In my opinion: Fixing this train wreck is impossible. Time to get the wreckers
in and scrap the whole mess. It's time to start over with something that
isn't designed to fail from the start.
I object strongly to the term "wildly unpopular" -- it might better be
"unpopular with those who listen to publicity by rich doctors, rich hospital
corporations, and rich pill makers".Most Americans realize that
universal health care will drive down the costs that threaten to bankrupt many
cities and all of us citizens."Imperfect, but aimed at the right
goal" is a better description.Does anyone really think that the
multi millions spent lobbying Congress, forcing 40 votes in the House for
nonsense, might not be better spend taking care of children?
Re: ". . . reality now demands compromise . . . ."That's not reality doing the demanding. Rather, it's political
expedience. A cynical politician, hoping to derive political advantage from the
system's planned, inevitable failure.Obamacare WILL fail. It
was designed to fail. Obama wants it to fail. Leavitt can't prevent that.
No one can. He's just positioning himself to be able to say, "If only
people had listened to me then . . . vote for me now."Obamacare's collapse WILL hurt people. It was designed to do so. Obama
wants it to do so.It's classic Cloward-Piven,
community-organizaer, collapse-the-system socialist politics. Like Obama's
sequester, it's designed to create pain amongst the rubes. That pain will
be used to justify liberals' real aim, a completely socialized,
economy-killing, dependence-promoting, single-payer, rationed-care system.It's part of the liberal plan to create permanent crises they can
blame on everyone but themselves, offering themselves as saviors, watching out
for the little guy.The same little guy that's hurting from the
pain they caused.Liberalism -- what a scam!
A voice of sanity crying from the wilderness.
The best way to deal with the ACA is to pass legislation that would make its
implementation contingent on a balanced budget. The US camel's back has had
a straw too many, already.
Mike Lee is right. Obamacare is too flawed to fix. We need to use every means at
our disposal to turn it back at the outset.
The ACA will not work. It was not intended to work. It was intended to
destroy private insurance and get the public so upset with our system that they
will BEG for the Government to take over.It wasn't intended to
actually solve the problem. It was intended to set the stage for the NEXT
step. It's just a baby-step towards where the left thinks we really need
to be. It was never intended to be the whole solution (in case anybody thought
ObamaCare was the greatest thing ever and was going to fix everything).
Well, I'll be washed, ironed and starched! A sane op-ed piece! Look, the ACA will probably work reasonably well, and will just as certainly
have some problems. Let's find 'em, figure 'em out, make things
ACA is not "wildly unpopular." The latest Gallup poll shows the USA
essentially divided on the issue. DN, check your facts.
The Deseret News has sold us down the river. Has it forgotten the
"deals" made to get ObamaCare passed? The Louisiana purchase?
Exempting Nebraska? Exempting unions? Twisting the rules in the Senate? Not
allowing Congress to debate the bill? Nancy Pelosi's statement? Have they forgotten that 59% of the people did not want ObamaCare? Have they
forgotten that Obama told us that is was not a tax? Have they forgotten that
Obama promised that insurance costs would decrease $2,500 per family per
year?Have they read their own newspaper articles where all of those
things were printed?To add further insult, they censor anyone who
calls them on it. They use their influence to tell us to get behind Obama, to
tell us to let him run all over us.After all the abuse that the LDS
people have received at the hands of the federal government, does the Desert
News think that snuggling up to Obama is what the people of Utah will do? The Deseret News has become another notch on Obama's belt in the
suppression of respect for America principles. He must be laughing himself silly
after learning about this editorial.
US laws allowing slavery were the law of the land, so according to the opinion,
we should not have fought against them?BobK, This is not
universal health care, it does nothing to reduce costs (only employment and
economic growth), and universal health care drives down the quality of the
health care.Eric,It failed in MA where fraud ballooned and
access to health care did NOT increase, but go ahead, keep your head in the
"The polls show it's wildly unpopular"? Polls would also show that
those people have no idea what they are talking about.The polls
would show that retired people on MEDICARE are scared the government will take
over their healthcare. Good job propaganda.It appears that many
seniors believe the small payment they make for a medicare supplement, is the
entire price for PRIVATE healthcare insurance for a sick 70 year old. My
goodness. Try $3000 a month if you could even get a private insurance company to
talk to you. So sure, lets cut out medicare and see who starts screaming.
