Are there cheaper health plans that don't include coverage for children?

I am a single male with no children and will not be having any in the year 2014. I noticed that most if not all of the health care plans include coverage for children. Isn't that increasing the cost for me even though I don't have children and won't be using that area of coverage?
  • Singe woman, age 61, no children, unemployed and wondering about retiring at 62 next month (Feb). Someone said you have to have a minimum income to apply for Obamacare? So  does it include  Social Security if I decide to retire and still get a part time job to supplement my living expenses? Have zero income right now and told if retire will not get  first check until April 2014. Not sure where I fit into this picture. Trying to get on low income health Advantage program in my state now, but have not been able to get into financial counselor yet to even apply so busy. All very confusing, because my friend in her fiftys tried for same program I want to get in with and they sent her to Obamacare first then to HIP program with our state instead of Advantage program. HIP denied me coverage years back but I worked  15 months since then before being laid off March 2012. No income but unemployment since then which stopped totally in May 2013. Help!

Yes this is possible, but I don't know how these rules vary from state to state.

I visited my State's exchange website at . In a few minutes I was able to find an individual plan for someone my age, at a hypothetical $60,000 per year, with no dependents, for $260 a month. A plan for a single person with one child is $129 more.

The plan is called "Basic EPO for HSA" and is offered through Blue Shield. Here is the cost break down:

Cost Details
  • Adult #1 (age 40):
You pay:

I tried again and I said that I have one child, I get the following cost breakdown:

Cost Details

    Adult #1 (age 40):

    Dependent #1 (age 0-18):
    Total dependent (age 0-18) cost:

You pay:


    In a basic sense you are paying for the other guy gal. Its unfortunately not fair but true.

      If you are under age 30, you can buy a catastrophic plan, which should be cheaper:
      • Thank you for that information, but I am over 30.
      • It talks about over 30 in that link also.
      • Not in Pennsylvania. There is no Catastrophic coverage on the "exchange". With "zero" income, the lowest premium is $340 a MONTH for a single male, age 44, no dependents.
        This is good for AMERICANs? $5,000 take home money to pay a "premium"? With a $19/mos "credit" for going through versus directly to Aetna? When's the revolution?
      • Are you sure you filled out the application correctly? There could be a problem with it if it's telling you what you've said, and you really do have an adjusted income of zero. If you have an adjusted income of zero, you should qualify for medicaid (or medicare if you're older).
      • Actually, not true. Pennsylvania opted out of the medicaid portion of this as many States did...if you are a home owner or live in a household with someone who is the homeowner, then you do not qualify for medicaid. Guess that's an asst that could be mortgaged for a loan to pay a premium? That is, if you'd ever pass loan underwriting.....The 24 page PA application makes this abundantly clear. Truth is, since "insurance"'s only actual benefit or product is a larger pool of revenue in order to keep costs down, spread over many people, then by its very definition, it has absolutely outlived its usefulness. The only option for any us is to file a return with zero income to document the "exception" and hope to God no one gets hurt or sick. Nice country. This isn't partisan politics, its a deadly reality that robs us all. King George all over again.
      • Interesting insight, didn't realize PA opt'd out of the medicaid expansion. Any idea why? My personal take is that insurance is not the correct vehicle for implementing anything we wish to see as a "universal right." I think it's fair to say that at least one base premise for the ACA is the growing desire to make a wide range of essential healthcare a right. ("Universal Healthcare") I think trying to accomplish this via insurance was a compromise, and unfortunately an error prone one. But given the climate we live in, I think it's fair to support it (for now), and I support changing whatever needs to be changed to make it work the best it can for everyone. If I were in your shoes, I'd try to get involved in local politics and try to see what PA can do to make this work for people in your situation. (Assuming you're not already doing so.)
      • Thank you sincerely for your thoughtful reply. I couldn't be more against this type of governmental financial coercion under penalty of law and with the enforcement arm of the IRS behind it. No other "industrialized" nation of our assumed stature takes this tack. If they only could have expanded Medicare as the umbrella system for all, current processes, systems & some enhanced on-line capabilities,  and used the billions to purchase servers the size of facebook's, then we'd be on to something. We cannot choose to support it when compliance is mandatory. That is not a free state. The right to healthcare is arguably the right to life & liberty. Inalienable, God-given. Like self-defense. The right to save your own life. Pretty basic and intrinsic to all living things.
        To have premium rates quadruple when the pool is 100% of the population, shows insurance for the closed economy it is. It is a false artifice that is absolutely unnecessary, beyond a Costco type of business. Look up "black tulips" for a 400 year old version of insurance rates. Imagine the wonderful "insurance model" for grocery shopping, and you'll sicken. How soon would a loaf of bread cost $75? Instantly. Please go on to the gov site and plug in zero income and no dependents and see for yourself what you get. Then ask yourself again if ANY of us should ever say we support it. We should all be screaming bloody murder over this. Some of us are.....P.S. States didn't expand Medicare largely because the Fed's really couldn't guarantee or demonstrate exactly how it was that they would pay their portion of the 100% and 3 years out, 90% of the costs. We're here from AZ, and they opted out also. Much of our country is beyond "Fed"-up. Our Founding Father's were largely Anti-Federalists for the exact reasons we are experiencing now.  Thanks for indulging my missive. Turbo Tax rocks, though.
      • Are you sure you filled out the form right? I've plugged in a hypothetical $1 annual salary into several different exchanges and each of them say I'm eligible for Medicare or Medi-Cal. In California, using a hypothetical salary like $30000, a bronze plan will cost me $109/month. $60K was $290/month. 10 years ago when I was actually making $30K, I was paying $100/month and my employer was paying $300/month.

