Comments about ‘My view: Obamacare will hurt small businesses’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Nov. 26 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Small businesses have a hard time offering decent health insurance to their employees. This means that small businesses have a hard time attracting quality workers. Obamacare will help small employers be competitive with larger ones on this score. Europe actually has many more workers working for small employers than we do, because the little guys do not have to compete with multi-national conglomerates on the basis of healthcare.

There are pros and cons to Obamacare. Some people focus only on the negative, better to keep a balanced approach.

Salt Lake City, UT

Dow at 16,000

A new record.

Facts disprove most Opinion.

Pleasant Grove, UT

@Devin Peterson "Obamacare is good in theory, but it needs to be amended."

No. It's not even good in theory. Essentially, it's an elaborate scheme for wealth redistribution. If you look at it as a tax (and you must, in order to find it constitutional), it is an extremely regressive tax. It was passed through lies and bribery. It needs to be repealed.

salt lake city, utah

You know sir if you employ over 50 people and can't, no let's say don't provide health care for your employees that meets the minimum standards of the ACA there's something wrong with what you're doing.

50 people is pretty decent sized. If you have that many people working for you at over 30 hours a week and don't provide minimum health care I think the term sweat shop isn't far off.

Nationally the number of people that work for firms that employ between 50 and 100 is only around 7 million or so, and I'll bet that the closer you get to the 100 number the percent of employers providing health care is nearly 100%.

Point being if this is a problem in Utah it probably has a particularly pernicious employment environment or you're just blowing smoke.

Tooele, UT

Re: "Diminishing growth in small companies will stall our economy’s growth."

Of course it will. That's what Obamacare was designed to do, and it WILL do so very effectively.

It was designed to, and will, collapse the health care system. It was designed to, and will, collapse the American -- and consequently, the world -- economy.

And it was further designed to foster perpetual and inescapable dependency on government, to collapse the ability of Americans to be innovative, entrepreneurial, or to do anything for ourselves.

The fondest liberal hope is that, when we re-ask ourselves Patrick Henry's question -- "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" -- a low-information America will, this time, answer "yes," and will welcome the chains and slavery of our liberal "saviors."

Those "saviors" being, by the way, the same socialist minions who killed our Nation and freedoms.

Here's hoping real Americans are not as stupid as liberals hope we are.

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

The Affordable Healthcare Act will sure help my cousin the freelance geologist, by other cousin the silversmith, my former tenant the independent electrician, my wife the non-profit consultant, and yours truly the real estate tycoon. The ACA will be a boon to people like us who are realistically priced out of the healthcare market.

Would the pain simply be unbearable for the DNews to print just some little, tiny, morsel of POSITIVE news about the ACA?

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

The economy is rolling and it will benefit everyone working for a living.

Far East USA, SC

"No. It's not even good in theory."

Seemed good enough "in theory" when the Heritage Foundation proposed it.
And good enough "in theory" when Romney put it in place in Mass.

As much as some want to call the ACA night and day different from the 2 mentioned above, the core components were the same.

Mandatory insurance, with a penalty for non compliance.

Championed by Hatch and others.

Biggest Difference? The proposal of this market based plan was pushed by Obama.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

Nobody in their right mind ever believed that Obamacare would make everybody better off in every way. The purpose of the law was to fix some things that were drastically wrong in America, such as 50 million uninsured, insurance companies dropping the sick, and tens of thousands going bankrupt over medical expenses. Yes, some will have to pay more, but we will certainly be much better off as a country with Obamacare than without it.

Those who propose a market-based health-care system are living in fantasy land. We would soon have 100 million without health insurance and many thousands more going bankrupt because of medical expenses. The market doesn't care about you if you can't pay, and corporate America is making sure fewer and fewer of us can afford the products corporations produce.

Salt Lake City, UT

The Dow at 16,000 is fueled by the Fed printing $85 billion each month and does to reflect "prosperity." Watch the Dow drop when Quantitative Easement ends. The underlying principle is that Obamacare is preeminent. All other issues are supposed to work themselves out even if it means disaster for individuals or segments of the economy. There would be some logic in this if Obamacare actually provided universal health care at a price that is affordable to individuals and the nation, but it still leaves about 30 million uncovered. Warren Buffet's advice was to scrap Obamacare and focus on controlling health care costs. With truly affordable care, those 30 million could be covered.

Hayden, ID

@ Pagan; I thought you liberals didn't like the stock market! After all, it only "evil rich people" who are making money in stocks. Poor people don't have the money to invest! So if you love the stock market, you support rich people and capitalism! A welfare state is more to your liking, right?

