Study: Half who now buy own health plan to get aid under Obama's health care law

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Aug. 17, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    This is like taking from honor roll students, and making them pay for those with lower grades.

    Level/fair/equal, playing field where everyone is at a D minus lifestyle.

    Thank you liberals.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 10:06 p.m.

    I remember a festive affair in Boston in the 1700s over having to pay the British crown for certain items when there was no representation for the Colonies of England. We have let the loss of individual and societal integrity impact us in a time when other countries can beat us financially and don't even have to go to war.

    We don't have military plans as we should. We have let Congress meddle in the financial affairs of our mortgage, Wall Street and banking institutions to provide mandated protection for stealing customer's dollars and savings. We even bail out the companies and organizations that stole through lack of oversight. These people are entrenched in taking people's money they have tried to throw into retirement accounts and savings. There are risks but government has some responsibility in providing for the safety and welfare of our citizens. That is one reason they get elected every 2 or 4 years in an election campaign. However, even there the media skews the process to ensure the election is potentially on their side. Money can buy people happiness and elections since time in memoriam. Some people won't vote because they are discouraged.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 9:40 p.m.

    Some employers are cutting back on hours workers can be on the job. Some employers have been holding off hiring more employees as to the uncertainty of the costs to them and to employees.

    The economy is still regrouping since 2010 when this was signed into law with dates sequenced for voting or election purposes. Some even delayed further to ensure the vote goes right to continue ACA further with both House and Senate.

    With socialized medicine becoming more of our economy, and the economy is lagging for the foreseeable future, who is going to pay the costs if employers have back away from the unsalaried benefits the Democrats pushed for in the 1930s instead of salary?

    They give and take and make people think they are getting a good deal. When Congress listened to this President and voted on the extensive overhaul health care bill without reading, analyzing and deciphering the language of what President Clinton's wife was pushing in the early 1990s, they have passed and signed an undoable bill or act.

    Hopefully, the voters won't forget Hillary's move to make our system socialized medicine with a name that sounds appealing. Affordable is the question.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Aug. 16, 2013 8:01 p.m.

    Hmm? Taking money by force is stealing.

    How can having a government who steals from its people, be blessed, and who is paying for vacations, and lavish conferences for our political leaders?

    A debt worth $556,000 for every second of a year is no accident. Corruption?

    Obama Care is flat out wrong, and evil.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 7:58 p.m.

    twin lights,
    BO does not abide by ANY oath, especially not his oath of office.

    Thanks for not arguing the fact that Obamacare is doing harm.

    thank you for agreeing that the dem approach was the wrong approach. better to stand still than to run over the cliff, which is what Obamacare does.

    our outcomes have more to do with our lifestyles than the quality of care we receive. Our obesity rates are skyrocketing, we have too much fat and sugar in our diets, too few fruits and vegetables, and we smoke, drink, and get high waaaaayy too much and exercise way too little. not to mention our promiscuity.

    We know from MA that the current plan is a failure. the DN reported a couple of weeks ago that MA's plan did not increase access to health care, it just increased the cost and associated fraud.

    a bad plan versus no plan. I'll take no plan, because it is not as damaging as the bad plan.

    Obamacare does NOTHING, nada, zilch, to address costs and profiteering, of that you appear ignorant. If anything, it adds to insurance companies' profits because it forces everyone to be a customer.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Aug. 15, 2013 5:29 p.m.

    It's really simple ---
    a-- we are going broke over this issue
    b-- huge amounts of your money are going to rich interests (just look at the cost of TV ads for prescription medicine)
    c-- "socialized medicine" works better in Britain or Canada than our system does, by far
    Most of the opposition is ignorant -- the effort should be spent trying to make it work, and to getting rid of the billions spent on lobbying and excess profit

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Aug. 15, 2013 4:51 p.m.

    lost in DC

    First, Obama is not a doctor so I doubt he has sworn the Hippocratic Oath.

    I agree on testing on a small population. We have Massachusetts and Hawaii as test cases plus Medicare and what other nations are doing.

