Married couples will pay more than unmarried couples under health care plan

[bigdarryl]

DAMN!! if true thats fucked up http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126281943134818675.html

[PBS Poll-435]

1. Some will, most won't.

Next.

[Hello_Kitty]

2. Brilliant!

The public is going to love this plan more and more!

Now, how will the cheerleaders spin this?

[dflprincess]

5. They'll just unrec it

it was <0 when I opened the post

[Spinzonner]

3. So the Democrats actually ARE anti-traditional mariage ..

and protecting Gay couples by denying them the right to marry !

This must be part of the Gay agenda


:sarcasm:

[IndianaGreen]

16. Gay couples will be taxed at the $8,500 because they are not recognized as families

Of all the things we can be thankful for (Donnie McClurkin, Rick Warren, DADT, DOMA), we can now add a tax on each gay partner's health benefits.

[kirby]

4. Seems misleading to me...

A Married couples insurance policy does not cost the same as Two Individual policies which I believe is the assumption made in this article to quote the 'marriage penalty'.

[Hello_Kitty]

7. No, one individual policy for a person making $25k would be $1800

So an unmarried couple would pay a total of $3600 while the married couple would pay $5K.

[kirby]

9. Those are not costs...

Those are subsidies.

A married couples insurance costs less that two individuals, so they do not need as big a subsidy for equivalent coverage.

[Hello_Kitty]

10. No, those are the costs to the policyholders.

Here: http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

[kirby]

11. That is not my understanding..

First the tool does not even handle married couples, only families of 4. In my state, those policies are different (and about 30% more per month).

If I key in a single person $25,000, age 20, the calculator says $1,845
If I key in family of four with income of $50,000, age 20, the calculator says $3,618

Looks equiv to me.

[Hello_Kitty]

12. They should put other categories in the Kaiser calculator

But the article says a married couple making $50k will pay $5k in premiums and the Democratic staffers do not dispute that, so I'm going to assume it's correct.

[LiberalFighter]

13. $5k for a married couple sounds cheap to me.

[tridim]

6. Thanks for the FUD Rupert. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

8. The Dem staffer's defense of the disparity is absurd

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 married couple SHOULD get a larger subsidy because it costs more to insure an adult than a child.

[wishlist]

14. Blue Cross Federal already charges more than double for married than single

I have Blue Cross Federal and I am subsidizing families with children because my plan (just covering me and spouse) is more than double the premium charged to a single person. Whereas my Met Life dental does have a distinction between just 2 versus more people in determining their premium rates.

[bornskeptic]

15. The problem is in the way the Federal Poverty Level is determined.

The percentage of income a family eligible for subsidies has to pay for insurance depends on its income as a percenage of the Federal Poverty Level. The 2009 FPL is $10,830 for a family of one and only 14,570 for a family of two. So two single individuals making $25,000 each are each at 231% of FPL, while a married couple making $50,000 is at 343% of FPL. Thus the couple pays a higher amount for coverage. Under the Senate bill it's $2926 for the unmarried couple and $44237 for the married couple. Don't try to get those numbers from the calculator, as the Senate formula has changed since the calculator was created. It should be correct for the House bill.