General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How an additional $1,000 in income can cost you $6,420 more in premiums in CA [View all]truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Rules and subsets of rules is this one -
It is a fact that people were told that should the cost of their employer-provided insurance exceed 9.5% of their income, they would definitely be eligible for help.
This was especially good news to families, or even to just married couples, where one person's "pre-existing condition" pushes their premium skyward. For instance, if you are a healthy 32 year old, and you are the employee at a company where insurance is provided, and yet on account of having a child with diabetes, your insurance premium takes up more than your 9.5% of your income, you were hopeful that assistance would be provided to you. Or you are healthy and your rate under the insurance is one thing, but your spouse's pre-existing condition ups the premium. So you expect relief. But wait - that relief will not be yours.
Yes, it turns out that buried in the 2,000 pages of legalese that makes up the ACA, is the statement that the 9.5% situation is based solely on the person covered by the employer, and does not extend to including costs creating by other members of the family. Then your premium will be quite excessive in terms of cost - but since (as in the examples described above) the majority of that cost comes from your child's or spouse's end of the premium, you get no help in paying for that exorbitance!
I just read yesterday in "The Press Democrat" here in Santa Rosa, Calif., that of all the provisions in the ACA, that is the Number One change cited as being needed to occur immediately. And that even some Dem legislators believe it should be changed.
But there is no possibility of any changes to be forthcoming. (At lest according to yesterday's article in "The Press Democrat." Democratic leadership is so scared that the whole thing would be thrown out were the ACA to arrive on the floor of Congress so that changes might happen that they won't for allow the possibility. And Republicans who are aware of how disastrous this clause is are wanting the whole thing scrapped. and that is all they aim for, - so I guess people will just have to "suck it up" and suffer.