Up to 300,000 Utahns qualify for tax subsidies for health insurance premiums


Return To Article
  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 7:46 a.m.

    To "pragmatistferlife" no, it has everything to do with the ACA. As my company was cutting back on medical benefits they clearly stated that they were doing so to gain compliance with the ACA.

    You say that "17% of GDP, 40 million sucking off of the others" is bad, but what has changed? With the ACA we now pay twice for those people when they get sick. First we pay for their insurance, then we have to pay their deductables because they couldn't afford to pay anything in the first place.

    As for the "millions losing coverage once they get sick, and sub standard results is not acceptable" we now have millions losing coverage because of a law. Plus, that is a myth perpetuated by liberals. The fact is that most companies have provisions to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Many have a waiting period before they cover those conditions, but you could get insurance. For those that were deemed uninsurable there was a law made in 1996 that required states to establish a high risk pool.

    The ACA did nothing, except increase dependance on government and make insurance cover less while costing more.

    Nov. 7, 2013 11:06 p.m.

    This article uses tax credit and subsidy interchangeably. They are two very different things, a subsidy is a direct payment, a tax credit is a reduction in taxes payable. For those who pay no taxes due to a lack of income, a tax credit is worthless. I suspect that the use of tax credit is erroneous, and that subsidy is the correct word in this context. Will the author please explain what he meant when using the term tax credit? Please?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 7, 2013 6:22 p.m.

    RedShirt..your situation has nothing to do with the ACA. Major corps, and small companies have been doing this for decades. My wife's employer did this 5 years ago and they employee 270,000 people.

    This has happened, it's going to go forward it's the law and all the whining in the world is not going to change that. What we had before was abominable, immoral, and bankrupting the country. Get into life and drop the fantasies and help make this work for everyone. I could give you half a dozen things right now to change, but the direction is correct.

    17% of GDP, 40 million sucking off of the others, millions losing coverage once they get sick, and sub standard results is not acceptable. Be a conservative, suggest real conservative solutions, but status quo, and staus quo with tax deductions is ridiculous and no one is going to buy it.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Nov. 7, 2013 5:01 p.m.


    How much of Peters money actually filters to Paul?

    There's some greed and embezzlement in all this.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    To "pragmatistferlife" You are wrong.

    Before the ACA my insurance covered all office visits with a $25 co-pay. Now, for the same money they cover nothing until I have paid $1000 out of pocket. That is unless I wanted to pay about 70% more so that they would include a HSA to cover the office visits.

    What insurance will pay for is less now, thanks to the ACA.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 7, 2013 2:12 p.m.

    The real falsehood here is the claim that everyone's premiums are going to go up substantially. 80% of people get their insurance through their employer and we all ready know.....yes know the rate of increase on these policies has primarily gone down. A few exceptions not many.

    Expanding the few to mean the many is a favorite Republican trick. But, but I know somebody..

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 7, 2013 1:46 p.m.

    You know this whole discussion cracks me up. So many good republicans are cracking on Obamacare because this is socialist or we are taking from the rich to give to the poor, or we are creating a dependent society, or we need people to be responsible.

    These are the same people that are perfectly ok with me paying $3,000 to the state of Utah to educate the children of this state of which I have none in the public education system, while my neighbor who has six children, four currently in the public education system who makes almost exactly the same amount of money as I do pays $125.00.

    Where is the outrage over that? Why is it ok for me to subside my neighbors children's education but it is not ok for my to subsidize somebody's health care? Isn't a free ride a free ride no matter who gets it and what they get it for?

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 1:04 p.m.


    You say..."Obamcare spreads the benefits better than the present setup. It's far from optimal, but people will by and large appreciate it if given time."

    I have no problem helping the needy, spreading whatever I have to help the needy. It is the lazy, unappreciative, expectant, I believe I am entitled, people that I do not want to spread anything too.

    Rather than the government taking, and giving it to these people. How about we tell them, and teach them how to do it for themselves. Oh but wait, we have been. And the refuse to do for themselves. So then I say, good luck to you then. Go work this out on your own.

    As for your comment about what looks like or is socialism. Government backing and government control are two different things. Government forcing law to break down the American is a whole other thing. Heck, we may not be socialist yet, but we are on our way. So is communism next?

  • wazzup Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 12:27 p.m.

    So premiums go up 50-100% and they get a 32% credit. Um.

    Forget all the gyrations the feds use to justify this program, the bottom line is that actual premiums are going up and we'll still have 30+ million without insurance.

