Yes it would have just been more efficient and less costly to simply pay the
health insurance premiums. it still would be simpler and less costly to extend a
single-payer program to all, and cut the insurance agents out of the loop
completely. Instead, we have spent billions extra to educate the public about
this overly complicated system designed to protect the private insurance
industry. I personally don't care for all the score keeping.
All I know is two people I love now have what private insurers would not
previously provide - a way to get potentially life-saving services for a
pre-existing condition without going bankrupt.
Good point. I wondered why they just would build a government hospital for the
The best way to fight this socialistic law is for no one to sign up and not pay
the tax. The Not Affordable at All Care Act will die with a whimper.
David..... the problem is your entire proposition is based off of numbers you
aren't sure are accurate, and second that there was an alternative option
which didn't exist. I don't disagree that every fact and figure
needs to be watched, measured and decomposed. Any pursuit that
genuinely tries to improve patient outcomes, while reducing cost is a worthy
quest. But to make such charges while having no real data yourself.... this
tends to look like more grandstanding and playing to the base than any real
attempt to improve or correct bad policy.The DN is partially to
blame for this confusion - in their April 8th reporting, DN quotes AP "The
AP said that 7.1 million people created an application.", then later says
" If you just created an account, you simply started the enrollment process
by selecting a user name and password. " It was a nice slight of hand, but
the real delta was people who had applied and were in the system versus people
who had been accepted by insurers and been billed.If the DN wants to
foster an honest debate about ACA, they may want to try a bit more integrity in
The ACA was never about insuring the uninsured but rather a means of control and
enslavement of the masses. It is diabolical at its root.
As I recall the Administration said that the 14 million individual policies that
might be cancelled due to not meeting the requirements of the PPACA was only a
small amount in relation to the full picture. However, the possible 7.1 million
signups is a major accomplishment. So no, they don't see it as being
as simple as what they should have done. They couldn't take control of
people had they done it the way you suggested.
"...I couldn't help wonder if there was truth to his claim."Look at Obama's track record of dishonesty about Obamacare, and it
will tell you all you need to know.He said the cost of insurance
would go down by $2500 per family per year. He said Obamacare would not increase
the deficit. He said if we liked our doctor, we could keep our doctor, period.
He said Obamacare would create jobs. He said if we liked our health care plan,
we could keep our health care plan, period.Caught in his lies, he
keeps on lying. But who does he think he's fooling?
A Utah state delegate? To what? This is a partisan rant trying to further
undercut the law of the land. Just be a Republican. More people have health
insurance, whihc is the objective of the ACA. Could we please stop? Let's
have people be more personally responsible which is a key objective of the ACA.
If you want to propose better ways to actually get it done, put the specific
proposals on the table. To daye, we have only seen vague, talking point
concepts that, when you get into them, do nothing whatsoever to resolve the
critical issue of health care and insurnace in this country. I am really tired
of partisan pot shots that accomplish nothing and only seek to undermine the law
of the land.
"The best way to fight this socialistic law is for no one to sign up and not
pay the tax. The Not Affordable at All Care Act will die with a whimper."Yes, and millions go without insurance resulting in bankruptcies and
higher premiums for the rest of us.Genius. Talk about cutting off
your nose to spite your face!It's pretty clear if you want to
become informed, socialized medicine is the best form of health care there is.
The free market is great at selling luxuries (TVs, cars, gum, etc). It's
Horrible at serving necessities (education, police, fire department, health
I would wager that the author of this article didn't believe that Obama was
born in this country either. Sometimes people are just wrong about things and
they don't want to believe the facts because they are inconvenient for
David Allen Jensen is a licensed heath insurance agent and a current Utah state
delegate.======= Gee, no political axe to grind,no
partisan bias, No Chip on a choulder....Just cow-towing the
Party line."I hope he FAILS!, There! I said it!" ~ Rush
Limbaugh"The single most important thing we want to achieve is
for President Obama to be a one-term president." ~ Mitch McConnell
If there's an angle to be found to slam the ACA, a DN writer will find it.
