| Message |
Author |
|
|
|
JTInsure
Full member
Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 74
Location: Ohio
18.02 Dollars($)
|
|
 Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
most of the insurance company stop the dependent health insurance coverage at the age of 18 or 22 or when the become a colledge student.
and that's true . the detailed difference depend on different compay and different terms what kind of insurance you are holding. |
|
tohawk
New member
Joined: 05 May 2009
Posts: 23
9.98 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:33 pm Post subject: health insurance |
|
|
I read somewhere that the law changed in April of 2009 and and employee must allow a parent to cover a dependent on their group medical policy till age 25, even if they are not a full time student. Is this accurate.
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
christine.kass@yahoo.com
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Coverage for dependent children varies according to the type of coverage and state law. In California law, there are different provisions for dependents in life and health insurance. And obviously, under federal law, group insurance continuation under COBRA is an entirely different matter.
State laws are merely the "minimum" requirements. Insurers are allowed to offer more generous provisions, but cannot narrow them. So where dependency is left behind at age 21 for life insurance, it can extend through age 24 in health insurance for an unmarried dependent child who is a full time student in a post-secondary educational program.
There's nothing to prevent an insurer from covering a child on a life rider through age 25 (as most riders do), or to age 30 on a health policy (which no one does to my knowledge).
But we're also on the precipice of Congress enabling the federal government to be in a position to tell health insurers that they cannot exclude preexisting conditions, deny coverage for persons with preexisting conditions, cannot charge more for persons with preexisting conditions (= everyone else paying higher premiums so as not to penalize the unhealthy) . . . who's to say that they won't dictate that non-disabled, unmarried dependents have to be covered until they get married or die of old age?
We haven't just stepped onto a "slipery slope", we're spreading the lubricant on well ahead of the slide.
_________________
California licensed Fire & Casualty Broker-Agent and Life & Health Agent. CA Insurance License #0596197. Send me your questions, and I'll send you my answers. I live, breathe, and teach insurance! |
|
MaxHerr
Senior member
Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 214
Location: Pomona CA
73.12 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:09 am Post subject: Dependent insurance |
|
|
Does an employer have to insure your children until they are 24 years old in michigan, if they are a full time student?
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
anonymous777
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:09 am Post subject: Policy terms |
|
|
| That would depend on the policy terms. There could be several factors which contribute to your child being termed as dependent. However, it is possible to insure your children till they are 24 if they are full time student. |
|
Veronica
Preferred member
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 192
33.01 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Folks please, let's not confuse the issue.
Group coverage, in every single solitary instance other than self-insured plans, is governed by state law somehow somewhere. There are also discrimination rules imposed by federal and state law. So please stop saying that continuation of coverage is dependent upon "the plan," because it's not.
Also remember that COBRA only applies to MOST plans, and in order for it to apply, there's gotta be at least 20 participants. Every state that I'm aware of also has state continuation and/or portability rules that also may apply that detail some sort of continuation or conversion opportunity regardless of participant numbers.
There is no rule that mandates group coverage on a dependent child until age 25 unless that child is disabled and incapable of self-support. There's no law that prevents an insurer from allowing that, but it isn't supported by any rule or law that I'm aware of. As well, the definition of the word "dependent" is not up to the carrier- it's defined by state law.
Where does this stuff come from??? 
Another thing, you cannot form a group and buy group insurance just because you want to. Groups cannot be formed simply for the purpose of buying group insurance, they must be formed for purposes other than buying group coverage; the insurance must be incidental to the formation of the group.
Finally:
| Quote: | | But we're also on the precipice of Congress enabling the federal government to be in a position to tell health insurers that they cannot exclude preexisting conditions, deny coverage................... |
I just won a nice bet from this liberal guy that I know dealing with ObamaCare v16.5: I told him that there's no way on this planet any of these plans were ever going to go through, period. My buddy blurts out, "They'll have a comprehensive plan passed by the end of the year. America's gonna thank Obama (as he bows down and faces east. We live on the west coast) when it's all said and done." I said "Wanna bet?" He replied in the affirmative.
Game over. I win. Gimme what you owe me, you liberal dog.   There's no way, especially now that the GOP tilted the voting table, that this is gonna happen anytime soon. Anyone care to comment?
Max- you started it.
InsTeacher 
_________________
It is what it is... |
|
InsTeacher
Moderator
Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 896
Location: Oregon, USA
41.23 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Teach:
First, I would like to say up front that I am really sorry for the Rose Bowl.
Back in the day when I worked for a TPA, I was just a drone and wasn't involved in the inner workings of health insurance policies. I wanted to see if I have my mind wrapped around this subject. Let me know where I am incorrect if you could.
Pre-existing conditions. You work for company ABC and have a group health policy. While there you get cancer. You leave the company due to medical leave but elect Cobra. You beat cancer and get a new job with company XYZ and once again have a group health policy. Cancer comes back, but since you never had a break in coverage they don't deny you for pre-existing coverage. True or false?
If carriers have to start covering dependents till 25, 27 or what ever number is being thrown out today, carriers will have to raise premiums since before this mandate they knew that dependents were normally going to fall off around 22 or before if they weren't in college.
A lot of people want pre-existing done away with. A lot of people don't want the guberment to mandate that you have to purchase coverage. Is there really anyway that one can be done without the other. Wouldn't people just wait till they got sick to purchase a policy if coverage wasn't mandatory.
I've got more questions, but its late and my head is spinning.
_________________
Can I say I’m working if I stare blankly at my computer all day? |
|
Dasfuk
Senior member
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 493
Location: Ohio
112.71 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dasfuk, first to your question:
| Quote: | | Pre-existing conditions. You work for company ABC and have a group health policy. While there you get cancer. You leave the company due to medical leave but elect Cobra. You beat cancer and get a new job with company XYZ and once again have a group health policy. Cancer comes back, but since you never had a break in coverage they don't deny you for pre-existing coverage. True or false? |
If you are within the HIPAA 63-day "break in coverage" rule, the new group insurer would have to give the insured "credit" for the time served in the previous health plan against any pre-x exclusions in the new group contract. In your scenario, assuming the insured had been in his group plan for at least 12 continuous months, got to the new employer that offers medical benefits within the 63-day period and enrolled in the group health plan during an open-enrollment period, HIPAA will only allow a one-year exclusionary period. In addition, HIPAA will only allow the carrier a 6-month "look back" period in which to apply pre-x exclusions. So, if the cancer had not been treated within the 6-month period preceding the new plan, pre-x couldn't be applied in any case. Pre-x for "late" enrollees can be as long as 18 months.
However, don't forget that most state simply don't allow pre-x exclusions in a group policy period as long as the employee enrolls during an open enrollment period. Enrollment as a late enrollee normally requires proof of health and can have pre-x attached. You'd have to look at your individual state for specific rules.
I probably just confused the daylights out of anyone reading this. If so, let me know and I will try and explain!
InsTeacher
_________________
It is what it is... |
|
InsTeacher
Moderator
Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 896
Location: Oregon, USA
41.23 Dollars($)
|
|
Previous 1 2
