I heard this expressed on Radio over the weekend.
Is it true that under Obamacare an older married couple could save upwards of $10,000 a year on health insurance if they would simply divorce, continue living together...
"...and take advantage of the government grants to help them, as individuals rather than a married couple, buy their health insurance."
What kind of sick government would force this kind of choice on married couples?
But then again, is it true? It wouldn't surprise me if it is, but...
Anyone have any comments or insight? I did find this:
The New Federal Wedding Tax: How Obamacare
Would Dramatically Penalize Marriage
Why does our government see the need to penalize/punish married couples? Didn't we manage to kill the marriage penalty? Why then is it back, seemingly slipped unawares into the healthcare bill? We know that not one of our senators or representatives read the entire bill before voting on it. So why shouldn't we expect occasional pockets of outright malicious evil to pop up throughout the dough of this horrid piece of legislation?
That the government would penalize the institution of marriage is deplorable.
Unfortunately I believe this to be correct. A defeatist political machine would craft this. One that couldn't care less about family and those HORRIBLE elements called tradition and logic.
ReplyDeleteBZ
Elderly couples were already divorcing under our old healthcare system to save assets from explosive medical costs. Hospitals and insurance companies were limiting reimbursement and care to seniors with too many assets for medicare and not enough for full payment. The only option in many cases was for the couple to divorce so the spouse with the illness could claim fewer assets and receive medicare coverage.
ReplyDeleteBut to address this issue specifically what it comes down to is that a couple married can have a joint income of $50,000 while two people cohabitating can have two separate incomes of $25,000. The two sets of people may end up in separate healthcare assistance groups. So what should we do? Increase benefits for couples or decrease benefits for cohabitating singles? It seems like a simple legislative fix to me. Though since the Heritage Foundation article is from January 20th the problem may have already been resolved.
"We know that not one of our senators or representatives read the entire bill before voting on it."
Senators and Representatives along with aides and policy experts had to actually type/write every word of the bill. Secondarily I want to ask if you could read a treatises on complex chess strategies and high finance and particle physics and understand all the complexities of these subjects. There are a myriad of topics I must accept the suggestions and recommendation of those more knowledgeable than myself on. To be a politician you don't have to be intelligent or know policy. In fact knowing too much about policy and being too intelligent can be detriments to a politician. To be a politician you need to be able to be elected. We hope those with this ability and desire come with a goal of serving their fellow countrymen. I don't hold politicians to account for not reading legislation, because 1)they aren't required to be legal scholars and 2)legislation isn't written in stone.
BenT: You da man!
ReplyDelete