<p>I would like to know where it costs a mother age 26 and a baby almost $600 a month each to buy an insurance plan?</p>
<p>At 42,000 a year, the father alone would qualify for a subsidy, right?</p>
<p>Cardinal Fang,</p>
<p>I got it. Although someone has to double check to which household the child belongs when unmarried parents live together. </p>
<p>My understanding was that even for expanded medicaid, the child will belong to household where the child is considered a dependent according to IRS definition. </p>
<p>If both parents live together, then the child evenly splits number of days he spends in each household and according to IRS rules, the child will be dependent of the parent with higher income. </p>
<p>I am not insisting that I am right. And I understand the point is moot for this couple.</p>
<p>ETA: <a href=“http://www2.illinois.gov/hfs/SiteCollectionDocuments/ACA_IncomeDefinitionsWebinarAug28.pdf[/url]”>Error;
<p>Look at slide 29.</p>
<p>Thanks again everyone. Aca seems pretty encompassing to me and I think the income limits which still allow subsidy are fairly high. Just seems like something falls through the cracks when they determine subsidy eligibility based on individual premium percent of income and someone needs family policy, and it far exceeds the 9.5.</p>
<p>Realistically, what working family making 40K wants to put their baby on Medicaid?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The one who cannot get affordable coverage elsewhere.</p>
<p>What about us empty nester-stay at home moms? Mu DH’s company has already indicated that spousal coverage will go away with ACA implimentation for large employers. My DH will be covered, our under 26 yr old children will be covered, but I will not. </p>
<p>If I go back to work to cover my insurance costs, we will be bumped up into a higher tax bracket. So I will have to find a job paying enough to cover another x% of our COMBINED income plus $1,000+/mo. for my insurance ( I peeked at the exchange). You all have been so kind to point out that even minimum wage jobs are hard to come by for younger people - I wonder how feasible finding such a job will be for someone in the 50+ age group.</p>
<p>I guess we as a society no longer value marriage nor the time and effort put in raising children society can be proud of. Sucks to be someone like me.</p>
<p>Meremom, are you going to lose some tax benefits or subsidies if you make more money?
Otherwise, only the additional income you make may be taxed at higher brackets.</p>
<p>$1,000 a month? What kind of plan is that?</p>
<p>What plans on the exchange are running $1000+/month even without a subsidy??? I haven’t personally seen any. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh no. We do. That’s why my fiance and I living together are seen as exactly the same as any other roommates. We’re not considered a “household” for things like this until we have a piece of paper. Trust me, it’s well valued.</p>
<p>Meremom,</p>
<p>if you are not eligible for employer-sponsored insurance, then you are theoretically are eligible for subsidies.</p>
<p>I am over 50 and ineligible for subsidies. To match the insurance I have now, that is what it will cost according to our state (and the state we are looking at moving to).</p>
<p>And yes, we will be losing A LOT of marriage based tax benefits.</p>
<p>I peeked at the exchange too. Where do you live, that your insurance would be $1000/month just for you? I live in one of the most expensive areas, and I’d pay $800/month for a Silver if I was 64. Looks like Silver in Madison Wisconsin is less than $600/month even for someone who is 64 years old.</p>
<p>I don’t mean to say that $600/month is easy to afford. But it’s a lot easier to afford than $1000/month.</p>
<p>And I do agree that finding a job is not easy for someone 50+. My BIL was laid off last year from a highly paid executive position. He’s still looking.</p>
<p>The HR department person I spoke to indicated they expect premiums to double for those it WILL cover. That is almost $400 increase PLUS me.</p>
<p>Meremom, good luck.</p>
<p>Employer based insurance is different from exchange insurance. You might find rates on the exchange lower than employer based insurance rates.</p>
<p>lerkin, MereMom is falling into the same hole that the young family with the baby are falling in. If someone has employer-based insurance that is affordable FOR THEM (because it’s subsidized), but their spouse would have to pay the full price for it, then that family is deemed to have affordable insurance and they are not eligible for subsidies. So MereMom will be ineligible for subsidies.</p>
<p>This sounds like it could be a pretty be a pretty big hole CF. People sometimes don’t realize it and it may be regional to some extent but there are still a lot of non-working or barely working spouses in this country.</p>
<p>Most people I talk to are not really paying attention to this whole thing at all, yet.</p>
<p>CardinalFang,</p>
<p>this is what MereMom said: “Mu DH’s company has already indicated that spousal coverage will go away with ACA implimentation for large employers.”</p>
<p>I interpreted this as the spousal coverage is not available to spouses (not event at full price). If this is the case, then the spouse is theoretically eligible for subsidies, provided their total household income is low enough. </p>
<p>Once again, not insisting I am right :).</p>
<p>Can an employee turn down health insurance coverage?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They can, but this will not change their eligibility for subsidies.</p>
<p>P.S. During open enrollment, my employer sent everyone a letter stating this (and other things) and referencing the law.</p>
<p>So a family who might be under the threshold for subsidies with employer provided insurance can be shafted if employee is eligible (and child/children can be covered at additional premium, but no spouse coverage)…spouse is then eligible for subsidy, since he/she cannot be covered?</p>