Ethics & Religion
A Column by Michael J. McManus


For Current Column
See the Home Page


About the


Search this


Column Archives
List of all columns 









For 2003 and earlier
only the title is listed.
Use the Search Function
to find the article.








About The


to Mike

December 23, 2009
Column #1,478
Obamacare Penalizes Marriage
By Mike McManus

While abortion and public plan aspects of health reform have been debated, a far more vexing issue for defenders of the traditional family should be the very substantial marriage penalties buried in the 2,457 page bill moving through Congress.

Indeed, the low and middle income subsidies in the "health insurance exchanges" are stacked against marriage - with penalties of up to 100 percent if a cohabiting couple decides to marry!

       Individuals, who do not now have insurance, who have incomes up to $43,500, will be able to buy it at a very low cost due to federal subsidies.

       For example, an individual earning $25,000 would pay only $1,538 in insurance premiums. But what if that person is cohabiting with a partner with the same income, and they decide to marry?  Their premium is not $3,072, double the cost of one person, but $5,160!

       That's a marriage penalty of $2,084! 

       A cohabiting man earning $32,000 pays a premium of $2,842, as does the woman. But if they marry, they will pay a whopping $9,316 in additional premiums!  Why? A couple earning $64,000 gets no subsidy.
"This will devastate marriage for the middle class.  If this law is passed, it will do to marriage of the middle class what welfare did to the poor," says Allen Quist, a Republican candidate for Congress in Minnesota, who broke the story. "It will create huge incentives not to marry. There will not be much left of marriage, if this bill passes."

That is an overstatement.  Most people who now have private health insurance, and are married, will not see such a spike for health insurance.

       However, what uninsured cohabiting couple facing a $2,100 to $9,300 jump in health costs will marry? Will such perverse incentives result in more or fewer marriages, or more or fewer stable families in which to raise children? 

       That is a prism through which our elected representatives must view the most significant domestic legislation under consideration in more than a generation.

Senate Democrats claim to have developed a compromise on the abortion issue. Not according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.  Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, NY and Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City wrote to senators that  "federal funds will help subsidize…and promote health plans that cover elective abortions."

       "All purchasers of such plans will be required to pay for other people's abortions in a very direct and explicit way, through a separate premium payment designed to pay for abortion. There is no provision for individuals to opt out of this abortion payment," they wrote.

       Fortunately, an amendment to the House bill did prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions.  But it is the Senate bill that is more likely to be accepted by a House-Senate conference committee,

       A Quinnipiac University poll reports 72% of the public opposes public funding of abortions, which has been prohibited for three decades.

       However, what could emerge as the more important issue is the penalty for couples who marry and embark on committed relationships that research has demonstrated is healthier for adults and children.

       In my book, "Living Together: Myths, Risks & Answers," I noted that a variety of federal laws already "subsidize the cohabitation of low income people."

       The Institute for American Values reported that a California cohabiting couple in which he worked full time, and she, part-time with lower salaries, enjoyed $17,000 in government subsidies, such as $5,280 for welfare, $7,944 in housing subsidies, $1,358 in food stamps, etc.  They had a total income of $34,500.

But if they married, the woman lost many subsidies, dropping their total income to $30,624. Thus the government is essentially paying this couple nearly $4,000 NOT to marry.

No wonder the number of cohabiting couples soared from 400,000 in 1960 to 6.8 million in 2008.  Obamacare will add new momentum to the trend.
"Government policies on health care should strengthen the well-being of families.   There should be no financial disincentives to marriage," asserts Galen Carey of the National Association of Evangelicals.

       "Any loopholes which allow cohabiting couples to pay less taxes or lower insurance premiums than similarly situated married couples should be eliminated.  Indeed, because healthy families are so important to society and contribute so much to the common good, we should give married couples preferential tax and benefit treatment."

       If Obama and the Democratic Congress reject this common sense advice, they will pay a heavy political price for doing so.

       Only three votes are needed to shift in the House or one in the Senate to kill the bill.

  Since 1981...
1900+ Columns
  October 16, 2019: Column 1992: Pastor Appreciation Month
  Recent Columns
  Should Pastors Marry Cohabitating Couples
  Faith & Values of Hispanic Americans
  How Doctors Might Reduce Suicides
  Rebirth of Falls Church Anglican
  Time for Gun Legislation
  Let's Raise the Minimum Wage
  Life Expectancy Falls - But You Can Live Longer
  Black America After 400 Years
  Let's Cut the Prison Population
  Red Flag Laws Not Enough
  The Horror of Soaring Suicides
  Let's Reform No Fault Divorce
  Make Adoption More Appealing
  Fates of Declaration Signers
  All Men Are Created Equal
  Want a Successful Marriage?
  Why Go To Marriage Encounter
  Scoutmasters Molest Boy Scouts
  Where Are the Fathers?
  The Addictive Nature of Pornography
  Abortion Becoming Illegal
  Pope's Initiative on Sexual Abuse
  Protecting Girls from Suicide
  Gun Control Laws Needed
  The Worst Valentine: Cohabitation
  Pornography: A Public Health Hazard
  Sextortion Kills Teens
  Cohabitation: A Risky Business
  Recent Searches
  gun control, euthanasia, cohabitation, sexting, sextortion, alcoholism, prayer, guns, same sex marriage, abortion, depression, islam, divorce, polygamy, religious liberty, health care, pornography, teen sex, abortion and infanticide, Roe+v+Wade, supreme court, marriage, movies, violence, celibacy, living+together, cohabitation, ethics+and+religion, pornography, adultery, divorce, saving+marriages
©2019 Michael J. McManus syndicated columnist  /
Ethics & Religion at
9311 Harrington Dr. / Potomac, MD 20854 / 301 978-7105
President & Co-Chair Marriage Savers /
Site Sponsored by