The price of Health care is not going to be solved by placing a profit on a
persons life. We have evididence of this for the past four decades.Unfortunately, Obamacare/Romneycare is not the solution. All,
please do some caparative research of the US health care costs compared to other
countries. Our healthcare costs have been a significant issue LONG before
Obamacare/Romneycare. Why are we paying the most for healthcare and NOT getting
the best healthcare?Too many commentors are making this right vs
left by making false accusations. We all have brains (I hope), please share
ways to mitigate costs. Hint: The ER room for healthcare is not a solution.
@Lost.... one could equally say...Corporatized Medicine:Attack
on the medical professionAttack on our access to quality health careAttack on our libertiesAttack on the responsibleAttack on our
fiscal viabilityAttack on truthAttack on marriageDo you
really think the current insurance companies are working a much different
methodology. Their main goal is revenue to shareholders while minimizing their
cost - not yours. Do you really believe Humana, United Health Care, or any of
the others are more worried about your health then they are about their next
quarterly filing? Please don't tell me you believe these corporations are
operating out of benevolence.
To: Utah Bruin...you speak the truth and I appreciate that. Everything you
stated is absolutely true and it's a shame it is - but it what it is. I
worry so much about our children, grandchildren and greatgrand children. What
kind of a life will they have? It breaks my heart what happened to our United
States of America...the Land of the Free...
To Patriot: You are generalizing when you state America voted for Obama. We did
not as many thousands did not. It's those citizens and illegals that voted
him in and we are all going to suffer because of that. Their knowledge and
wisdom was limited when they cast their vote for Obama and look now what has
happened to our wonderful United States of America.
@postaledithGreat?! A few glitches?!So, with health
care costs already 10 times higher than they should be (see my earlier post
regarding how high they are and why), you think it is great to pay politicians,
attorneys, bureaucrats and paper-pushers billions of $ ON TOP of the
astronomical health care costs? It is pure lunacy--so incredibly
expensive and inefficient! As former LDS apostle Neal A. Maxwell
stated, "The living of ONE principle is better than a THOUSAND compensatory
governmental programs, which programs are, so often, like straightening deck
chairs on the Titanic". ("Why Not Now", Ensign magazine, Nov. 1974)
I find the previous comments interesting. I believe that what Obama has done
with health care is great. There are a few glitches, but I'm sure they
will smooth out as time goes on. If Bush or Reagan had done this, I don't
think some people would be saying the things they're saying. Obama is one
of the greatest presidents we've ever had!
@CowboyDude,Razzle and othersThe claim you are making that "To
subsidize the other tax classes, health insurance companies expect retail
private insurance to increase 100% per year for the next four years" is pure
right-wing talking point rubbish. Please point to the statute that will make
this occur. I am fortunate to be in the top 1% of incomes and my
healthcare is going up by 2% in 2014. Let's knock off the bull please.
I wonder if Barack Obama wants gay marriages to be the only marriages left
anymore. It seems that way to me.
@atl"My defense that none of you responded to is that you all
wanted to defund Obamacare which would've made all the subsidies 0 leaving
EVERYONE worse off regardless of whether they are married or single, so any
complaints you have are those of hypocrites."How am I going to
be "worse off" if there is no subsidy? I'm one of the ones paying
the subsidy out to others. If the subisidy doesn't exist, and obama care
doesn't exist, I'm better off. So "everyone" would not be
worse off, it is just you have chosen who you htink should be worse off, people
like me that make more money than most, and that is ok with you. Gotta take from
me for your purposes huh?
patriot:Your car analogy was pretty close. The real problem is that
you are being forced to pay the $50K that an Escalade or BMW is worth, but when
you get the car, you find out it is a $25K Camry. (BTW: I own a Camry. Good car,
but I wouldn't pay $50K for it)That is what all these
outrageous insurance premiums and high deductables are all about - getting
young, healthy, working people to pay WAY more for their insurance than it is
actually worth (or what they really need). That way, insurance companies can
afford (with taxpayer subsidies) to insure millions of sick people who have
little or no money.Obamacare is just a huge wealth transfer program.
eman and NT, it wasn't my point it was alt's point. Secondly
subsidies are coming from the medical device tax, and the small increase in
taxes on those making over 200K a year. I bet none of this effects you. Keep
trying though even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in while.
