Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:23 PM Oct 2013

On Hardball tonight, Newt said, about AFA

that if a man makes $30,000 a year, he does well, gets credits, etc., but if he marries a woman who makes $30,000 a year, they will pay a fortune for their health care for the same coverage they both have single. He claims it's anti-marriage.

There's a little list on on the site that starts with the lowest income and goes to the highest, with number of dependents. I've seen it 5 times or so, but can't find it anymore. If anyone sees it or knows where it is, let me know. I am tired of looking and hate to use the site since I can't buy anything. My sons are interested though.

I would love to know if Newt knows what he's talking about....

Thanks.

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
On Hardball tonight, Newt said, about AFA (Original Post) fadedrose Oct 2013 OP
I don't know, and like you I don't want to tie up the site unnecessarily. NYC_SKP Oct 2013 #1
You know why Newt looks like he does rufus dog Oct 2013 #2
So Newt wants to expand the subsidies then? SolutionisSolidarity Oct 2013 #3
"Marriage penalties" pop up in all the strangest places... TreasonousBastard Oct 2013 #4
That's what I think too fadedrose Oct 2013 #5
But you know they won't-- fixing glitches isn't... TreasonousBastard Oct 2013 #6
 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
1. I don't know, and like you I don't want to tie up the site unnecessarily.
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:28 PM
Oct 2013

I wonder, though, if two unmarried professionals seeking individual plans go better with two individual plans or with just one signing up for a party of two.

Hmmmm. If you declare household income rather than one-person's income, I hope it would be a wash for a household of two people.

 

rufus dog

(8,419 posts)
2. You know why Newt looks like he does
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:33 PM
Oct 2013

Because he is full of shit.

I am done contradicting these fucking pukes, they just move on to the next lie.

My new tactic is to smirk and let them know I have absolutely zero time for them.

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
4. "Marriage penalties" pop up in all the strangest places...
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:45 PM
Oct 2013

This is very possibly true, as it's true in taxation and other programs, but it can be dealt with the way it's always dealt with-- by adjusting things.

It's no reason to trash the program.

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
5. That's what I think too
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:47 PM
Oct 2013

The government is ready to make changes if those buttholes would take it seriously. Hell they can make an amendment and call it the "Boehner Amendment," if the man had the brains his dog has....if he has a dog, that is.

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
6. But you know they won't-- fixing glitches isn't...
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:56 PM
Oct 2013

part of the program.

Nothing less than the utter destruction of everything Obama will do.

(The bastards!)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»On Hardball tonight, Newt...