Big marriage penalty in health care legislation

There has been a significant amount of e-mail and blog traffic since last fall concerning proposed marriage penalties within the health care legislation. The penalties could be significant, so much so we have to wonder if Democrats proposing the legislation want to completely destroy marriage in lower and middle class America.

Multiple stories today, including coverage by Michelle Malkin who points to a piece by Phyllis Schlafy over at Town Hall.

Even though all evidence shows that marriage is the best remedy for poverty, lack of health care, domestic violence, child abuse and school dropouts, federal welfare programs continue to discriminate against marriage and instead give taxpayer handouts to those who reject marriage. This isn’t any accident — it is a central part of the Democrats’ political strategy that produced 70 percent of unmarried women voting for Obama for president in 2008. …

Here is the cost in the House bill for an unmarried couple who each earn $25,000 a year (total: $50,000). When they both buy health insurance (which will be mandatory), the combined premiums they pay will be capped at $3,076 a year.

But if the couple gets married and has the same combined income of $50,000, they will pay annual premiums up to a cap of $5,160 a year. That means they have to fork over a marriage penalty of $2,084.

The marriage penalty is the result of the fact that government subsidies for buying health insurance are pegged to the federal poverty guidelines. Couples that remain unmarried are rewarded with a separate health care subsidy for each income.

Back in November, The Washington Times reported the Senate health care marriage penalty would hit individuals making $200,000, and married couples making $50,000. Some congress-critter somewhere figured the Senate plan would not bring in enough revenue.

Can someone point me in the right direction here? I don’t want to necessarily take Schlafy at her word, but I think a really big problem here is transparency concerning the health care legislation being trial-ballooned everywhere.

Where can we find details – directly from Congress – on what the premiums will be for this stupid plan? What will be covered. We’ve got which is great, but the language is such that Americans can not read it. Seriously … I’ve been looking for 30 minutes to find the source for Schlafy’s information and I’ve got nothing.

My bet. It’s buried in some attached document at the bottom of an amendment somewhere, but I swear Obama kept telling us this would be a completely transparent process.

You. Lie. Obama.

Now to information I can confirm. Nearly 40 percent of children born in 2007 were out-of-wedlock kids. My emphasis added.

While 28 percent of white women gave birth out of wedlock in 2007, nearly 72 percent of black women and more than 51 percent of Latinas did.

What percentage of the single women out their voted for Obama?

3 replies
  1. gillie28
    gillie28 says:

    A very interesting point, Steve.  In the 1960's and 70's, it was the Welfare programs that led to the split up of families, and single women raising children,  especially in the inner-city communities because the rules required that if a man was in the household then there were little or no benefits.  The cultural issues for much of the rest of the century in inner cities can be traced to the way the Welfare program was implemented by the government and social service organizations, under Democratic leadership.  DUMB or deliberate????  Who knows?  Having pretty much destroyed marriage among minorities in poor communities, it looks like this policy is now being exopanded to incorporate everyone.  The US is truly trying to bring European lack of values, and secularism to the US.  Hardly any young people get married any more over here…just move from "partner to partner" bearing children as they go.  More social consequences to come.

  2. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Is Obambi willing to throw away the gay marriage vote too?  Or will gay couples get a special exemption that heteros won't get?

Comments are closed.