Obamacare equals CHAOS. But what would you expect from someone with the
credentials of a community organizer? And the people around him have IQ's
of just below plant life. These aren't smart people running
We shouldn't subsidize. Medicaid is good coverage for the poor CITIZENS
(though there is abuse and will be even more now) and better than most who pay
for insurance through employers with premiums, copays, deductibles and
limitations. But even with the limitations, which are to be expected, I'll
take the freedom of not being forced into this debacle. Offer an alternative for
those who want it only.The subsidies are teasers to make people
think this is "affordable" when in fact it is not. Everyone paying taxes
is paying the difference and many of us are working hard to make ends meet
ourselves but don't qualify for free stuff. We shouldn't subsidize
people who were happy with their own private policies but who are now being
forced onto the exchanges with promises of a free lunch. Dictating what kind of
insurance they need is tyrannical government. Everyone recognizes the need for
healthcare reform but doing something even if it's wrong (VERY wrong) is a
bad idea. Some prefer different healthcare - Eastern, alternative,
preventive/nutrition-based (we call it freedom). They may only need
catastrophic but Obama knows best so we're to shut up.
JilIs god going to come down and ban Obamacare? If not, then why
would we ask him to help?Obamacare does absolutely hammer the
married middle class. Example: I have insurance through my work, $100 a month.
My wife and my child would cost $350 a month for insurance because they take
both of our incomes into account - even though I already have insurance and pay
for it - it makes not sense to include my income as I already pay for it. If we
weren't married, but living together with a kid the cost would be less then
half that. Go figure. Plus - how can they determine what amount is affordable to
each couple. Even 2 couples who earn the same amount of money may have vastly
different bills. That is why it is ludacris to penalize people for choosing not
to have the coverage - if I want to not have health insurance how can that be
illegal. It is rediculous.
Obamacare IS a tax. The sooner people realize their taxes have just been raised
the sooner we can come to some sort of agreement to END the tax.People may (or may not)receive healthcare from the government. Its' now
up to the feds to decide which conditions get treated and which do not.Try not to get sick!
No fan of Obamacare here, but I feel that I must point out that it's not a
"penalty" to not subsidize. Why should someone get preferential
treatment just because they have a certain relationship status? That goes for
child tax credits and such too.
re:UtahBruingo for it!
Let me see if I get this right. The poster family for this debate is one that
makes 4x the bar - which is 60k a year - meaning their household income is in
excess of $240,000 a year. And they are thinking of getting divorced because
they can't afford health insurance.I am sorry.... but if this
is true..... they have to be some of the most sorry excuses for adults out
there. If you can not make your budget work, even living in NYC, with an
income higher than 240k.... they have some serious other issues besides the fact
they cant buy "affordable" health insurance.The DN just
keeps banging this drum. Daily. Not that there isn't problems. But
they do so at the exclusion of even bigger stories such as a possible meeting of
minds between the west and Iran. That alone will impact the price of energy
futures greater and American daily expense far greater than this sorry excuse
for a couple who earn as much as they do.... and can't afford insurance.The DN seems to have a one track mind here. Other stuff is going
on.... report on it.
@patriotI loved the example. So true! I hope it is alright if I
plagiarize that one and share your example with family and friends. That was
@ wwookie"Obamacare is working for a lot of the milions of poor
people. You don't like poor people and you probably are racist if you
don't support obamacare." Wow!! Are your serious? Please
see my earlier post regarding the cost of health care. The best thing we could
have done is continued to take personal responsibility for our health care
costs, just as most of us do with our other living expenses. That would have
kept costs at reasonable levels so that even low-income people could afford good
health care. Unfortunately, we long ago left that "good place". A few days ago, on this forum, I was told that Personal Responsibility
is completely irrelevant in the health care discussion, unless I want my child
to die because I do not have $400,000 to pay for her lung transplant. The fact
is that the costs would not be anywhere near as high as they are if we have not
abandoned personal responsibility regarding health care.
@ atl134 and pragmatistferlifeGiven that those of us against
Obamacare subsidies are forced to submit by law, we can certainly have moral
opinions about how the subsidy is distributed, particularly since we are forced
to pay for those subsidies by law (through taxes).This is how I
understand your points: You claim that since I didn't want my money taken
for the subsidies, I can't make any argument about how my taken money is
used. That's like saying a bank can have no opinion about how the money
that is stolen from it should be used, because the bank didn't want the
money to be stolen.I think it's very reasonable to assume that,
given the money is already stolen, the distribution of the money is still in the
deep interest of the original owner.
