All Wives are Required to Work

[nehalem256]

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.

So could a 25 year old child. And yet the Democratic Party singled out 25 year old "children" as needing a mandate to be covered by their parents insurance but not a spouse.

 

[IronWing]

Maybe next time Congress will pass universal coverage in a single payer system to replace this corporatist, conservative Obamacare mess.

 

[Double Trouble]

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?

I'm not sure why you're conflating tax code dependents with health care coverage. The tax code handles spouses by allowing you to file jointly as a married couple and having tax brackets set up for couples vs individual filers.

The issue being discussed doesn't have anything to do with tax code, it's about health care coverage.

We're mandating that kids up to 25 years old be covered as 'dependent' because it's critical they be covered, but coverage for spouses who stay at home is apparently not critical.

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.

Children over 18 could also get the ability to get subsidized coverage through an exchange, but yet the legislation specifically mandates coverage for them, but not for spouses. 😕

I don't think you've thought this all the way through.

I'll admit I haven't thought through all the aspects, but on it's face this seems like either a blunder or a slap in the face of everyone who stays at home to care for a family. Like the IRS targeting of certain groups, the end result was wrong regardless, we just don't know if it was malice or incompetence.

 

[dank69]

So could a 25 year old child. And yet the Democratic Party singled out 25 year old "children" as needing a mandate to be covered by their parents insurance but not a spouse.

Damn the government for trying to make it slightly easier to get a good college education! Damn them to hell!

 

[Double Trouble]

You cannot claim your spouse a dependant, read here: http://taxes.about.com/b/2009/06/29/can-one-spouse-claim-another-spouse-as-a-dependent.htm

Here is another link from H&R block says the same thing: http://www.hrblock.com/tax-answers/services/jsp/article.jsp?article_id=67708

You can claim an exemption if they are not filing and had no income on your taxes, but you cannot claim them as a dependent.

As I said to eskimospy, I'm not sure why you're conflating tax code with health care coverage. We're not talking about tax code.

 

[jackschmittusa]

While I'm sure this is not true, wouldn't it be hilarious if this was a planned boobytrap to get Republicans to support expanding the act?

 

[Double Trouble]

Damn the government for trying to make it slightly easier to get a good college education! Damn them to hell!

Ok, so you're in the "adults between 18 and 25 need to covered under their parents insurance, but spouses taking care of families should not" camp. That defies logic.

 

[dank69]

As I said to eskimospy, I'm not sure why you're conflating tax code with health care coverage. We're not talking about tax code.

Companies have provided insurance for spouses without any mandate. If they stop doing so now, is the problem with government or with the companies who choose to stop?

 

[Double Trouble]

Companies have provided insurance for spouses without any mandate. If they stop doing so now, is the problem with government or with the companies who choose to stop?

Ok, so when it comes to spouses you're arguing that it be left up to companies to decide if they want to cover or not, but when it comes to adults under 25 we need a mandate that they be covered as dependents. That's some mind boggling logic.

 

[dank69]

Ok, so you're in the "adults between 18 and 25 need to covered under their parents insurance, but spouses taking care of families should not" camp. That defies logic.

No, criticizing shit when you haven't even "thought through all the aspects" defies logic.

 

[dank69]

Ok, so when it comes to spouses you're arguing that it be left up to companies to decide if they want to cover or not, but when it comes to adults under 25 we need a mandate that they be covered as dependents. That's some mind boggling logic.

You seem to be arguing for government to stick their noses where it was never needed before. That's some mind boggling "conservative" logic. Maybe you are a fucking liberal.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not sure why you're conflating tax code dependents with health care coverage. The tax code handles spouses by allowing you to file jointly as a married couple and having tax brackets set up for couples vs individual filers.

The issue being discussed doesn't have anything to do with tax code, it's about health care coverage.

We're mandating that kids up to 25 years old be covered as 'dependent' because it's critical they be covered, but coverage for spouses who stay at home is apparently not critical.

Children over 18 could also get the ability to get subsidized coverage through an exchange, but yet the legislation specifically mandates coverage for them, but not for spouses. 😕

It's all about the tax code. The only children that are covered up through age 25 are those listed as dependents for tax purposes. We aren't mandating that all kids up through 25 be covered as 'dependent', we are only mandating that dependents who happen to be up through 25 be covered. Can you see how that's a crucial distinction? If they aren't dependent, no coverage.

The reason why dependent children up through age 25 are covered is that those are the times when children tend to have limited income due to being in school, etc. There's a reason it stops at 25.

I'll admit I haven't thought through all the aspects, but on it's face this seems like either a blunder or a slap in the face of everyone who stays at home to care for a family. Like the IRS targeting of certain groups, the end result was wrong regardless, we just don't know if it was malice or incompetence.

If you think that health care coverage should be extended even further throughout our society through mandates like this I agree with you, but there is no incongruity between extending coverage to someone's dependent children and not extending it to someone's spouse who wants to stay home with the kids.

 

[Double Trouble]

No, criticizing shit when you haven't even "thought through all the aspects" defies logic.

No need to get your panties in a bunch. I can say something defies logic based on my current understanding. If someone or something comes along that provides new insight I'll change my views accordingly. Seems pretty logical to me.

