Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

robinlynne

(15,481 posts)

27. looks to me as if the idea is to keep thousands of extra people who don't need the exchange from

Reply to leftstreet (Reply #26)

Tue Oct 8, 2013, 06:44 PM

Oct 2013

going to the exchange?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

One BIG hiccup in the ACA [View all] SHRED Oct 2013 OP

Unfortunately, it is not a bug it's a feature. truebluegreen Oct 2013 #1

They cannot SHRED Oct 2013 #3

I am sure you know more than I on this issue, truebluegreen Oct 2013 #5

I'd need to know the details of that SHRED Oct 2013 #6

Hm I don't think so...not spouses, anyway. DebJ Oct 2013 #19

spouses yes but not dependants SHRED Oct 2013 #20

I still remember Apple's Glossary from the original manual which defined the term feature . Ellipsis Oct 2013 #33

The 9.5% of his pay is calculated on the rate for employee coverage only, not family coverage. kelly1mm Oct 2013 #2

A problem I suspect put in by the health insurance leeches SHRED Oct 2013 #4

No, engineered by the IRS to make the ACA's cost more palatable. Barack_America Oct 2013 #14

Your post suggests to me... SHRED Oct 2013 #15

The IRS made the decision to apply the 9.5% to the individual only... Barack_America Oct 2013 #17

Maybe my employer could... SHRED Oct 2013 #11

What you say is true. However, consider BlueStreak Oct 2013 #7

Our rates are determined by our overall group's cost SHRED Oct 2013 #8

Right. That can happen in small-to-medium group policies BlueStreak Oct 2013 #16

Save it, some here do not care. Puzzledtraveller Oct 2013 #9

Until Republicans use it as "proof" Democrats don't care about middle class families... Barack_America Oct 2013 #12

count on it SHRED Oct 2013 #13

I care. I've been researching this all day. DevonRex Oct 2013 #23

So, let's offer the Repugs a "compromise." HuckleB Oct 2013 #10

I'm with you. Puzzledtraveller Oct 2013 #31

Yes, this would be an obvious and well-deserved 'feature' JimDandy Oct 2013 #34

Can't his wife and children join the exchange if they want to? robinlynne Oct 2013 #18

Nope. It's called the 'Family Glitch' leftstreet Oct 2013 #24

That actually does not make sense. Two married people can have (and do) different jobs and different robinlynne Oct 2013 #25

Right leftstreet Oct 2013 #26

looks to me as if the idea is to keep thousands of extra people who don't need the exchange from robinlynne Oct 2013 #27

No, actually they're people who NEED the exchanges leftstreet Oct 2013 #28

but covered by theuir spouses'. I was referring to the whole section; people (and families) covered robinlynne Oct 2013 #32

But isn't that referring only to *subsidized* coverage? Roland99 Oct 2013 #30

AbsoFREAKINlutely! cilla4progress Oct 2013 #21

Be nice to the reps, if you can! JimDandy Oct 2013 #35

I have 2 articles on how to determine Minimum Value and Affordability - the things DevonRex Oct 2013 #22

Randi Rhodes had a great conversation about this a few weeks ago... Liberal_Stalwart71 Oct 2013 #29

Reccing so DU can understand this big glitch. n/t JimDandy Oct 2013 #36