Ronald Reagan, 1961: “If you don’t stop Medicare and I don’t
do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling
our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America
when men were free.” Well my parents and I have not told my children and
grand children about the good ole days without Medicare when life spans were ten
or more years shorter and the senior poverty rate was significantly higher. It
is good to see that we still have cynics that are predicting similar failures
and travesty of a program trying to solve a problem. My hunch is that the
current bill will need improvement but it is offers a better direction to go.
What other direction should we go?..no where?
Polls show that the majority of people either support Obamacare or oppose it
because they don't think it's liberal enough.
When this Nation was founded the people limited the power of the Federal
Government. The People limited the power of the Executive Branch. The People
limited the power of the Legislative Branch. The People limited the scope of
the Court. But, the people realized that things would change. They allowed for
that change by incorporating into the Constitution the means by which the
Constitution could be amended. When 67% of Congress agrees that an
Amendment is necessary, they have the authority to write that amendment, which
must then be accepted by 75% of the States. The process is easy to understand
but difficult to implement. Obama can read. He knows that the
Federal Government is only authorized to collect taxes for the duties enumerated
in Article 1, Section 8. He can read the polls. He knew that an amendment
would never pass. So, he extended his power and he encouraged Congress to
disregard the Constitution. The DN's editorial implies that an
end-run around the Constitution is acceptable.I disagree!
re:MikeRichardsArticle One of the United States Constitution, section 8,
clause 18: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws
which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing
Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of
the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."In
addition to these powers to charter and operate federal banks, the clause was
linked to the General Welfare clause and the constitutional powers of tax
collection and the ability to borrow money to give the federal government
virtually complete control over currency.Later applicationsThe
clause has been paired with the Commerce Clause to provide the constitutional
basis for a wide variety of federal laws. For instance, various reforms involved
in the New Deal were found to be necessary and proper enactments of the
objective of regulating interstate commerce.Also, in addition to
this combination of clauses being used to uphold federal laws affecting economic
activity, they also were used to justify federal criminal laws. You
do realize that the Founding Fathers and others thereafter have always disagreed
on the "correct" interpretation of the Constitution.
For you Obamacare supporters, lets see what it has done:"Over
100K New Jersey Residents to Lose Their Affordable Health Plans under
Obamacare" National Review"Businesses claim Obamacare has
forced them to cut employee hours" - CNBC"How Many
Businesses Are Exempt? The Final Number of ‘Obamacare’ Waivers Is
In…" the Blaze"Walmart Bails On Obamacare-Sticks
Taxpayers With Employee Healthcare Costs" Forbes"UPS cuts
health coverage for spouses with other insurance option" Reuters"Obama's health care law to raise claims cost 32 percent" DNSo, lets see, thanks to Obamacare we have more uninsured people, more
expensive insurance, and companies doing everything to get out from under
Obamacare. I don't think any of those were the goals of the ACA. The only
area that the ACA is successful in is pushing the US towards a single payer
"When the Medicare drug plan passed Congress in 2003, Democrats had many
reasons to be furious. The initial partnership between President Bush and
Senator Edward Kennedy had resulted in an admirably bipartisan bill -- it passed
the Senate with 74 votes. Republicans then pulled a bait and switch, taking out
all of the provisions that Kennedy had put in to bring along Senate Democrats,
jamming the resulting bill through the House in a three-hour late-night vote
marathon that blatantly violated House rules and included something close to
outright bribery on the House floor, and then passing the bill through the
Senate with just 54 votes -- while along the way excluding the duly elected
conferees, Tom Daschle (the Democratic leader!) and Jay Rockefeller, from the
conference-committee deliberations.The implementation of that bill
was a huge challenge, and had many rocky moments. Imagine if Democrats had gone
all out to block or disrupt the implementation -- using filibusters to deny
funding, sending threatening letters to companies or outside interests who
mobilized to educate Medicare recipients, putting on major campaigns to convince
seniors that this was a plot to deny them Medicare, etc"("The
Unprecedented, Contemptible GOP Quest to Sabotage Obamacare")
Obamacare is wildly unpopular and shouldn't be implemented. This 15,000
page fiasco puts the IRS in charge of it's enforcement policies and will
create more red tape, death panels, and raise claim costs. Why do some people
continue to think this is a good idea? I commend Sen. Mike Lee and others in
Congress who continue to oppose this terrible bureaucracy. It will not help
American families like they promised, it will only hurt them.
First "you have to pass it to find out what's in it"... (now
that's a bad sign if I've ever seen one).Then "after
passing it, you have to wait until after the next election to start implementing
it"... Another bad sign.Then after passing it without reading
it... waiting 4 years... and THEN the President tells you it would be a train
wreck to implement it now, you gotta wait another year (or another election)...
