People who get laid off on or after June 1 can no longer turn to the government for help to cover 65% of their premium costs for COBRA health coverage. COBRA lets workers stay on their former employer’s group health plan for a period of three months. This assistance that once came from the government expired on June 1, and it does not appear that lawmakers will continue it according to the Wall Street Journal.

A new jobs bill once held an extension of the COBRA payment plan, but it was removed. The bill is now in the Senate. Those who lost their jobs between September 2008 and May 31, 2010 could still apply for insurance assistance for up to 15 months. Their former employer would be responsible for paying health insurance costs plus a two percent administrative fee. Under subsidies provided by the economic stimulus package, premiums run $387 on average. Without the assistance, family premiums jump to over $1100 a month. For those who lose their jobs after June 1, the government will no longer pick up that $720 difference.

Families USA found that those laid off after June 1 would have to spend 84% of their monthly unemployment insurance checks on COBRA premiums in order to keep their families covered. Unemployment checks are about $1,313 on average. However in 11 states unemployment income actually would not be enough to cover insurance costs. ”It’s ironic that in a little over two months after health reform passed and is designed to achieve significant coverage improvement, in the short term we will go backwards,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, in a Wall Street Journal report.

Another option would be finding individual coverage which could be cheaper, as long as there are no preexisting conditions. “Cobra coverage is so expensive, but the alternatives are either going without coverage or having to go to the individual market,” Park said to the Wall Street Journal. “As long as there’s not a gap of 63 days or more in coverage, you’re guaranteed access to the individual market so insurers can’t deny you. But it may not provide the same comprehensive benefits.”

On June 8 California voters will decide what they think about Proposition 17, but until then the debate continues. Supporters say it will help more than 80% of the state’s residents because they could keep their continuous coverage discounts with them when they switch car insurance providers. Drivers say as much as $250 a year with these benefits, but currently the benefits are lost when you switch to a new insurance carrier according to an LA Times report.

Those against Proposition 17 say it will drive up costs, especially for people who gave up driving because of various reasons ranging from military service to medical conditions. Those against the legislation say new drivers and those with bad driving records would also face higher costs. Both sides have been lobbying hard, with insurance companies spending millions of dollars on ad campaigns in the weeks before the vote.

Business groups are largely backing the proposition because of its added freedom for changing insurance providers because they believe it would add more competition. Others say the new law would undermine an old on that strengthened the link between insurance costs and the risk certain drivers hold, according to Richard Holober of the Consumer Federation of California. “It is discriminatory against people who are down on their luck and serving their country,” Holober said to the LA Times. Holober says that drivers who suspend their insurance for more than 90 days because they’re not driving would then have to pay surcharges to reactivate their car insurance coverage.

A surcharge like that would impact drivers like Ben Gartner, a teacher who stopped driving for a year and a half when gas prices soared. Gartner worries he’d have to pay a huge surcharge if Proposition 17 passes. “I would feel it was very unfair if I had to pay more for insurance because I wasn’t driving. I didn’t have anything negative on my driving record. I did it to save money,” he said to the LA Times. But supporters say that won’t happen. “California is the most highly regulated insurance market in the country, with significant consumer protections, and our opponents know darn well the Department of Insurance would never approve rates with the surcharges they allege would occur,” said Mike Darrell to the LA Times, executive director of the Sacramento-based Alliance of Insurance Agents and Brokers.