When it's too expensive to add your family to your health plan [hypocrisy from Consumer Reports]

Consumer Reports ^ | December 3, 2014

[grundle]

Q. My husband gets health insurance at his job for $130 a month, but adding me to his plan would bring our total cost up to $415. We can’t afford this on an income of only $40,000 a year! Do we have any recourse

A. Grrrr, no. You are among several million victims of the infamous “family glitch” in the Affordable Care Act. And the most infuriating thing is that it didn’t have to be this way.

As we explained just the other day, you can’t get a tax credit to help pay for health insurance if you have the option of signing up for a plan that costs you less than 9.5 percent of your annual income. (This percentage rises to 9.56 percent in 2015.) That's considered an "affordable" plan.

If you are a single person, that’s where the story ends. But if you have a spouse or kids who also need insurance, there’s more—and for people like you, it’s a story with a bad ending. Here’s why.

According to the interpretation of the law by the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department, if a worker’s individual coverage is affordable, the entire family is considered to have “affordable” employer coverage—even if, as in your situation, adding a spouse or kids to the plan drives up the price way above the 9.5 percent threshold. Here’s an infographic we created that explains this glitch clearly.

I did the math on your situation. Your husband’s plan is clearly “affordable” because $130 a month works out to about 4 percent of your annual income. But adding you to the plan brings your total cost up to 12.5 percent of your income, which is ridiculous.

[grundle]

Consumer Reports had nothing but praise for Obamacare ever since it was passed in 2010. But now that Obamacare is actually taking effect, the magazine has all of a sudden become quite critical of it. They seem to be genuinely surprised at the problems of Obamacare. I guess the magazine must be run by clueless liberals.

[DoughtyOne]

If they’re starting to acknowledge the problems, at least they can do that. Most Liberals think it was the greatest thing ever..., no problems at all.

What interests me about these freaks, is that they started this whole thing to cover the 45 million without coverage. Now they acknowledge about 50 million will remain without coverage.

Hey, but no problem. And never-mind that illegals will be covered by lower middle class will be part of the 50 million.

[sickoflibs]

Obamacare raised the cost with all these mandates but the taxpayer subsidies were supposed to compensate for that but naturally they have have these hole-traps like ones cited.

[TigersEye]

As long as the FedMob requires me to buy health insurance the cost of it is academic.

I don't comply with tyrant's demands.

[Spktyr]

Until recently, ultranannyist liberal Joan Claybrook, yes, that Claybrook, was on their board.

[MtnClimber]

Consumer Reports is surprised that communism is not working this time too. I would not buy a magazine from such idiots.

[wardaddy]

The keep kids till 26 is likely one part of this garbage most folks like

[AmericanExceptionalist]

Although I like Consumer Reports--it is an unbiased source for comparison shopping, as it does not even accept advertising, which could conceivably taint its judgments--I will readily admit that it does have a leftist bias, with regard to its editorial views. And that clearly is the case as concerning ObamaCare.

[wardaddy]

I’ve got family of 7 with my oldest daughter dropping off soon....the fact that major medical catastrophic style insurance is dead hurts her

I used to pay 470 Pre Obama...self insured with Farm Bureau BCBS

now I pay 780...to be up to Obamacaremandates which includes bull white like pregnancy coverage for my just turned menopausal honeypot

Back in our early days it was her age of childbearing that drove policy premiums

It was that way for all families...that had the decency to carry insurance and not expect govt to do it

[max americana]

“I guess the magazine must be run by clueless liberals. “

Really? You can check the history of that mag here and you’ll see countless idiot articles from glow-bull warming to worshipping electric cars.

[Roger Kaputnik]

“...raised the cost...but taxpayer subsidies were supposed compensate for that...”

My wife and I have our own business. Just the two of us. No employees. No dependents. We are in excellent health and were paying $360/Mo. for comprehensive healthcare (medical, dental, preventive, etc.) prior to Obamacare. As of January 2013 our premiums jumped to $670/Mo. And on Monday, 12/1/14 we were informed that our monthly premium will now be $922/Mo. Screw Barry and every other Demonrat. Barry and his minions are taxing us out of existence.

[fwdude]

I used to listen to those CR clowns years ago, but no more. Their “research” is a joke.

[fwdude]

So “affordable” is now whatever the Füher says is affordable.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

So “affordable” is now whatever the Führer says is affordable.

Where's our von Stauffenberg?

[Bernard Marx]

I guess the magazine must be run by clueless liberals.

You didn't know that? It's why I cancelled my subscription back in the early '90s. Worse, when they do report on things you're shopping for the model you want is either out of date and is no longer available or has been totally redesigned so the review doesn't apply. Total waste of time and money IMO.

[wastoute]

Like I said, there are just as MANY (if not more) people without health insurance now than before Klown We Don’t Kare. It’s just now they are DIFFERENT. People.

[Organic Panic]

Glitch. Unexpected?

[personalaccts]

I canceled my subscription when they put Obama on the cover

[Birdsbane]

“Where’s our von Stauffenberg?”

...or our Praetorian Guard?

[Gene Eric]

Boo hoo, I’m paying $1500/month now.