Allen Quist–Marriage Penalty in health care bills

“There is a huge middle class marriage penalty hidden in the House and Senate health care bills. The penalty becomes evident by evaluating questions like the following: How much would two single people, each making $30,000 per year, pay for private health insurance if the Pelosi bill was in effect now? The answer is $1,320 per year for both individuals combined (based on the premium limits and subsidies outlined on the charts below). But how much would they pay for the same level of insurance under the Pelosi bill if they were to marry? Their combined cost would then be about $12,000 a year (the estimated cost for private insurance).

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, --The 2009 American Health Care Reform Debate, Health & Medicine, House of Representatives, Law & Legal Issues, Marriage & Family, Office of the President, Politics in General, President Barack Obama, Senate

7 comments on “Allen Quist–Marriage Penalty in health care bills

  1. AnglicanFirst says:

    Wow!!!

    Talk about ‘dis-incentifying’ achievement!

    Why study hard in high school!?

    Why choose a difficult college major that provides a significantly higher than average income!?

    Why invest 4 to 8 years of one’s life and spend a huge amount of money to go to college!?

    Why be an entrepeneur and work 80-90 hour weeks to start up and run your own business!? A business which will provide useful non-government employment for other people.

    Why!?

  2. magnolia says:

    i work and my hubby works, we get insurance for no cost separately but if we were ever to need to quit one job and hop onto one policy the price starts at 400+ monthly. i don’t see how this is that much different.

  3. teatime says:

    He is making assumptions on how married people would purchase coverage (as individuals). Companies have coordination of benefits, family coverage policies, etc. I don’t see that addressed.

    And I don’t see that it’s the government’s job to show financial favor for one type of household over another, frankly. Apply everyone’s income individually, regardless of marital status.

  4. dwstroudmd+ says:

    Somebody has to pay for it, people. Did you think it was free, as advertised, propaganda-ed, and promoted? So why not have the hard-working, responsible foot the bill? You know, it’s only right. After all those people earned their coverage by actually paying for it, historically. These people are sumpters for the Democratic gravy train!

  5. Chris says:

    I am over simplifying here, but the Nancy Pelosi’s of the world don’t care much about married people (with kids especially), those people all hightailed it out of San Fran, Manhattan, etc. to the suburbs where they could afford a house. And the Nancy Pelosis have effective control of the modern day Democratic party. 🙁

  6. magnolia says:

    i just clicked on the link; isn’t this a politician’s website???? isn’t he a republican? why in the world would i believe anything said by this person?

  7. Chris says:

    #6, do you believe what Democrats tell you? Regardless, he took the data from the (Democratic controlled) Committees on Ways & Means, Energy & Commerce, and Education & Labor.

    The public thankfully is waking up: 61% oppose this craziness:
    http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/12/10/cnn-support-for-health-care-collapses/