Is Obamacare a 'job-killer'?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    July 29, 2013 2:17 p.m.

    Is this a rhetorical question? OK, I'll bite. The answer is yes.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    July 28, 2013 11:23 p.m.

    "1.5 Billion dollars a year to Egypt
    1 Billion every 2 months in Iraq. Need I go on.
    So in essence, we prefer to help other people, but won't help our own people."

    Helping out our own people is EXACTLY the reason we need to do away with Obamacare. It is a job killer and will prove to be a nation killer as well.

    As far as spending money goes, if Bush was so evil for increasing the national debt as much as he did, what should we say about Obama? According to liberals, he's a saint. Not only did he spend more than Bush did (it took about 3 years to match Bush's increase), he got re-elected despite a sputtering economy! History will not look kindly to our generation (unless Obama's henchmen maintain control and Big Brother writes/edits the history books).

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    July 28, 2013 6:01 p.m.

    Job killer? Oh heavens no...Obamacare is a job creator!!! What company isn't going to want to grow and expand once they are hit with the full weight of new taxes and regulations??? I mean this is a no brainer. As a small business - as your expenses rise so does your head count...right???? The sad thing here is that those that worship Barack actually believe this nonsense.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    July 27, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    Health savings accounts, health insurance that can cross state lines, one owner businesses that can deduct their health insurance costs as a business expense, Health insurance you can keep if you move to another job or state would all help.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    July 26, 2013 7:16 p.m.

    The lead in headline reads, "When all is said and done, Is Obamacare really a 'job killer'?".

    My answer is, "Not as much as when ALL is truly said and done".

    We're still at the smoke and mirrors stage and I've already personally seen the effects of employers reducing both hours and employees for the sole purpose of trying to prepare their businesses to function outside of Obamacare....if possible.

    But, frankly, the job killing effects are not my biggest problem with this idiotic monstrosity. The **real** destructive force of Obamacare is in its corrosive effect on the civil rights and freedoms of individual citizens.

    I yearn for the day when enough people have felt the jack boots of this freedom killer on their necks long enough to force its eradication.

    I'd love for it to happen soon and relatively painlessly, but, like all big government blunders, I fear this too will have a much longer and more insidiously harmful life than it should. And, we have only ourselves to blame.

  • Love skiing Salt Lake City, UT
    July 26, 2013 12:52 p.m.

    1.5 Billion dollars a year to Egypt
    1 Billion every 2 months in Iraq. Need I go on.
    So in essence, we prefer to help other people, but won't help our own people.
    What's wrong with this picture?

    What about the verse in the bible, that talks about picking something out of your own eye before others? Does that equates to helping your own first? Just saying.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 26, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    Such hatred for the working class is the very reason the GOP are dying off.
    So these precious corporations need the work performed by these unskilled lazy workers but can't afford to pay them and give million dollar bonuses to super skilled CEO's, so they employ them part time and help them fill out forms for food stamps. Yep, heros those givers of jobs and life.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 26, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    To "Happy Valley Heretic" it isn't the corporations that use social welfare programs to socialize the cost of business.

    It is the unskilled worker that has no desire to gain skills that is abusing the welfare system.

    It is the lazy that demand more money without bringing more skill or value to the job. They are more concerned about the latest "thing" than they are about improving their life. They are the "gimmie gimmie" generation of liberals that belive that they don't have to put in effort and somebody will take care of them.

    They are the same people who want to "stick it to the rich" then can't figure out why the rich don't want to create jobs to hire them.

    They are those that belive that healthcare is a right, and will soon believe that shelter, power, clothing, and food are rights also, and will gladly trade freedome for a sense of security.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 26, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    Only to those un-american companies who use the welfare system and food stamps to subsidize their corporate profits while socializing the cost to do business.

    Only to the me first, gimmie gimmie, generation of conservatives who believe that we don't live in a society, but some kind of organized anarchy of mythical individual freedoms.

    Only to those who's taxes haven't gone up, but have "had it up to here" with these high taxes.

    Only to those who believe that healthcare should be as profitable as possible regardless of actual results.

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    July 26, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    Partisan nonsense aside, the economics of ACA is that it is a tax on the healthy to pay for the sick.

    There are fundamental differences between taxing the rich to help the poor and taxing the healthy to pay for the sick. Healthy people are not necessary rich. Lots are middle class and many are poor in terms of disposable income. Another big difference is sick people are not always poor, some are very wealthy. So ACA, in many instances is taxing the middle class to pay for sick people who don't need the money.