I just bought a new car and it sort of reminded of what is going on with
Obamacare right now for families. Families want to purchase a simple Ford Focus
($17k) that gets good gas mileage, inexpensive to buy and maintain. No bells and
whistles ...just a reliable car to go from point A to point B. Barack says NO -
that Ford Focus is JUNK. You can't buy it. You 'get' to upgrade
to either a Cadillac ESCALADE ($50k) OR a BMW X5 ($50k). Those are your choices.
Yes we in the Obama administration have determined that all car choices now must
include on-line navigation, heated seats, etc... But our family doesn't
want or need on-line navigation and heated seats and all the other luxuries.
Well you just aren't smart enough to purchase a reliable car so the
government will make the choice for you. As for the 50k price...well some people
will get government subsidies and reduce that cost to 25k while others will just
get the Escalade for free thanks to your generous tax increases. Now - what are
you complaining about - just go buy the Escalade or the BMW!!! So simple..right?
atl134OK, let me try to break this down as simple as possible.1 - Obamacare helps the lower middle class with subsidies for health
insurance2- Since 2009 most Americans are now lower middle-class3-
The poor do not get Obamacare subsidies, they will stay on the Medicaid
program4 - Retail insurance payers will pay for the subsidies with higher
insurance costs expected to be as much as 100% per year increase for the next
four years or 25% of their income - this is also called a penalty, the cost of
ObamacareRetail Payers to subsidize the lower middle class:Single payer $45,000Couple payers $65,000Couple one child
$80,000Couple 2 children $95,000Couple 3 children $110,000Couple 4 children $125,000Obamacare cuts right through the
middleclass with penalties that make too much or the self-employed. Don't
be too successful in America. Don't hire full time employees in your small
business. Don't hire more than 49 people in your small business.
@The TaxmanLos Angeles, CA"This piece belongs on the
opinion page. It is misleading, contains no context, and provides very little
information."Surely you are referring to the ACA, aka ObamaCare,
Some interesting numbers:2000-2010 Costs compared with late 1960'sFood 5-10 timesTransportation 5-10 timesHousing 5-10
timesUtilities 5-10 timesSalaries and wages 5-10 timesHealth
care, specifically a 24-hour hospital stay 100-500 times!!!!!!Why
this HUGE difference with essentially all our other living expenses? Here are
some "secondary" reasons that are often mentioned: 1.High-tech
"computerized" equipment (this one is really interesting considering
that a present-day PC that is infinitely more sophisticated costs 1/10 of what a
"decent" computer cost in 1970) 2. Frivolous (and non-frivolous)
lawsuits 3. Hospitals are forced to treat everyone--can't turn
anyone away 4. Greedy insurance companies 5. Greedy drug
companiesHowever--if you leave your house unlocked, unoccupied and
unwatched for 20 years, what is the cause of the resulting damage? Rats,
vagabonds, weather, thieves? Yes, BUT the ROOT CAUSE is your negligence.Same thing with health care costs--40+ years ago we abandoned the
principles of personal responsibility and accountability, as we left our health
care costs almost entirely to our employer and the insurance companies.
Result--stratospheric costs. Now--politicians and
@ pragmatistferlifeReally? So, you are saying that a class of people
being coerced to pay for others' healthcare (insurance premiums and actual
care) is moral? Subsidies, afterall, are not paid for out of thin air.
Perfid, I completely agree with you. Once again, the middle class, incentive to
do well, and achievement are being punished. By virtue, (or the lack of it) of
forward information about this healthcare bill (which really is not about
healthcare at all, but more government control), the whole thing needs to be
@atl134Nobody has avoided your question. I am not sure you
understand what subsidies are or where they come from or what it means to defund
OCare.First, everyone was happy with their health plans before or at
least it sure seems that way. By every outlet and cry of how much people are
realizing they hate OCare.Second, there was no need for subsidies,
OCare is forcing people in need of subsidies because rates are higher. Without
Ocare, there is no need for subsidies, because rates are affordable.Third, so to defund Obamacare would not have mattered for subsidies, it would
have been better because it would have just killed itself at that point and gone
away.Fourth, you and all lefties just want the rich, or working to
subsidize the poor. And don't say the middle class gets help also. You
and I both know that the middle class is on its way out, if not gone already.
