This is the raging question at our household. Naomi has been inexplicably been cut off from Medicaid. She incurred some medical bills last March while she was told she was on it but then, when it came time to be billed, they said Ha Just kidding!!!! The hospital has its own insurance program for those without means but it needs a statement from our insurance company saying that they WOULD NOT insure her. We assumed easy-peasy as she can not be our dependent, given that she is married (though she may or may not be filed for divorce right now). Our former company's written policy is that they do provide insurance for dependents under 26. But do they define 'dependent'? If you assumed they used the IRS definition, you and I would be wrong wrong WRONG!!!
By the new Health Care law, if parents are provided with insurance, their children if they are not provided insurance through their jobs, as long as they are under 26. It does not matter one whit if they are married!!!!!
We are battling our former company's HR department. They do admit they are misleading when they use the word DEPENDENT. They say they define the word as INSURANCE DEPENDENT which is nothing remotely similar to what anyone off the street would interpret it. nor do they state this anywhere in their literature. They are also refusing to state in writing that they would not insure her. I believe they know what they are doing is misleading and ILLEGAL.
A separate issue is this: even if we knew she could be covered, which we didn't no thanks to their misleading brochures, to insure her would cost money, admittedly much less than on the open market, but still a good hunk of change. Are we legally obligated to pay this!??! Because we possibly could? We are retirees with no earned income. Does that matter?
By the new Health Care law, if parents are provided with insurance, their children if they are not provided insurance through their jobs, as long as they are under 26. It does not matter one whit if they are married!!!!!
We are battling our former company's HR department. They do admit they are misleading when they use the word DEPENDENT. They say they define the word as INSURANCE DEPENDENT which is nothing remotely similar to what anyone off the street would interpret it. nor do they state this anywhere in their literature. They are also refusing to state in writing that they would not insure her. I believe they know what they are doing is misleading and ILLEGAL.
A separate issue is this: even if we knew she could be covered, which we didn't no thanks to their misleading brochures, to insure her would cost money, admittedly much less than on the open market, but still a good hunk of change. Are we legally obligated to pay this!??! Because we possibly could? We are retirees with no earned income. Does that matter?
1 comment:
ARRRRRRGGGGHHHHH! This is maddening, and it is the story of probably hundreds of thousands of wasted hours across the US.
Post a Comment