    Only in Washington can an actual increase in premiums be considered a reduction. Well we thought they would go up 100%, but they only went up 80%, to the feds this is a reduction in premiums when actually the premiums went up 80%!

    Are Americans really that naïve to buy that nonsense?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:42 a.m.

    Lets look even further into this mess.

    The goal is to make insurance affordable to the poor, so that they don't have to use the emergency room for healthcare needs.

    Now, we subsidize the insurance for the poor so that they, in theory, can afford insurance. If you took somebody that couldn't pay for insurance before the ACA was enacted, and now pay 100% of the cost of their insurance they still cannot pay for healthcare.

    Just look at the plans. Typically you have to pay until you meet the deductible of $1000 or more before the insurance begins to pay anything.

    Now, we are spending $1000/month to insure a family, that can't afford to pay the doctor when they get sick. So, they use the ER, and tax payers are stuck with the bill.

    That means that rather than paying once for the poor to get care, we get to pay twice.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:15 a.m.

    Uwishtoo in Arizona wears his subsidy like a badge of courage......it takes no courage to accept welfare! Don't claim independence all the while claiming welfare benefits.....that is akin to lying like Obama especially to yourself!

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    I get sick and tired of hearing how Obamacare means the beginning of socialism. The plain fact is, we already have a centrally planned economy. The federal government controls the money supply. The private sector depends on government contracts. Commercial banks are rescued by the Department of the Treasury. Corporations control the demand for their output through advertising. The question is not should we have socialism - we already have it. The question centers on who benefits. Obamcare spreads the benefits better than the present setup. It's far from optimal, but people will by and large appreciate it if given time.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    "Subsidy" is Obaman's Orwellilan code for Marxist wealth redistribution.

    "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" certainly describes the Obamacare extortion racket.

    If you earn your money, you can keep it. Well, as long as you let the government take as much as they want so they can make you poor too, and join the rest of the people dependent on government handouts... and become a reliable Democrat voters.

    As Prime Minister Thatcher astutely pointed out "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend."

  • LifeLongLearner Orem, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    I entered my info at the link provided to calculate the cost for my wife, myself, and my 3 kids to get Obamacare insurance. EVEN WITH THE STUPID SUBSIDY MY MONTHLY RATE WOULD BE 5 TIMES WHAT I AM CURRENTLY PAYING!!!! It sounds great to get a subsidy, but the reality is that things will still get worse for the middle aged and middle class. If the government was really interested in health, it would have gotten rid of barriers to competition, passed tort-reform, and offered tax breaks for medical costs. If they really wanted the poor covered, they would have just expanded medicare. This government takeover is just a power grab--not a help--and this article is misleading at best.

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:46 a.m.

    I'm afraid the young woman who's picture used to grace the Obamacare website found out how much she would be paying - and decided even she wouldn't have anything to do with Obamacare!

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    @one old man--you make some sense:

    * This government was not created to steal from its citizens, and handout subsidies.
    * Much of the huge corporations (except GE), are subsidized from the huge amount of money taken from them in the form of taxes. The feds receive a lot from oil revenue.

    Someone else, beside the receiver of subsidies, are profiting big time.

    Let's face it--Democrats, Republicans, large corporation, etc,--have a common denominator. Greed! This is why, politics should not be a career, but a two year service. IMO

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    What about the rest of us that don't get any tax help?? What about the rest of us that will see our premiums go up - WAY UP MOST LIKELY- especially after the employer mandates kick in after a year? I guess we don't matter or least it wasn't worth mentioning in this article.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:33 a.m.

    Here's the problem with this...

    800000 Utahan's DON'T qualify for ANY tax help. The majority of people in Utah who are middle income and have tight budgets are going to see their premiums go up 2-3 times which makes life REALLY hard. Whether it happens now or in a year when the business mandate kicks in the majority of people of Utah are going to see a premium HIKE. This article is MISLEADING.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    dba57, we'll see if that really happens. Lots of that same kind of chatter the past three years and very little actually happened. However, that being said there is no accounting for greed. These are the same companies that have had free reign except for safety regulations for decades now. It's so bad that it's actually against the law for one doctor to tell another doctor what they paid for a medical device, just so the company can squeeze what ever they can out of each situation. It's one of the primary reasons a hip replacement costs 100k in America and 18K in Europe.

    Johnson and Johnson made about 1.2 billion in operating profits in I think it was 2012. They spent around 300+ in new research and it was estimated they would pay around 30+ million in the medical device tax.

    Of course these numbers are larger for larger corporations but the relationships hold for pretty much all of the industry.

    Like I say there's no accounting for greed.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:12 a.m.