    I agree that Democrats should not move simply to say they have done something but, as the Gingrich quote from my last post indicates, the Republicans have not proposed anything that will actually move the system forward.

    If you are right and the ACA is a poor solution, then we have one side advocating a poor solution and the other side offering effectively none.

    Again, I am not saying the ACA is the right answer. But our cost structure and outcomes, when viewed compared to other advanced countries are simply not acceptable. We get okay outcomes (not great, just okay) and pay 50% or more for the privilege. That simply makes no sense.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 3:20 p.m.

    JoeBlow, twin lights,
    the FIRST component of the Hypocratic oath (hope I spelled that correctly) is FIRST do no harm. Obamacare is in direct violation of that component.

    comprehensive, top to bottom? nope, too complex, doesn't work that way. You always test on a small population first, to see if it works, then expand if it does, or try something else if it doesn't. dems wanted ANYTHING, even if it does harm, so they could say they tried to address the problem.

    Obamacare is like going to the dentist and having a healthy tooth drilled when you ahve a broken arm. Yeah, you got health care; but it did not treat the problem and did more harm than good.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Aug. 15, 2013 3:02 p.m.

    I have no problem saying that the ACA is not the be all and end all and that there can/should be other reforms.

    But the problem is that the GOP has essentially done nothing here.

    The always fun Newt Gingrich recently said "I will bet you, for most of you, you go home in the next two weeks when your members of Congress are home, and you look them in the eye and you say, 'What is your positive replacement for Obamacare?' They will have zero answer,"

    Before we can talk about repeal we have to have a viable replace. Please - I know the piecemeal stuff that has been offered up. I mean a comprehensive top to bottom plan that will get the system to yield lower costs and wider service.

    I am no fan of single payer. But we need to face facts. Much of the rest of the world have adopted this and are beating us in terms of medical results and lower costs.

    But, before we rant on about that, remember that the ACA is NOT nationalized healthcare and is not single payer. I am simply saying our current system is broken.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 12:29 p.m.


    Since I didn't make any assertions, why should I prove anything? Spring Street is the one claiming Obamacare would be financially better. I simply asked for some proof. Before changing any status quo, there should be objective, verifiable reasons for doing so... and that includes any proposals from either party... Romney and the Heritage Foundation included. I'm simply asking for some quantitative objectiveness for making this humongous change in our current health care system.

    You are right. Doing nothing for this issue is not a good option. But making things worse is even less of a desired option. Making changes just for the sake of change is a poor political philosophy. We should have a reasonable confidence (something identifiable and measurable) before jumping ahead with so much at stake. This Obamacare is the most expensive social program in the history of the country. Flags have been raised concerning it. We need to be cautious before jumping in with both feet..

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 15, 2013 11:22 a.m.


    I believe if you heading for a cliff, you might as well turn one way or the other.

    Can you prove that it wont be better? I really dont know.

    What I do know is that the continued rising health care costs will bankrupt this country. Doing NOTHING was not an option.

    And, BTW, this Obamacare IS a market bases system. Very similar to Mitt Romneys and what the GOP and heritage foundation proposed.

  • Shawnm750 West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 11:20 a.m.

    Another unaddressed issue facing healthcare is that even if we were to divert all those people who go to the ER for a headache, there aren't enough primary care physicians to absorb all those patients. There aren't even enough to effectively manage those with health insurance now! Too many doctors are opting to become specialists because the pay is better. Sure, we could have RN's do many of the routine medical procedures/tasks that PCP's normally do, but we've had a nursing shortage for years because we can't train them quickly enough. But even if we did, all we'd really be doing putting band-aids on people. There still wouldn't be enough doctors to really help people become healthier. Plus, because medicare doesn't cover enough of the cost, many doctors won't even accept it.

    But the main reason that most people don't have access to healthcare isn't lack of doctors or facilities, it's cost. And Obama's done nothing to try and change that. His solution is just add more people to the pool, and drive the cost higher.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    many now buying their owninsurance will pay more. Affordable care act - HAH!

