Boo, Hiss...And I'll bet most of those 300,000 will vote
Republican and gripe and complaint, and take the money anyway.And
not feel the least bit of gratitude.
Subsidies at whose expense? Government takes it from the working person until
they need subsidies to.Soon we'll all be in need of subsidies,
or on our knees to dishonest leaders.To many beggars in our country
to over come this transformation.
Has anyone calculated how much premiums, co-pays and deductibles will have to
increase on young and healthy people in order to offset the subsidies? That
assuming doctors and hospitals will accept subsidized patients.
"Tax credits are determined on a sliding scale, based on income, so that
individuals and families with the lowest incomes will receive the largest tax
credits, "ensuring that the assistance is targeted to the people who need it
most," according to the Families USA report. Tax credits are also only
available to marketplace enrollees."And there it is -your
formula for success - a race to the bottom of income level so you can qualify
for tax subsidies. Who wants to work hard and get punished while you can get
minimum wage and get rewarded?
@Mountanman"Has anyone calculated how much premiums, co-pays and
deductibles will have to increase on young and healthy people in order to offset
the subsidies? That assuming doctors and hospitals will accept subsidized
patients."The offset is that they're paid through tax
dollars. It doesn't require premiums copays or deductibles to go up. The
cost without the subsidies is on the Obamacare site. The subsidies result in
many paying a lower amount than that. Doctors and hospitals will absolutely
accept subsidized patients anyway since they still get paid whether it's
gov't subsidized (Obamacare subisides or Medicare) or employer subsidized
(employer paying most of someone's insurance plan).
Up to 300,000 Utahns MAY be eligible to receive an available tax credit ? So,
like, after I purchase a plan on the federal market, the gov't will tell me
if I qualify or not, after the fact? BRILLIANT! Where do I sign?
Welfare! Welfare! Welfare!
@ alt. If what you say is true, then why are premiums, co-pays and deductibles
increasing so dramatically for young, healthy people?
@ alt. I forgot to mention that a survey by New York State’s Medical
Society found that of 409 doctors queried, only 23 percent say they will accept
patients who have enrolled in an ObamaCare health exchange. If these doctors
really mean it, Obamacare is DOA! Why? Because just like Medicaid, the
government decides how much doctors are paid and doctors can't maintain
their practices by losing money!
Do you want to see how well Obamacare is going to work?Read the
report in this paper from 11/6/13 about Venezuela's health care system.I count at least a dozen parallels between their system and where our
system is headed.Soon, it won't matter whether you have
insurance or not, whether you are rich or poor. Cancer treatment will be
considered too expensive to maintain the equipment and they will simply give you
a pill to ease the pain as you die.
@BYR Have you even bothered to go look at the site? You don't purchase
anything before you know what the actual premiums are going to be. As for anyone else whining about this being "welfare" you are sooooo
wrong. I have worked all of my life and have been without insurance for 7
years. I have 3 college degrees and had a good job, when the recession hit I
lost everything, my home, car and every penny I had saved. I sent out 200 - 300
resumes a week most of the time and was lucky to get ONE interview in my field
in 6 months and that one ended in less than 5 minutes after they saw I was over
the age of 30. I got nothing, no help, no food stamps, no housing credits
NOTHING in spite of paying into this great system of ours for 30 years! And yes
I applied at McDonalds which is what most of you people will say. I was over
qualified or too much experience (translation: I was OLD at 52 years of age)
(cont) I now run my own business and make good money on my own (no
handouts here thank you very much) but no way can I afford over 700 a month for
insurance. I paid out of my own pocket last year over 13,000 for medical issues
which then again wiped out my savings.I don't like Obama but I
am thrilled to have insurance again. These are MY tax dollars at work too
folks. Like it or not
Where does all this free money come from?Or doesn't it matter?The true unfunded liabilities associated with Social Security and Medicare are
far more than the $17 trillion we talk about. Once you step out of the fantasy
land of government accounting, you will see the truth.These subsidies are
unfunded; just add it to the debt we now owe.But eventually all
liabilities come due.The ACA does not pay for itself. It is government
acting irresponsibly AGAIN.