    Why are all the people who are complaining about "tax subsidies" for ACA not also complaining about the "tax subsidies" that huge corporations, oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, and the very wealthy of the 1% receiving?

    I'll bet THOSE subsidies total up to a much, much larger number than ACA's subsidies.

  • Moabmom Moab, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:03 a.m.

    "A rose by any other name"??? Subsidies by any other name is wealth redistribution. Government stealing from Peter to pay for Paul. Period.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    From the article: "Tax credits are expected to average $2,700 for individual coverage purchased on the marketplace, and about $5,500 per family, covering about 32 percent of premiums for a so-called "silver," or midlevel plan, according to Kaiser."

    So a $5500 tax credit only covers a third of the premium. That means the family is paying the other $11,000 for a total of $16,500 per year for a "silver" plan. Did I read that right?

    Looks like under Obamacare, the home mortgage will no longer be the biggest expense (other than taxes) that young families have to face. Get ready to move back in with the parents because health insurance will eat up most of your money.

  • I Choose Freedom Atlanta, GA
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    I am reminded of a quote that said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." (Author Unknown)

    Can it be more obvious where we are headed? And so many of you are demanding to be a part of the destruction of this once great republic. So sad.

  • byufootballrocks Herndon, VA
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    "Tax subsidies" is a euphemism for welfare.

    What it means is: you pay, say, $700 for what is really is a $1200 premium, and your fellow taxpayers foot the bill for the other $500 per month. $500 per month in real cash transfers from the US Department of the Treasury to the insurance company providing your policy.

    It's government welfare. It's you receiving something you didn't earn, on the backs of hardworking taxpayers and companies in society that are producers.

    Ms. Leonard, why are you and the Deseret News spreading misinformation?

    These are hardly "tax credits" or "tax subsidies." Why not tell it like it is?

    What if the government started "subsidizing" my car insurance, is that next? So, I pay $50 per month and my fellow taxpayers generously give me $50 per month for the rest of the premium.

    And the Deseret News apparently can't wait to see 300,000 Utahns on the public dole for health insurance, paid for by money borrowed into the US Treasury, with the bill, plus interest, handed to the next generations.

    Deseret News: if you want this kind of society beware you may actually have it.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Nov. 7, 2013 7:45 a.m.

    Is Federal tax subsidies stolen money, and a reason why our country is headed into poverty?

  • dba57 Bluffdale, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 7:45 a.m.


    Just the other evening I was visiting with a fellow who had actually succeeded in getting on to the federal website. He said it took him six days and about 10 hours of effort.

    He also works for a company that makes medical devices. He says that the effect of that tax has been to encourage companies like his to move offshore, and to force them to raise the prices of their devices. So in order to provide these subsidies we kill American jobs and drive the price of health care even higher. Makes a lot of sense to me.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 7, 2013 7:29 a.m.

    Yall surprise me. I guess your hatred for the President and anything he touches blinds you.

    The subsidies are tax dollars and from an accounting perspective they come to a large extent from the medical device tax, the implementation tax (I don't recall it's true name), and to some degree the increase in taxes on those who make over 200K year. Ahhhh taxes, Ahhhh taxes.

    Yall, missed your cue. Although it does make it evident that most have no idea what they're talking about, just complaining.

  • JACC Bluffdale, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 7:15 a.m.

    Have I missed something? Where does all the money for the subsidies come from? We already have mind-boggling deficits in federal spending. Do we expect our grandchildren to pay for this too?

  • MargaretinDC Duck, WV
    Nov. 7, 2013 6:41 a.m.

    Question: If the plan I chose is a bad financial choice for me, why is it a better choice if you, my friends and neighbors are willing to pay for it.
    I have a plan that has a very high deductible (my choice, I have savings to cover years of that deductible) and also a high copay, especially to see specialists. Obama's plan would cost me an additional $3600 to have a lower copay and a visit to a specialist cost only $65.

    Here's the math. In six years I have been to a specialist exactly once. The cost for the visit and tests was $1000 which I paid out of pocket from my savings. Under Obamacare it would have cost me $565 a savings of $435. BUT I would have paid an addditional $3600 for six years ($21,600) to save that $565. I think that's a bad investment. But apparently Obama thinks it's a good investment for you my friends and neighbors to cover since I qualify for subsidies.
    Thanks guys!

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 6:25 a.m.

