It's not Obamacare's fault - it's your RETHUGLICAN husband. Divorce him.

[lastparker]

AllyCat (7,871 posts)

Virginia health insurance...spouse NEVER covered?


My recently-married sister just told me that she cannot get insurance through her husband's employer because of Virginia law that changed (of COURSE, they are blaming it on Obamacare). She is self-employed and, of course, major-insurer decided to raise her rates ("because of Obamacare"). I could not believe that if her employer (her) does not offer insurance, she cannot get on her husband's plan. Because he makes so much money, she does not qualify for subsidies and the cost of a plan on the exchange that matched what she had is so high, she can't afford.

Is this the law in VA? No insurance for a spouse?

Her new husband is a penny-pinching Republican and I can believe he just doesn't want to pay the additional premium to cover her and her kid. But before I start pushing, would love to have some facts.

msanthrope (20,522 posts)
1. Ask her to cite the VA law. She's married to a liar, and here's the thing the penny-pincher wants

to avoid--once she and her kid are on the insurance, and if she breaks up from him, she has a right to remain on that insurance.

Let me guess---did new husband divorce the last wife?

AllyCat (7,871 posts)
2. Actually, yes, but I don't know the circumstances

I will ask her to find the law, but that is not something she is likely to do on her own.

 

msanthrope (20,522 posts)
3. Yep--and I bet Mr. republican penny pincher is required by his past divorce

Last edited Sun Dec 1, 2013, 10:09 AM - Edit history (1)

settlement to carry the ex-wife (and possibly any kids?) on his insurance. He doesn't want to repeat that.

She needs to look at this prior divorce settlement.

Ask her who owns their house.

AllyCat (7,871 posts)
4. That might explain a lot of things actually. No wonder he wanted a pre-nup.

I don't know if a post-count of just over 6,000 is enough of a safe zone to post a little logic:

dawg (6,121 posts)
5. Here's the thing. She's rich, but she still wants someone else to pay ...

for her health insurance. That's not going to happen now.

Many employers are deciding to stop covering spouses on their insurance plans. That is the employer's decision. It's nothing the ACA is forcing them to do.

The employers are thinking that their poorer employees will be able to obtain subsidized coverage for their spouses through the exchanges, and their richer employees are, well, rich enough to fend for themselves. Ultimately, it's a greedy move by the employer.

Some employees, however, are actually helped by this sort of thing. Lower income employees who were having to pay a major portion of their spousal coverage out of their paychecks may wind up paying less through the exchange. Still, it's an example of the corporations being greedy, but it may work out for some.

They blame it on Obamacare because spouses are ineligible for subsidies if they are eligible to participate in an employer plan. The corporations say they are graciously kicking spouses off the plan in order to make them eligible for ACA. Of course, this only makes any real sense if the employer plan required the employee to pay the full amount of their spouse's additional premium. But it's fun to blame Obama for things.

Oh wait - dawg realizes he's skating on thin ice:

 

AllyCat (7,871 posts)
6. Actually, no, she isn't rich.

The rest of your post is helpful. Accusing her of wanting to soak the taxpayers is untrue and wasn't necessary.

dawg (6,121 posts)
7. She's relatively rich, like me.

Too rich to qualify for the subsidy. She'll have to pay the full price for an insurance policy on the exchange. Like me.

I don't consider "rich" to be an insult. And I know she isn't filthy rich and won't feel any pain at all.

I sympathize with her. Believe me, I do!  

But I know how fortunate I am to have enough income to not qualify for a subsidy. So I'm not going to complain if I wind up having to pay a couple hundred dollars more a month. I know that I can never be denied coverage if I get a pre-existing condition, and more importantly, neither can my children (who already have conditions).

I'm sorry I sounded a little harsh. I have grown ... impatient ... with the complaints of people who are already pretty fortunate and should realize that they have it pretty damn good compared with the rest of the country.

Also, I didn't mean she wanted to soak the taxpayer. I meant that she wanted her husband's employer to continue subsidizing her insurance. That's the "someone else" who has been helping with her insurance. Now, she's going to have to pay the entire burden herself. Which is bad, but really, she is still one of the lucky ones.

And to make it clear that he's sorry:

dawg (6,121 posts)
10. Wait.

My reading comprehension skills seem to suck today. On re-reading your post, it now seems to me that your friend was never on her husband's plan. It's just that either they won't allow him to add her, or he's not willing himself.