I have little trust in what I see and read that comes from politicians and
BUSINESSMEN.Businessmen seem to have had an education in how to lie
and not get caught lying. The best example of this is in the advertising of
products with the word "free". Nothing is free if you have to buy
something to get it. Sex is probably next for selling every thing under the
sun. Regulations are hated and constantly touted and unnecessary. Yet a
businessman will seldom if ever go beyond the force of compliance of safety and
usability of a product. Every thing coming from a politician or
businessman is tainted by the desire for profit, which is natural and not to be
evil or bad necessarily. But it clouds the issue of very important things in
our lives. I think the war about Global Warming is important but am distrustful
of what I hear. I think health care should not be a for profit
Why would Obama lie about the number of people who have signed up? Is it
because "success" is more important than integrity or is it simply
politics? If he can make up numbers and then get the media to report his faked
numbers, he can claim that shutting down ObamaCare would hurt millions of
Americans. Where has he listed the number of people who have paid
the premiums? When I was an insurance agent, a policy was not issued until
payment had been received by the insurance company. "Applications"
without payment meant nothing. Secondly, why is Obama so fixated on
ObamaCare? Is it because he is concerned about our access to healthcare or is
it because he is more concerned about his access to 18% of the money in the
private sector? Follow the money. Always follow the money. ObamaCare has little to do with healthcare, but it will funnel money from the
private sector into the government. If you think that the stock market crash of
2008 was bad, just watch what will happen as more and more money is
"transferred" from the stock market to the government.
Oh I see. In other words Mr David Jensen doesn't know what he’s
talking about.Yes, Obama said that people can keep their health
care plans if they liked them, but the unspoken and clearly implicit
stipulation was "if it those plans meet minimum standards."No reasonable person would assume that people could keep their health care
plans completely unchanged if they didn’t meet specifications. Only
Republicans are capable of assuming a plan that didn’t meet minimum specs
would be acceptable. And the vast majority of those people who couldn’t
keep their plans unchanged never lost their health care even for a
millisecond.The providers automatically adjusted those plans to
meet new specs. This “issue” is just another big bunch of NOTHING
that Republicans feel compelled to complain about, since they have a hard time
coming up with LEGITIMATE complaints.The rest of Mr Jensen’s
"observations," are PURELY conjecture . . . Supported only by anecdotes
and references to Mr Jensen’s professed expertise as "a licensed
health insurance agent."Why even waste time with such imagined
problems? No Mr Jensen, the sky has not fallen.
"unspoken and clearly implicit stipulation" I take exception to that
statement, as only half of it is valid. There was never any implied
stipulation, but it was certainly unspoken. Reasonable people would interpret
such to mean their existing policy, regardless of compliance to a new law, would
be grandfathered. A reasonable person would not assume Pres. Obama's
statement contained an unspoken qualifier, especially since his assertions of
such began prior to the Law being written. How could anyone comprehend such,
when small details had yet to be codified? The fact of the matter is that the
President of the United States, a man who should be of unquestionable integrity,
lied to the American people, to get them to buy into a flawed concept. I suspect
the ACA is simply a means to an end, a single payer system, which was untenable
early on. With the exception of abject stupidity, I see no other explanation as
to why a program so defective would continued to be fervently pushed, save it
being part of a larger strategy. Within a couple of years, the rhetoric will
change from "We did it" to "It didn't work, we need to take
I didn't sign up because there is no real deadline and there are no
exclusions for pre-existing conditions so I will wait until I get sick or need a
doctor THEN I will sign up. That way I can force my neighbors to pay for my
Mike Richards.... if you follow the money, it leads right to the same place it
lead before ACA - United Health Care, Intermountain Healthcare,
BlueCross\BlueShield, Kaiser.... you know the list. So while I get your
disdain for both Obama and the ACA, the money isn't leading to where you
think it is... any more than auto insurance benefits Obama.That
said, we had some doctor friends of our over for dinner on Sunday, and they have
seen an increase in documentation required before procedures will be reimbursed,
which adds to the work load. Issue like that need to be resolved, as we need
our medical staffs spending more time seeing people, and less time in front of
computer screens. Getting rid of needless procedures is good.... but the
paperwork side needs to go away too.