Pleasant Grove, UT

@JoeBlow "Seemed good enough 'in theory' when the Heritage Foundation proposed it. And good enough 'in theory' when Romney put it in place in Mass."

Well, it wasn't good "in theory." It was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now. I don't care who proposed it.

For one thing, it's simply wrong for the national government to compel us to buy things we don't want or need. As far as the scheme itself goes, its failure is guaranteed because it overtaxes young, healthy Americans in order to subsidize older, less healthy Americans. It attempts a transfer of wealth from people who haven't built up very much wealth. They will simply pay the tax and sign up for health insurance only when they need it. With the insurance pools over-represented by sick people, rates will have to go up, discouraging even more people from signing up. It will become a vicious cycle, and the whole structure will collapse.

This isn't a Republican or Democrat thing; it's 9th grade math.

We need to repeal this, and never trust again the people who lied to bring it about.

Far East USA, SC

"it's simply wrong for the national government to compel us to buy things we don't want or need. "

Well Nate. Lets take a closer look.

Who, in your opinion does not need or want insurance?
Who among us is not at risk for sickness or an accident?

People who do not have medical insurance are sticking ME with the bill. They are causing MY costs to rise.

Why is that fair?

Hayden, ID

The Bait: "Let me be exactly clear about what health care reform means to you," Obama said at one rally in New Jersey in July 2009. "First of all, if you've got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you."
The switch: Latest estimates project 160 million Americans will lose their employer provided healthcare as the result of the Obamacare employer mandate cancellations.

The Hammer
lehi, utah

Obamacare is destroying the health ins market and will continue to do so. This will make premiums rise to rates we have never seen. Making healthy people pay for sicker people means it spreads the economic cost curve. But what young 20 something is going to pay for super expensive health insurance? we already have a problem with doing that before the ACA. This is just a death spiral as more and more people drop coverage and soon you will have a problem with people just choosing not to have insurance.

The best solution is to Change most plans to reflect HSAs and HDHPs and return insurnace to what it should be. It will be far more affordable and insurance companies will lose their nuiance in what they cover because any medical cost over the Deductible will be their responsiblity.

Salt Lake City, UT

As a small business man, I would love for single payer. I would be able to provide my employees' with the same health care as IBM. Medicare already pays 42 per cent of health care.For a little over twice what I pay now my folks would be covered. It would be good for me, my employee's, and the country. My Canadian relatives think Americans are stupid to believe the horror stories the right claims happens. They are FALSE.

Centerville, UT

I disagree that health insurance should cover only catastrophic events, and I reject the notion that somehow catastrophic coverage would return insurance to "what it should be." Early detection of risk factors can lead to lower disease rates and cost of treatment. It also has the economic effect of reduced employee absenteeism and increased productivity. It seems to me that callss for catastrophic-only insurance coverage rely on the idea that people will go to the doctor less if they are paying all of the costs out of pocket. Is that really the result we want to encourage?

Pleasant Grove, UT

@JoeBlow "Who, in your opinion does not need or want insurance? Who among us is not at risk for sickness or an accident?"

Which single male among us needs maternity benefits? Which married couple seeking to have children needs free contraceptives and abortion pills? Which couple over 65 needs pediatric care?

Why can't we each decide for ourselves what our family needs? Why should Barack Obama be in charge of making these decisions? This is America, not some third-world dictatorship.

The further we let this crud go on, the less popular it will be. Obama will yearn for the day when his approval rating was 37%.

Salt Lake City, UT

I agree with Roland Keyser....and believe that Obamacare is more than "good in theory" as some say. I just signed up for insurance for the first time in seven years and am happy that I will be able to visit the doctor soon. I've put up with no insurance and have done my best to be healthy by myself (and usually been fine), but sometimes that's not enough. The leading cause of going bankrupt is the fact that medical costs overwhelm a person. People that have insurance often don't know how much it helps them. This new law isn't perfect and will need changes as necessary, but it is a great start. The law has already showed room for flexibility with the small business aspect since they now don't need to do anything until next year.
Hopefully, more businesses will find a way to give insurance to their employees.
Have a happy Thanksgiving!

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Solution to all of business problems with Obamacare: Get business out of the health care business of their employees. Prohibit business from interfering or being involved in any way with the employee’s personal life. End or at least lessen the imposed slavery of employment. Let each individual person be the master of his own life as if were an independent contractor and a small business owner of himself.

If writers about the business world had to give actual statistics and numbers to the implied information of their words, it just might tell the reader of the ulterior motive behind the articles.

I believe that the promotion, deification, coddling of Small Business is a scam.

to comment

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