There is no middle class, there is the rich and the poor. This is what Obama
has done, removed the MClass. This is what he wanted all along to create the
need for Govt. control. Thus OC
atl134What you seem to not understand is that We were Not Worse Off
before Obamacare. Why do you keep insisting that we were? And I might add,
from the news I hear, the worse is yet to come. Obamacare was supposed to give
health care to the uninsured people. Instead it has disrupted everyones health
insurance when that was not what was "sold" to the American people. No
one can defend the lies that this President and supporters of ACA are making to
try to justify it.
atl134You should have stayed out of this one atl134 because
you've got no case. Neither by the way does Obama and all his gang, so
I'm not putting it all on you, but some things are just not defensible, and
this is one of them.
So these special "subsidies" favor those who are unemployed and those
who are single and/or cohabitating? This is a disgrace to the good citizens of
this country that are doing everything they can to even manage life expenses and
now are required to make some very serious decisions. Undoubtedly, it would be
perhaps something we all know to say that the AFA is an abhorrent failure. I
despise it more as new details are understood and released to the public.
It is not surprising that a complex problem (the rising cost of health care) can
not be solved with a complex solution (the ACA) without unintended consequences.
One way to solve a complex problem is to ignore the unintended consequences. The
best way to solve a complex problem is to break the issues down to its
constituent parts and solve them in the most effective ways possible.Complex problems can not be solved by complex solutions without consequences
that are most likely to hurt more then help. That is proving to be true with the
ACA. The consequences will reverberate for years, and even decades.
@The Taxman "Anything above "full retail" is insurance companies
gouging and should perhaps be addressed through further (perhaps
"single-payer) legislation."Anything above the old "full
retail" is paying for the new subsidies. The upper-middle class and the rich
are subsidizing the lower middle class by increases as high as 100% each year
for the next four years. (The poor remain on the Medicaid plan.)It
can't be addresses by legislation, this IS the ACA plan. Where did you
think the money was coming from?
@UtahBruinI already said it wasn't my defense... I just found it
amusing that conservatives are arguing on the behalf of working women (maybe
they should be backing equal pay legislation...).My defense that
none of you responded to is that you all wanted to defund Obamacare which
would've made all the subsidies 0 leaving everyone worse off regardless of
whether they are married or single, so any complaints you have are those of
@patriot. Obamacare, AKA Romney Care, is far from socialism. It's
Government regulated profits for private insurers. If the ACA nationalized
Health Care prices would be much lower and could be considered socialism. But
creating a law that guarantees profit to private companies is in no way a form
It isn't just ObamaCare that is anti-marriage. It is Obama himself, who
strongly advocates, promotes, and even pushes abortion and "gay rights",
etc. All of these are very much anti-family issues.This is how
civilizations die. Which straw is it that will ultimately break the camel's
back? Well, for families, this is certainly a financial back breaker.And, BTW, that "Congress" approved ObamaCare is NOTHING. Especially
since, at least in the House, ALL and ONLY those who are DEMOCRATS voted for it.
@Razzle2I was commenting on the poorly written "article",
not "spinning". The subsidy. If the article were not so properly
written, some of the questions I asked would be answered and we would not need
to speculate.But since you mentioned "spinning" it is you
who are spinning by trying to call a subsidy (or the lack thereof) a penalty.
If you don't get a subsidy you are at zero, not penalized.Healthcare is expensive... we get it. And I think we can agree that health
insurance is a rip-off (and insurers take advantage of those without bargaining
power). But the "full retail" that you mention is, by definition, what
somebody without a special deal would pay. Anything above "full
retail" is insurance companies gouging and should perhaps be addressed
through further (perhaps "single-payer) legislation.
Is Obama really a good President?Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) -
What's affordable about it?Benghazi - No intelligence briefing,
and why, all other presidents attend these.Fast & Furious - A
government-sponsored illegal gun-running scheme designed to purposely go awry to
induce public outcry for gun control.NSA - Still waiting for answers
on this one?IRS - HmmmmmmmmmmNational debt increased -
How much is it up to now?In both the 2008 and 2012 presidential
elections, the Obama campaign purposely disabled the credit card verification
system for its Web site donations, allowing anyone from any foreign country to
donate with no limit and no proof of identity; in both elections it was
demonstrated that people overseas and people with obviously false identities
were able to donate to Obama campaign, in direct violation of several laws. Militarily intervened in Libya in 2011 without the Congressional
approval required by the War Powers Act — An impeachable offense.Handed out over 1,200 waivers to politically connected donors exempting them
from the requirements of Obamacare.And the list goes on and on and
on, and he hasn't even been here five years yet.
