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

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?

USS Enterprise, UT

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.

to comment

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