| Message |
Author |
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I thought it's till the earlier one between your 23rd birthday and your graduation. I guess it's better that your parents inquire at their work place. |
|
steven
Senior member
Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 1553
215.66 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Make sure that you stay covered during your summer breaks. The period between the spring semester and the fall semester is worth mentioning.
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
anonymous00
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Since health reform passed the new cut off age for children living at home is 26. |
|
insurancebydave
Member
Joined: 08 Jan 2009
Posts: 65
10.25 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah he can stay in his parents health care...
Health Insurance tx |
|
amndalb
New member
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 6
2.05 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Well they wanted to know who to ask. I told them. I have found that when you tell lsy folks too much, you confuse them. So if the adminstrator is "following the rules" |
There is a big difference between "following the rules" and "making the rules".
What InsTeacher attempted several times to explain to your blind eye or deaf ear is that ADMINISTRATORS must follow state law first, and the plan documents second. If the plan documents are in contradiction with state law, who do YOU think will win?
Not the administrator!
Let's say the plan document states a person must be dropped from the plan at age 24, without reference to prior disability (how about severe cerebral palsy, and wheelchair bound, and diagnosed at age 9?). When the child turns 24, if the ADMINISTRATOR attempts to drop the child from the plan, he will discover that state law requires the child to be continued on the plan for as long as his disability lasts.
The administrator cannot say, "I'm just doing what the plan says." The plan is in conflict with state law, and state law controls.
On the other hand, if the company that created the plan that is being overseen by the ADMINISTRATOR says that it wants to cover all married children who were once dependents under the plan, and who live in their own home and are not dependent on the covered employee, the company is absolutely free to do so. There is no conflict with state law. Again, the ADMINISTRATOR does not make the decision as to who qualifies, the administrator makes sure that all who are covered are entitled to be covered according to the plan documents.
So there's no argument here as to what an administrator can or cannot do, but you seem to think there is.
_________________
CA-licensed P&C Broker-Agent and Life Agent. CA Insurance Lic #0596197. Now investigating insurance company abuses, and providing litigation support and expert witness services. Send me your questions, and I'll send you my answers. |
|
MaxHerr
Moderator
Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 4631
Location: Pomona CA
210.40 Dollars($)
|
|
|
|
Pirate91
Member
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Posts: 72
15.21 Dollars($)
|
|
Previous 1, 2