I think I mischaracterized the situation entirely. Especially if she isn't really seeing much of the benefit of the joint "income" she and her husband earn.

I forget sometimes that spouses don't automatically benefit from the high incomes of their significant others. That makes it really unfair when someone else's income is used to deny you a benefit that you otherwise would have a right to. The whole skinflint spouse thing is something I forget about from time to time. I probably owe your friend an apology.

Others just don't get the "problem":

GladRagDahl (118 posts)
16. Of course they do

They are married. If he makes big bucks they can afford to buy her a policy without sweating. (I really don't get why this is an issue.)

 

AllyCat (7,872 posts)
17. Because he is a GOP tightwad that won't part with his money

He would rather she struggle to make ends meet than lose any of his precious, hoarded income. A real gem, eh?

ETA linky:  http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024115731

[Carl]

You idiots wanted this,will not listen to anyone pointing out all the flaws with it and still go on screaming how it should all be FREEEEE.

**** you. 

[obumazombie]

People who make money should not be allowed to hoard their own money.
It's a basic human right to keep people from hoarding their own money.

[jtyangel]

What is her 'skinflint' sister then since she apparently doesn't want to part with any of her money either...****ing hypocrites!

And they will sit there and ignore the obvious that her sister who took care of her own insurance prior to Obamacare can not longer do so because the premium is no longer affordable to her. THAT, you disingenuous assholes, IS the fault of Obamacare, not her spouse--if anything if he didn't support this, he's the only one between her sister and himself who gave a damn about the sister's financial situation. Let's face it, your sister wouldn't be in this predicament if not for that law and that's the bottom line. Whether her spouse wants to cover her or not is NOT the issue since it would not have been an issue were it not for this bloated shit piece of legislation so put that in your outrage pipe and smoke it. Always important to go back right to the original motivator you dipshit to find out the how and why things occur instead of blaming one of the repercussions along the way. Go to the source--were it not for Obamacare, your sister would not be in this situation--PERIOD, END OF STORY! You talk of liberating women all the time, yet this law has turned an independent one into one who now needs to rely on someone else to supplement things like health insurance--whether it is the spouse or the government. Bravo feminazi dipshits! So tired of this ridiculous song and dance with these liars!

[JohnnyReb]

DUmmies are finding out what's in it....

Why don't they tell their problems to Nancy P. and crowd?

[Bad Dog]

DUmmies are finding out what's in it....

Why don't they tell their problems to Nancy P. and crowd?

The talking points have been issued.  Evil insurance companies, evil Republicans and Bushhhhhh.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Wait.

The husband has to provide for the wife?


How sexist.


 

[Wineslob]

But I know how fortunate I am to have enough income to not qualify for a subsidy. So I'm not going to complain if I wind up having to pay a couple hundred dollars more a month. I know that I can never be denied coverage if I get a pre-existing condition, and more importantly, neither can my children (who already have conditions).

Liar. Try $1000 more a month if my company did not pick up a majority of the cost.

[Chris_]

These clowns think the premium is the only cost increase.  What's your out-of-pocket max and your deductible?

[JohnnyReb]

These clowns think the premium is the only cost increase.  What's your out-of-pocket max and your deductible?

I'm not sure but don't you have to sometimes pay income tax on health insurance provided by the company?

[Traveshamockery]

Seriously.  Just when I think I've heard and read all the idiocy and stupidity from the DUmmies, one comes up with even more stupidity.  I guess I need to accept the fact that when it comes to DUmmies and their stupidity, there really is no limit. 

 

[Dori]

DUmmies are finding out what's in it....

Why don't they tell their problems to Nancy P. and crowd?

A lot of companies are dumping insurance for spouses.  The increased costs of Obamacare is what's causing it and the husband has nothing to do with that decision.

[jtyangel]

Liar. Try $1000 more a month if my company did not pick up a majority of the cost.

