Obamacare, or, I might be up a creek w/o a paddle

[frugalone]

I believe I am in the 200% range. However, the language reads "and you would have to pay more than 9.5% of your household income for your own coverage through the insurance offered by your employer." It wouldn't be more than 9.5% for MY coverage, but add in other family members and it becomes very high.

I am wondering how the government hopes this plan will cover non-working spouses. Or non-working partners in homosexual couples who live in states that do not currently have legal marriage for same-sex couples.

Or how about people who are unemployed and have no income? My COBRA ran out and my UC benefits did too. That's how I got on the bare-bones program. We didn't qualify for public health insurance, either.

[frugalone]

Hi--do you mind if I ask which state you are in?
How much are the deductibles for that Bronze plan. Just curious. Thanks!

In my state and zip code, 2 people aged 35 with a $35K modified adjusted gross income could get a Bronze policy for $33 a month.

[try2bfrugal]

Or how about people who are unemployed and have no income?

They would get free health care under Medicaid for states that have this option in place.

Here is a state by state list of where that stands -

http://kff.org/health-reform/state-i...able-care-act/

[try2bfrugal]

I am in California. You can look up the deductibles on the Covered California exchange site. But if you live somewhere else it doesn't matter what the California rates are unless you are planning a move. Deductibles are highest on the Bronze plans, but if you are healthy and a low consumer of medical care, they might be your optimal option.

You might still be able to get exchange rates if "..your employer will offer family coverage, however, your family's eligibility for subsidized coverage on the exchanges will depend on whether your job-based coverage is considered unaffordable or inadequate under the law. If the cost for single coverage is more than 9.5 percent of your income or the policy doesn't cover at least 60 percent of your allowed medical costs, your whole family could be eligible for subsidized coverage on the exchange.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/feat...-exchange.aspx

You can call and ask the exchange advisers after October 1st and see if there is anything they can do for you based on your current employer coverage options.

[jp1]

I believe I am in the 200% range. However, the language reads "and you would have to pay more than 9.5% of your household income for your own coverage through the insurance offered by your employer." It wouldn't be more than 9.5% for MY coverage, but add in other family members and it becomes very high.

I am wondering how the government hopes this plan will cover non-working spouses. Or non-working partners in homosexual couples who live in states that do not currently have legal marriage for same-sex couples.

Or how about people who are unemployed and have no income? My COBRA ran out and my UC benefits did too. That's how I got on the bare-bones program. We didn't qualify for public health insurance, either.

Frugal, unfortunately I think I heard somewhere/read somewhere that your situation is an unintended flaw in the way the law was written. The intention was for it to be 9.5% of total household income to cover the whole household, but it ended up being for the individual, even though that individual is financially responsible for the rest of the household.

As for homosexual (or heterosexual) non-married domestic partners I would assume that the non-working one would be able to qualify for subsidies based on their own income or lack thereof.

[try2bfrugal]

Frugal, unfortunately I think I heard somewhere/read somewhere that your situation is an unintended flaw in the way the law was written. The intention was for it to be 9.5% of total household income to cover the whole household, but it ended up being for the individual, even though that individual is financially responsible for the rest of the household.

As for homosexual (or heterosexual) non-married domestic partners I would assume that the non-working one would be able to qualify for subsidies based on their own income or lack thereof.

Yes, I see that written up here -

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ssues/2804017/

It was a wording error in the law that has not been fixed to date.

[frugalone]

for more fun and games, go on over to my thread in Workplace called "raises" and read about how my small raise will most likely put me outside the federal poverty level and other complications.

I'm really, really trying not to freak out about this...since I can't get any solid info till Oct. anyway.

Looks like that USA Today article is accurate.

[try2bfrugal]

for more fun and games, go on over to my thread in Workplace called "raises" and read about how my small raise will most likely put me outside the federal poverty level and other complications.

I'm really, really trying not to freak out about this...since I can't get any solid info till Oct. anyway.

Looks like that USA Today article is accurate.

The ACA is based on modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), not gross income, so it may be possible to reduce your MAGI by making a 401K or IRA deduction, if that ends up helping.

Sorry to hear about your situation, frugalone. I did not know about the wording glitch until this thread.

[frugalone]

I'm thinking I might need to see an accountant. Currently, I don't make any retirement contributions--because I can't really afford to.

[bae]

Another fun unintended consequence:

I am in the middle of hiring an employee for a governmental organization. While the organization has the same powers and authority as an incorporated city, it is a quite small organization - one minion (already hired) and one manager (the new hire) to replace a retiring employee.

This small of a governmental entity, for a variety of reasons, cannot participate in the state employees' health program, which is quite good. Our normal practice to date has been to cover "90% of the cost of whatever health insurance you can find that is roughly similar in coverage to the state program".

We cannot make an intelligible offer to any of our candidates - they ask what the health coverage is, and we have no clarity on what we can provide them at present.

So this makes it very difficult to hire anyone, even though we have a position available, and interested candidates. And it would be "bad" to not fill this position, as it is the manager of a commercial service airport...