If a couple makes $50,000 together and they are single, their health payments are at a certain level. If a couple is married with the same income it rises about $2000. I don't care how they try to explain the difficulty in establishing equity here, it's just another way that marriage is under attack. Couldn't they write in an exception that covers this?
True, maybe most couples will not base their decision to get married on the impact it will have on their health care costs. But to some, it may. I don't know if my theory is right or not, but don't married couples tend to have larger families? That is an area of concern when it comes to the financial burden of paying for hospital care when you have children. I have heard my American extended family members complain about the complications of arranging for insurance coverage for each child they have.
Single mothers in lower income brackets will be helped financially at a higher rate than all others. But single mothers making $50,000 will also have more assistance than the married ones. There's something wrong here. Single status and lower income appear more and more acceptable and supported through government handouts. How does the financial dependence created by government aid motivate people to improve themselves and rise above their situation? How does all this strengthen the family?
I believe in helping those who need help the most, but somehow things are getting out of whack here. What is the solution? I don't know. But I fear it will only get worse. Unless you have a health insurance plan included in your workplace benefits, this is going to be another drain of income on the backs of married couples.
On a side note, I wonder what the impact will be on gay married couples. Will the single life suddenly become more attractive to them. I'm sure this new health plan will include them too. So much for equality.
No comments:
Post a Comment