Question: If the plan I chose is a bad financial choice for me, why is it a
better choice if you, my friends and neighbors are willing to pay for it.I
have a plan that has a very high deductible (my choice, I have savings to cover
years of that deductible) and also a high copay, especially to see specialists.
Obama's plan would cost me an additional $3600 to have a lower copay and a
visit to a specialist cost only $65.Here's the math. In six
years I have been to a specialist exactly once. The cost for the visit and
tests was $1000 which I paid out of pocket from my savings. Under Obamacare it
would have cost me $565 a savings of $435. BUT I would have paid an addditional
$3600 for six years ($21,600) to save that $565. I think that's a bad
investment. But apparently Obama thinks it's a good investment for you my
friends and neighbors to cover since I qualify for subsidies. Thanks guys!
Have I missed something? Where does all the money for the subsidies come from?
We already have mind-boggling deficits in federal spending. Do we expect our
grandchildren to pay for this too?
Yall surprise me. I guess your hatred for the President and anything he touches
blinds you. The subsidies are tax dollars and from an accounting
perspective they come to a large extent from the medical device tax, the
implementation tax (I don't recall it's true name), and to some degree
the increase in taxes on those who make over 200K year. Ahhhh taxes, Ahhhh
taxes.Yall, missed your cue. Although it does make it evident that
most have no idea what they're talking about, just complaining.
@pragmatistferlife:Just the other evening I was visiting with a
fellow who had actually succeeded in getting on to the federal website. He said
it took him six days and about 10 hours of effort.He also works for
a company that makes medical devices. He says that the effect of that tax has
been to encourage companies like his to move offshore, and to force them to
raise the prices of their devices. So in order to provide these subsidies we
kill American jobs and drive the price of health care even higher. Makes a lot
of sense to me.
Is Federal tax subsidies stolen money, and a reason why our country is headed
"Tax subsidies" is a euphemism for welfare.What it means is:
you pay, say, $700 for what is really is a $1200 premium, and your fellow
taxpayers foot the bill for the other $500 per month. $500 per month in real
cash transfers from the US Department of the Treasury to the insurance company
providing your policy.It's government welfare. It's you
receiving something you didn't earn, on the backs of hardworking taxpayers
and companies in society that are producers. Ms. Leonard, why are
you and the Deseret News spreading misinformation? These are hardly
"tax credits" or "tax subsidies." Why not tell it like it is?
What if the government started "subsidizing" my car
insurance, is that next? So, I pay $50 per month and my fellow taxpayers
generously give me $50 per month for the rest of the premium.And the
Deseret News apparently can't wait to see 300,000 Utahns on the public dole
for health insurance, paid for by money borrowed into the US Treasury, with the
bill, plus interest, handed to the next generations. Deseret News:
if you want this kind of society beware you may actually have it.
I am reminded of a quote that said:"A democracy cannot exist as
a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers
it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority
always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the
democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be
followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." (Author Unknown)Can it be more obvious where we are headed? And so many of you are demanding
to be a part of the destruction of this once great republic. So sad.
From the article: "Tax credits are expected to average $2,700 for individual
coverage purchased on the marketplace, and about $5,500 per family, covering
about 32 percent of premiums for a so-called "silver," or midlevel plan,
according to Kaiser."So a $5500 tax credit only covers a third
of the premium. That means the family is paying the other $11,000 for a total of
$16,500 per year for a "silver" plan. Did I read that right?Looks like under Obamacare, the home mortgage will no longer be the biggest
expense (other than taxes) that young families have to face. Get ready to move
back in with the parents because health insurance will eat up most of your
"A rose by any other name"??? Subsidies by any other name is wealth
redistribution. Government stealing from Peter to pay for Paul. Period.
