Question
What is the name of your state? Ohio
My currnet employer in starting a policy that is going to require my wife to get insurance through her workplace. And since My birthday is earlyier in the year I will be covering the two sons we have. But the concern is that I will be paying for a Family plan rate and now for my wife's single coverage at her work.
First is it legal that they are doing this?
And second i've been told that insurance compnays are trying to do this nation wide, has anyone else had this happen to them?
Answer
If your wife has insurance coverage available through her employer, it is perfectly legal for your employer to require that she take that insurance instead of yours. And yes, this is becoming increasingly common as the cost of insurance skyrockets.
The "birthday rule" has long been the determiner for which parent's insurance is responsible for the children. This, too, is perfectly legal.
Your wife, not you, will be responsible for her premiums.
Answer
Also in OHIO!
I soon may be "excluded" from my husbands employer sponsored health policy if the contract as currently presented is voted in. Thus far the Union members have unanimously voted it down. Their old contract expired on Aug. 1. By the end of the week they may be on strike. The company refuses to budge on the many changes they want to make to our health insurance, but most notable is excluding spouses who are eligible for a plan through their employer.
My problem, I'm basically an at home mom, working partime during the school year at the local McD's. Yes, they offer McCrew care to hourly employees, but maximum coverage is only $5,000. a year! I might as well not have insurance at all if anything really happened to me.
Alas, it looks like I'll have little choice but to quit & forget about trying to help pay the grocery bills or find a better job & forget about my family.
I can't help but feel that I am being discriminated against. Wives who don't work can have coverage but wives who do work can't!
Have spent days searching the internet for something on this subject, I'm greatful to at least have found that I am not alone, although this issue doesn't appear to be that common at this time (yet!)
Answer
it depends on the coverage, but usually your husband's coverage will kick in once yours is exausted.
as for the legality, Yes I believe its legal
Answer
I don't understand how my husband's insurance would "kick in" once mine would be exhausted if I am not listed as a beneficiary on his policy.
My husband's company wants to totally exclude spouses from the plan who can obtain "employer sponsered" coverage from their own employer. They are not saying I have to take my own coverage as primary coverage while able to remain a beneficiary on my husband's policy as secondary coverage. They want to exclude me completely!
They also want to exclude the kids under the "birthday rule", but thank goodness my husband's birthday is before mine. But, speaking on behalf of the other 90 employees spouses, and every situation is different, others are likely facing a worse situation that I.
They want to raise the premiums, double the dectuctables etc., which from searching the internet & questioning others, this is something we just have to accept as a sign of the times, but excluding the spouse in the manner they want is not acceptable!
Answer
well if thats the case then your other option is to offer yourself as a "contractor" to an employer. or simply temp. that way you can still work but not be elegible for benefits.
Answer
This is a tough spot to be in. Most part-time positions don't offer any benefits, so most in your position won't have to worry about it.
My suggestion would be to find another PT job that does not have benefits. Another option would be to find out if you could purchase coverage for yourself under his group plan; the rates would be lower than if you bought it on your own. Neither is an ideal solution, but I don't think there's anything much you can do about it.
I've wondered how long it would take until employers realized how much they're paying for double coverage that essentially just pads the insurance company coffers.
Think of all the families you know where 2 parents work and both are fully insured. That second policy is seldom accessed so all the premiums the insurer receives are pure profit.
Good luck with it, if I run across any info on this I'll be sure to post it here for you.
Answer
Here is the bottom line, folks:
1.) With the sole exception of employers of more than 20 employees in the state of Hawaii, no private employer anywhere in the US is required under the law to provide ANY health insurance to ANYONE.
2.) If the employer chooses to offer health insurance, they have no legal obligation to offer it to ANY dependents.
3.) If they choose to offer insurance to dependents, they have no legal obligation to offer it to dependents who have access to insurance of their own.
4.) In the EXTREMELY large majority of cases, secondary insurance will only pay the difference between what they would have paid had they been primary, and what the primary carrier paid. Example: If the bill was for $100 the primary carrier paid $80 and the secondary carrier would also have paid $80 had they been primary, the secondary carrier will pay nothing; if the secondary carrier would have paid $90 they will pay $10; if they would have paid $100 they will pay $20. Under NO circumstances will both carriers pay in full.
5.) A husband's policy will not "kick in" to pay for a wife's bills unless she is a covered dependent on the plan.
Answer
Just to update everyone quickly before I head to open house at my daughters school this evening.
Not able to sleep last night thinking about this issue, I got up this morning wanting to let someone (husbands, employer, union, anyone) my personal situation and decisions I would have to make should the union accept the employers proposed contract with regards to health insurance. I didn't have much time this morning before my husband left for work, but composed a quick "To all concerned".
Contract negotiations had come to a halt & there was talk of being on strike by the weekend. The union stewards had asked to meet with the company this morning. As they were ready to walk into the meeting my husband handed my letter & a copy of McDonald's application for health insurance (showing the maximum yearly benefit of $5,000).
Ahhhhh, it appears my quick message had it's effect, the company decided they needed to look again at the wording, they agreed they couldn't allow something like this to happen.
Meanwhile, after I got home from work (before I knew anything of the days events) I spoke with the claim representative with the Insurance Company. She stated that she didn't believe the company's intentions applied in a situation such as mine, since I was only parttime & suggested we wait for the official wording in the benefit package. I explained to her that likely wouldn't vote to accept this issue without the details being clarified. They had apparently been getting numerous phone calls regarding the issue, but I don't think anyone had explained it as I had.
She was going to speak with the companies agents & others & let them know my concerns. Perhaps that isn't needed now......