IF this were such good legislation... Wouldn't you make it law as soon as
you signed it into law? Not 4 year later, after the election is over!How would anybody expect this to be super-good legislation with all these
intentionally blind-eye moves required, and intentional delays built in to
avoiding election years engineered into it's implementation?If
it was so great... why didn't we need it the minute it was signed?Why must we wait till after the election? And then even more delays of this
super-good system even after that?The reason is... it's NOT
good. Democrats know that, so it has to happen AFTER an election
Anyone who still thinks that it is a good idea to let the US Gov't take
care of you should visit their nearest Reservation and ask the "Native
Americans" (aka American Indians) how well that is working out for them.
Let it fly off the rails. Better to see a train wreck than desolation across a
@procuradorfiscal – “Obamacare WILL fail… Obamacare's
collapse WILL hurt people.”@Nate – “Obamacare is
too flawed to fix. We need to use every means at our disposal to turn it back at
the outset.”If so, then why fight it? Clearly
blame for its failure would fall on its namesake. From a political standpoint,
this might ensure the Republicans congressional majorities and the presidency
for a generation, in which case your guys would have every opportunity to bring
about the utopia of Any Rand’s vision.Unless of course you
think it won’t fail… @2 bits – “It was
intended to destroy private insurance and get the public so upset with our
system that they will BEG for the Government to take over.”So
let me get this straight – the biggest government, communist program in
history (I heard it from Glenn) is going to fail and then the people are going
to say, “yeah, give me more of that?”
Saying that Obamacare is not perfect but a step in the right direction is like
putting lipstick on a pig. Bad legislation is still bad legislation no matter
how you try to spin it. From my limited understanding of this law, its success
relies on young healthy people buying insurance to help subsidize the rest. I
have a hard time believing that a healthy 27yr old will pay $3k/yr for insurance
that they don't think they need, rather than just pay a $900 tax penalty.
We are being ripped off with health care. We pay $9500/person/yr in
this country, compare that to $5100 in Canada and $3800 in Japan. Is our health
care 3x as good as Japans? No. We just pay that much for it. I have
no confidence that this legislation will reduce health care costs. My health
insurance premiums were $550/month in 2009, they are $930/month now. Same high
deductible plan.(that's $5k/yr people) I don't know what they will be
in 2014, but shudder to think that there is a chance they could be higher.
You can't make a pig fly. You can't make Keynesian economics
"work" That's why you have government programs, in a futile
effort to make Keynes fallacies actually work in the real world.Hasn't happened yet, and never will.
Wake up America!ObamaCare - He who has the gold makes the rules.Obama is not on ObamaCare.Obama is not covered by ObamaCareObama's friends get exemptions from ObamaCare.Give me
Liberty, not ObamaCare death panels!
"For three years, Senate Republicans refused to confirm anybody to head the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, in order to damage the possibility
of a smooth rollout of the health reform plan. Guerrilla efforts to cut off
funding, dozens of votes to repeal, attempts to discourage states from
participating in Medicaid expansion or crafting exchanges, threatening letters
to associations that might publicize the availability of insurance on exchanges,
and threats to have a government shutdown, or to refuse to raise the debt
ceiling, unless the president agrees to stop all funding for implementation of
the plan.When a law is enacted, representatives who opposed it have
some choices. They can try to repeal it, they can try to amend it to make it
work better --if the goal is to improve a cumbersome law to work better for the
betterment of the society and its people, they can strive to make sure that the
law does the most for Americans it is intended to serve, while doing the least
damage to the society and the economy or they can step aside and leave the
burden of implementation to those who supported and enacted the law.
Obamacare is a nightmare. Yes, it may help a few people, but it hurts more then
it helps. It hurts the middle class who are married. Affordable care is great,
we just shouldn't be REQUIRED to have it.