Why are all the people who are complaining about "tax subsidies" for ACA
not also complaining about the "tax subsidies" that huge corporations,
oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, and the very wealthy of the 1%
receiving?I'll bet THOSE subsidies total up to a much, much
larger number than ACA's subsidies.
dba57, we'll see if that really happens. Lots of that same kind of chatter
the past three years and very little actually happened. However, that being
said there is no accounting for greed. These are the same companies that have
had free reign except for safety regulations for decades now. It's so bad
that it's actually against the law for one doctor to tell another doctor
what they paid for a medical device, just so the company can squeeze what ever
they can out of each situation. It's one of the primary reasons a hip
replacement costs 100k in America and 18K in Europe. Johnson and
Johnson made about 1.2 billion in operating profits in I think it was 2012.
They spent around 300+ in new research and it was estimated they would pay
around 30+ million in the medical device tax. Of course these
numbers are larger for larger corporations but the relationships hold for pretty
much all of the industry. Like I say there's no accounting for
Here's the problem with this...800000 Utahan's DON'T
qualify for ANY tax help. The majority of people in Utah who are middle income
and have tight budgets are going to see their premiums go up 2-3 times which
makes life REALLY hard. Whether it happens now or in a year when the business
mandate kicks in the majority of people of Utah are going to see a premium HIKE.
This article is MISLEADING.
What about the rest of us that don't get any tax help?? What about the rest
of us that will see our premiums go up - WAY UP MOST LIKELY- especially after
the employer mandates kick in after a year? I guess we don't matter or
least it wasn't worth mentioning in this article.
@one old man--you make some sense:* This government was not created
to steal from its citizens, and handout subsidies.* Much of the huge
corporations (except GE), are subsidized from the huge amount of money taken
from them in the form of taxes. The feds receive a lot from oil revenue.Someone else, beside the receiver of subsidies, are profiting big
time.Let's face it--Democrats, Republicans, large corporation,
etc,--have a common denominator. Greed! This is why, politics should not be a
career, but a two year service. IMO
I'm afraid the young woman who's picture used to grace the Obamacare
website found out how much she would be paying - and decided even she
wouldn't have anything to do with Obamacare!
I entered my info at the link provided to calculate the cost for my wife,
myself, and my 3 kids to get Obamacare insurance. EVEN WITH THE STUPID SUBSIDY
MY MONTHLY RATE WOULD BE 5 TIMES WHAT I AM CURRENTLY PAYING!!!! It sounds great
to get a subsidy, but the reality is that things will still get worse for the
middle aged and middle class. If the government was really interested in
health, it would have gotten rid of barriers to competition, passed tort-reform,
and offered tax breaks for medical costs. If they really wanted the poor
covered, they would have just expanded medicare. This government takeover is
just a power grab--not a help--and this article is misleading at best.
"Subsidy" is Obaman's Orwellilan code for Marxist wealth
redistribution."From each according to his ability, to each
according to his need" certainly describes the Obamacare extortion
racket.If you earn your money, you can keep it. Well, as long as
you let the government take as much as they want so they can make you poor too,
and join the rest of the people dependent on government handouts... and become a
reliable Democrat voters.As Prime Minister Thatcher astutely pointed
out "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other
people's money to spend."
I get sick and tired of hearing how Obamacare means the beginning of socialism.
The plain fact is, we already have a centrally planned economy. The federal
government controls the money supply. The private sector depends on government
contracts. Commercial banks are rescued by the Department of the Treasury.
Corporations control the demand for their output through advertising. The
question is not should we have socialism - we already have it. The question
centers on who benefits. Obamcare spreads the benefits better than the present
setup. It's far from optimal, but people will by and large appreciate it
if given time.
Uwishtoo in Arizona wears his subsidy like a badge of courage......it takes no
courage to accept welfare! Don't claim independence all the while claiming
welfare benefits.....that is akin to lying like Obama especially to yourself!
