My name isXXXXX a licensed attorney. I am honestly sorry for the circumstances, very much appreciate your patronage, and am glad to try and help out.
Quite frankly, I am baffled and disappointed at all you've been held to bear, especially given your fragile medical state. Here's how this works. You ask if there's not some way your spouse can be held liable. The answer is a resounding "yes". If you don't mind a personal example, I'll share from my own life. I was self-employed, owned my own closely held corporation, was divorcing, and was ordered to maintain health insurance coverage on my then spouse. Believe me, neither the written law nor the Judge cared one bit about where the money came from. It was up to me, not my former spouse or the Court, to worry about whether it came from my business entity or elsewhere. Same scenario here. See what California Family Code § 2337(c)(2) provides in pertinent part:
"Until judgment has been entered on all remaining issues and
has become final, the party shalll maintain all existing health and
medical insurance coverage for the other party and any minor children
as named dependents, so long as the party is eligible to do so. If
at any time during this period the party is not eligible to maintain
that coverage, the party shall, at the party's sole expense, provide
and maintain health and medical insurance coverage that is comparable
to the existing health and medical insurance coverage to the extent
it is available. To the extent that coverage is not available, the
party shall be responsible to pay, and shall demonstrate to the court'
s satisfaction the ability to pay, for the health and medical care
for the other party and the minor children, to the extent that care
would have been covered by the existing insurance coverage but for
the dissolution of marital status, and shall otherwise indemnify and
hold the other party harmless from any adverse consequences resulting
from the loss or reduction of the existing coverage. For purposes of
this subdivision, "health and medical insurance coverage" includes
any coverage for which the parties are eligible under any group or
individual health or other medical plan, fund, policy, or program." (emphasis added)
This statutory language is crystal clear. It's mandatory ("shall") as opposed to discretionary ("may"). The Judicial authority is right there, and given your health care needs and financial inequities, I find it difficult to imagine an outcome other than your spouse being ordered to maintain your coverage at his cost. It sounds to me like you need a competent family law attorney advocating for you. I hope you're able to retain one who can zealously represent your interests.
If you have a follow-up question or need clarification, please just say the word by using "reply" to reach me.
I truly hope all works out for you.