To all those saying that costs will go up, don't read this next part.Under the ACA, insurance rates for those in Utah will be 36% cheaper
than the current Avenue H exchange for individuals and small businesses. This
is before taking into account any subsidies for income levels.Utah
is also getting 99 different plans. This provides more options and can lower
your insurance rates even lower than the 36% discount.Can you
imagine the uproar that this must have caused those thinking that rates will be
high until healthy young people opt in? Just imagine rates if that were to
happen, they would drop another 40 to 50 percent.Let's drop the
rhetoric and see what will happen, fears on both sides have yet to actually
happen. Layoffs aren't as big as expected, rates are lower than expected
and the economy is still growing. Maybe this isn't the end of the world as
some on the Right have forecast and maybe it isn't the "End all be
all" that some on the Left forecast.This will end up in the
middle which sadly is still to much to the Left for some but it is still
It's not very fun to watch an entire nation, foolishly following Keynesian
economic fallacies, striving futilely to free themselves from the grip of bad
policy, and digging themselves in deeper. When you add to that the insult of a
newspaper article perpetuating the myths and the fantasies, it's downright
disheartening. It's like watching a group of Keystone cops arrive at the
scene of a bank robbery and instead of catching the criminals they aid in their
making Obamacare work huh? My wife and I used to have a 1972 Impala that we
inherited from her mother. This pig had everything broken that could be broken -
nothing really worked right and on top of it all it got about 8 mi per gallon.
We went through the long list of fix ups that were needed with the mechanic and
quickly came to the conclusion that it was not worth making it work. Best thing
to do is just take it to the dump...which we did. Over 2000 pages of
regulations in Obamacare, insane mandates and restrictions, impractical policies
and the list goes on... On top of it all the cost of personal health care rises
dramatically and the cost to the nation tops out at over 2 trillion (originally
projected at 800 billion). Employers are forced to cut their work force and
employees are forced into working two jobs instead of one full time job. The
state health exchanges are a mess and we haven't even thrown the switch yet
on this train wreck (train wreck is how the democrats in congress describe it).
Obamacare is the result of liberal policy planning.
@Tyler D "If so, then why fight it?"Because if we just let
it run its course, it's going to hurt a lot of people.
To "Makid" did you even read what you just posted.We are
adding more sick people to the insurance pools. That in itself will make costs
go up.As you pointed out the price for the insurance may go down,
but the cost to cover each individual person will go up.The CBO
pointed out recently that the ACA will raise the cost of insurance over 20% for
people buying on the open market. If I am paying less for that insurance, where
does the money come from? Who is paying for the subsidies?This is
like wind turbines. Yes I can buy one and install it using subsidies to get
power nearly as cheap as coal or gas, but who is paying the subsidies? The cost
remains the same, while the price to the consumer can be artifically made low
through subisidies that can dry up at any moment.
The Affordable Care Act is the law as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. Once is
is implemented and the tea party fades away, the insurance companies will work
to improve it. The minority that dogmatically oppose it are the same people that
thought the unfunded Iraq war was a good idea and would catch Bin Laden. The
President is effective on both counts.
Here's the truly ironic part of all of this: ACA, like
RomneyCare, represents the best *conservative* ideas on healthcare reform
forwarded by the *conservative* thinktank the Heritage Foundation as a response
to HillaryCare, which was of course, anethema to conservatives during
Clinton's first term.Those advocating the repeal of Obamacare
offer no substantive replacement.If there was honesty among the
Republicans pushing to repeal Obamacare, they would announce they have no ideas
on healthhcare reform and essentially "You're all on your own. Good
@Mike Richards:"When this Nation was founded the people limited the
power of the Federal Government. The People limited the power of the Executive
Branch."Actually, Mike, the Constitution you love to narrowly
interpret greatly expanded the power of the federal government. This was
necessary because the Articles of Confederation had created a weak federal
government that put our nation in danger of quick extinction. In other words,
when the nation was founded, as you point out, the federal government was indeed
very limited, and the People corrected that with the Constitutional Convention.
Are you suggesting we go back to the Articles of Confederation?
Thanks, 10CC. You said it perfectly.
@hoggitybooYour comment is actually somewhat off-topic, but
I'll bite . . .The notion that Keynesian economics is flawed is
a subjective statement and a matter of opinion, which you are absolutely
entitled to express in an opinion forum such as this; but it is no more valid
than my opinion that the Austrian School laissez faire capitalist dogma preached
by the likes of Hayek, Hazlitt, von Mises, and Rothbard is deeply flawed and
often leads to some pretty undesirable outcomes. I'm sure that you could
produce evidence supporting your viewpoint that you would consider
incontrovertible and I would consider spurious, at best; and I could do
likewise.Given this, it is probably best to leave the purist
economic ideology on the shelf (where it belongs) when discussing the relative
merits (or lack thereof) of the ACA, and to stick, as much as possible, to the
possible healthcare outcomes.Just my $0.02 (which I earned in the
public sector) . . .