@The Taxman "Why is this couple seeking coverage now and how affordable
would the couple's coverage be without the ACA?"The couple
had insurance, it was affordable. They can't afford the new higher price of
insurance unless they lower their income and get the subsidy.Affordable Care Act my foot.
@atl134So I guess your argument then is to penalize someone because
they have kids and have or want to work jobs. You slam conservatives because
they may not have a stay at home parent for kids. Your argument gets weaker and
weaker, your digging a hole for yourself so you should probably stop.Next, you say that Obamacare is better for the "hypothetical married
couple". I am not quite sure what a "hypothetical married couple"
is, if your married, it sure isn't hypothetical. Besides that, Obama care
has raised rates, I am not hearing about people paying less money. Premiums are
higher, deductibles are definitely higher, even those so called that were
grandfathered in have had premium increases. Please explain how paying more
money is better.Also, there would be no need for subsidies if
Obamacare was not around. So Obamacare raises everyones rates and deductibles
to get everyone insurance, they do this so that others can pay for the lazy who
don't want to do for themselves. Then the mastermind is to grant subsides
that help nobody but the lazy who don't want to do for themselves. Yep,
that makes sense.
My advice to the couple is to get out of New York. Due to the ACA,
"retail" health insurance is in out-of-control price increases in New
York, the Northeast, Illinois and California.If you are to be
self-employed move quickly to a state that is friendlier to business and expects
slower health insurance increases; Pennsylvania, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and
Wow! A couple is thinking divorce because they cannot afford insurance as a
married couple. Absolutely incredible that the Democrats support this. No
wonder they have become bankrupt in their morals (and in the process rushing
toward financial insolvency).
The Taxman said "How much of a subsidy would they receive if there was
no ACA? ...Why is this couple seeking coverage now and how affordable would the
couple's coverage be without the ACA?"Nice spin on the
benefits of the subsidy. But we must look at the penalty if you are not
subsidized. In this case, couples without kids making $65,000 will have to pay
"retail". To subsidize the other tax classes, health insurance companies
expect retail private insurance to increase 100% per year for the next four
years. In Massachusetts it is expected that a couple earning $120,000 will pay
25% of their income to health insurance.Now, do you see the
incentive to divorce to get the subsidy?
This piece belongs on the opinion page. It is misleading, contains no context,
and provides very little information.We get that this couple is
receiving a lower benefit under the ACA than they would receive if they were
single. How much of a subsidy would they receive if there was no ACA? What
other "marriage penalties" exist in the IRC and other legislation (i.e.,
how common are they) and how do citizens feel about them? Why is this couple
seeking coverage now and how affordable would the couple's coverage be
without the ACA?Nice job DN!
atl134 said "It's only a "penalty" if both in the marriage are
working."Not at all. The penalty is making $65,000 for a couple
without kids. Penalty stands if only one is working.
We pray for the nation to turn to the Lord and to be delivered from oppression.
This health care law is taxing to the upper middle-class. Yes, married income is
at $65,000 but single income is at $45,000. So, this couple can't be that
far from the subsidy line.All they need to do is sock another $5,000
away into an IRA and give away enough money to charity to put them into the
lower income group...Or they can have a baby and earn up to $80,000.See, aren't tax loopholes great? This has nothing to do with insurance,
it's just a big fat tax.
Obama and the Democrats' legislation almost always has the effect of
encouraging promiscuity and penalizing marriage. Can't the pro-family
Democrats wake up? Doesn't society benefit by encouraging children to be
raised by a mother and father.?
Lost I thought alt was very clear. This couple needs steady help with their
insurance because of the kinds of profession they have. There are
differentiators in the subsidies/help they can receive based on whether they are
married or not. However, you have no moral high ground to criticize the
differentiations in subsidies when you think no one should get any subsidies.
The income limits were set by liberals/progressives who never read the bill, and
rammed this law through the back doors of Congress in the middle of the night.
Now Pres. Obama is attempting to change his tune on what he said three years ago
on his promises (...PERIOD) of guaranteed continued coverage. The ACA is a
nightmare from all angles and and aspects. What else could one expect from such
When I was a little girl I was taught that when government tries to "take
care" of the people, the people suffer. Whereas, when the people take care
of themselves, they prosper. I agree with the LDS Church's approach to
helping individuals who can't help themselves. It's based on voluntary
contributions and love. In the case of the government, it's based on
political parties trying to win favor with groups who are struggling by giving
them something for free for the soul purpose of controlling them. I suggest that
like minded healthcare professionals or, the Church, create independent
exchanges that do not accept government subsidies. The private sector healthcare
systems would free all of us from the nonsense in Washington.