      No one said healthcare would be free. Just enabling it to be more affordable for someone like me. 27, single, making under 25,000 a year. Instead of paying 300 or more a month I am only paying 100. Something I can budget in. I am sorry those privileged enough to make more than ends meet to live is upset you aren't seeing how this helps us that scrape by, sorry someone pissed in your cereal of fox news crunchy bull poop, but go jump off a bridge.

      • You just don't get it. Those you call privileged went to school, learned, worked, and earned their money. They are useful citizens, not bums like you. Try working. Honestly, it won't hurt you.
      • Why do you think he isn't working? He said he makes $25,000/year. That sounds like he is working to me. It sounds like a job that pays just a little less than twice the average minimum wage. (Average minimum wage is roughly: $7/hr * 2080 (full time working hours in a year) = $14,560)
      • OK, I missed that. But, what my point is that at 27 he can boost himself up through means and the sky is the limit. Stop whining and realized that those whom make more are not "the priviledged." They are the ones earning what they get.

      Now you are seeing the benefits of that FREE healthcare...

      • I think Obama care should be do away with ASAP
      • Why? give me a good reason.
      Contribute an answer

      People come to TurboTax AnswerXchange for help and answers—we want to let them know that we're here to listen and share our knowledge. We do that with the style and format of our responses. Here are five guidelines:

      1. Keep it conversational. When answering questions, write like you speak. Imagine you're explaining something to a trusted friend, using simple, everyday language. Avoid jargon and technical terms when possible. When no other word will do, explain technical terms in plain English.
      2. Be clear and state the answer right up front. Ask yourself what specific information the person really needs and then provide it. Stick to the topic and avoid unnecessary details. Break information down into a numbered or bulleted list and highlight the most important details in bold.
      3. Be concise. Aim for no more than two short sentences in a paragraph, and try to keep paragraphs to two lines. A wall of text can look intimidating and many won't read it, so break it up. It's okay to link to other resources for more details, but avoid giving answers that contain little more than a link.
      4. Be a good listener. When people post very general questions, take a second to try to understand what they're really looking for. Then, provide a response that guides them to the best possible outcome.
      5. Be encouraging and positive. Look for ways to eliminate uncertainty by anticipating people's concerns. Make it apparent that we really like helping them achieve positive outcomes.