    A survey by the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans finds 53% of companies surveyed are shifting healthcare costs to the employee and 36% are increasing wellness initiatives, as they prepare to implement Obamacare.

    if you liek your current plan, you can keep it. Not hardly - but if you can, it will cost YOU more!

    Obamacare is was and always will be a lie

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    @Bob K:

    First off, Social Security is not socialism by any standard. The vast majority of the people receiving it paid into it for their entire careers. And what they receive is correlated to what they put in. That hardly qualifies as socialism.

    Can either you, Spring Street or JoeBlow provide any statistics to back up claims that this new potentially catastrophic health care plan is a financially better way to go than the present market based system which includes providing emergency health care for poor? There's no question that the current "emergency" care allowances are too liberal and get abused. Therefore, it should be reformed and more restricted. But there is no indication I've seen that the massive socialistic redistribution of health care costs under Obamacare will provide any financial improvement for the middle class over the existing issues. None.

    In fact, Obama keeps delaying implementation of various parts of Obamacare because of it's now obvious issues and problems that are becoming more apparent... even to him. He doesn't want the voting public to realize what a disaster it's going to be until after the midterm elections.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    Bob K--regardless of where the idea of nationalized healthcare came from (Republican or Democrat), its a bad idea.

    atl--Why would politicians, specifically Obama, write the law so that over 50% of people will be subsidized? Certainly it is to influence their vote.

    But does this help our national debt? Can we afford another massive government program?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 15, 2013 6:39 a.m.

    Spring Street. Do you think half of Americans get their healthcare from free hospital emergency rooms? I don't know what that number is but now ewe have free or subsidized healthcare for half of Americans which is a massive increase in numbers, costs and dependency, none of which is good for our country or healthcare.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 15, 2013 5:51 a.m.

    "Half of America can now force their neighbors to pay for their health insurance! Any ideas how the fragile economy can adsorb this?"

    Been happening for a while now. In fact, since EMTALA was signed into law by Reagan in 1986.
    (and I think it was a good law) that forced hospitals and emergency rooms to treat people, with or without insurance.

    That is why the Heritage Foundation in the 90's pushed for a mandatory health insurance. It was a free market approach to fixing the health care problem.

    Now, it is called socialism by those who used to champion the concept. My My how things change for purely partisan reasoning.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 5:43 a.m.

    Fine, lets boot out the state with the highest percentage of people not paying income taxes. Oh wait, that's Mississippi. In fact, Romney won 8 of the 10 states with the highest percentages of people not paying income taxes as a percentage of state population (Obama won Florida and New Mexico). Maybe the blue states should stop subsidizing those loser conservative states like Kentucky (New Jersey sends more to the federal gov't in taxes than it receives, Kentucky receives more than it sends).

    No wonder the polls show only around 20% of people think they're in the 47%... you conservatives are so high and mighty, never bothering to stop to realize the child tax credits and mortgage deductions make many of your low income families not pay any federal income tax.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Aug. 15, 2013 12:25 a.m.

    spring street is correct.
    Rather than ranting about Socialism (of which Medicare is a textbook example, not to mention Social Security), we need to realize that poor people call 911 and get 2 firetrucks for a kid with flu, that untreated diabetics end up on public assistance and rack up huge medical costs, etc etc.
    Rather than blaming President Obama, we ought to note that Health Care should have been passed under Nixon or Reagan, (most of the ideas in it came from republicans anyhow) and that we spend billions making drug companies, hospital corporations, and lobbyists rich.
    Yes, some of these are people that not all of us "approve of", but they are Americans, and facing up to their health problems is cheaper than ignoring them.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Aug. 14, 2013 11:20 p.m.

    All Obama needs is 50.1% of voters to receive subsidized health care & he can feel assured of another Democrat victory. It's simple math & social science, really.

    Romney was right.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 14, 2013 9:41 p.m.


    We can afford providing primary and preventive care far better the emergency care system we have been using.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 14, 2013 7:57 p.m.

    Half of America can now force their neighbors to pay for their health insurance! Any ideas how the fragile economy can adsorb this?