PDA

View Full Version : The Obamacare Divorce



EE_
17th November 2013, 08:08 PM
Every time you think that we've finally touched bottom on Obamacare, some new problem emerges. So what began merely as a dysfunctional website became a broken and mis-designed system. When it turned out that lots of people were paying more for their plans, it then turned out that others were having their plans canceled—and that some people were even losing their doctors. And now we're finding that, along with everything else, Obamacare contains a marriage penalty, too.

A married couple can get Obamacare subsidies if their income is less than 400 percent above the poverty line. But because the federal poverty level for married couples is less than double the level for individuals, a couple that lives together without getting married can make more money than a married couple, yet still get Obamacare subsidies.

The Atlantic reports that in practice, this means that a married couple in New York making more than a combined $62,040 gets no subsidies from Obamacare. But two people who live together without getting married? They can make up to a combined $91,920 and still get subsidies from the government.

The government has a clear and compelling interest in promoting marriage: Virtually all of the research shows that stable marriages increase economic output, reduce poverty, shrink income inequality, lower rates of incarceration and drug use, and spur the creation of future taxpayers (aka babies). The tax code already discriminates against the government's interest by providing an economic incentive for couples to choose cohabitation over marriage. Now Obamacare has come along to magnify the discrimination.

It's not clear whether this perversity is accidental or by design. But it's yet another line item in the argument against what is clearly the most catastrophic piece of legislation in modern American history.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/penalty-marriage-obamacare_767194.html

BrewTech
17th November 2013, 08:49 PM
Subsidies? Ha!

Even if they offered to buy me an island in the south Pacific and pay my way through porn actor's school, I still wouldn't sign up for this bullshit.

It's a crime against humanity, and can be shoved up the appropriate ass(es).

palani
18th November 2013, 03:58 AM
It's a crime against humanity

Don't you understand the therapeutic value of being able to go to bed at night secure in the knowledge that whoever attempts to cure your medical problems will be paid for their collective efforts? And that little extra they require called a deductible will ultimately help fund the presidents lavish vacations?

madfranks
18th November 2013, 07:27 AM
Stupid DC bureaucrats either don't understand incentives or pretend not to. A young couple considering marriage may be persuaded not to get married if they're going to be penalized for it.

Also, I had to take issue with this:


The government has a clear and compelling interest in promoting marriage

Marriage between two people is none of the government's business, they ought to stay out of it completely.

collector
18th November 2013, 07:30 AM
Breaking down the family unit has always been a goal of the zip-puppets. it's no wonder marriage will carry a penalty.

govcheetos
20th November 2013, 09:37 AM
Marriage between two people is none of the government's business, they ought to stay out of it completely.

Why then is a license required?

7th trump
20th November 2013, 10:10 AM
Why then is a license required?
The marriage license first started with white man marrying interacially with blacks.
Since then the slaves have been freed of involuntary slavery which they never were considered an equal in political status as whites people and why the government came up with the subject "US citizen".
US citizens require a license to do just about everything.

palani
20th November 2013, 12:01 PM
US citizens require a license to do just about everything.

I thought you bought into the concept that U.S. citizens were omnipotent.

Anyway the license for marriage is for the benefit of the minister because without the license he is not legally permitted to join two people in holy bonds.