<p>Great, thanks. Looks like that’s an administrative rule that could easily be changed if there was enough public outcry.</p>
<p>Here’s another-- IRS, dated 15 Nov 2013
[Questions</a> and Answers on the Premium Tax Credit](<a href=“http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-the-Premium-Tax-Credit]Questions”>http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-the-Premium-Tax-Credit)</p>
<p>Note household income.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not saying that it is easy or even practical. But if she gets a job – any minimum wage job – she would then be eligible for subsidies, no?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would guess that they were afraid of unintended consequences, i.e., employers dropping dependent coverage, or significantly raising the premiums for dependents, thus making them eligible for subsidies.</p>
<p>Not if the husband’s employer makes it available, right? They don’t have to pay for it they just have to offer it and in this hypothetical that happened.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, the only way out is for employer to drop spousal coverage completely. Then the spouse may theoretically become eligible for subsidies. No such lack for the children, because the employers are required to cover them, but are not required to subsidize their insurance.</p>
<p>It is nothing new though, as a small business when we started offering health insurance 9 years ago, we were required to pay 50% towards employee health insurance premiums, but 0% towards their dependents.</p>
<p>So, why wouldn’t you just stop offering it and solve the employees dilemma?</p>
<p>Although children could still be a costly problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At some point the employer (over 50 employees) mandate will kick in and they have to pay the substantial penalty. </p>
<p>We will never become that large so theoretically we can do that, but this rule does not affect my current employees who bought insurance through us. However, it might affect those employees who in the past chose not to purchase insurance. By the way, none of those employees contacted me to discuss their 2014 coverage.</p>
<p>P.S. I think I misunderstood your question. I think you were talking about spousal coverage while I was talking about coverage in general (including for employees only).</p>
<p>Trying this oh phone. I had the baby question. Thanks for replies. Not married. Mother less than 26, on her parents plan. Dad on his employer plan. Costs him very little. So, mom can’t go on his plan. Family coverage was something astronomical, like $14000. I know it costs that for ins, but someone grossing $42000 can’t pay $14000 for insurance. Non Medicaid expansion state. Won’t qualify for schip.</p>
<p>^^not sure if I understand the question, who covers the baby? ACA does not require coverage of grandchildren, so the s/he would not receive coverage from the either parent’s plan…</p>
<p>Where does it cost 14,000 a year for a mother under age 26 and a baby with an income under 42,000?</p>
<p>If they are not married, then only whoever is claiming the child on the tax form will be the one buying insurance for the baby. If it is the mother, then only her situation will be considered.</p>
<p>There are IRS rules prohibiting lower income parent to claim a child if both unmarried parents live together. YMMV.</p>
<p>If the parents are not married, mother and baby are eligible for Medicaid in expansion states. And they’re probably eligible for Medicaid even in a non-expansion state. Certainly, in every state of the union that baby is eligible for Medicaid/CHIP.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I understand it, that would be the price if the mother and baby signed up on the father’s employer insurance. Employer insurance premiums are usually not age-adjusted, so they would be paying the same price as a 57-year-old employee spouse with a 25-year-old adult child.</p>
<p>If the parents live together, the entire household income will be mean tested for government benefits.</p>
<p>Lerkin, that’s not the way it works for Medicaid in the expansion states. Eligibility is based on household income only, and if the parents are not married, his income isn’t included.</p>
<p>Then it must be a rule change. In the past, I helped many immigrants to fill out the forms and they did ask for the total household income. </p>
<p>Also, in some states, if the state provides assistance to the mother, the state will go after father for child support and the state will keep that child support to offset the cost of assistance. I don’t know how this applies to expanded medicaid, but it is something to consider.</p>
<p>The numbers are bizarre. </p>
<p>There isnt a cheaper alternative?</p>
<p>Non expansion state. Chip children’s ap asks for “household” income so like lerkin said, I thought it included all income in the house. I had lots of clients paying 15000 to 22000 for a high deductible policy. If the employer is subsidizing none of rhe family part, I can see how it’s that high.</p>
<p>lerkin, it’s a rule change in ACA. In expansion states, Medicaid eligibility is based on household income only. Not assets.</p>
<p>Unfortunately for this young family, they’re not living in an expansion state.</p>
<p>There’s surely a cheaper alternative. The mother can buy an unsubsidized insurance policy for herself and the baby for a LOT less than $14K/year.</p>