• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

All Wives are Required to Work

P

piasabird

Lifer
The Affordable Health Care (How Ironic a Name), require employers of more than 50 people to provide insurance for Employees and dependents. Of course there are penalties and what not but that is another story. However, the Health Care law does not define a spouse as a dependent. So essentially without saying it, the Health Care act requires all married women to work if they want Health Care. This proves that Democrats Hate Women and want to break up the family.

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/will-obamacare-leave-your-spouse-behind.html/?ref=YF

"Despite the fact that Obamacare mandates that businesses with 50 or more employees provide health insurance for their workers and their dependents or pay a penalty, it will not require employers to cover spouses. The law only defines children as dependents. Before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was enacted into law, approximately 150 million Americans received health insurance through their jobs and this insurance provide coverage to many husbands and wives as well. Many healthcare law authorities say that the change will not result in any big changes in the way that employers provide insurance for husbands and wives. But that may not necessarily be the case."

Your preagnant spouse deserves no health care!
 
Last edited:
I thought covering spouses was already a law. I guess every company I've worked for has had the option of covering spouses out of the goodness of their heart.

Never really thought about it I guess but that is interesting.
 
nickbits said:
I thought covering spouses was already a law. I guess every company I've worked for has had the option of covering spouses out of the goodness of their heart.

Never really thought about it I guess but that is interesting.
Click to expand...

I like how opponents of the law complain about mandates and then say "why didn't you include THIS mandate?".
 
eskimospy said:
I like how opponents of the law complain about mandates and then say "why didn't you include THIS mandate?".
Click to expand...

I think the point is more that liberals have a screwed idea of what should be mandated and that this reveals what they really think. Apparently a 25 year child is a dependent, but a spouse isn't...
 
I haven't read the details on this, but if true it's a major oversight. Most companies cover spouses, but they are not required to do so. I don't like Obamacare, but if you're going to go down that path, then a stay at home wife (or husband for that matter) should have been included as a dependent to make sure they would get coverage.

Guess that's what happens when you have thousands of pages of legislation that was clearly not thought through.
 
IF that is true (as bad as this bill is who knows) that is fucking insane. though any other articles on it then that one?

IF it is true im going to laugh my ass off. maybe they should have read it before they passed it?
 
waggy said:
IF that is true (as bad as this bill is who knows) that is fucking insane. though any other articles on it then that one?

IF it is true im going to laugh my ass off. maybe they should have read it before they passed it?
Click to expand...

Why is it insane? I mean I agree that it's insane that anyone would be left without health insurance, but within the context of the US system how is that crazy at all? Under current law there is no requirement for your employer to cover anyone. Now there is a requirement for them to cover a lot of people. Are you saying you want additional mandates?
 
eskimospy said:
Why is it insane? I mean I agree that it's insane that anyone would be left without health insurance, but within the context of the US system how is that crazy at all? Under current law there is no requirement for your employer to cover anyone. Now there is a requirement for them to cover a lot of people. Are you saying you want additional mandates?
Click to expand...

Are you just pulling chains or are you seriously arguing that including 25 year olds as dependents but not spouses makes sense?
 
Double Trouble said:
Are you just pulling chains or are you seriously arguing that including 25 year olds as dependents but not spouses makes sense?
Click to expand...

I think that everyone should be covered by a single payer system, but I hardly see how your argument makes any sense.

You are in effect saying that in order to 'make sense', if a system requires insurance to cover someone's dependent child (they have to be a dependent, remember) for 7 years after the age of adulthood, that system must also require an employer to cover a spouse for 30 years, 40 years, 50 years+, regardless of their dependent status.

That makes literally zero sense.

Again, I am a supporter of an increased mandate across the board as I don't think this bill goes far enough. I do find it ironic how opponents seem to be upset that the ACA didn't include enough mandates, however, considering the calls of TYRANNY that they said about earlier mandates.
 
Double Trouble said:
Are you just pulling chains or are you seriously arguing that including 25 year olds as dependents but not spouses makes sense?
Click to expand...

Let's not negate the fact that this seriously cripples the lower to middle class of all groups.