    Where does all this free money come from?
    Or doesn't it matter?
    The true unfunded liabilities associated with Social Security and Medicare are far more than the $17 trillion we talk about. Once you step out of the fantasy land of government accounting, you will see the truth.
    These subsidies are unfunded; just add it to the debt we now owe.
    But eventually all liabilities come due.
    The ACA does not pay for itself. It is government acting irresponsibly AGAIN.

  • uwishtoo MESA, AZ
    Nov. 7, 2013 5:27 a.m.

    I now run my own business and make good money on my own (no handouts here thank you very much) but no way can I afford over 700 a month for insurance. I paid out of my own pocket last year over 13,000 for medical issues which then again wiped out my savings.

    I don't like Obama but I am thrilled to have insurance again. These are MY tax dollars at work too folks. Like it or not

  • uwishtoo MESA, AZ
    Nov. 7, 2013 5:26 a.m.

    @BYR Have you even bothered to go look at the site? You don't purchase anything before you know what the actual premiums are going to be.

    As for anyone else whining about this being "welfare" you are sooooo wrong. I have worked all of my life and have been without insurance for 7 years. I have 3 college degrees and had a good job, when the recession hit I lost everything, my home, car and every penny I had saved. I sent out 200 - 300 resumes a week most of the time and was lucky to get ONE interview in my field in 6 months and that one ended in less than 5 minutes after they saw I was over the age of 30. I got nothing, no help, no food stamps, no housing credits NOTHING in spite of paying into this great system of ours for 30 years! And yes I applied at McDonalds which is what most of you people will say. I was over qualified or too much experience (translation: I was OLD at 52 years of age)

  • Spoc Ogden, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 4:28 a.m.

    Do you want to see how well Obamacare is going to work?

    Read the report in this paper from 11/6/13 about Venezuela's health care system.

    I count at least a dozen parallels between their system and where our system is headed.

    Soon, it won't matter whether you have insurance or not, whether you are rich or poor. Cancer treatment will be considered too expensive to maintain the equipment and they will simply give you a pill to ease the pain as you die.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 6, 2013 8:11 p.m.

    @ alt. I forgot to mention that a survey by New York State’s Medical Society found that of 409 doctors queried, only 23 percent say they will accept patients who have enrolled in an ObamaCare health exchange. If these doctors really mean it, Obamacare is DOA! Why? Because just like Medicaid, the government decides how much doctors are paid and doctors can't maintain their practices by losing money!

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 6, 2013 8:03 p.m.

    @ alt. If what you say is true, then why are premiums, co-pays and deductibles increasing so dramatically for young, healthy people?

  • jacknba Billings, MT
    Nov. 6, 2013 7:18 p.m.

    Welfare! Welfare! Welfare!

  • BYR West Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 7:00 p.m.

    Up to 300,000 Utahns MAY be eligible to receive an available tax credit ? So, like, after I purchase a plan on the federal market, the gov't will tell me if I qualify or not, after the fact? BRILLIANT! Where do I sign?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 6:45 p.m.

    "Has anyone calculated how much premiums, co-pays and deductibles will have to increase on young and healthy people in order to offset the subsidies? That assuming doctors and hospitals will accept subsidized patients."

    The offset is that they're paid through tax dollars. It doesn't require premiums copays or deductibles to go up. The cost without the subsidies is on the Obamacare site. The subsidies result in many paying a lower amount than that. Doctors and hospitals will absolutely accept subsidized patients anyway since they still get paid whether it's gov't subsidized (Obamacare subisides or Medicare) or employer subsidized (employer paying most of someone's insurance plan).

  • t702 Las Vegas, NV
    Nov. 6, 2013 6:39 p.m.

    "Tax credits are determined on a sliding scale, based on income, so that individuals and families with the lowest incomes will receive the largest tax credits, "ensuring that the assistance is targeted to the people who need it most," according to the Families USA report. Tax credits are also only available to marketplace enrollees."

    And there it is -your formula for success - a race to the bottom of income level so you can qualify for tax subsidies. Who wants to work hard and get punished while you can get minimum wage and get rewarded?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 6, 2013 6:24 p.m.

    Has anyone calculated how much premiums, co-pays and deductibles will have to increase on young and healthy people in order to offset the subsidies? That assuming doctors and hospitals will accept subsidized patients.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Nov. 6, 2013 5:54 p.m.

    Subsidies at whose expense? Government takes it from the working person until they need subsidies to.

    Soon we'll all be in need of subsidies, or on our knees to dishonest leaders.

    To many beggars in our country to over come this transformation.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Nov. 6, 2013 5:49 p.m.


    And I'll bet most of those 300,000 will vote Republican and gripe and complaint, and take the money anyway.

    And not feel the least bit of gratitude.