Let's go through a few of the arguments presents by those who are more
"liberal". One lady told us that "foregoing powers" extends
beyound the sentence in which that dependant clause was written. I wonder what
her 7th grade English teacher would think. I know that in my 7th grade English
class that my teacher would have failed me if I tried to take a dependant clause
out of context and apply it to something outside of its sentence. I would also
offer to buy that lady a dictionary so that she could read for herself the
difference between "general" and "personal", but she's told
us how successful her husband is in payng offshore workers $0.18 per hour
instead of paying workers in the United States at least the minimum wage to know
that she can easily afford to buy her own dictionary.Another poster
pretended that if we accept the Constitution that we are really rejecting the
Constitution and accepting the "Articles of Confederation". I wonder if
he also went to that school in California where fact and fiction are
intermixed.Obama counts on our ignorance to enable his arrogance.
Apparently, he is not alone.
The train has already wrecked. My employer never could and still can't
afford to offer health benefits to part-time workers, so the hours of those
workers has been cut to less than 28 hours. They cry, "I don't need
the health insurance. I need the hours. Can't I opt out?" ACA says,
"No, you can't opt out and by the way if you don't have health
insurance I am going to tax you until you buy it. Problem solved."Is this all the best minds in Washington can come up with? They solved the
problem of uninsured citizens by taxing them until they buy insurance. We can
do better. Much better!
10CC and Kent C. DeForrestEven Newt Gingrich recognizes this. He
recently said "I will bet you, for most of you, you go home in the next two
weeks when your members of Congress are home, and you look them in the eye and
you say, 'What is your positive replacement for Obamacare?' They will
have zero answer,"If that is what Newt thinks, then the reality
is likely worse.
@10CCThe beauty of ideas is that you can try them out. When
Romneycare was tried in the laboratory of Massachusetts, costs went up and
satisfaction went down. Conservatives have learned from the experience, and do
not want to replay the same disaster on a wider scale.
Makid,Nice bit of fiction you posted about costs going down. I see you
cited no sources; tell me, did you always score well in your creative writing
courses?10CC,Better to have no plan than a plan that causes
damage. But alternatives WERE offered. Obviously you have been watching too
much MSNBC to say there were no alternatives offered.Twin lights,No plan is better than a plan that causes damage, regardless of what newt
says.Nate,Conservatives learn from mistakes, liberals
propagate them to try and hide the fact that the emporer has no clothes.
"Obama is not on ObamaCare.Obama is not covered by ObamaCareObama's friends get exemptions from ObamaCare."Neither am
I.... so what is the point. In fact, everyone covered by their employer -
private or public sector - will not be on Obamacare. What in the heck point is
this all supposed to mean.Give me Liberty, not ObamaCare death
panels!Death Panels.... now I haven't heard that one in a long
time. Yes... lets have United Care Death Panels... or Intermountain Health
Death Panels, or BlueCross/BlueShield death panels...... who in the heck do
you think the doctors are talking to now when they need to get authorization for
a procedure or medication? Do you actually think a bunch of wall street
investor bankers have your interest better at heart than the government
would?I really wish this non-sense would end and we could move on to
more productive topics..... death panels..... yes.... and they will be
wearing storm trooper boots and uniforms too....
re:UtahBlueDevilSounds like your just fine with the army of IRS
agents determining whether you get that heart value replacement. Huh? Yes this
is the same bunch that targeted and intimidated Tea Party and other conservative
groups prior to the 2012 election. You said " Do you actually think a bunch
of wall street investor bankers have your interest better at heart than the
government would?" Perhaps a better question for you BlueDevil is how much
do trust the IRS? Now you get to deal with the IRS in an attempt to justify the
prolonging of your father or mother or disabled child's life. Good luck!
Obamacare was NEVER meant to solve healthcare in the first place. This ugly pig
was introduced for ONE purpose and that is to chain the nation to socialism.
Ronald Reagan predicted that in the 1960's. When you have members of
congress of the presidents own party calling the implementation of this a
"train wreck" you ought to get the idea there is a problem...ya think???
Slippery Slope...If republicans are successful in repealing the
ACA...Good-bye Social Security and Medicare!
