Comments about ‘Up to 300,000 Utahns qualify for tax subsidies for health insurance premiums’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Nov. 6 2013 5:35 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Orem, UT

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.

Moab, UT

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

one old man
Ogden, UT

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.

salt lake city, utah

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.

Cedar Hills, UT

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.

Cedar Hills, UT

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.

Mcallen, TX

@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

Fitness Freak
Salt Lake City, UT

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!

Orem, UT

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.

DN Subscriber 2

"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."

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Salt Lake City, UT

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!

USS Enterprise, UT

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.

Cottonwood Heights, UT

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?

Saratoga Springs, UT


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?

Salt Lake City, Utah

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?

salt lake city, utah

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..

USS Enterprise, UT

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.

Mcallen, TX


How much of Peters money actually filters to Paul?

There's some greed and embezzlement in all this.

salt lake city, utah

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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments