MARRIED COUPLES PAY MORE THAN UNMARRIED UNDER HEALTH BILL

January 8, 2010

This legislation, if passed, will further erode our moral fabric. Marriage and family is the backbone of every great nation, and when people stop marrying and begin to live together, you have a weakening of the fabric of that nation. It seems as if Congress and the the Senate is wanting to destroy marriage in America. This legislation needs stopped. It is wrong and unfair to higher tax those who are married and living withing the moral and legal codes of our nation.

Lori/Mom

January 8, 2010

MARRIED COUPLES PAY MORE THAN UNMARRIED UNDER HEALTH BILL

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, says the Wall Street Journal.

The built-in "marriage penalty" in both House and Senate health care 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."

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 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, 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.

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, says the Journal:

Under the Senate bill, a couple with $50,000 in combined income would pay $3,450 in annual premiums if unmarried, and $5,100 if married -- a difference of $1,650. Republicans say the effect on married couples whose combined income makes them ineligible for subsidies is even greater -- up to $5,000 or more -- but that is more difficult to measure because it includes assumptions about the price of insurance policies.

Source: Martin Vaughan, "Married Couples Pay More Than Unmarried Under Health Bill," Wall Street Journal, January 6, 2010.

For text:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126281943134818675.html AllThingsHome/

"...‘How will they learn to read?’ you ask, and my answer is ‘Remember the lessons of Massachusetts.’ When children are given whole lives instead of age-graded ones in cellblocks, they learn to read, write, and do arithmetic with ease, if those things make sense in the kind of life that unfolds around them." – John Taylor Gatto

Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

January 8, 2010

Lori, this is actually worse than you think. My parents lived in

Norway for a year and a half. It is the most socialized country in

Europe, with a tax rate of more than 80%. The marriage penalty is so

entrenched that it is almost unheard of to be married.

My parents were there in a religious capacity, and they had occasion

to speak to people about the importance of marriage quite often. It

floored them that the people had never heard of why it was of benefit

to be married. They went to the Bible, but found that the state

church of Norway had changed those inconvenient scriptures on adultery

and fornication, so as to not make people feel guilty.

In schools the children were taught to have sex early and

indiscriminately. They were told while they might feel guilty at

first, to keep it up and eventually the feelings of guilt would go

away. (As one boy remarked, " They are telling me to kill my

conscience! " ) It is no big deal to have children out of wedlock as

day cares are mandated to be open at 6 am til 10 pm to accommodate any

work schedules the parents might have. Government pays for it, so no

need to pick up your children when you get off work, have time to

relax and do what you want.

I could go on, but I am not giving up my family and I have a one year

old boy at my elbow demanding attention. But, this kind of thing

started with the government taking care of the people and taking care

of those poor people who are not married with marriage penalties. It

is a severe blow to the morals of society.

Ramona

Quoting Lori Smith <homeschoolmom42:

>

> This legislation, if passed, will further erode our moral fabric.

> Marriage and family is the backbone of every great nation, and when

> people stop marrying and begin to live together, you have a

> weakening of the fabric of that nation. It seems as if Congress and

> the the Senate is wanting to destroy marriage in America. This

> legislation needs stopped. It is wrong and unfair to higher tax

> those who are married and living withing the moral and legal codes

> of our nation.

>

> Lori/Mom

>

> January 8, 2010

>

> MARRIED COUPLES PAY MORE THAN UNMARRIED UNDER HEALTH BILL

> 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, says

> the Wall Street Journal.

>

> The built-in " marriage penalty " in both House and Senate health care

> 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. "

>

> 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 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, 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.

> 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, says the Journal:

>

> Under the Senate bill, a couple with $50,000 in combined income

> would pay $3,450 in annual premiums if unmarried, and $5,100 if

> married -- a difference of $1,650.

> Republicans say the effect on married couples whose combined income

> makes them ineligible for subsidies is even greater -- up to $5,000

> or more -- but that is more difficult to measure because it includes

> assumptions about the price of insurance policies.

> Source: Martin Vaughan, " Married Couples Pay More Than Unmarried

> Under Health Bill, " Wall Street Journal, January 6, 2010.

>

> For text:

>

> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126281943134818675.html

>

> AllThingsHome/

>

> " ...â€˜How will they learn to read?â€™ you ask, and my answer is

> â€˜Remember the lessons of Massachusetts.â€™ When children are given

> whole lives instead of age-graded ones in cellblocks, they learn to

> read, write, and do arithmetic with ease, if those things make sense

> in the kind of life that unfolds around them. " â€“ John Taylor Gatto

>

_______________

> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.

> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390707/direct/01/

" Live in faith, not fear. "

January 8, 2010

i am in a different boat, similar circumstances. I am a senior citizen with multiple sclerosis. i was on SSI for awhile. but when my husband got disability, they took away my SSI, and even took what they had paid me during that year from His SSDI! i worked hard my entire life, and paid into the system. so did my husband. we were not married to each other in our working lives, but when we married, they took away my entire income. had we just decided to live together, we would have twice the income! several people have advised us to get divorced, and we'd have so much more $$$$

but we choose to be married.

jan