How can Democrats and Republican be so historically ignorant of rights, the
constitution, and God. Government is at best evil. God is at best good. Take
your pick! Governments are only worthy of support when they support unalienable
rights and draw their power from the people. We the People is still the best
guarantee of individual liberty the world has ever known.
If we had a single payer system this wouldn't be an issue.
I am so glad that I live in a country (Australia) where, if I get ill, I can go
to a doctor and get treated 7 days a week up until 10pm without needing to worry
about a huge bill. Where I pay only $36 for my cholesterol tablets; where my
wife gets a free mammogram each year and I get a free prostate check. Where if I
need hospital treatment I don't lose my house or have to spend years in
bankruptcy. You all keep going the way you are and sod the poor. After all, you
can have too many poor people. And now the Vietnam war is over where how else
are you going to get rid of them but by making the cost of health care (which is
a RIGHT not a privilege)too expensive for them.
Obamacare IS one BIG penalty!!!
I don't know if atl134 has ever bought health insurance, but it is nowhere
close to the same price for single people to buy insurance. My insurance plan
would cost me about 50$ a month if it was just me. When you add my family it
goes up to almost 600$ a month. Whereas if my wife were to get it through her
work and I just covered the kids, it would cost me about 350 total. If this is
a conspiracy then you are ignoring the fact that the law's wording
substantiates it. Why should the same people pay more if they are married?
Everything else being equal we should pay the same amount. Single cohabitating
couples can pool resources just as easily as anyone else. Married couples can
separate their money just like anyone else. If it were reversed you would be
screaming. The law is targeting married couples. If you deny this you are not
looking at the facts!
From everything that is stated in this article, there is indeed a "marriage
penalty". This is pretty sad and an indictment of our current society and
'Prepare for the deluge…..' Yes, yes. If I do not
believe as you do, I am going to be punished. If your theology
requires threats? It's bad theology. Also, we have
been hearing this same type of garbage rhetoric, that if one does not adhere to
your beliefs they will be punished… for 2013 years. We aren't buying it.
@lost in DC"so you’re saying it’s OK to destabilize
marriage with a penalty under Obamcare, and that it is better for people to just
cohabitate than legitimize their relationship? "I'm saying
it's better than you all letting people die by making subsidies 0 through
defunding Obamacare. If you really want to increase subsidies to married
couples, just let Reid know, I'm sure Democrats would love to increase the
portion of healthcare spending done by the federal gov't, after all
that's just a couple more percent closer to single payer which is what
I'm in favor of. There's no marriage penalty in single payer.
@Be Smart"could we get the numbers on family policies?"Sure, especially since I was rather guessing that it'd cut the 4,564 by
more than half. So using the Kaiser Foundation calculator I put in 1 adult 20k
since that was the one in the chart that was the worst and got $2535 a year -
$1514 in subsidy = $1021 in premium cost for a single adult making 20k. Two
adults, the unmarried couple, each doing it individually comes out to $2,042
dollars.Now for 2 adults 40k that comes to $5,070 a year -$1,759 in
subsidy = $3,312 in premiums. So the "marriage penalty"
there is 1,270 dollars compared to the 4,564 from the chart in the article (I
don't know why they care about what the difference in subsidy is since
it's the difference in premium cost that people care about).
@lost in DCSo a small group on the far right has been trying to repeal the
ACA for three years and stalled any changes to the law. According to a recent
study published in forbs only 33% of Americans support repeal. People maybe
unhappy with the current state of the ACA but even mainstream republicans know
it is not going anywhere so the far right can keep stalling and drag down the
GOP or they can choose to be a part of the solution.
Article quote: "A couple earning $20,000 a year each would receive over
$4,000 more in health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act if they lived
together than if they were married — a difference of more than 10 percent
of their income."Don't worry, I'm sure that was just
an unintended oversight on the part of the liberals/Democrats. You know, those
people that voted in their own 2013 national party convention to NOT put the
word "God" in their national platform. Yeah, sarcasam
Spring street,You misunderstand. Getting rid of it WOULD fix it!t-seeker,you admit there is a marriage penalty even in the
People’s Republic of Jerryworld. So what’s your point?HVH,Trying to distract away from the issue of the marriage penalty IS an
obvious attempt at obfuscation. Sorry your comprehension skills do not allow
you to see that.And tell me how you got the obvious personal insult
(your comprehension skills are weak) past the DN censor? Whenever I say
anything like that, they block my comment. I wonder if they will block this
one, even though I am saying nothing they didn't let you get away with?
there is no figuring them out.Obamacare IS a dem creation. NO ONE
can honestly refute that. Written by DEMS, passed by DEMS with ZERO repub
votes. How can that be ANYTHING but a dem creation?But there you
are being inconsistent. you LOVE Obamacare, but anytime its massive faults are
pointed out, you wrongfully claim it was not written and passed by your heros,
lost in DC said:HVH,So there is no marriage penalty? Sorry, not
going to let you get away with your obvious attempt at obfuscation.Boy your comprehension skills are weak.I never even implied there
wasn't any, I pointed out the obvious paranoia of the right, by the writer
in thinking this is some kind of revenge or attack on republican's, hidden
in the ACA."Obamacare is a dem creation;" How many times can
this be refuted?