Stay at home parenting is something that even the mid upper class recognizes as a very important task that saves money. When you have young kids, staying at home is damn near essential with the prices of daycare/schooling these days.
 
probably an oversight but what's the difference from now? They will be required to at least cover the worker in the couple, that doesn't mean that those who currently cover wives too, voluntarily, will stop doing so. It will just get better for some people, and no change for the others.
I think health insurance through employers is stupid anyway. It just doesn't make sense unless we're talking about coverage of work incidents/work-related health problems.
 
Last edited:
eskimospy said:
I think that everyone should be covered by a single payer system, but I hardly see how your argument makes any sense.

You are in effect saying that in order to 'make sense', if a system requires insurance to cover someone's dependent child (they have to be a dependent, remember) for 7 years after the age of adulthood, that system must also require an employer to cover a spouse for 30 years, 40 years, 50 years+, regardless of their dependent status.

That makes literally zero sense.

Again, I am a supporter of an increased mandate across the board as I don't think this bill goes far enough. I do find it ironic how opponents seem to be upset that the ACA didn't include enough mandates, however, considering the calls of TYRANNY that they said about earlier mandates.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you're not yanking our chains, you really are arguing that this makes sense. 😱

The ACA mandates coverage for dependent children, expands coverage etc. I can't see how anyone would find it logical to expand coverage to include dependent children up to 25 years old, but would not classify a spouse who stays at home as a dependent. Obviously that spouse is dependent on the working spouse, by any logical definition. I would have preferred no Obamacare, but if you're going to pass Obamacare, then not including an obviously dependent spouse as a dependent under the legislation is crazy.

I wonder if it was just a screwup or if it reflects the contempt that some in congress seem to have for women (or men) who decide to stay at home and raise a family.
 
eskimospy said:
Why is it insane? I mean I agree that it's insane that anyone would be left without health insurance, but within the context of the US system how is that crazy at all? Under current law there is no requirement for your employer to cover anyone. Now there is a requirement for them to cover a lot of people. Are you saying you want additional mandates?
Click to expand...

Its not insane at all. Unless you think that people have a fundamental right to have other people labor for them... but I thought that went out of fashion in the 1860s with a little thing called the 13th amendment.
 
Murloc said:
probably an oversight but what's the difference from now? They will be required to at least cover the worker in the couple, that doesn't mean that those who currently cover wives too, voluntarily, will stop doing so. It will just get better for some people, and no change for the others.
I think health insurance through employers is stupid anyway. It just doesn't make sense unless we're talking about coverage of work incidents/work-related health problems.
Click to expand...

So you think they covered 25 year old "children", but just happened to forget spouse?
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
Let's not negate the fact that this seriously cripples the lower to middle class of all groups.

Stay at home parenting is something that even the mid upper class recognizes as a very important task that saves money. When you have young kids, staying at home is damn near essential with the prices of daycare/schooling these days.
Click to expand...

Having a stay at home parent is better for the children also.

I'm shocked that the government would do something like this. Many parts of the government push for home parents.

this goes against that. in would really hurt many families.
 
Double Trouble said:
Ok, so you're not yanking our chains, you really are arguing that this makes sense. 😱

The ACA mandates coverage for dependent children, expands coverage etc. I can't see how anyone would find it logical to expand coverage to include dependent children up to 25 years old, but would not classify a spouse who stays at home as a dependent. Obviously that spouse is dependent on the working spouse, by any logical definition. I would have preferred no Obamacare, but if you're going to pass Obamacare, then not including an obviously dependent spouse as a dependent under the legislation is crazy.

I wonder if it was just a screwup or if it reflects the contempt that some in congress seem to have for women (or men) who decide to stay at home and raise a family.
Click to expand...

You realize that spouses have never been dependents in the eyes of the government, right? Are you arguing that we need a massive rewriting of the tax code as well to suddenly start classifying stay at home spouses as dependents? This will have pretty large revenue implications, not to mention wide-ranging implications for all sorts of other government services. Furthermore, the spouse has the ability to get subsidized insurance from one of the many insurance exchanges that the ACA sets up, so it's not like they are left out in the cold.

I don't think you've thought this all the way through.
 
Haha! Fucking retarded conservatives whipping themselves into another frenzy over an issue they don't fully understand. Shocking!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top