 

[dank69]

No need to get your panties in a bunch. I can say something defies logic based on my current understanding. If someone or something comes along that provides new insight I'll change my views accordingly. Seems pretty logical to me.

I go commando.

 

[Double Trouble]

It's all about the tax code. The only children that are covered up through age 25 are those listed as dependents for tax purposes. We aren't mandating that all kids up through 25 be covered as 'dependent', we are only mandating that dependents who happen to be up through 25 be covered. Can you see how that's a crucial distinction? If they aren't dependent, no coverage.

The reason why dependent children up through age 25 are covered is that those are the times when children tend to have limited income due to being in school, etc.

So young people who have limited income because they're in school etc need to be covered, but spouses who have no income because they're raising a family should not be? Somehow adults under 25 who are claimed as dependents by their parent(s) are 'worthy' of having mandated coverage, but spouses who raise the families are not.

If you think that health care coverage should be extended even further throughout our society through mandates like this I agree with you, but there is no incongruity between extending coverage to someone's dependent children and not extending it to someone's spouse who wants to stay home with the kids.

I don't support Obamacare at all, but if you're going to cover adults under 25 who are dependents because they don't have a lot of income, it defies logic to not afford spouses who have no income because they are raising a family the same luxury.

If those creating the legislation share your views, then it would seem less likely that this was an oversight and more likely that this is a slap in the face of those who stay home to care for a family. (ie, malice over incompetence).

 

[fskimospy]

So young people who have limited income because they're in school etc need to be covered, but spouses who have no income because they're raising a family should not be? Somehow adults under 25 who are claimed as dependents by their parent(s) are 'worthy' of having mandated coverage, but spouses who raise the families are not.

I think we can all agree that there is a difference between extending coverage for a few years in school and a lifetime of coverage to a spouse.

I don't support Obamacare at all, but if you're going to cover adults under 25 who are dependents because they don't have a lot of income, it defies logic to not afford spouses who have no income because they are raising a family the same luxury.

If those creating the legislation share your views, then it would seem less likely that this was an oversight and more likely that this is a slap in the face of those who stay home to care for a family. (ie, malice over incompetence).

Again, it in no way defies logic. You are arguing that if you cover someone's child for a few years in school that it would be illogical not to mandate coverage of someone's wife for five decades or more. That is illogical in and of itself.

It is my sincere hope that we continue to move towards a single payer health care system for everyone, but I imagine that there will be a lot of compromises along the way. This was a HUGE first step forward, but we can't sit back and rest when there's so much more to do.

 

[Double Trouble]

I go commando.

😱

:biggrin:

 

[SaurusX]

Maybe next time Congress will pass universal coverage in a single payer system to replace this corporatist, conservative Obamacare mess.

Wasn't that the plan all along? Create a mess the first time so that they have to come in and "fix" it later by making it even bigger and more intrusive?

 

[OutHouse]

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.

have you ever criticized the obama admin or the democrats? i swear dude in your world neither can do anything questionable or downright bullshit. you ALWAYS defend them, no matter what. you are pretty much a zealot.

 

[fskimospy]

have you ever criticized the obama admin or the democrats? i swear dude in your world neither can do anything questionable or downright bullshit. you ALWAYS defend them, no matter what. you are pretty much a zealot.

Nice psychological projection you have going on there.

I generally agree quite well with Obama on most economic issues, although I'm probably modestly to his left. I disagree with him pretty sharply on civil liberties and executive power issues.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why bother to try to understand the bill when you can just root for it to fail.

Why write a bill if you don't understand the issues and know how to effectively address them? Because "they can" isn't sufficient.

 

[WHAMPOM]

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!

A spouse is not a dependent, so what is your argument? Obamacare did not go far enough for you? Even though Obamacare is essantially the alternative that Conservatives dreamed up to oppose Hilarycare?

 

[Sonikku]

Only a Liberal come create a health care plan so retarded.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A spouse is not a dependent, so what is your argument? Obamacare did not go far enough for you? Even though Obamacare is essantially the alternative that Conservatives dreamed up to oppose Hilarycare?

I'd love to scrap the whole thing and have health care reform.

 

[Double Trouble]

I think we can all agree that there is a difference between extending coverage for a few years in school and a lifetime of coverage to a spouse.

I disagree, I don't think duration of coverage has any bearing on whether coverage should be mandated or not. Mandating of coverage is not determined based on duration, but rather by need and benefit to society (at least in theory). Ultimately we have to ask "is coverage for this group beneficial enough to society to justify mandating it?". If the answer is yes, then it should be mandated. From the looks of it, the decision was made that spouses working at home were not as important or valued as adult dependents under 25.

It is my sincere hope that we continue to move towards a single payer health care system for everyone, but I imagine that there will be a lot of compromises along the way. This was a HUGE first step forward, but we can't sit back and rest when there's so much more to do.

I'm not looking at this as a referendum on obamacare or single payer healthcare. I oppose Obamacare and I oppose a single payer system, and I think Obamacare is a huge step in the wrong direction, but that's not really the point of this discussion.