Quantcast

Comments about ‘Obamacare marriage penalty puts poor couples on hot seat’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Nov. 14 2013 8:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

"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.

happy2bhere
clearfield, UT

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.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

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...

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

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.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

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!

BeSmart
Cheyenne, WY

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

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

Groups that fight against marriage for LGBT…

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

And do not see the hypocrisy...

Star Bright
Salt Lake City, Ut

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

Doctor C
Orem, UT

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!

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

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…..

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@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

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

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?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

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?

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

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.

A Guy With A Brain
Enid, OK

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"....

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@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.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@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).

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@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.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'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.

to comment

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