There are some folks still falling through cracks that need help pretty quickly, but millions are better off. But, I hope we keep improving this thing every year. Heck, they are still tweaking Medicare, that didn't even have prescription drug coverage until 2005.

doesn't do computers. For him he is 61 single and has a small pension and said he will cash some bonds for extra income. He said he was going to tell them he had an income of $25000 he is 61 and doesn't smoke. His premium comes out to $144 a month and like me he has been paying $850 a month for a bare bones plan since he lost his job last year. Sounds like one hell of a deal if you ask me.

...the subsidies and ability for anyone to participate on the exchange is gone.

We're also a family of 4 and will pay roughly $7200 for premiums with no subsidy and no ability to participate in the exchange. We both work and will manage. I worry about a co-worker who is paying that same amount with a household income of $40k, almost 20% of their pre-tax income. I don't know how they'll manage.

...so we're already on it. But before that, I had great COBRA and the rest of the family had a BCBS individual policy that was pretty bad. Ironically, the total premiums were almost spot-on the same per month. On balance, the coverage we now have is better. The BCBS policy was not ACA compliant and is being discontinued. I'm not sure how much the plan they would have converted the family to would have cost.

As for the new policy, our employer should be contributing more to dependents, but the decision to restrict the definition of "affordability" to only the employee is ridiculous. Especially considering the ACA also requires employer coverage be extended to dependents. With no contribution from employers and no opportunity to participate on the exchange, it's almost as if dependent children have been purposefully locked out of getting coverage.

For example, if the worker's employer offers spouse coverage, the spouse is not eligible for subsidies, regardless of how low income is (completely unfair since family member premiums aren't included in the 9.5% affordability calculation ). If the employer does not offer spouse coverage, then the spouse is eligible for subsidies, unless the household income is too high to qualify. I wonder how soon the family glitch will get fixed.

what it is now isn't it?

So they're excluded from the exchange for sure. The spouse is the only one with a chance to participate.

Unfortunately, our employer plan does offer family coverage, just no financial contribution to dependent coverage.

a deduction for it when you file your taxes. I don't know much about that stufff since my insurance was fully paid by my employer except for a few months before I turned Medicare age.

...and only for amounts exceeding 10% of your income.

Like I said, I'm not worried about us, but I know the coworker I worry about rents, so without the mortgage interest deduction, the standard deduction would probably still be better than itemizing only the healthcare costs.

at all before? I hope they get that glitch taken care of, with something that big I am sure there are unexpected problems lets hope they fix them. With Romneycare as a blue print I would think that would have been ironed out.

But again, it's complicated. His wife was recently laid off and lost her coverage. He's a vet an qualifies for VA coverage, so doesn't need our insurance himself. He now pays for coverage he doesn't personally need just to get coverage for his family. Bottom line, they'd be paying a fraction of what they currently are if "affordability" included dependent coverage; they'd be able to decline the employer coverage, he'd be able to stick with the VA, and the wife and kids would get help on the exchange.

I think that employees can decide whether to participate in employer programs or not.

And, whether the employer coverage is good or bad may actually play into the scenario.

Note that large firms will face a penalty if they don't offer insurance at all or (and this is what's important) if they offer insurance but it's not considered affordable to their employees. (IMHO, the operative phrase here is "considered affordable".) http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/09/will-your-employer-drop-coverage-under-obamacare.html

So if determined that the offering is not affordable, the employer may be held accountable. But of even more importance is that the employee may qualify for ACA's marketplace.

Your friend needs to find out if they fall into this last category. Here's a link that may help explain it.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2013/10/14/obamacare-exchanges-vs-employer-health-insurance/

Also it appears as though 20% of income for insurance may be about right or even a little low in comparison to national averages.

"Annual premiums for employer-sponsored family health coverage reached $16,351 this year, up 4 percent from last year, with workers on average paying $4,565 toward the cost of their coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research & Educational Trust (HRET) 2013 Employer Health Benefits Survey."
http://kff.org/report-section/2013-summary-of-findings/

I hope your friend finds help in some way.

And the 9.5% applies to only the employees portion of the premium (I.e. employee alone coverage). Of course they don't have to take the family plan, but they won't be eligible to get another plan from the exchanges. But only the employee would have to pay the penalty. Dependents of families caught in the glitch were exempted from the penalty, because lawmakers knew so many wouldn't be able to afford coverage.

It's a shame the "fix" wasn't to just let them participate. But apparently it would have cost the ACA another $40 billion to cover them. So taxpayers will continue to pay for their ER-based care.

The income is well within the subsidy range for a family of 4 in that income range. The tax credit works sort of like the Advanced Earned Income Credit was supposed to - it was intended to be paid in advance during the year to help the working poor (or in this case the lower middle class) make ends meet in real time, rather than after it was too late.

Rather than having to pay the full price (which would keep many people from getting health insurance), the credit is paid in advance in the form of a reduced premium.

Workers and their families should be able to choose whether they want employer based health insurance or health insurance on the exchange (with subsidies if household income qualifies). Too many low income workers are paying for employer health insurance they can't afford to use because the deductibles are too high. How many Walmart workers can afford $5000 deductibles? Instead of helping these low income workers, the law requires them to keep paying for the same high deductible employer based policies they can't afford to use. Plus, maybe if health insurance wasn't tied to employment, fewer companies would be tempted to outsource jobs to countries with single-payer health care.

the Republicans fight tooth and nail against anything that could benefit us pee-ons.

That's my monthly food budget.

Still, I'd be resigned to that if that's all I was paying. You didn't mention copays and deductibles. Can I assume that after the $280, you still have to come up with more money for actual care?

My insurance comes through my employer, who pays most of the $900 a month premium. I pay a bit each month, and then, if I want care, I pay the first $1500, and then 20%.

My budget doesn't stretch to cover the copays and deductibles, so, for $900 a month, I don't get care unless I can't get to work without it.