Obama now spits on Marriage - Married Couples Pay More Than Unmarried Under Health Bill
Leroy N. Soetoro
WASHINGTON -- 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."
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.
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.
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.
In any progressive system of taxes or benefits, there are trade-offs
between how well-targeted a subsidy is and how equitable it is, said
Stacy Dickert-Conlin, an economics professor at Michigan State
University.
"You might like to have it be progressive, equitable and
marriage-neutral. But you have to decide what your goals are, because
you can't accomplish all three," she said.
The marriage penalty in the health bill has not been a major focus of
attack by Republican opponents of the bill, who are focusing on larger
themes such as new taxes in the bill and growth in government spending.
But it has caught the attention of some conservative groups, who claim
that the prospect of reduced subsidies will dissuade people from tying
the knot.
"This seems to not only penalize the married, but also those who would
have the most to gain from marriage -- the poor," said Jenny Tyree, an
analyst at the Colorado-based Focus on the Family.
Ms. Dickert-Conlin said that isn't borne out by research in the area.
"Most of the literature says that people do not make decisions about
whether or not to get married based on" government benefits, she said.
"You might see bigger effects on the timing -- someone choosing to get
married in January, instead of December," she said.
--
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact, to
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New York's
million dollar tax evasion. Charles B. Rangel is still under
"investigation" by a "closed door" House Ethics Committee.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
None4U
"Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF9CC215...@202.177.16.121...
Of course. The Dems have to do their part to have anti - family policies.
For all the families the liberals broke up.