    The economics of taxing the rich to help the poor seems viable, although I like the non-profit charity model better than a tax,; however, the economics of taxing the healthy to help the sick violates common sense because the categories of healthy and sick are not economic categories from the outset.

    "Sick people who can't afford treatment" would be an economic category, which is why we have Medicaid, a program funded by taxes.

    Do we need health care reform? Yes. ACA should be ripped apart and rebuilt with common sense.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 26, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    If someone got injured in a car accident, and Obama says you're not hurt.

    There are some who would believe him. Amazing!

  • Engineer22 Provo, UT
    July 26, 2013 7:45 a.m.

    @ Bastiatarian:

    Maybe that's the point, maybe Obamacare is supposed to be a nightmare. Then, once it's been around for a little while and everyone is sick of it (no pun intended), we'll be willing to accept ANY other system in its place, which would likely wind up being Nationalized Health Care. Sort of the bitter pill to make us more tractable.

    I hope I'm giving them way too much credit for forward thinking, but it would be devious if it were true.

  • Bastiatarian TUCSON, AZ
    July 25, 2013 11:05 p.m.


    Nationalizing healthcare would be severely detrimental to both healthcare and the economy (as Obamacare already has been). Government involvement has typically been at the root of problems with healthcare in the United States (and elsewhere, for that matter).

    And, personally, I prefer liberty to Big Mother taking care of me.

    Again, NOBODY who understands even the basics of economics believes that Obamacare will be anything other than a nightmare.

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    July 25, 2013 9:25 p.m.

    @Bastiatarian. The Affordable Care Act is not the panacea for the health care issues that plague this country. It is merely a step towards nationalizing health care, which will be a large economic boom to this country which will decrease overall health care costs and increase labor mobility, just to name a few.

  • Bastiatarian TUCSON, AZ
    July 25, 2013 8:57 p.m.

    >they are extremely afraid that Obamacare will be a success

    Only if they're as clueless as the Democrats and other leftists who support Obamacare.

    Nobody who actually understands economics believes that Obamacare will be a success.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 25, 2013 6:12 p.m.

    It's possible that there will be some job losses in some areas and some job gains in others. The net jobs gain or loss is what matters.

    One thing I know for certain is that the GOP and conservatives are somewhat afraid that Obamacare will be a failure. But they are extremely afraid that Obamacare will be a success. For conservatives, the only thing worse than Obamacare being a job-killer would be Obamacare actually working in terms of controlling health care costs while having no net negative effect on jobs. The thought of that happening is very scary to Obama opponents. For them, success under Obama is not an option.

  • Vladhagen Salt Lake City, UT
    July 25, 2013 5:52 p.m.

    One thing I have seen in a huge reduction of hours for those already employed part time, so while NEW jobs may mostly be full time, I know of a lot of people who still have a part time job, but they only get to work half of the hours as they did before. Note on Romneycare: Massachusetts has a very small "low income labor force." The people seeing the big cuts are low and minimum wage jobs. Of which MA does not have as large of a percentage as say Utah or Arizona.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 25, 2013 5:12 p.m.

    Was Romneycare a job killer for Massachusetts?

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    July 25, 2013 4:55 p.m.

    Is Obamacare a job killer?

    Why are you asking the question when we already know the answer?

    The medical device and pharmaceutical industries have already lost over 180,000 jobs due to the various excise taxes that went into effect in January of 2013...those taxes are part of Obamacare. So yes, Obamacare is already a job killer.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    July 25, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    If you have to ask then you must live under a rock! Of course he's a JOB KILLER!! And Obama intended it to be a job force people into part time work and to be forever dependent on the Govt. For every job Obama has created HE CREATES two new welfare applicants....the guy is a disaster!

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    July 25, 2013 4:36 p.m.

    A problem I've had with Obamacare all along is since when is it really the federal government's responsibility or business to decide what benefits an employer provides for his employees? If an employer decides to increase pay and let the employees decide what to do with the extra money (including buying health insurance), shouldn't that be between the employer and the employees? Where does it stop? Will the government someday mandate that all employees must be involved in a retirement program in addition to SS? That all employers provide a lunch for their employees? Provide transportation subsidies? Extra housing or rental benefits? Extra restrooms for transvestites? There might be some good come from these "benefits" but should they be government mandated?