Obamacare marriage penalty puts pressure on couples buying insurance

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Whos Life RU Living? Ogden, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 12:48 p.m.

    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.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 12, 2013 11:54 a.m.

    @Lost.... one could equally say...

    Corporatized Medicine:
    Attack on the medical profession
    Attack on our access to quality health care
    Attack on our liberties
    Attack on the responsible
    Attack on our fiscal viability
    Attack on truth
    Attack on marriage

    Do 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.

  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    Nov. 11, 2013 5:06 p.m.

    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...

  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    Nov. 11, 2013 5:00 p.m.

    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.

  • Utah Businessman Sandy, UT
    Nov. 9, 2013 12:06 p.m.


    Great?! 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)

  • postaledith Freeland, WA
    Nov. 9, 2013 2:38 a.m.

    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!

  • The Taxman Los Angeles, CA
    Nov. 8, 2013 5:37 p.m.

    @CowboyDude,Razzle and others

    The 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.

  • antodav TAMPA, FL
    Nov. 8, 2013 5:11 p.m.

    I wonder if Barack Obama wants gay marriages to be the only marriages left anymore. It seems that way to me.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 4:30 p.m.


    "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?

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 3:37 p.m.


    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. PERIOD.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 8, 2013 2:58 p.m.

    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.

  • Tom in CA Vallejo, CA
    Nov. 8, 2013 2:48 p.m.

    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 this country.

  • RN4moms Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 2:48 p.m.

    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.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    Nov. 8, 2013 1:18 p.m.


    Is 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.

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 1:20 p.m.

    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!

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    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.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 1:02 p.m.


    go for it!

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 8, 2013 12:39 p.m.

    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.

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 12:13 p.m.


    I 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 great!

  • Utah Businessman Sandy, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 12:02 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • eman Kaysville, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 11:33 a.m.

    @ atl134 and pragmatistferlife

    Given 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.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    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?

  • Razzle2 Bluffdale, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 11:20 a.m.


    OK, let me try to break this down as simple as possible.

    1 - Obamacare helps the lower middle class with subsidies for health insurance
    2- Since 2009 most Americans are now lower middle-class
    3- The poor do not get Obamacare subsidies, they will stay on the Medicaid program
    4 - 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 Obamacare

    Retail Payers to subsidize the lower middle class:

    Single payer $45,000
    Couple payers $65,000
    Couple one child $80,000
    Couple 2 children $95,000
    Couple 3 children $110,000
    Couple 4 children $125,000

    Obamacare 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.

  • NT SomewhereIn, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 11:14 a.m.

    @The Taxman
    Los 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, right?

  • Utah Businessman Sandy, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 11:12 a.m.

    Some interesting numbers:
    2000-2010 Costs compared with late 1960's

    Food 5-10 times
    Transportation 5-10 times
    Housing 5-10 times
    Utilities 5-10 times
    Salaries and wages 5-10 times
    Health 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 companies

    However--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 bureaucrats--DISASTER!

  • NT SomewhereIn, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 11:07 a.m.

    @ pragmatistferlife

    Really? 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.

  • cindyacre Shelley, ID
    Nov. 8, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    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 shelved.

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 10:48 a.m.


    Nobody 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

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 10:46 a.m.


    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.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 10:40 a.m.


    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.

  • perfidemintrepidus Riverton, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 10:36 a.m.

    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.

  • BayAreaCougar Pleasanton, CA
    Nov. 8, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    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.

  • Cowboy Dude SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    @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?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    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.

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    @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.

  • Diligent Dave Logan, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    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.

  • The Taxman Los Angeles, CA
    Nov. 8, 2013 9:51 a.m.


    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.

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    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.

  • Canyontreker TAYLORSVILLE, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 9:32 a.m.

    @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
    Nov. 8, 2013 9:30 a.m.


    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
    Nov. 8, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    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.

  • Lone Eagle Aurora, CO
    Nov. 8, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    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).

  • Razzle2 Bluffdale, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    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?

  • The Taxman Los Angeles, CA
    Nov. 8, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    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
    Nov. 8, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    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.

  • Jil York, SC
    Nov. 8, 2013 8:14 a.m.

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

  • Razzle2 Bluffdale, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 8:09 a.m.

    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.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 8:03 a.m.

    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.?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 8, 2013 7:36 a.m.

    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.

  • AZDZRTFOX Hucahuca City, AZ
    Nov. 8, 2013 7:27 a.m.

    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 ludicrous legislation?

  • Priscilla247 USA, GA
    Nov. 8, 2013 6:37 a.m.

    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.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    Nov. 8, 2013 6:31 a.m.

    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.

  • 3grandslams Iowa City, IA
    Nov. 8, 2013 6:10 a.m.

    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.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 5:47 a.m.

    Attack on the medical profession
    Attack on our access to quality health care
    Attack on our liberties
    Attack on the responsible
    Attack on our fiscal viability
    Attack on truth
    Attack on marriage

    We 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.

    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?


  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    Nov. 8, 2013 5:43 a.m.

    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???

  • CP Tooele, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 4:19 a.m.

    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!

  • wwookie Payson, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 3:17 a.m.

    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)

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Nov. 8, 2013 1:47 a.m.

    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 charade.

    Nov. 8, 2013 12:51 a.m.

    Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It"

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:48 p.m.

    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?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:45 p.m.

    No, 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...

  • The Deuce Livermore, CA
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:37 p.m.

    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?

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:35 p.m.


    "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?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:27 p.m.

    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.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:21 p.m.

    Why are we subsidizing anyone anyway? This whole thing is corrupt.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:21 p.m.

    It's only a "penalty" if both in the marriage are working.

  • t702 Las Vegas, NV
    Nov. 7, 2013 7:55 p.m.

    Obama lied, healthcare die

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 4:53 p.m.

    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?