Comments about ‘Obamacare marriage penalty puts pressure on couples buying insurance’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Nov. 7 2013 2:40 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
BrentBot
Salt Lake City, UT

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.?

Razzle2
Bluffdale, UT

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.

Jil
York, SC

We pray for the nation to turn to the Lord and to be delivered from oppression.

Razzle2
Bluffdale, UT

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.

The Taxman
Los Angeles, CA

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!

Razzle2
Bluffdale, UT

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?

Lone Eagle
Aurora, CO

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).

Canyontreker
TAYLORSVILLE, UT

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 Utah.

UtahBruin
Saratoga Springs, UT

@atl134

So 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.

Canyontreker
TAYLORSVILLE, UT

@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.

UtahBruin
Saratoga Springs, UT

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 - Hmmmmmmmmmm

National 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
Los Angeles, CA

@Razzle2

I 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.

Diligent Dave
Logan, UT

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.

mcdugall
Murray, UT

@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 of socialism.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@UtahBruin
I 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 hypocrites.

Cowboy Dude
SAINT GEORGE, UT

@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?

BayAreaCougar
Pleasanton, CA

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.

perfidemintrepidus
Riverton, UT

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.

SCfan
clearfield, UT

atl134

You 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.

m.g. scott
clearfield, UT

atl134

What 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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments