Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As an overweight 46-year-old male non-smoker in good health I was paying $120/month out-of-pocket for basically the same coverage you've described pre-ACA. Fortunately I switched jobs to a company that provides health insurance prior to the first of the year so I didn't have to deal with it.
I never looked into purchasing health insurance before ACA. I wish I had, I have nothing to compare the ACA policies to.
So, if I read this right, you are upset that the new plan is going to cost you an additional $75 a month? Bronze Plan sounds comparable to what you were getting right? The difference is that more things would need to be covered under the ACA and that is probably a significant reason for the premium increase.
This works out to less than $1,000 a year. Please forgive me if I don't become hysterical.
There are people in this world who seem to get upset about any change at all. Life is full of changes. I suggest you find a way to deal with it. The ACA isn't going away soon.
Yes, I'm not really excited about paying an extra 62% for worse insurance. People ***** about 10, 15, 20% increases in insurance premium all the time. This is a 62% increase for worse insurance. So yeah, it's annoying. Nobody asked you to be hysterical, although you seem to be doing a good job of it to me
They are domestic partners, not roommmates....there is a difference....
No, they aren't. Separate issue, but there's absolutely no difference. There's no such thing in most of Florida, and even where there is it's merely symbolic.
According to golfgal's reasoning, should a married couple that is only staying married 'for the children' or convenience or sheer laziness and no longer sharing a bed or social life, file as singles? Buy separate insurance coverage?
After all, it's a matter of principle and know they're little more than roommates now and aren't 'really' a domestic partnership any more, right?
It's OK, katestar, rest assured, some of us 'get it'.
According to golfgal's reasoning, should a married couple that is only staying married 'for the children' or convenience or sheer laziness and no longer sharing a bed or social life, file as singles? Buy separate insurance coverage?
After all, it's a matter of principle and know they're little more than roommates now and aren't 'really' a domestic partnership any more, right?
It's OK, katestar, rest assured, some of us 'get it'.
Ah, no big deal. I just feel like I'm being called a liar when I have spent countless hours doing all the research, looking up the actual numbers, filling out the ACA application online, running the tax numbers etc etc.
The thing that irks me the most is that we must pay more taxes due to our filing situation but when it comes to insurance we can't take the subsidy because what, it's not moral. It can't be both ways. Either we are legal and I get the tax break on my taxes and add her to my work insurance, or she applies for the ACA subsidy that she qualifies for. Nothing to debate here, I don't think it's fair to get reamed at both ends.
Ah, no big deal. I just feel like I'm being called a liar when I have spent countless hours doing all the research, looking up the actual numbers, filling out the ACA application online, running the tax numbers etc etc.
The thing that irks me the most is that we must pay more taxes due to our filing situation but when it comes to insurance we can't take the subsidy because what, it's not moral. It can't be both ways. Either we are legal and I get the tax break on my taxes and add her to my work insurance, or she applies for the ACA subsidy that she qualifies for. Nothing to debate here, I don't think it's fair to get reamed at both ends.
I get what you are saying.....the government can't expect you to handle your health insurance as if you were a married couple and not allow you to have any of the other benefits of legal marriage.
I don't blame you one bit for handling things the way you are.
I know a male gay couple that have been together for 37 years. If they could get legally married, the one could get on his partner's employee health insurance...... since he can't......he enrolled in the ACA and doesn't have to pay anything at all due to his low income.....his personal income alone. Until now, he never had health insurance at all. If they could have married.....he would have been on his partner's health insurance since 1979.
I get what you are saying.....the government can't expect you to handle your health insurance as if you were a married couple and not allow you to have any of the other benefits of legal marriage.
I don't blame you one bit for handling things the way you are.
I know a male gay couple that have been together for 37 years. If they could get legally married, the one could get on his partner's employee health insurance...... since he can't......he enrolled in the ACA and doesn't have to pay anything at all due to his low income.....his personal income alone. Until now, he never had health insurance at all. If they could have married.....he would have been on his partner's health insurance since 1979.
This is exactly my point. My work insurance is better than the policy I got for her on ACA. And I would have had her on my work insurance since 2010. Because we can't be legally married, she didn't have insurance in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 when we would have willingly paid for it. Now she gets ACA for $3.49 with a $500 deductible because of her income. Granted the choice of doctors is rather limited and there are lots of exclusions, but at least she has coverage in the case of illness or accident.
Ah, no big deal. I just feel like I'm being called a liar when I have spent countless hours doing all the research, looking up the actual numbers, filling out the ACA application online, running the tax numbers etc etc.
The thing that irks me the most is that we must pay more taxes due to our filing situation but when it comes to insurance we can't take the subsidy because what, it's not moral. It can't be both ways. Either we are legal and I get the tax break on my taxes and add her to my work insurance, or she applies for the ACA subsidy that she qualifies for. Nothing to debate here, I don't think it's fair to get reamed at both ends.
What's your point? It says there clear as day DO NOT INCLUDE your unmarried partner who DOES NOT need health insurance and is not your dependent. So, when she fills out the application, she doesn't include me because I DON'T NEED health insurance as I get it through my job and I'm not her dependent! Done. Give it up.
You've actually just proved that what we're doing is actually perfectly right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
