If a spouse is not employed outside the home, is the spouse a dependent under those rules?
Wait a minute, wait. If the spouse isn't covered, then wouldn't the Fed have to cover and entirely new medical plan via voucher/whatnot? Wouldn't that cost the Fed more than if they'd just had the spouse covered? Or are they assuming the other spouse is covered through their work? So yeah, back to what cybersage just asked. What if the spouse is unemployed?
Assuming that cybrsage's question was about my post immediately above it (which I think is a safe assumption) then my honest answer is 'I don't know'. You see, at that point we're diverging from insurance law into tax law. While I have an advanced degree in tax accounting (sort of), I don't have a great deal of tax law experience.
The individual mandate portion of the ACA (§1501) states that an individual is responsible for ensuring that he/she has Minimum Essential Coverage for himself and his dependents. The ACA then references the IRC §152 definition of dependent (§1501\5000A(b)(3)(A) IRC).
The employer mandate portion of the ACA states that large employers are responsible for offering all employees and their dependents Minimum Essential Coverage (§1513); in this instance the use of the term 'dependent' is not defined.
Given the lack of definition in §1513 and the legislative context, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking declared that 'dependent' as used in §1513 has the same definition as used in §1501, namely that of IRC §152.
Cross-referencing to IRC §152, subsection (a) declares a dependent to be:
1. a qualifying child; or
2. a qualifying relative.
A spouse is not a qualifying child so in order to meet the requirements of §152 (and thus §1501 and 1513 ACA) a spouse would have to be a qualifying relative.
§152(b)(2) calls out married children as being ineligible to be considered dependents, but does not mention spouses.
§152(d)(2) defines the relationships available to be considered a qualifying relative. They are:
(A) A child or a descendant of a child.
(B) A brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister.
(C) The father or mother, or an ancestor of either.
(D) A stepfather or stepmother.
(E) A son or daughter of a brother or sister of the taxpayer.
(F) A brother or sister of the father or mother of the taxpayer.
(G) A son-in-law, daughter-in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, or sister-in-law.
(H) An individual (other than an individual who at any time during the taxable year was the spouse, determined without regard to section 7703, of the taxpayer) who, for the taxable year of the taxpayer, has the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer and is a member of the taxpayer’s household.
Spouse is not on the eligibility list, and in fact is clearly called out in §152(d)(2)(H) as being ineligible as a qualifying relative.
Given this, it seems to me that spouses are not considered dependents under IRC §152 and thus are not dependents under ACA §§1501, 1513. Since spouses are not dependents, employers are under no obligation to provide Minimum Essential Coverage pursuant to ACA §1513.
ACA §1401 amends IRC by adding §36B covering the tax credits. §36B(a) says that only 'applicable taxpayers' can receive a credit. §36B(c)(1)(A) says that an applicable taxpayer must have a household income greater than or equal to 100% of the federal poverty level and not in excess of 400% of the FPL. §36B(c)(1)(C) states that a married couple
must file a joint tax return for either individual to be considered an applicable taxpayer.
§36B(d) basically says your family size is determined by the number of personal exemption deductions you claim under IRC §151, your household income for §36B(c)(1)(A) is equal to your modified adjusted gross income, and your MAGI must include all individuals claimed under §151 and who had to file a tax return.
Taken together, only applicable taxpayers can receive credits, spouses must file jointly to be an applicable taxpayer, and the unemployed spouse must claim the employed spouse in calculating MAGI under §36B(c)(1)(A).
So, with one working spouse and one non-working spouse, the employer is under no legal obligation from the ACA to offer coverage to the non-working spouse and if the working spouse's income is large enough to exceed 400% FPL for the family size then the non-working spouse becomes ineligible for a credit.
In practical terms, this makes sense because if the working spouse has enough income to exceed 400% FPL and the employer wasn't required or didn't offer insurance, the employee wouldn't receive a tax credit anyway by way of the income. However, this still does such as the non-working spouse will not be on the family policy and will have an individual policy with a separate deductible.