Marriage penalty? According to CoveredCal site:Single person,
age 35, income: $50,000; premium range: $235-$251Couple, age 35 income:
$50,000; premium range: $469-$500Now, if one takes a household where
one person makes $50k and the other makes substantially less money, say, $15,000
then the one making only $15k could qualify for a subsidy. So, yea, there would
be a "marriage penalty." But isn't that the same with
other benefits: foodstamps and such? Isn't there also a
"marriage penalty" in the tax code?
@lost in DC nice try yourself but the GOP did not try to fix anything they
tried to get rid of it all together and then when that failed defund it. It is
time to realize the facts it is not going away and the GOP is going to continue
to suffer if they refuse to act responsibly and do something other then say no
when it comes to fix the problems with the ACA
I wish the DN was more accurate in its reporting. “The Atlantic drew the
so-called marriage penalty into the spotlight last week in a profile of a
married couple considering divorce to better afford health care.”
Obamacare is NOT about health CARE, but INSURANCE.Obamacare is a dem
creation; what else would you expect but further attempts to destabilize the
family unit?HVH,So there is no marriage penalty? Sorry, not
going to let you get away with your obvious attempt at obfuscation.atl134,so you’re saying it’s OK to destabilize marriage with
a penalty under Obamcare, and that it is better for people to just cohabitate
than legitimize their relationship? Thanks for adding further support for my
second comment above.Springstreet,Nice try. Obamcare is a DEM
creation and the problems associated therewith are DEM problems. The GOP has
tried to fix the entire problem, harry won’t allow the vote in the senate
and BO says he’ll veto it. Pagan,No hypocrisy, gay
relationships aren’t marriages. Prepare for the
What is better for society? A married couple who raise their children or a
cohabiting couple who raise their children? Statistically a child raised by
their biological parents has much lower rates of criminal behavior,
incarceration, food stamp usage, drug and alcohol abuse, premarital sex, teen
pregnancy, smoking rates and are much more likely to live above the poverty
level, graduate from highschool, and to graduate from college and be employed.
Which type of family should we encourage? Only an idiot would say that married
couples should be penalized!
A law was put forth by the Republicans to make sure plans were grandfathered in,
period! Every dem voted against it. Chickens ... roost!
Groups that fight against marriage for LGBT… now complain that
they are being 'penalized' for being married. And do not
see the hypocrisy...
@atl134could we get the numbers on family policies?This is a legit
question I am just wondering.
Unfortunately, Democrats and Republicans just don't get it! To them,
government is the answer no matter how illogical, immoral, or tyrannical! They
would rather squabble, rip, dance, obfuscate, and blame, rather than doing the
simple thing--get government out of the way, let liberty reign, and empower
citizens to solve their own problems, something the left and the right
patronizingly don't think is possible. Why give people freedom when you can
enslave them and make them, as the Grand Inquisitor said, "happy!" No
need for freedom when you can convince them they are happy while in chains!
So once again, we have known from the start that there were things that needed
to be changed in the AXCA so why is it that the congress has sat on their hands
and done nothing to fix these issues since they passed the law. They can blame
Obama all they want they knew the problems and did nothing to fix them.
Plus this completely ignores the other side of the equation which is that the
unmarried people would have to buy their plans individually and it's
cheaper to buy insurance as a family than as two people buying it as
individuals. That cancels a lot of this "marriage penalty" out.
First conservatives wanted to get rid of Obamacare, then they wanted to defund
it (no subsidies for anyone), now they're complaining that the subsidies
for married couples aren't large enough...
Gee, just when same sex couples have finally gotten the right to marry they now
have a good reason to just cohabitate. Less cynical, any government
program, particularly one that all people are forced into, that punishes
marriage, is a bad program. I don't care which party endorses it.
It's bad public policy and should be changed.
"Rector sees the policy as an "act of ideological hostility," made
possible by the fact that married couples tend to vote Republican, while singles
and those who cohabitate more often lean toward Democrats."Another day, another new conspiracy from the right.What's
Ironic is he see's it as an "act of ideological hostility," you
mean like when you say the gay's don't need to be married, because
they already have the same rights.