us
all a great disservice. They offer tyranny as their form of government. That,
of course, is Obama's desire - to rule and to reign from the White House
with power over Congress and the Court. He supposes that he "knows" what
is best for America and for Americans.We have Kingmen and we have
Freemen in the Americas - again.
It looks like I tuned in just in time. I was going to make almost the same
comment as J Thompson, but he beat me to it.I read the entire
Constitution this morning, again. I read it often to remind me of my duty as a
citizen to see that the government plays fair.Article 6 tells us
that the Constitution AND the laws passed by Congress are the Supreme Law of the
Land. The Constitution tells us HOW to pass laws and it tells us exactly what
kind of laws (enumerated duties) that Congress can pass. The Court decides if
those laws are Constitutional, but only as an appellate court. The Court has to
first wait for a lower court to rule.Obamacare was not declared
Constitutional. Justice Roberts said that Congress has the power to tax and
that Obamacare is a tax. He encouraged us to fix things on our own in the next
election. The Court didn't rule on the Constitutionality of the tax, but
it ruled against the Interstate Commerce provisions of Obamacare.If
we are wise, Obamacare will be overturned by the peoples' representatives
elected next month.
@Furry1993:"Romneycare IS the same as
'Obamacare.'"Oops, Romneycare is at the state level.
Obamacare is at the federal level. Big difference. Federal power and authority
is limited per the US Constitution. State power and authority is not.
@JoeBlow:"What was the cost to our income and deficit when we
decided to start wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?"Those wars were
to ensure you can get some gas for your car so you (and I) can get to work each
day."I just don't get it."You might need to
@Makid:"The IRS has stated that they will not enforce any
penalty tax on someone who doesn't buy insurance."Oh yeah?
Who does the IRA work for? The president, that's who. If he tells IRS to
do it, they will. Of course if Romney gets elected, all bets are off.@Mad Hatter:"Romney is notorious for telling his audience what
they want to hear."That's how politicians win elections.
Can you imagine what would happen to either Romney or Obama if they told their
audiences the opposite of what they wanna to hear.Besides, if you
are looking for someone who changes his mind, look to Obama. He has a master
flip-flopper. Same sex marriage, for example.@Truthseeker:"Romney repeatedly claimed that a new government board was 'going to
tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.' Not
true."Is true. It's called the 'Healthcare Rationing
Board.' Palin (correctly) labeled them as 'death panels.' I
guarantee that a 80 year old will not get a heart transplant. Obama hinted at
this when he said these folks will be encouraged to go home and take a pain
@Salsa Libre:"From your ideological and conservative
interpretation of the Constitution, can I assume that you are opposed to both
Social Security and Medicare?"Please show us where Federal
Obamacare, SS, and Medicare are authorized by the US Constitution. Inquiring
minds wanna know."Just to be accurate, you oppose any program
not specifically mandated in the Constitution as you interpret it..."Generalizations in the Article 1.8 Commerce Clause opens the door for
power hungry politicians to amass all power at the federal level. My reading of
the Constitution indicates that the Founding Fathers wanted federal power to be
limited. Could you show us what those limitations might be?"Does this mean that if Utah develops excellent programs for its
residents, people from other states should move there..."That
would be their choice. And if other states want to keep their citizens they
will do something similar.States see things differently. For
example, some allow gambling, others don't. "One could
almost see Utah replacing Florida as an ideal retirement destination."Not so. Utah's too cold in the winter for retirees.
@ Mike Richards 2:12 p.m. Oct. 5, 2012It may be semantics but COTUS
can be "redefined"; Have you *never* heard of the Bill of Rights and the