Married Couples Will Pay Thousands More Under ObamaCare

Liberal Democrats have been determined in their desire to destroy the institution of traditional marriage between one man and one woman for decades. If any more evidence is needed about this fact, it is provided in both versions of ObamaCare which were passed in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate late last year.

The "Wall Street Journal" reported that "Some married couples would pay thousands of dollars more for the same health insurance coverage as unmarried people living together, under the health insurance overhaul plan pending in Congress.

"The built-in 'marriage penalty' in both House and Senate healthcare bills has received scant attention. But for scores of low-income and middle-income couples, it could mean a hike of $2,000 or more in annual insurance premiums the moment they say 'I do'".

This is absolutely reprehensible and must be stopped. Secret negotiations between Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid and White House officials are going on right now behind closed doors.

The Republican Leader John Boehner, from Ohio, who will probably be the next Speaker of the House if the Democrats lose control of the House this November said about the Democrats scheming to pass ObamaCare: "jamming this sort of complex legislation through Congress in the dark of night means that we are just learning about some of its more damaging provisions." And the whopping marriage penalty tax on married couples is just such a damaging provision.

"The Wall Street Journal" article goes on to say about the Democrats' marriage penalty tax: "The disparity comes about in part because subsidies for purchasing health insurance under the plan from congressional Democrats are pegged to federal poverty guidelines. That has the effect of limiting subsidies for married couples with a combined income, compared to if the individuals are single.

"People who get their health insurance through an employer wouldn't be affected. Only people that buy subsidized insurance through new exchanges set up by the legislation stand to be impacted. About 17 million people would receive such subsidies in 2016 under the House plan, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. The bills cap the annual amount people making less than 400% of the federal poverty level must pay for health insurance premiums, ranging from 1.5% of income for the poorest to 11% at the top end, under the House plan.

"For an unmarried couple with income of $25,000 each, combined premiums would be capped at $3,076 per year, under the House bill. If the couple gets married, with a combined income of $50,000, their annual premium cap jumps to $5,160 -- a "penalty" of $2,084. Those figures were included in a memo prepared by House Republican staff.

"The disparity is slightly smaller in the Senate version of health-care legislation, chiefly because premium subsidies in the House bill are more targeted towards low-wage earners. Under the Senate bill, a couple with $50,000 combined income would pay $3,450 in annual premiums if unmarried, and $5,100 if married -- a difference of $1,650."

Married couples whose combined income will make them ineligible for subsidies could find themselves paying up to $5,000 more in insurance premiums according to the WSJ article. It is disgraceful that the Democrat-controlled Congress and the White House would even consider punishing married couples.

Already, America's seniors -- 2/3 of seniors oppose ObamaCare -- will see a drop in their earned benefits in the amount of 1/2 trillion dollars in Medicare cuts. It is time for the congressional leaders to pay attention to the American people and their strong opposition to ObamaCare and drop their plans for socialized medicine which especially hurts married couples and America's senior citizens.

***

TAKE ACTION: Contact your members of Congress and let them know how you feel about this issue.

 

Responces

Comments

Proponents of health care reforms involving expansion of government involvement to achieve universal health care argue that the need to provide profits to investors in a predominantly free market health system, and the additional administrative spending, tends to drive up costs, leading to more expensive health care provision.

I'm against this new policy!!!

Months after the worst piece of legislation in American history -- and the most costly piece of legislation estimated to cost upwards of $2.5 trillion -- was passed, the massive effort to repeal Obamacare is growing. Polls show that this highly unpopular piece of socialism is still opposed by the American people as much as it was during the year-long debate and votes in the Democrat-controlled Congress.A solid majority of Americans want Obamacare repealed. Even the selfish corporations, which gave the final impetus to passing Obamacare by supporting it, are now realizing what a terrible pact with the devil they made to cut out special exemptions for themselves. They are dropping health care plans, increasing health care costs to their employees, and writing off huge expenses due to the imposition of Obamacare on their companies, etc. The reformers are at it again with yet another attempt to criminalize political speech and campaign activity.From the government’s Department of Perverse Acronyms comes the “DISCLOSE Act”, which stands for “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections”. How clever. And how disingenuous.

Critics of the plan say that married couples whose combined income makes them ineligible for subsidies is even greater — possibly as high as $5,000 or more — depending on the price of the insurance policy.

The obvious concerns surrounding this bill are getting a significant amount of attention. There are many less obvious stories that surround this bill that should be of equal concern to the American people.

The difference is less in the Senate version of health care legislation, chiefly because premium subsidies in the House bill are more targeted towards low-wage earners

Under the House plan: For an unmarried couple with income of $25,000 each, combined premiums would be capped at $3,076 per year. If the couple gets married, with a combined income of $50,000, their annual premium cap jumps to $5,160 — a "penalty" of $2,084. The "crime" that generates this penalty is simply being married

The bills limits the annual amount people making less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level must pay for health insurance premiums, ranging from 1.5 percent of income for the poorest to 11 percent at the top end

About 17 million people would receive such subsidies in 2016 under the House plan

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Thanks for the info and this is very essential.

Well a good reason as to why a marriage would be over is no trust especially when your spouse cheats. Whether it's one time or many times, cheating is not part of your marriage vows...

Why implement such huge taxes anyway? Married or unmarried couple should share same taxes and lower them down. Well, depending of the income of both couples. And much lower them when they have children to feed.

We continue to destory this beautiful nation our forefathers worked so hard to build,thanks for sharing the post.

Democratic staff who helped to write the bill confirmed the existence of the penalty, but said it cannot be remedied without creating other inequities.  For instance, they said making the subsidies neutral towards marriage would lead to a married couple with only one bread-winner getting a more generous subsidy than a single parent at the same income-level.  'The Finance Committee, along with other committees in the Senate, took pains to craft the most equitable overall structure possible, and that's what we have here,' said a Democratic Senate Finance Committee aide.

If the bill passes in its current form, it would be far from the first example of federal and social benefits creating incentives to remain single.  Under current law, marriage can have a negative impact on a person's ability to claim the earned income tax credit and welfare benefits including food stamps.

If that is true then it would make that part of the bill "pro-marriage" since it would create tax incentives for a married couple to remain married or an unmarried couple to get married.  I would rather have a pro-marriage bill than an anti-marriage bill.

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. Numbers 6:24-26

We continue to destory this beautiful nation our forefathers worked so hard to build...

Keith @ http://whatisthebible.com

Even the selfish corporations, which gave the final impetus to passing Obamacare by supporting it, are now realizing what a terrible pact with the devil they made to cut out special exemptions for themselves. They are dropping health care plans, increasing health care costs to their employees, and writing off huge expenses due to the imposition of Obamacare on their companies, etc. The reformers are at it again with yet another attempt to criminalize political speech and campaign activity.From the government’s Department of Perverse Acronyms comes the “DISCLOSE Act”, which stands for “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections”. How clever. And how disingenuous.

Syndicate content