Married? No Exchange Subsidy for You!!

[cadylou]

Add "marriage" counselor to our list of new skills needed for the exchange.............this is going to be fun.....


The income measure for subsidy purposes are not based on individuals but rather on families. And that creates a perverse incentive.
"Two singles would each be able to earn $43,000 and still receive help to purchase health insurance, but if they got married and combined their earnings to $86,000, they would be far above the limit," Furchtgott-Roth explained.
So those with that much income as a couple would lose the government subsidies and be on their own for thousands of dollars in health coverage.


Read more: Obama
Obama


If an employer offered a working husband affordable self-only coverage, but family coverage for an out-of-pocket premium that clearly was not affordable, "the rest of the family is not eligible for the PPACA tax credits," the staff members say. "The family would be faced with the decision of buying private coverage at an annual cost exceeding $10,000 for the mom and the kids (unless the kids are covered by the state's [Children's Health Insurance Program] or foregoing insurance and being forced to pay the tax penalty instituted by the health care law for individuals who lack health insurance."
If the current rules and rule interpretations prevail, the percentage of married couples that qualify for the tax credit may be as low as 3.3%, the staff members estimate.

Republicans: PPACA Tax Credit to Favor Singles | LifeHealthPro

I have a family in this very situation - the husband gets insurance & the employer "offers it" to spouses & kids, but pays almost nothing for it - they bear most of the cost - if they buy that it will account for about 16% of their gross income (just for the wife & 3 little girls). This part of the law really could make a good case for employers not offering group coverage to anyone but employees - this family would have certainly been better off.

 

[Yagents]

I have a family in this very situation - the husband gets insurance & the employer "offers it" to spouses & kids, but pays almost nothing for it - they bear most of the cost - if they buy that it will account for about 16% of their gross income (just for the wife & 3 little girls). This part of the law really could make a good case for employers not offering group coverage to anyone but employees - this family would have certainly been better off.

The law requires employers to offer coverage to children up to age 26. They are not required to offer coverage to spouses.

 

[foxmarble]

We just had our first married couple call us and let us know that they finalized their divorce and want to get their Medicaid. We thought that they were joking when we talked to them 3 months ago. They were married for 16 years! Yes they did this just to get the free insurance....wow!

 

[Ann H]

Wow O.D., you dedicated 3 weeks to talking a stranger down from a building? You should be officially commended for not only saving his hide, but alerting his shrink as well! U-Go-Dude.
ac

Super funny, AC!...........

 

[cadylou]

The law requires employers to offer coverage to children up to age 26. They are not required to offer coverage to spouses.

That's not the issue - the coverage offered to dependents & spouses is "unaffordable" . . . . far exceeding the "affordable" threshold of 9.5%, but they still can't split off & apply for coverage & get a subsidy. Not right . . . .

 

[Yagents]

That's not the issue - the coverage offered to dependents & spouses is "unaffordable" . . . . far exceeding the "affordable" threshold of 9.5%, but they still can't split off & apply for coverage & get a subsidy. Not right . . . .

They should have read it before passing it

 

[AllenChicago]

We just had our first married couple call us and let us know that they finalized their divorce and want to get their Medicaid. We thought that they were joking when we talked to them 3 months ago. They were married for 16 years! Yes they did this just to get the free insurance....wow!

This law is causing more rebellion than I've ever seen. Today I spoke with a client (now former) who cancelled her insurance, divorced her husband and is moving to a mountain in Colorado where 20,000+ people are living completely "off the grid" as she put it. I won't repeat the things she said about Prez. Obama... (And she's a Democrat!)
ac

----------

Super funny, AC!...........

What, Ann? You're certainly in a HAPPY mood! Open enrollment must be very good to you...Or are you happy cause its ending?
ac

 

[OregonDave]

This law is causing more rebellion than I've ever seen. Today I spoke with a client (now former) who cancelled her insurance, divorced her husband and is moving to a mountain in Colorado where 20,000+ people are living completely "off the grid" as she put it. I won't repeat the things she said about Prez. Obama... (And she's a Democrat!
ac

She sounds nuts, and provedly so if her husband didn't go with her. Sane people get closer to their families when they're concerned about instability.

I've been asked when the FEMA camps are coming, usually by Texans. One of these days I'm going to say "tomorrow," and in ten minutes you will receive a phone call from another Allwebleads customer...

 

[wehotex]

;;xxxxxxxx c

 

[cadylou]

This report has an agenda to promote benefits for married couples. The subsidy does not favor singles as it states. The federal subsidies that I've seen on the Medicare side are considering HOUSEHOLD income vs per individual in a household. Since married couples share many household expenses, it's more equitable to award the subsidy per household instead of per person. Because of the yelping from married couples who don't want to pay their fair share, political parties raced to throw freebies at them. I'm not happy about Obamacare at all, but glad that at least it makes an attempt at subsidy fairness.

Huh? this family doesn't make a lot of money & his insurance is unaffordable. You think they should not have a chance at a subsidy? They overpay - much more than their fair share & always have? I guess I don't understand your comment. . . .