BINGO...don't seem to hear anyone discussing the fact that insurance generally as already subsidized usually by the employer who offered it in lieu of wages as a benefit. From what I can tell if you make over 30K a year(peanuts) and don't have kids(and even then if you top around 50K) you don't qualify for a subsidy. This is a large swath of the middle class that's getting hosed because wages certainly aren't increasing to provide the subsidy once provided in employer provided plans so ???? You could barely find a decent home in this area to rent for 1000 a month--usually it would be a condo--just where in the hell do they think people in that middle income range will come up with that money--a second mortgage or rent payment? You can't tighten a belt that's already tightened as far as it will go you fools. Anyway, that whole budgeting thing falls on deaf ears coming from the people who thought it was any -ist or phobia to dare suggest that the leaches learn how to budget better and work harder. Sorry, that double speak just doesn't ring genuine when you don't expect it of others you favor.

Besides that, I suppose it's lost on their dumb asses that subsidies provided by the employer did not DISCRIMINATE based on income--Obamacare subsidies DO DISCRIMINATE based on income and their limits are not particularly generous. That said, this behemoth only serves to destroy the middle class more.

[Wineslob]

These clowns think the premium is the only cost increase.  What's your out-of-pocket max and your deductible?

Notice no "hard" numbers. Try the "Silver" plan (since the DUmmies seem to not want to talk about it). $1500 individual, $3500 family, and $9500 max out of pocket (after 80% deduct). Not great, and still considered "catastrophic".

If my employer did not cover most of the cost of this plan, I would have been paying $1365 a month.


"Affordable" eh, DUmmies?

 

[JohnnyReb]

Notice no "hard" numbers. Try the "Silver" plan (since the DUmmies seem to not want to talk about it). $1500 individual, $3500 family, and $9500 max out of pocket (after 80% deduct). Not great, and still considered "catastrophic".

If my employer did not cover most of the cost of this plan, I would have been paying $1365 a month.


"Affordable" eh, DUmmies?

 

It is to Obama and Nancy P..

[NHSparky]

I'm not sure but don't you have to sometimes pay income tax on health insurance provided by the company?

Not yet.  YET.

However, your employer's contribution to your health insurance premium is listed on your W-2, under block 12 DD, IIRC.

[Dori]

I'm not sure but don't you have to sometimes pay income tax on health insurance provided by the company?

It's supposed to start in 2018.

Employers should start early to plan to avoid 40% tax on 'Cadillac' health plans.....

.....in 2018, any employer who spends more than $10,200 on an employee for health insurance or $27,500 for family coverage will pay, directly or indirectly, a 40 percent tax on the benefit amounts over those limits.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20130520/NEWS/130529998/employers-should-start-early-to-plan-to-avoid-40-tax-on-cadillac

[jukin]

As much as the DUchebags want to believe that raising premiums, raising deductibles, raising co-pays, employers passing on those rising expenses, and employers dropping coverage subsidizes for spouses/families is not due to Obama Care it is due solely to Obama Care.

Also leftist dimwits think that it is an all or nothing subsidy. It is not. It is graduated to your income. If you are near the cutoff, you get a very small subsidy. if you are just above the medicaid limit you get a larger subsidy. It is fun to watch people that think 1+1 equals a root vegetable attempt to fathom how Obama Care will **** them every which way they turn.

It's. The. Obama. Care. Stupid.

[dane]

This confused me

I know that I can never be denied coverage if I get a pre-existing condition, and ....

How does one 'get' a pre-existing condition?  Or, is there a vaccine to prevent a pre-existing condition?

[DumbAss Tanker]

Apparently the ability to do any form of economic mathematical analysis is translated to DUmmiespeak as "Greedy."

[JohnnyReb]

This confused me

How does one 'get' a pre-existing condition?  Or, is there a vaccine to prevent a pre-existing condition?

They've been working on one for "Natural Causes"....is this what you're talking about.

[zeitgeist]

Apparently the ability to do any form of economic mathematical analysis is translated to DUmmiespeak as "Greedy."

They do have 'greedy' down pat but they seem to have missed out on the whole thou shalt not covert thingy.  

[obumazombie]

They do have 'greedy' down pat but they seem to have missed out on the whole thou shalt not covert thingy.  

Coveting is a big part of what makes a lib a lib.

[Vagabond]

Wait.

The husband has to provide for the wife?


How sexist.


 

Hi5!  This post on DU sets back women's equality, and should be alerted on.

[Big Dog]

Seriously.  Just when I think I've heard and read all the idiocy and stupidity from the DUmmies, one comes up with even more stupidity.  I guess I need to accept the fact that when it comes to DUmmies and their stupidity, there really is no limit. 

 

Maybe our new pet DUmpmonkey will 'splain it all to us.