Are neither of them eligible for coverage through their jobs?

too many unknowns to really comment.

...don't make much money to find $828/month -reasonable-. That's $209/person. I find that pretty damn far from reasonable myself, but maybe I'm too used to looking at things from the 'I have no actual money' angle.

than last year, and included, for the first time, maternity benefits.

They were just complaining about nothing. The letter from the insurance company didn't bother to mention that if they bought the same policy on the exchange -- instead of directly from the insurer -- they could qualify for a subsidy. So these people got all outraged for nothing.

...cost that got me. But like I said, I probably am not a good judge of 'proper' insurance cost either, given circumstances, and I'll freely admit that.

I didn't know about the direct-from-insurer/bought on exchange subsidy thing, though. If that is true, why are so many people buying direct? Or is it just an Alabama thing? I know that at least here in Indiana (and elsewhere if I read it right), if you're offered insurance through work you -can't- buy on the exchange and get a subsidy, you're just SOL. There really needed to be some better preparation for presentation of information I think, but for as huge as the law was they did seem to get it relatively well put together.

could qualify for a subsidy if they bought on the exchange.

But others know they make too much for a subsidy so they just buy directly, often taking the policy their current insurer offers them.

Which puts their cost at $205/month which is 175 cheaper than they were paying (but one kid was still not covered at the time).

There are assuredly problems (had some myself actually, which I didn't know about until today) but then again - regular insurance had a SLEW of problems that no one was addressing and tons more horror stories than ACA. Where were all these folks on FB posting about those?

What kind of policy do you suppose they had for $380 for four people with dental?

cancelled the policies of millions in order to raise their profits from 2billion in 2001 to 12 billion dollars by 2009.

Who or what did they blame for rate increases and cancelled policies before the ACA?

They've been doing this a long time but have a convenient excuse now.

And they get paid by the insurance industry to further their lies.

Ask your sister what HER insurance/ACA experience has been ... If it hasn't changed or hasn't been a cluster f@#%, offer that any program that affects 100s of millions of people will likely expose a few ... even a few hundred ... odd cases where someone loses out. Then ask her if this one person's experience, even if true, negates the millions of those that have gained coverage, where pre-ACA there was none to be had, at a lower cost that covers more.

If she bucks at this ... shake your head and move on because the fox is in her ears and there is nothing you can say that'll affect that.

"I had awesome coverage! Now I don't!" They don't understand that their high-deductible worthless coverage was not "awesome." Good luck.

to keep the cost down to 9% of their income, because they want her to buy directly from them. Instead, she should go onto the exchange and see what's available there, and how much of a subsidy they might qualify for.

Also, her old policy almost certainly didn't cover maternity benefits. All the new ones will.

That, to me, trumps the source.

about the subsidy they got, etc.?

Click on the "Breaking" tab and you'll see that all of the linked stories are anti-Obama and anti-Democratic.

Neither spouse appears to get coverage through work, thus they are eligible to participate in the exchanges and get a subsidy to cap their premiums at 9.5% of MAGI.

Translation, the ACA is likely to SAVE them money.