Unbanked Utahns could lose out under the Affordable Care Act

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    July 29, 2013 4:17 p.m.

    If its so important and glorious to ensure that non-citizens can vote, why is this really such an obstacle?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 29, 2013 2:08 p.m.

    Utah Health Policy Project,
    Why would people making 400% above the Federal Poverty level NEED Government Subsidized Healthcare?

    If people earning nearly six figures qualify for gov subsidized healthcare... why not just give EVERYBODY gov healthcare?

    I make a pretty good living, but I've never made $92,000 a year. My family has been fine. Why do I NEED Government subsidized healthcare?

    This whole scheme just seems so Saul Alinsky esque. Like the first step in a plan to get more people addicted to government subsidized healthcare. And once you have the majority dependent on government healthcare... there is absolutly no way to go back (because there would be riots) and you have enough votes to replace private healthcare with government healthcare. And once you hold the population's healthcare (literally their life) in your hands... you can do whatever you want, and they have no way to unelect you (becasue you can threaten to dismantle their healthcare system IF they do).

    I don't like being that dependent on the government or giving them that much control over my life.

  • Utah Health Policy Project Salt Lake City, UT
    July 29, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    Actually, studies predict that 270,000 Utahns--not the 29,590 mentioned in this article--will be eligible for tax credits to make insurance more affordable, The sliding scale tax credits are available for people making between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level, which is a large percentage of the state's population. An individual making $44,000 a year can get tax credits, as can a family of four making up to $92,000 a year.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 29, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    The ACA will benefit some people. But it will cost the nation as a whole a ton. And that's OK. That's how Socialism works.

    I don't know why they called it the "Affordable Care Act". There was absolutely nothing in it to help reduce the actual COST of any procedure or any medication. It only addressed who PAYS for the care.

    Initially ACA will benefit a small group. People who had insurance before should still have insurance (IF their employer doesn't cut their hours to less than 30/week). They should see no change (just higher premiums). People without insurance will see no change. They were already covered by Medicare/Nedicaid and will still be covered (just with more need for gov beurocrats to find ways to cover less to save the budget). But people who didn't have insurance and didn't qualify for Medicaid could see a benefit, and employers who can push their employees onto the Government insurance will benefit from not having that expense.

    But ACA was never intended to decrease the actual EXPENSE of healthcare. It was intended to make American's so misserable they would BEG for Single-Payer National Healthcare.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    July 29, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    Some people are determined to destroy ACA because they hate Obama. That's the only reason they need.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    July 28, 2013 11:19 p.m.

    Re JoeBlow

    When through university I was nickel and dimed by the bank I banked I am with the credit union now it's much better the only fees I am aware of is if you write a bad check.

    Instead of trying to torpedo Obamacare I wish Republicans would work with Democrats and make this the best health care system in the world. They should have a goal to make our healthcare system as good as the Congressional healthcare system. Better yet they should be under Obamacare then they would have the motivation to work together and make it better.

    If we would stop getting into unnecessary Wars as we've been doing for decades and the wars we must fight, fight them quickly and get out Obamacare could be very affordable for us. Nations with less wealth than ours are able to insure decent healthcare for all there is no reason why we cannot do it too.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    July 28, 2013 3:15 p.m.

    There's going to be a health insurance exchange. People will be able to choose the plan that suits their needs. Companies allowing unbanked payments will do a brisk business.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 28, 2013 11:11 a.m.

    Well this could be fixed by Congress but you know... Republicans have no interest in making this thing better.

  • TonyZerucha Winnipeg, 00
    July 28, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are recommending that health care providers participating in Obamacare need to accept forms of payment that are easily accessed by those without bank accounts.

    The move was confirmed by a Department of Health and Human Services official, who told Bankless Times that "CMS has issued guidance to issuers that they must accept payment in ways that are non-discriminatory."

    The statements were published in the Federal Register and the comment period closed on July 19. The final statements must be issued within a month.

    CMS has the power to enact this regulation.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    July 28, 2013 7:00 a.m.

    could it be that the poor are "unbanked" because they want to avoid all the fees associated with bank accounts without large balances?

    I may be giving away my age, but it used to be that banks actually PAID you when you had money in their bank.