Quantcast
Moneywise

Obamacare marriage penalty puts poor couples on hot seat

Comments

Return To Article
  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Nov. 17, 2013 3:40 p.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 17, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    If we had a single payer system this wouldn't be an issue.

  • Aussie Teacher WESTON, VT
    Nov. 17, 2013 4:27 a.m.

    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.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 2:24 p.m.

    Obamacare IS one BIG penalty!!!

  • Rirruto Nampa, Id
    Nov. 15, 2013 2:04 p.m.

    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!

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    Nov. 15, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    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 leadership.

  • BeSmart Cheyenne, WY
    Nov. 15, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    Thanks Atl134.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 12:18 a.m.

    '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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 11:02 p.m.

    @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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 10:59 p.m.

    @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).

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 8:29 p.m.

    @lost in DC
    So 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.

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    Nov. 14, 2013 7:10 p.m.

    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 definitely "Off"....

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 5:12 p.m.

    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, the dems.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 3:49 p.m.

    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?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 14, 2013 3:35 p.m.

    Marriage penalty?

    According to CoveredCal site:
    Single person, age 35, income: $50,000; premium range: $235-$251
    Couple, age 35 income: $50,000; premium range: $469-$500

    Now, 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?

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 3:12 p.m.

    @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

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 12:43 p.m.

    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 deluge…..

  • Doctor C Orem, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 12:23 p.m.

    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!

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    Nov. 14, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    A law was put forth by the Republicans to make sure plans were grandfathered in, period! Every dem voted against it. Chickens ... roost!

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    Groups that fight against marriage for LGBT…

    now complain that they are being 'penalized' for being married.

    And do not see the hypocrisy...

  • BeSmart Cheyenne, WY
    Nov. 14, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    @atl134
    could we get the numbers on family policies?
    This is a legit question I am just wondering.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 9:50 a.m.

    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!

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    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...

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    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.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 8:27 a.m.

    "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.