2.5 million Americans have lost their individual medical insurance policies sinc

[pondwater]

I realize you are being funny but apparently there is quite a bit of a difference.

"What you are doing is saying ... you have to pay a penalty of multiple hundreds of dollars—a substantial portion of your income—to stay married," Rector says. "It's saying society is basically hostile to the institution of marriage."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/09/Married-Couple-May-Divorce-To-Save-Money-on-Obamacare

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/11/06/obamacare-restrictions-lead-brooklyn-couple-to-consider-divorce/

CF, now you know that marriage isn't a religious institution for straight people. It's an institution for homosexuals. Get with the vision for America.

Holy shit, you know there's something wrong when marriage is a penalty to straight people and a benefit to homosexuals. Hope and change, join the movement! You can't make this shit up, what a joke.

[Phishfan]

If marriage is an institution, who wants to be institutionalized?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I realize you are being funny but apparently there is quite a bit of a difference.

"What you are doing is saying ... you have to pay a penalty of multiple hundreds of dollars—a substantial portion of your income—to stay married," Rector says. "It's saying society is basically hostile to the institution of marriage."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/09/Married-Couple-May-Divorce-To-Save-Money-on-Obamacare

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/11/06/obamacare-restrictions-lead-brooklyn-couple-to-consider-divorce/

One couple who got married specifically to because one of them couldn't get health insurance under the old system, might divorce to save a few dollars. 

Ironically, the two married in 2009 because Aaron needed insurance.

Call me unmoved. 

[CF DolFan]

One couple who got married specifically to because one of them couldn't get health insurance under the old system, might divorce to save a few dollars. 

you are speaking to an egg sample couple. You did not address what is obviously a real issue. It costs much more for the uninsured married couple then it does for a single person.

[Fau Teixeira]

if it costs double for an uninsured married couple than it does for a single person that seems fair

are you saying the cost for a couple is more than twice the amount a single person pays ?

[CF DolFan]

if it costs double for an uninsured married couple than it does for a single person that seems fair

are you saying the cost for a couple is more than twice the amount a single person pays ?

yes

[Fau Teixeira]

that's silly then ..

does the law mandate the pricing or do the insurance companies set the rates ?

[Spider-Dan]

Hey, did you realize that if you are married but your wife doesn't work and has zero income, you are already facing a marriage penalty?  If you weren't married and didn't live together, your wife (and kids) could apply for government assistance that she cannot apply for now!  And she could pay far less in income taxes than she does now!

In other words, read the details:

"But if they applied as unmarried individuals with something like their 2012 income, one of them would get at least $3,964 in subsidies toward the purchase of a plan, or possibly even be eligible for Medicaid, thanks to their uneven individual earnings that year."

So then, two married freelancers made a combined $62k, but if you took the income of the one that made less (unspecified, but I'm going to guess it was a lot less), that person would qualify for big subsidies.  You don't say.

It's articles like these that make me optimistic about Obamacare.  If $50 junk insurance and the income of underemployed spouses is the best ammo the opponents of the ACA have, I like our chances.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

you are speaking to an egg sample couple. You did not address what is obviously a real issue. It costs much more for the uninsured married couple then it does for a single person.

No system is perfect.  Old system one of them couldn't get health insurance at all, without a sham marriage. 

Under the new system when you have two people of grossly unequal income it costs more for the two of them to get insurance than it would if they were unmarried. 

But that's not all:  If they were unmarried one of them could get WIC, foodstamps, EIC, fuel assistance, welfare etc.   In married couples in which there is a primary income generator we don't offer subsidies to his/her mate.   

Aren't you at all concerned that two people (and they certainly aren't alone) got married not because of love, but because under the Republican preferred system that was the only way one of them could get health care.  Does the sanctity of marriage mean so little that people who don't want to be get married are forced to do so to get health insurance?

[Spider-Dan]

Hoodie, I would make one correction:

Obamneycare is the Republican preferred system.  It just wasn't signed by the Republican preferred president.

[masterfins]

Hoodie, I would make one correction:

Obamneycare is the Republican preferred system.  It just wasn't signed by the Republican preferred president.

YESSSSSS!!!!

Do you think the Republicans would have gone along with Medicare Part D or NAFTA if they were put forth by a Dem???

When Clinton was in office the Republicans hated him and his programs; which were actually republican programs that he put forth and put into law.  You would have thought they would have backed him, but no can't support the other party even if it is for the good of the country.

[dolphins4life]

Here's a question for the conservatives

Many conservatives say they have better plans than Obamacare that retain the good parts of Obamacare (covering people w/pre-existing conditions, letting people stay on their parents insurance until they turn 26, etc)

Why weren't these plans implemented during the Bush administration when the Republican Party controlled congress?

[pondwater]

Here's a question for the conservatives

Many conservatives say they have better plans than Obamacare that retain the good parts of Obamacare (covering people w/pre-existing conditions, letting people stay on their parents insurance until they turn 26, etc)

Why weren't these plans implemented during the Bush administration when the Republican Party controlled congress?

Why should a fully grown adult over the age of 21 be leaching off of his parents insurance policy?

[dolphins4life]

^^^^

Because when you are in school or just out of school and trying to find a job, you need coverage.  My parents, who are about as conservative as you can get, kept me and my brothers on their insurance until we were 26.

I'm lucky to have three jobs, but none of them provide coverage.  However, because I live in a liberal state, I can buy private, unsubsidized insurance for $250 a month that meets all the guidelines and covers me when I am sick  (It has a $5,000 out of pocket maximum).  ANYBODY who earns what I earn (about $25,000 to $30000) and does not receive insurance through their employer can buy this plan.

In a conservative state, I would not be able to buy insurance at all.

[pondwater]

^^^^

Because when you are in school or just out of school and trying to find a job, you need coverage.  My parents, who are about as conservative as you can get, kept me and my brothers on their insurance until we were 26.

I'm lucky to have three jobs, but none of them provide coverage.  However, because I live in a liberal state, I can buy private, unsubsidized insurance for $250 a month that meets all the guidelines and covers me when I am sick  (It has a $5,000 out of pocket maximum).  ANYBODY who earns what I earn (about $25,000 to $30000) and does not receive insurance through their employer can buy this plan.

In a conservative state, I would not be able to buy insurance at all.

The answer is simple, make more money!

I guess the good plans only go to Obama voters, because the only people I know that obamacare is "helping" are part time employees.

Point verified, thanks!