I've been covered by private, federal, and no insurance, and I can tell you
the worst year of my life was the year I spent on SSI Disability due to a
chronic disease. You proponents of Obamacare have no idea how bad it's
going to get. There is nothing more excruciatingly and grindingly slow and
nonresponsive than the federal government. I would rather see insurance
abolished before I'd see the federal gov't wrest control of
healthcare; at least that way the market would drive prices back to a more
realistic level. Stop thinking of just yourselves, and try to grasp what
this abomination will do to everyone, once all healthcare is run by a relative
few bureaucrats in Washington. Wake up, or you'll get exactly what you
@Nate – “Because if we just let it run its course, it's going
to hurt a lot of people.”Perhaps Nate, but I don’t buy
it for a couple reasons.Call me cynical, but in my experience there
are very few (if any) politicians that care more about helping people (all
people, and not just the ones they are in the pocket of) than getting
re-elected.And 2nd, even by your utilitarian calculation my original
point still holds. The Republicans could do far more “good” by
letting this thing fail and then gaining power for the next generation.Sorry, but I think the opposition is motivated by other factors.
The tea party will never get the need for affordable health care for all. There
are some that go crazy over Social Security.
@Tyler D "Call me cynical..."I don't think you're
cynical, but frankly, I don't understand why you worry so much about which
party is helped or hurt. Why not just consider the merits of the law itself?
Either it's good for America as a whole, or it's not. Forget about
party. I don't give a crud about party.The fact is, Obamacare
is unworkable. The administration has tacitly admitted this by disregarding the
implementation schedule prescribed by the law itself, and by granting waivers to
so many friends of Obama.If it's bad for friends of Obama,
it's also bad for us. But the administration is being arbitrary about who
gets a waiver. This is not rule of law, it's rule by whim -- the very
essence of tyranny.
I disagree with the comment suggesting that doctors would oppose this government
program. There are many who support mandatory health insurance.By
making everybody have health insurance it ensures that the medical profession
will have a ton of business, even more than they already have. More to the
point their increased business will be funded by the taxpayer. No need for
doctors to worry about those too poor to pay or who won't pay for any
reason; we will HAVE to pay, HAVE to be insured, and unwilling clients will come
in at least two flavors:1. Those who pay angrily contributing to
the system because they have to but, true to their principles, refusing to use
the service, a gift to the medical profession without their having to do
anything for it.2. Unwilling subscribers who decide they may as well
use the "services" because they are paying for them, causing them to
become dependent on health care rather than provident living to safeguard their
health. The system will, of course, under pressure, and people will
get restricted services. All of this will often be bad for health and very bad
Here is my "thoughtful comment". Hopefully this time it can pass the
censor as part of a 'civil dialogue".DN wants us to lend
our support to the smooth implementation of ACA because it's the law of the
land. That's the main contention of the editorial.I am here to
call the DN out on their selective support for laws of the land, and the
inconsistency of their editorial positions.Anyone who reads the DN
with any regularity will know that the DN does not ask us to lend our support to
the smooth implementation of efforts to deport illegal immigrants.But this is also the law of the land.So what's the deal DN?
Support the laws you like and diss the ones you don't like?
The single most effective way to improve Obama care would be to put Congress
under Obama care. Then there would be sincere efforts on both sides of the isle
to make sure they get it right.
I hear this editorial making the usual talking points about how flawed the ACA
is, but I did not notice them identifying just what are these "flaws".
The first "flaw" I see is that employers can essentially opt out by
reducing employee work hours to below the minimum required before employer paid
health insurance is required. Deseret Industries is reportedly taking advantage
of that loophole, as are other companies that have not in the past provided for
employee health insurance and don't want pay any health insurance under the
ACA. But the biggest "flaw" is that it does not really provide for
universal coverage and it keeps the health care insurance industry making big
profits that just unnecessarily add to the cost of healthcare.It is,
and always was, a give away to the health insurance industry, and it remains as
always a unequal burden on employers.
Re Redshirt MITHad Republicans cooperated we could have had a better
Obama care, with their cooperation we still can.
@Nate – “I don't understand why you worry so much about which
party is helped or hurt.”I’m with you… I could
care less about party. Unfortunately my perception today is that many many
people care only about the party-line, as evidenced by the vitriol towards
anything Obama is for… and some of his proposals and policies have been
center-right.And as a point of confession, Obamacare was not my
first choice for how to reform the healthcare system (which certainly needed
reforming) - the Wyden-Bennett bill was far superior IMO. That said, it does not
follow (logically) that trying to make the implementation as smooth as possible
(through waivers or delays) is prima facie evidence that the law is unworkable
and doomed to fail. Since the law was passed by Congress and upheld
by the SC and its namesake was re-elected by a majority of the country, in my
view it should be given every chance to work. Wouldn’t you want the same
for any law which had gone through the same process, or do you believe only laws
that have some super-majority are worthy of implementation?