Obamacare Restrictions Lead Brooklyn Couple To Consider Divorce

From WCBS:
From website crashes to long holds on calls, the issues involved with the unveiling of the Affordable Care Act are well documented.

But now, could it be breaking couples up?

(snip)

“It was really sudden,” Aronowitz said. “It was basically because he needed health insurance, and I had a job that would give that to him.”

But four years later, there is now irony in the fact the couple could soon divorce for the same reason.

“After Obamacare has rolled out, we realized that we would save thousands of dollars if we got divorced,” Aronowitz said.

An untended side-effect?

I wonder if it would lead to more “divorces” among the same-sex “marriages” as well. Weren’t benefits listed as among the major reasons for such “marriages”?

Indeed…

The number of same sex marriages are statistically insignificant. It is a small percentage of a small percentage of the total population that is SSM. Even if it was 100 % of these that end in divorce, this would still be insignificant.

The benefits of marriage to an indvidual are more social and psychological than financial at any rate. People have less and less reasons to get married as even those factors wane, and this would be just one more benefit that is turning into a fiction.

Looking at all the rules and laws destructive of marriage put in place over the past few decades, one must wonder … unintentional? indifferent? or positively inimical?

Considering this issue, the state of education, and some other issues, I find it difficult to believe that the consistency of what we consider bad results indicates anything other than that these are the results they want.

Seriously, if a person married me or considered divorcing me to save money, I’d apply for an annulment…and it would probably be promptly granted! :rolleyes: Such a union could probably be called many things, but for a Catholic to call it marriage would be a misnomer.

Up to $10,000 a year marriage penalty

First, Seekerz, I am happy that you are in a position to decide this way. For some families, this additional financial burden may be *impossible *to pay. For others, the strain of paying may cause actual divorce.

Secondly, not all Americans are Catholic. Many may take this route, and unfortunately, the act of divorcing will most likely cause more instability within their family.

Some families may decide to pay the so-called tax instead of getting insurance. What–was this bill intended simply to help those who are single to get insurance? Others may actually need the insurance, if they have a medical problem or if they have a high chance of getting one, and suffer through the stress this will impose.

This is an unconscionable violation of the family, which the government ought to protect.

What was happening to families who couldn’t pay for insurance (far less the ‘uninsured cost’ of health care) before the ACA? I know for sure some were going bankrupt…so is the consideration of divorce a new ‘solution’ or had it been going on all along?

This doesn’t seem to have been a marriage in the genuine Christian sense to begin with. An alliance of convenience, perhaps. While Obamacare is a lousy system, I think this couple had issues to begin with. :smiley:

Can a married Catholic couple quietly file for legal “divorce” for financial purposes while socially remaining outwardly presenting as legally married? I’d imagine that would solve the financial headaches, if they really exist (which we don’t know for sure yet since the websites are still crashed), but I don’t know if it’s morally permissible.

The penalisation of marriage in the ACA has been known for years. An analyses by the Heritage Foundation in 2010 found the ACA can penalise marriage. A different report revealed in 2011 the penalisation.

Under the ACA couples are financially better off if they commit the sin of cohabitation or divorce, rather than marry. Traditional marriage can greatly benefit individuals, and overall society, and traditional marriage should be ecouraged by the tax code, not penalised.

An analyses by Pj Media found the following

Parents will be torn between doing what Western civilization has considered morally right for millennia and their children’s financial well-being as never before.

pjmedia.com/blog/the-wedding-tax/?singlepage=true

This has been a problem ever since Social Services stopped checking to see if those receiving government aid were living with someone. Parents have divorced over their children’s health care since the inception of Medicaid.

What I see as the problem here is not that individuals may or may not divorce in response, but that the government of MY nation is backing people up into a wall, making it ever more expensive to be married.

Yes, we had a problem with medical costs in the US–I am in total agreement. But now the government is *forcing *people into dependency, and *punishing *those who marry.

I believe that the ACA is a very bad idea for many reasons, mostly because in not considering the root causes of rising health care costs, it does nothing to actually help people. Instead, the “crisis” of health care costs has been used to *harm our nation. *And this “marriage penalty” is like a knife thrust to the heart, because when a society destroys the family, it is destroying the foundation of the society.

In theory, it could be cheaper for two singles to each have separate policies than the cost of one policy fr married couples.

One of the reasons not to get a civil marriage is simply that civil marriage basically has nothing to do with marriage as the Church defines it. One can make a list of what are considered essential elements of marriage, and then compare that to what is required in a civil marriage.

Permanency? Nope…end the civil marriage contract whenever either party decides to and no reason necessary.

Gender? Nope…marry whatever sex you want.

Requirement to have children? Nope.

Requirements to have sex? Nope.

Civil marriage is simply a contract that has nothing to do with marriage as it has been known for 99.99% of human history. I don’t see any benefit of civil “marriage,” other than certain tax benefits. It is otherwise truly meaningless, and maybe others are recognizing that very same fact.

The obvious difference is the ACA incentivises the divorce through their financial subsidy structure. Not having insurance doesn’t incentivize anything, sicne it is a state of being, not a legal document.

I get that this couple sounds pretty pathetic, but their lack of fortitude in their vows has nothing to do with a program that incentivizes bad decisions. We have already seen this discussed with people who were better off quitting one of their jobs to get the subsidy rather than work the extra jobs and not qualify. That is the antithesis of the work ethic and nobility Catholics should be striving to promote.

If a couple gets divorced over this it is on them, and it is their problem and their issue to explain.

Frankly, when I got married it was for better or worse. I’m young, there will be a lot of presidents, congresses, governors, etc. in my lifetime. Some if the laws they pass and sign will be to my benefit, and others to my detriment, but I’m not giving up my husband. I would rather live under a bridge with him than have to claim that he is not my husband.

Seems like this couple has more issues than money.

it isn’t the same for you, though. As an atheist, civil marriage is all there is for you. Without it, you’re not married at all. For Catholics, the civil marriage is something required by the state, while the real marriage is the sacrament of marriage provided by the Church.

Apparently, in Mexico and Israel, civil marriage is not required of sacramental marriages by the state or the Church either one. In Israel, I don’t think a non-Jewish couple is even able to register their marriage with the state. So, if one is sacramentally married in Mexico or Israel, he’s married from a Catholic standpoint, period.

If that Mexican couple moved to the U.S., the Church would not require that they go through a state civil marriage in order to be regarded by the Church as married, and i’m sure few do, particularly since there’s an Obamacare penalty now for doing it.

So, if a couple is married according to both in the U.S., is there really a great difference between their getting a civil divorce and the Mexican couple who never did undertake a civil marriage as long as both keep their marriage vows in every way?

For a Catholic, that’s the question.

Very well put!

Exactly! I agree that civil marriage is not what makes a marriage. I was married to my husband long before the certificate was signed. If you civilly divorced your husband but continued to live as though you were married, I would consider you to still be married.

That’s why this is wrong. I won’t deny my husband to anyone for any reason. I wouldn’t get a legal divorce and tell the government that he is no longer my best friend, greatest support, and greatest love. I took vows and he deserves better. I won’t claim he isn’t mine for money, and I would question the love, commitment, and priorities of any couple who did.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.