First a marriage penalty with income tax and now this.Democrats are sure
pro marriage aren't they!Remember not one Republican voted for
this.85% of single women vote Democrat.55% of married women
vote Republican. Formerly single women make the party switch within three years
of marriage.If Democrats actually promoted and encouraged marriage
it would be political suicide.
Healthcare is quickly becoming as confusing as tax returns. Obamacare is a scam. Now we know whats in it since its been passed, its time
to take it off life support. Its a bad, bad law and should never have become
such to begin with. We all want healthcare but the end doesn't
not justify the dishonest means.
Obamacare:Attack on the medical professionAttack on our access to
quality health careAttack on our libertiesAttack on the
responsibleAttack on our fiscal viabilityAttack on truthAttack
on marriageWe have to pass it so we can find out what’s in
it!Curiosity killed the cat, nancy, and in this case will kill
us.atl134,so you’re saying we should have no two-income
families so MORE can live at the public trough?I think you were
trying to say something , but I’m having a hard time figuring it out.
I’m seriously NOT trying to argue with you – you have left me
befuddled. What is your point?thanks
Love this part of the article. Critics of the Affordable Care Act
have called the pricey decision couples face the 'marriage penalty.'
But the income levels for subsidies were set by Congress," according to CBS
News, which also interviewed the couple.What's the BUT doing in
there? So... because Congress set the levels... it's not a penalty...Or
its not someone's fault???
How crazy is that..a married couple getting penalized. This article made it
sound like this couple was getting a divorce because of this Obama insurance
plan..gee I hope not, I hope any married couple would put their marriage above
insurance. This whole thing is nuts!
Obamacare is working for a lot of the milions of poor people. You don't
like poor people and you probably are racist if you don't support
obamacare. (The above are some of the continuing lies being
propogated by certain media outlets)
I'm not a fan of the ACA and not a fan of Obama but if, only after a few
weeks post-implementation, these are the best arguments against the ACA then,
sorry conservatives, but the "freedom ending, America destroying" ACA is
here to stay. Perhaps, if the DesNews actually cared about
prominent issues affecting families, they'd run more stories on
immigration, gun violence, income inequality, etc.... This is nothing but a
Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In
If Republicans had their way and defunded Obamacare then the subsidies to
everyone, married or unmarried, would be 0. How's that for a penalty?
@A1994No, it's not my defense, I just find it amusing that
conservatives who believe in having a stay at home parent to raise the kids are
upset about something that only harms families where two people work. My "defense" is that I don't care since even with this
"penalty", Obamacare is still a better deal than what the options were
before for the hypothetical married couple. If conservatives really want to
complain about it, then go ask Reid to change the subsidies to make them even
more generous. But they won't and you know why? Because Republicans wanted
to defund Obamacare. The subsidies under a defunded Obamacare would be 0. So
hey, forget the marriage penalty, you'd institute a larger penalty to
everyone married or not. Instead of individuals up to 40k and married couples
without kids up to 55k getting subsidies, nobody would get subsidies. So
don't come crying to me that the subsidy isn't as large as you'd
like. You wanted it to be 0, for everyone. And if you didn't you
should've paid attention to what defunding does...
This is the story that never ends. We learn something new about Obamacare daily.
What ever happended to that guy who said that you could keep your doctor and
your insurance plan if you wanted?
@atl134"It's only a "penalty" if both in the
marriage are working."Is that really your defense of this
stinker? So if one of them stops working and cuts their income in half, then
their healthcare gets cheaper? Is that really what you are trying to say?
spread the love man... Isn't Obamacare - Socialism Great!!! Just remember
America, you voted for this!!!! Twice!!! When you are digging into your bank
account to pay that gigantic insurance premium - remember a year ago when you
could have checked the ROMNEY box instead of the Obama box on the ballot ... and
had you done that you wouldn't be in this living nightmare now. Yes
elections have consequences and so does stupidity. Millions of Obama voters are
finding that out for the first time this fall. Hard for me to feel sorry for
anyone who voted for Obama and now finds themselves in dire straits.
Why are we subsidizing anyone anyway? This whole thing is corrupt.
It's only a "penalty" if both in the marriage are working.
Obama lied, healthcare die
if you just shack up you get a discount....if you are married you are penalized?
That's one way to put an end to the gay marriage envy crowd?