Ultra Bob,Just a funny little anecdote to second your motion. As an
MBA student at BYU, I was in a class where the topic of the day caused a student
to exclaim in confusion, "So, does that mean lying is okay?" Without
missing a beat, the professor answered, "No, but sometimes strategic
misrepresentation is appropriate." Well, in the many years since that little
exchange, I've seen enough strategic misrepresentation to fill a football
stadium. Politicians and businessmen indeed.
There's nothing wrong with a healthy skepticism as long as it's fairly
applied to both sides. Did David, for instance, ever question the prewar hype
talk that came from the Bush administration 11 years ago? If he didn't,
then you must wonder why he's a doubter NOW. Could it be for partisan
Mr. Jensen should be glad he still has a job under ACA. If I had my way, the
entire health insurance business would disappear. Health insurance companies add
no value. All they do is subtract value. They are happy to take our premiums
year after year but do everything they possibly can to deny us benefits. As for
me, I won't be satisfied until we have a civilized single payer system and
do away with the parasitical health insurance industry once and for all.
I know the nay sayers want to pile on and look for anything negative, but the
important thing about the law is it gives everyone the opportunity to buy health
insurance, not that everyone signed up now. There is a lot of ignorance out
there and anyone would awknowledge technical difficulties with the rollout, but
with time both of those problems will be no longer. Getting rid of pre existing
conditions had to be done. It wqsn't right that you could do everything
right and be denied the opportunity to PAY for insurance previously. Also now
the poor and the nearly poor get some help (someone making 7.50 hr didn't
have the means realistically to buy insurance). Its not perfect but its pretty
Rand Study says the actual number is 3.9 million. I'd give you a reference
but DesNews won't let me.Can't read the letters, I know what
they will all say.
I googled your... actual number... 3.9.3 reports, I read, each
citing the Rand Study gave the number as 9.3.
If Obamacare was successfully reaching the numbers, wouldn't the white
house be reporting more specifics? The White House refuses, and
claims they don't have access to, the number of people signed up for
Obamacare that simply changed their plans. They also state that they cannot
report on those that have actually paid, or those that…fill in the blank.
The White House cannot provide much of anything that allows a study of the ACA.
Instead, we are required to rely only upon the numbers that Obama provides. Right. Who really believes what Obama says anymore?If it is
true that the government cannot provide specific numbers, then we bought an
awful program. Who or what would actually set up a system that cannot be
carefully tracked?Maybe a community organizer?
Yep..... the above mentioned Rand Study released Tuesday says."...study of Obamacare's effect on health insurance coverage was
released Tuesday and confirmed the numbers that had been telegraphed for more
than a week: At least 9.3 million more Americans have health insurance now than
in September 2013, virtually all of them as a result of the law."Also in the report - "--The number of people getting insurance through
their employers increased by 8.2 million. " They attributed most f that
number to new hires at companies already offering benefits.The 3.9
million number refers to "people counted by Rand as obtaining insurance on
the individual exchange market, 36% were previously uninsured."
I can't wait for the day when a Republican President comes on board to fix
the Obamacare mess by saying "If you like your Obamacare, you can keep
People will have free healthcare: LieIf you like your current plan, you
can keep it: LieThere will be no penalty for not signing up: Lie
These number are inflated I bet. The only people this law may benefit are those
people who are self employed. Only 14% of the poor are even signed up for this
thing. The unemployment numbers are deflated so it would make sense that they
would inflate these numbers. They are going to keep on extending this.
Anti-dude.... the numbers for unemployment has been calculated the same way
for a long long time. You insinuation that somehow has changed in the last 6
years is based on radio talk show spin artist - not anyone who follows the math.
Do you really think the state of Utah is spinning numbers for the Obama
administration.This attempt by some to inject spurious baseless and
factless conspiracy theories... just to justify ones on bent or political
narrative they are trying to sell does no one any good. The attempt to take one
measure, then change to another measure to try to prove that the first measure
is no long valid is a twisting of facts that is a disservice to any reasonably
minded conversations. None of the numbers - no a single one - is a
100% survey of the public... they are samplings. Always have been, and always
will be. We are not going to survey 300 million people every month.