Since discovering the federal poverty guidelines, conservative lawmakers and commentators have accused the Democrat-sponsored health care bill — which pegs affordability credits to the federal poverty standards and offers higher credits to unmarried individuals — of discriminating against married couples. “[J]amming this sort of complex legislation through Congress in the dark of night means that we are just learning about some of its more damaging provisions,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said in a statement, “including a new ‘marriage penalty’ that will cost couples that wed thousands of dollars in higher health insurance costs.”

At least two separate articles in the Wall Street Journal echoed the charge. “That’s an incentive for dual-income couples to skip the marriage ceremony altogether and continue to file as singles. For cohabitators, the savings could amount to thousands of dollars a year,” Stephen Moore argued yesterday:

Take two low-wage workers who are considering marriage. In 2016, if each has an income $11,800, they would each have to pay $248 as singles for government-approved health insurance. Married, their joint income climbs to $23,600 and they would have to pay $1,109 — a ding of more than $600 annually.

The affordability credits in the health care bills are not designed to discourage marriages (if anything progressives have been fighting to extend that right to millions of gay and lesbian Americans). Rather, the policy follows a long standing precedent which treats married people as a unit and views individuals as separate parties filing separate tax returns. This makes even more sense in the context of health care reform and affordability standards.

Unmarried individuals have fewer resources (lower incomes, more money spent on basic necessities) than married families and have a harder time obtaining and paying for health insurance coverage. In fact, since the majority of the uninsured are not married and marrying lowers uninsurance rates, providing more subsidies to individuals is a better way of targeting affordability credits to those who need them most. The following table relies on Census data from 2009:

Ironically, the Republican health care plan introduced in the House, did not provide married or unmarried Americans with any affordable health care options or significantly lower health care costs. Conservatives have consistently voted against the affordability credits in the Senate and House health care bills and complained that reform was too expensive. Of course, if they now want to spend more money subsidizing married Americans, their recommendation may attract bipartisan support.

As part of the GOP’s all-out-effort to repeal health care reform, the Club For Growth is asking lawmakers and candidates in the 2010 elections to “pledge to the people of my district/state to sponsor and support legislation to repeal any federal health care takeover passed in 2010, and replace it with real reforms that lower health care costs without growing government.” At least 17 lawmakers and 36 candidates have signed onto the repeal, including Florida “Tea Party” candidate Marco Rubio. “The proposed government takeover of health care being rammed through Congress runs contrary to the principles of limited government that have made Americans the freest and most prosperous people ever,” Rubio said:

As a U.S. senator, I will sponsor and support legislation to repeal any federal health care takeover passed in 2010, and replace it with real reforms that lower health care costs without growing government. This is not just about simply opposing and repealing the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda. This is about putting America back on a limited government track. This will require opposing new spending binges, but also turning back some of the mistakes made by President Obama and this Congress, including the pending health care bill.”

Unfortunately, Rubio’s arguments against reform are as specious as his “constitutionality” claims. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that reform would result in “no significant change” in the federal government’s commitment to health care, and constitutional scholars from across the country argue that the Commerce Clause “permits Congress to regulate commerce, or actions that directly affect economic activity,” such as requiring Americans to purchase health insurance coverage.

The GOP’s health care industry-funded constitutional push is designed to attract campaign cash and get-out-the vote, but should their efforts succeed, the “pledging lawmakers” would be undermining the interests of their constituents. After all, the CBO has estimated that reform would insure as many as 31 million Americans and lower premiums for subsidized Americans in the exchange. A back-of-the envelope analysis conducted by ThinkProgress reveals that on average, the constituencies of the lawmakers and candidates who have signed the Club For Growth’s repeal pledge, have experienced higher than average premium increases, rates of uninsurance and annual percent growth in health care expenditures and insurance market concentration. More than 20 percent of Floridians, for instance, went without health insurance coverage in 2008 — five percent more than the national average — and costs increased by 7.1%:

Read more