Lets look even further into this mess.The goal is to make insurance
affordable to the poor, so that they don't have to use the emergency room
for healthcare needs.Now, we subsidize the insurance for the poor so
that they, in theory, can afford insurance. If you took somebody that
couldn't pay for insurance before the ACA was enacted, and now pay 100% of
the cost of their insurance they still cannot pay for healthcare.Just look at the plans. Typically you have to pay until you meet the
deductible of $1000 or more before the insurance begins to pay anything.Now, we are spending $1000/month to insure a family, that can't
afford to pay the doctor when they get sick. So, they use the ER, and tax
payers are stuck with the bill.That means that rather than paying
once for the poor to get care, we get to pay twice.
So premiums go up 50-100% and they get a 32% credit. Um. Forget
all the gyrations the feds use to justify this program, the bottom line is that
actual premiums are going up and we'll still have 30+ million without
insurance. Only in Washington can an actual increase in premiums be
considered a reduction. Well we thought they would go up 100%, but they only
went up 80%, to the feds this is a reduction in premiums when actually the
premiums went up 80%!Are Americans really that naïve to buy
@marxistYou say..."Obamcare spreads the benefits better than the
present setup. It's far from optimal, but people will by and large
appreciate it if given time."I have no problem helping the
needy, spreading whatever I have to help the needy. It is the lazy,
unappreciative, expectant, I believe I am entitled, people that I do not want to
spread anything too.Rather than the government taking, and giving it
to these people. How about we tell them, and teach them how to do it for
themselves. Oh but wait, we have been. And the refuse to do for themselves.
So then I say, good luck to you then. Go work this out on your own.As for your comment about what looks like or is socialism. Government backing
and government control are two different things. Government forcing law to
break down the American is a whole other thing. Heck, we may not be socialist
yet, but we are on our way. So is communism next?
You know this whole discussion cracks me up. So many good republicans are
cracking on Obamacare because this is socialist or we are taking from the rich
to give to the poor, or we are creating a dependent society, or we need people
to be responsible. These are the same people that are perfectly ok
with me paying $3,000 to the state of Utah to educate the children of this state
of which I have none in the public education system, while my neighbor who has
six children, four currently in the public education system who makes almost
exactly the same amount of money as I do pays $125.00. Where is the
outrage over that? Why is it ok for me to subside my neighbors children's
education but it is not ok for my to subsidize somebody's health care?
Isn't a free ride a free ride no matter who gets it and what they get it
The real falsehood here is the claim that everyone's premiums are going to
go up substantially. 80% of people get their insurance through their employer
and we all ready know.....yes know the rate of increase on these policies has
primarily gone down. A few exceptions not many. Expanding the few
to mean the many is a favorite Republican trick. But, but I know somebody..
To "pragmatistferlife" You are wrong.Before the ACA my
insurance covered all office visits with a $25 co-pay. Now, for the same money
they cover nothing until I have paid $1000 out of pocket. That is unless I
wanted to pay about 70% more so that they would include a HSA to cover the
office visits.What insurance will pay for is less now, thanks to the
@MoabMom:How much of Peters money actually filters to Paul?There's some greed and embezzlement in all this.
RedShirt..your situation has nothing to do with the ACA. Major corps, and small
companies have been doing this for decades. My wife's employer did this 5
years ago and they employee 270,000 people. This has happened,
it's going to go forward it's the law and all the whining in the world
is not going to change that. What we had before was abominable, immoral, and
bankrupting the country. Get into life and drop the fantasies and help make
this work for everyone. I could give you half a dozen things right now to
change, but the direction is correct. 17% of GDP, 40 million
sucking off of the others, millions losing coverage once they get sick, and sub
standard results is not acceptable. Be a conservative, suggest real
conservative solutions, but status quo, and staus quo with tax deductions is
ridiculous and no one is going to buy it.
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?
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