Obamacare’s Marriage Penalty
By John C. Goodman • Wednesday February 20, 2013 9:33 AM PDT • 9 Comments
In almost every case under the Affordable Care Act, married couples will fare poorly compared to unmarried couples. The reason: subsidies in the newly created health insurance exchange will treat two singles better than a married couple.
Suppose you are earning 200 percent of the federal poverty level (currently $21,660). You will be required to pay a premium equal to 6.3 percent of your income in the exchange—or about $1,365 for a health plan that has an actual cost of, say, $5,000. Thus, you and a cohabitating partner who also earns 200 percent of the federal poverty level could both obtain health coverage for about $2,730. However, if you marry your partner, the two of you will be required to pay 9.5 percent of your income in premiums—or about $4,115. Being married will cost the two of you $1,385 a year.
In some cases, getting married may be worth the financial penalty, however. If you and your partner each earn 100 percent of the federal poverty level (currently $10,830), you would (individually) qualify for Medicaid and would not be allowed to purchase private coverage in the exchange. However, if you are married, your combined income would disqualify you for Medicaid. If you bought insurance in the exchange, you would be required to pay 4 percent of your household income (or $866). The ability to get out of Medicaid (which pays low doctor fees) and into a private plan (which may pay market rates) may be worth the extra premium you have to pay—especially if you value more ready access to care.
For more on the Affordable Care Act—and sound alternatives to it—please see my Independent Institute book, Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis.
[Cross-posted at Psychology Today]
Tags: Healthcare, Insurance, Regulation 
Of course people will divorce for convenience in getting health care and the thing is, they shouldn’t have to do this. This health care plan is, except for a very tiny handful of things, is useless and detrimental to all Americans and military personnel and their families. It’s 3 times more costly than what was being used and that’s not good business. It’s bad business. Meanwhile Obozo and all the people involved in it including the Senate and House do not have to use it at all. So if they don’t have to then we don’t have to either. If everybody just said “hell no,” it would have to go away via the trash can.
Charles Queen | Feb 20, 2013 | Reply
Seems like everything that God frowns on...Obama is pushing on us.
Devil against God.
Mary Frances Knight | Feb 20, 2013 | Reply
Obama is pushing shellfish on us?
Flynn | Feb 21, 2013 | Reply
It’s not right if you work and your spouse doesn’t have insurance and you can get it for her at work but you have to be married to get it or to carry it on her. It costs you more than yourself, you wanna try to help her, but you can’t cause you can t afford it???
mike | Feb 21, 2013 | Reply
Marriage is the backbone of the nuclear family and society. This administration wants power over the people. Why else would they penalize married couples?
Hannah | Feb 21, 2013 | Reply
Well I will gladly get a divorce in order for my son to attend college on a Pell grant and for myself to be on Medicaid. I have worked for over 30 years and I am ready to begin MY retirement. Since all my taxes go to the people who do not work, have babies every nine months, live here illegally and spit children out to be citizens. Yep! I am all for it!!! Now.
annette | Feb 21, 2013 | Reply
Seriously so Obama gets a health plan to supposedly help the government but yet first off it isn’t good enough for him to use “that is disturbing” and now it is going to something to create more divorce in the US, really when is enough going to be enough. Is our country not in enough financial ruin already since Obama has been in office? Now he is making gay marriage alright, Which is against the Bible, taking God out of schools, which truly should be put back into schools, seeing our children are being killed everyday, putting gun control out is a wonderful idea. However how is Obama trying to get them out of the hands of criminals – seeing no action there. I could go on for hours and hours... Oh wait I know about how you put some felons “WITH KNOWLEDGE IN THE GOVERNMENTAL OFFICE TO HELP IN AREAS SUCH AS GUN CONTROL, DRUGS, EXT” and the President just might get this country back on track. Just a thought. Not all Felons did a HORRIFIC CRIME. Most of them were just stupid and got caught, but I bet your bottom dollar they could do this country some wonderful help. Take some on and just see what they can do to help! “TAKE THAT TO THE BANK PRESIDENT OBAMA, I WOULD BE ONE WILLING TO TAKE MY UNFINISHED PARALEGAL DEGREE AND KNOWLEDGE TO HELP THIS COUNTRY FOR THE BETTER – TAKE ME ON FOR SIZE AND I KNOW A TON MORE LIKE ME SHOW ME TO THE PENTAGON!!!!! Just a thought There are so many of us who have wonderful and bright ideas who might be able to help the country but who want to listen to us “THE PEOPLE” when there are bigger people in the office doing the job they say they are doing. However our country is going into debt more and more ever single day.
Really think about it. Divorce over Obama Health Care! Gun Control! School Shootings – where is the protection? Gas prices going up every day. Why are we not drilling for oil in our own country instead of worrying about Iraq? Think about all these questions. Oklahoma is one of the biggest oil states, and yet gas prices are high here. Let’s start getting smart Americans and standing up for our Country! God bless the United States of America!
Rebecca | Feb 21, 2013 | Reply
No, Rebecca, let’s start getting Americans to stand up for the rights of individuals to be as free and independent as each of them wish to be. You decide what’s right for you and let each of the rest of us decide what’s right for us. Now that’s worth standing up for.
shemsky | Feb 22, 2013 | Reply
There used to plans that covered up to a certain extent. These plans were much more “affordable” for the relatively low income uninsured worker. The major problem with Obamacare is that the plans are “no limits” plans so in order to make them remotely “affordable”, they had to function mostly as “major med” plans. Which usually means that the individual will have a large “out of pocket” deductible before the plan pays anything at all. Compare this to how things are done in countries with national health plans. Usually the emphasis is on complete coverage from the “bottom” up to a more expensive level where the patient then encounters waiting times and restrictions upon what treatments and medicines are available. For the great majority this sort of a health care plan is considerably more valuable than what Obamacare offers which seems to be built more on a basis of providing coverages for medical treatments and such that will result in very large bills. It would be interesting which sort of health care plan people would pick if they had a choice...
Jerome Bigge | Feb 25, 2013 | Reply