<p>They can turn it down, but the affordability turns on the insurance being available to them. </p>
<p>Oh, I see, Lerkin, you are saying that if MereMom’s husband’s company won’t sell her insurance at any price, then she doesn’t have affordable insurance. Now I see your point.</p>
<p>Samurai,</p>
<p>The spouse is eligible for subsidies, only if spousal insurance is not available at any cost through employee’s employer.</p>
<p>Lerkin, </p>
<p>And below the modified wage threshold for ACA.</p>
<p>Yes, of course.</p>
<p>Yes they can but it sounds like if the coverage costs less than 9.5% of income, they would not be eligible for subsidies. They can pay in full.</p>
<p>Ok… But in the case of the father, mom and baby…the income was low enough so the father theoretically could qualify for subsidies.</p>
<p>That being the case, the father cant buy subsidized insurance coverage for himself instead? The father cant buy subsidized coverage for himself and his family?</p>
<p>So there could be a situation where employee is covered through work and subsidized for health insurance. </p>
<p>Let’s say employer is “dad”</p>
<p>“Mom” cannot be covered due to employer no longer covering spouses premiums. </p>
<p>Child or children can be covered, but not subsidized. Let’s say they have 2 kids under 26.</p>
<p>If dad wants to cover children, he can pay additional premium through employer for children. The plus would be they would be on same plan, same doctors, same hospitals, same deductible. </p>
<p>Mom can buy on exchange IF her H’s employer won’t cover her premium. If they theoretically allow her to buy and pay an undubsidized premium that might be deemed unaffordable, she can buy through insurance companies, or exchange, but no subsidies.</p>
<p>They wouldn’t be eligible for subsidies if the family income was greater than 400% of poverty, which for a family of four is $94,200. Even if the insurance cost more than 9.5% of income.</p>
<p>We need calmom to sort us out here, but I think in the case of the young family, the father can’t decline the “affordable” employer insurance and get subsidized.</p>
<p>How many employers are cutting spousal coverage, so far? Anyone know?</p>
<p>Dstark,</p>
<p>If father’s coverage is below 9.5% from his employer, he cannot qualify for subsidies on exchange, even if the it is cheaper than insurance from employer. Because by law he already gets affordable coverage. </p>
<p>The bizarre ruling from IRS makes it even more painful. In the situation you outlined, his children cannot get subsidies either, even if their insurance is unaffordable. The spouse may qualify, but only if employer refuses to sell the coverage. </p>
<p>I don’t mind the outcome for the father. I am somewhat neutral regarding outcome for the mother. But, I am disgusted by the outcome for the children.</p>
<p>I want to talk about the dad who makes 42,000 a year and the mom and the baby, da… it. :)</p>
<p>CF, why cant the mom and baby buy subsidized care? </p>
<p>The dad makes $42,000.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Anyone can buy on exchange, even the father. The issue is subsidies.</p>
<p>Ok lerkin, thanks. </p>
<p>I am not neutral. The family should receive subsidized coverage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UPS did.</p>
<p>I think if employers are not going to subsidize spousal insurance, the families are better off if the employers cut spouses completely. At least in this situation, spouses of the lower income families will be eligible for subsidies.</p>
<p>Dstark- No subsidies if employer coverage is offered. It doesn’t have to be paid for just offered. This is my issue and why my kids and I have been buying on the independent market.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha ha. I know. </p>
<p>I told you before: we will never agree on many issues, but it is OK to disagree. It takes all kinds of people to make the world spin.</p>
<p>I just saw an NPR article that suggests employee spouse coverage could cost employer $1500 more per year. </p>
<p>Even adding that surcharge to an employee might be a lot cheaper than spouses having to purchase plans on their own. It would certainly create happier employees and create at least a pooled deductible, giving employee more bang for buck. </p>
<p>I am not sure how big a problem this is through population, but I have been married 20 plus years and never entitled to my own health insurance plan unless I bought on my own. None of my jobs offered benefits. </p>
<p>As a self employed person, I can buy a plan and maybe even get a few tax breaks. If I make enough income, amyway. </p>
<p>I know a whole lot of women who rely on H’s insurance.</p>
<p>[Employers</a> Trim Health Costs By Cutting Coverage For Spouses : Shots - Health News : NPR](<a href=“Employers Trim Health Costs By Cutting Coverage For Spouses : Shots - Health News : NPR”>Employers Trim Health Costs By Cutting Coverage For Spouses : Shots - Health News : NPR)</p>
<p>Lerkin, </p>
<p>Right. Should have written SHOULD…not can</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UPS cut some coverage, but not across the board.</p>
<p>[U.P.S</a>. to End Health Benefits for Spouses of Some Workers - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/business/ups-to-end-health-benefits-for-spouses-of-some-workers.html]U.P.S”>U.P.S. to End Health Benefits for Spouses of Some Workers - The New York Times)</p>
<p>Lerkin, where do you disagree with me? You dont have to list everything. :)</p>